Contractors File Suit Against New York MTA’s New Debarment Regime
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.05.19
On November 25, 2019, the Alliance For Fair and Equitable Contracting Today, Inc. (AFFECT) sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in the Southern District of New York to enjoin and declare unconstitutional a new contractor debarment regime implemented by the New York legislature and the MTA on November 6, 2019. This new debarment regime—upon which there was no opportunity for public comment—requires, among other things, the MTA to automatically debar a contractor that fails to complete a project by a contractual deadline or claims costs in excess of a project budget, without providing the MTA discretion to even consider mitigating facts or circumstances that might impact project deadlines or budgets. This applies both prospectively to new contracts and retroactively to all contracts already in existence, including those entered into before April 2019, when the New York legislature passed the new Debarment Statute requiring the implementation of this regime. The regime also applies to a targeted contractor’s (1) “parent(s), subsidiaries and affiliates”; (2) “directors, officers, principals, managerial employees and any person or entity with a 10% or more interest in a contractor”; and (3) “any joint venture (including its individual members) and any other form of partnership (including its individual members) that includes a contractor or a contractor’s parent(s), subsidiaries, or affiliates of a contractor.” AFFECT’s lawsuit alleges this regime violates the U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause, Supremacy Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, procedural and substantive Due Process requirements, and the First Amendment. If not successfully enjoined, this may encourage the New York State Legislature to enact similar laws and require other state agencies to establish similar debarment regimes, and may even motivate other states to do the same.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 05.27.25
U.S. Departments of State and Treasury Issue Immediate Sanctions Relief for Syria
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.23.25
Executive Order Seeks Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing and HHS Announces Price Targets
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.22.25
Opportunities for Procurement on the Horizon as UK Concludes Free Trade Agreement With India