Section 809 Panel Releases Volume 3 Report and Recommendations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.16.19
On January 15, the Section 809 Panel released the final installment of its three-volume report, this time including recommendations on, among other topics, bid protests, contractor accounting systems, and government-industry interactions. (The panel released Volume 1 in January 2018 and Volume 2 in June 2018).
The Volume 3 recommendations, if implemented, could have far-reaching effects. For example, the panel recommends eliminating certain bid protests, such as second bite at the apple Court of Federal Claims protests after earlier GAO protests; adopting a “professional practice guide” for DoD and those supporting DoD in its contract audits; and encouraging greater government “interaction with industry during market research.”
Keep an eye on our blog and podcasts in the coming weeks, as we will be providing further detailed analysis of the panel’s various recommendations.
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
