Court Orders Opening of Pandora's Box
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.12.14
In U.S. ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co. (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2014), the court ordered the defendants in a qui tam FCA case to produce internal reports and other documents that were prepared during the course of internal investigations initiated in response to "tips" regarding potential misconduct, even when the tips were made directly to the defendants' Law Department, the reports were transmitted to the Law Department, and the investigations were initiated and managed by senior in-house attorneys. The court concluded that the materials were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the investigations were "undertaken pursuant to regulatory law and corporate policy"— i.e., the contract clause required by the FAR Mandatory Disclosure rules, which set forth requirements for a contractor's code of business ethics and conduct, compliance program, and internal controls system—"rather than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice," and that they were not protected by the work product doctrine because they were not prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms

