1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |OMB Announces New "Goal" for Agencies to Accelerate Payments to Small Businesses

OMB Announces New "Goal" for Agencies to Accelerate Payments to Small Businesses

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.20.11

On the heels of the announcement of the President's latest jobs initiative, on September 14, 2011, OMB established a new policy that agencies should accelerate payments to small business contractors, with a goal of making payments to small businesses within 15 days of receiving appropriate invoicing documents. As the policy makes no revisions to the Prompt Payment Act and imposes no new penalties for failing to achieve the 15-day goal, the degree of actual agency implementation will determine whether this is an effective first step toward improving small businesses' cash flow.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....