Inadequate Justification for Restrictive Requirements Leads to Injunction
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.10.11
After having been thrown out of GAO for purportedly not being an interested party to challenge Interior’s restriction of its procurement of a department-wide messaging and cloud computing system to Microsoft resellers on the GSA schedule, Google found a more sympathetic ear, and standing to complain, in the CFC. In Google, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 4, 2011), the court found that Interior had failed to take several of the procedural steps required by CICA and the FAR to justify the restrictive specification of Microsoft products, enjoined the procurement, and remanded the matter to the agency for it to follow the correct steps of the process.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 10 min read | 09.11.26
Mining, Indigenous Consultation Rights, and Investment Treaty Protection
This alert, the first in a two-part series, surveys the legal landscape at the intersection of two issues that increasingly shape the outcome of mining and natural resources disputes regarding the protections available to foreign investors under investment treaties, as enforced through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The first is the prior consultation obligation imposed on states under the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO 169). The second is social license, the practical acceptance of a project by surrounding communities, which is distinct from but related to the formal state consultation duty. This alert examines these issues across five foundational ISDS decisions:
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.10.26
European Commission Publishes Landmark Guidelines on Exclusionary Abuses by Dominant Companies
Client Alert | 5 min read | 09.09.26
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.08.26
Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21: Good Faith in the Boardroom
