Court Tackles Hubzone Issues In Two Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.12.05
In Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 4, 2005), the Court of Federal Claims, after finding it has jurisdiction to review a SBA protest decision of a bidder's HUBZone qualification, decided that the SBA had appropriately found the bidder qualified because its "principal office" (which was in a HUBZone) was different from its headquarters (which was not). In Manson Construction Co. v. U.S. (Mar. 14, 2005), the court validated award to the second-low bidder which won because of application of the HUBZone preference, while also upholding the agency's revision of its internal estimate that brought the contractor within the "zone" of permissible cost.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.09.25
On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) withdrew its appeals of decisions issued by Texas and Florida federal district courts, which enjoined the FTC from enforcing a nationwide rule banning almost all noncompete employment agreements. Companies, however, should not read this decision to mean that their noncompete agreements will no longer be subjected to antitrust scrutiny by federal enforcers. In a statement joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Chairman Andrew Ferguson stressed that the FTC “will continue to enforce the antitrust laws aggressively against noncompete agreements” and warned that “firms in industries plagued by thickets of noncompete agreements will receive [in the coming days] warning letters from me, urging them to consider abandoning those agreements as the Commission prepares investigations and enforcement actions.”
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.08.25
California’s Climate Disclosure Laws Continue to Roll Forward
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.08.25
RADV Audits: Implications and Recommendations for Medicare Advantage Organizations
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.04.25
