Federal Circuit Clarifies Prejudice Review In Bid Protest Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.26.05
Explaining away seemingly contradictory precedent, the Federal Circuit in Bannum, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 21, 2005) clarified that, while the merits are reviewed on appeal de novo under the Administrative Procedure Act's "arbitrary and capricious or in violation of law" standard, the determination of whether a violation of law is prejudicial requires fact finding by the Court of Federal Claims and is reviewed for "clear error." Applying the clear error standard to this case, the appellate court found none in the trial court's determination that the violation had not prejudiced the protester.
Insights
Client Alert | 9 min read | 09.11.25
About one year ago, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled in its landmark Illumina/Grail judgment that the European Commission could not accept merger referrals from national competition authorities under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) unless those authorities had jurisdiction to review the transaction themselves (see our previous alert).
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.10.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.10.25
