SBA Shakes Up 8(a) Program Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.02.11
On March 14, 2011, sweeping changes to the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program go into effect, and among the most significant changes are those to the joint venture requirements, including (1) revising the requirement that the 8(a) participant receive 51% of the profits to a requirement that the 8(a) firm receive profits from the joint venture commensurate with the work the 8(a) firm performed; (2) requiring that the 8(a) firm perform at least 40% of the work done by the joint venture; (3) approving both “formal” and “informal” and populated and unpopulated joint ventures; and (4) requiring 8(a) firms to report how the requirements were satisfied. Other notable changes are to the Mentor/Protégé Program to (1) require that protégé assistance be tied to the protégé’s SBA-approved business plan; (2) increase the number of relationships that are permitted; (3) prohibit an 8(a) company from being both a mentor and protégé simultaneously; (4) allow a mentor-protégé joint venture to be deemed small for Federal subcontracts; (5) clarify that a mentor-protégé agreement needs to be approved by the SBA before the two firms can submit an offer as a joint venture to take advantage of the special exception to the size requirements for that procurement; and (6) provide the SBA with discretionary authority to recommend the issuance of a stop work order for contracts with a mentor-protégé joint venture if the mentor fails to provide the protégé with the agreed-upon assistance.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.06.25
Litigation Funding Reforms: Clarity for UK Funders and Litigants Post-PACCAR
On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
Supreme Court Dismisses Cert Petition On Uninjured Class Members As Improvidently Granted
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution