1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Procurement Integrity Act: A High Risk Area for Government Contractors

Procurement Integrity Act: A High Risk Area for Government Contractors

Event | 09.11.13, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC

The purpose of the Procurement Integrity Act is to maintain and establish a fair playing field for government contractors.  Failing to comply with this Act can result in criminal prosecution, fines, penalties, loss of business, and exclusion from government contracting.  The Act and the corresponding regulations restrict conduct of contractor employees and federal government employees in two ways.  The first relates to prohibitions on disclosing and receiving particular types of “off-limits” information.  The second relates to restrictions on the types of interactions private sector entities may have with government officials about possible employment.

The Procurement Integrity Act is a criminal statute and violations of the Act often provide a viable basis to file a bid protest at the Government Accountability Office or the Court of Federal Claims.  Increasingly, Suspension and Debarment Officials are taking action against companies and individuals because their conduct is – or seems to be – covered by the Procurement Integrity Act.  This 90-minute webinar will explore the Act, the regulations, key bid protest decisions, and recent suspension and debarment matters.  We will explore the most common pitfalls and discuss recognized best practices.

For more information, please visit these areas: Litigation and Trial, Government Contracts, Corporate and Transactional

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.