Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.
We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.
This page has been added to your binder.
April 20, 2016, Covington Alert
The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) recently announced a significant change in policy that will allow it to purchase drug products that were previously unavailable due to the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) because they were manufactured in countries with whom the United States does not have a procurement agreement in place. The VA has issued a mass modification to its Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) contracts for pharmaceutical products, Schedule 65 I B, requiring that contractors offer to the Government all single source and multiple source drug products (also referred to as SIN 42-2A products) that do not comply with the TAA (i.e., they are not U.S.-made or designated country end products). Despite its prior position, less than three years ago, that it would “remove all [SIN] 42-2A covered/branded drug products manufactured in a non-designated country . . . from all 65 I B Schedule contracts,” the VA has decided that “[w]e now accept covered drugs that were formally excluded due to their ‘TAA non-compliant’ nature.” Although this change in policy could represent significant opportunities for drug manufacturers to sell non-TAA-compliant drug products to the Government, the VA’s anticipated timeline may present a cause for concern.
November 1, 2016, BNA Federal Contracts Report
September 29, 2016, Law360
Jennifer Plitsch is quoted in a Law360 article regarding the U.S. Department of Labor's final rule requiring federal contractors to provide paid sick leave to employees. According to Plitsch, "I can't say we've had any clients who have said, 'I'm done with the federal government; I'm never going there again,' but I do think there is increasing concern about the ...
June 17, 2016, Covington Alert
In Universal Health Services Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7 (Slip. Op. June 16, 2016), a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed the viability of the “implied false certification” theory of False Claims Act liability, at least in certain circumstances. This portion of the ruling was not unexpected given the overwhelming acceptance of implied certification among ...