1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Treasury Issues Guidance on the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds under the American Rescue Plan Act

Treasury Issues Guidance on the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds under the American Rescue Plan Act

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.17.21

On May 17, 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury officially published an Interim Final Rule to provide long-awaited guidance on the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund and the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (“the Fiscal Recovery Funds”) established under the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”).  To facilitate the disbursement of these funds, this Interim Final Rule establishes a framework for determining the types of programs and services that are eligible under the ARPA along with a list of eligible uses that State, local, and Tribal governments may consider.  While State, local, and Tribal governments have the flexibility to determine how best to use the Fiscal Recovery Funds to meet the needs of their communities and populations, this funding, along with its recipients and subrecipients, will be subject to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 C.F.R. Part 200.

To learn more about this Interim Final Rule and better understand the opportunities and risks for companies, please read our blog post here.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights