1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |President Biden Signs Bipartisan Legislation Requiring Agencies to Refer Potential Human Trafficking Matters for Suspension/Debarment Consideration

President Biden Signs Bipartisan Legislation Requiring Agencies to Refer Potential Human Trafficking Matters for Suspension/Debarment Consideration

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.07.22

On October 17, 2022, President Biden signed the End Human Trafficking in Government Contracts Act of 2022 (“the Act”) into law, amending the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (“2013 NDAA”) to require U.S. government agency heads to refer any suspected instances of human trafficking to the agency’s suspension and debarment official (“SDO”) for consideration and disposition.

In March 2012, both the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced the End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act of 2012, which Congress eventually passed as part of the 2013 NDAA. The goal of this law was to strengthen anti-human trafficking compliance efforts in federal contracts. However, in recent years, the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General have released reports finding that human trafficking still persisted among a number of U.S. government contractors. 

In addition to requiring agency heads to report suspected instances of human trafficking to SDOs, the Act also requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit a report to Congress on implementation of the provisions within 90 days of the Act’s enactment.  

Given this heightened scrutiny, contractors should review the relevant rules, including the requirement to have an anti-human trafficking compliance plan for contracts exceeding $550,000.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.13.26

Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach

English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful....