CFC Blasts AF and DOJ for Vexatious Litigation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.31.16
In the latest decision in SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 19, 2016), the CFC found SUFI (represented by C&M) to be entitled to litigation attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, under both the “bad faith, vexatious litigation” exception to the American Rule and the “small business” provisions, for the entire duration of the proceedings at the ASBCA, the CFC, and the Federal Circuit, which have lasted at this point over a dozen years. The CFC awarded fees at counsel’s full, current rates to account for vexatious conduct and delay and also found that the “special factors” of exceptional results and uniquely experienced counsel supported that same award.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
