OCIs Must Be Considered During M&A Activity
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.01.10
In McCarthy/Hunt, JV (Feb. 16, 2010) and B.L. Harbert-Brasfield & Gorrie, JV (Feb. 16, 2010), GAO found that the awardee had both an "unequal access to information" and a "biased ground rules" OCI when a firm, which was negotiating to acquire the awardee's design subcontractor, had performed procurement planning and development services for the procurement at issue, including preparation of design documents, plans, specifications, and cost estimates. GAO presumed prejudicial impact from the OCIs and recommended that the Army Corps of Engineers eliminate the awardee from the competition because (i) the awardee could have had access to helpful information beyond what was disclosed in the solicitation (e.g., the agency's unstated priorities, preferences, and dislikes), and (ii) the competition could have been skewed in favor of the awardee by virtue of the fact that the entity negotiating to acquire the awardee's design subcontractor played a role in preparing the solicitation requirements.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 10 min read | 03.19.26
[1] In a recent development, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are not excluded from patentability due to being a computer program “as such.” In doing so, the Court set out the framework of a new test for the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to use when evaluating the patentability of computer. The ruling breaks down barriers to the patenting of AI algorithms in the UK and paves the way for a wider change in the UK IPO’s approach to assessing excluded subject matter.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.19.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.18.26
CFTC Takes Additional Steps Toward Prediction Market Regulation: What You Need to Know
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.18.26
