1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |FAR Council Finalizes Reporting Requirements for Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards

FAR Council Finalizes Reporting Requirements for Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.26.12

On July 26, 2012, the FAR Council issued a final rule requiring certain contractors to report executive compensation, first-tier subcontract awards, and executive compensation information for first-tier subcontractors for public release on the USASpending website. While the final rule is very similar to the interim rule issued on July 8, 2010, there is a substantive change to the definition of first-tier subcontract, and the preamble to the final rule contains extensive commentary to guide the implementation of the rule, including discussion of the application of the public company exemption.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....