1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |OCIs Must Be Considered During M&A Activity

OCIs Must Be Considered During M&A Activity

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.01.10

In McCarthy/Hunt, JV (Feb. 16, 2010) and B.L. Harbert-Brasfield & Gorrie, JV (Feb. 16, 2010), GAO found that the awardee had both an "unequal access to information" and a "biased ground rules" OCI when a firm, which was negotiating to acquire the awardee's design subcontractor, had performed procurement planning and development services for the procurement at issue, including preparation of design documents, plans, specifications, and cost estimates. GAO presumed prejudicial impact from the OCIs and recommended that the Army Corps of Engineers eliminate the awardee from the competition because (i) the awardee could have had access to helpful information beyond what was disclosed in the solicitation (e.g., the agency's unstated priorities, preferences, and dislikes), and (ii) the competition could have been skewed in favor of the awardee by virtue of the fact that the entity negotiating to acquire the awardee's design subcontractor played a role in preparing the solicitation requirements.

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....

View All Insights