1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Navigating the Buy American Act, Trade Agreements Act and Other Domestic Preference Restrictions

Navigating the Buy American Act, Trade Agreements Act and Other Domestic Preference Restrictions

Event | 04.05.12, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC

Many contractors are familiar with the long-standing restrictions on the procurement of foreign-origin supplies and materials. These restriction are often exemplified by the Buy American Act (“BAA”), one of several statutory restrictions forming the basis for preferential treatment for suppliers of U.S. products and services, or the preferential treatment for our trade partners exemplified by the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”). While the BAA and TAA may be familiar to contractors, less well known are the domestic preference restrictions that apply to federal grant funds and loans administered by the Department of Defense (“DoD”), the U.S. Agency for International Development (“USAID”), and other federal agencies.

Federal grants and procurements provide good business opportunities for contractors, but they can also present challenges in terms of navigating and complying with a myriad of domestic preference regimes, each one with its own method for determining country of origin for a product or service, and with respect to how foreign content is evaluated. Even for the savviest contractor, figuring out which regime applies and understanding the subtle differences between each of these statutory restrictions (and their implementing regulations) is a complicated and difficult task.

This 90-minute webinar will provide an overview of the key domestic preference regimes, including the BAA and the TAA, as well as practical tips for ensuring compliance, given the realities and global-sourcing pressures of the commercial marketplace.

Click here to download presentation materials [PDF].

For more information, please visit these areas: International Trade, International Dispute Resolution, Government Contracts

Insights

Event | 02.20.25

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today: In 1997, the California Supreme Court decided Buss v. Superior Court. In Buss, the court concluded that a liability insurer that defended a mixed action could seek reimbursement from the insured for the defense costs associated with the claims that were not even potentially covered. Since then, numerous courts have held that insurers are entitled to recoup their defense costs associated with uncovered claims or causes of action. On the other hand, a significant number of courts have rejected insurers’ right to recoupment, at least in the absence of a policy provision granting the insurer that right. Some commentators have even suggested that the current judicial trend might be away from permitting insurers to recoup their defense costs. Is that correct? Has the Buss stopped? This panel of coverage experts will analyze insurers’ claimed right to recoupment today, and offer their perspectives on what the law on recoupment should perhaps be and might be in the future.