By Louis Victorino and Jonathan Aronie (originally published in the San Diego Business Journal)
It has been noted, the more things change, the more they stay the same. In the world of Government Contracts Law, however, the more things change, the more the phone rings. And while we’re only a few weeks into 2013, the phone has been ringing off the hook. Here are a few of the reasons why.
Continue Reading...By Marko W. Kipa, Anne B. Perry, and Lucantonio N. Salvi
An acquisition transaction involving a government contractor brings with it a unique set of rules and regulations. There is no shortage of frequently changing and complex requirements regulating a government contractor’s operations, and a firm grasp of these requirements is crucial both to arriving at a proper valuation of a target company and to understanding the risks associated with the transaction.
Continue Reading...By: Marko W. Kipa
The United States Court of Federal Claims recently reaffirmed the applicability of two exceptions to the Anti-Assignment Act (the “Act”). Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, 2011 WL 5150221 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 31, 2011). Specifically, the Court acknowledged that (1) the Government may prospectively waive the Act, and (2) the Act does not prohibit the transfer of an agreement where the transfer occurs by operation of law. Id. at *6-8. Notably, the Court’s decision provides further guidance for contractors undertaking corporate reorganizations and/or examining whether a particular acquisition transaction requires the execution of a novation agreement. We previously discussed the novation requirements here.
By Lucantonio N. Salvi and Marko W. Kipa
A government contracts due diligence encompasses a broad range of statutory, regulatory, and contractual issues. One issue that we always consider is compliance with the Anti-Assignment Act (the “Act”), which prohibits the transfer of a government contract to a third-party. While the Act does not strictly apply to subcontracts, we nevertheless must review them, as well as other agreements (such as teaming agreements), for contractual anti-assignment provisions. This review was facilitated in the past by the widely held view among practitioners that a stock purchase or reverse triangular merger, without more, does not generally result in an assignment and therefore does not require the counterparty’s consent. This is particularly relevant since most sales and purchases of government contractors are structured as stock purchases or reverse triangular mergers (i.e., an acquisition structure in which a subsidiary of the buyer merges into the target company and the target company becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of the buyer once the merger is consummated). In both cases, the separate corporate identity of the target company is preserved, and the parties generally avoid the need to obtain Government consent to novate government contracts held by the target company. The traditionally prevalent view even finds support under federal case law in the context of government contractors. See Appeals of Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., ASBCA Nos. 44731, 44826, 97-1 BCA ¶ 28,835 (holding, among other things, that reverse triangular mergers are stock purchase transactions where the acquired corporations retain their separate corporate existence and in which the acquired company’s contracts are in most cases unaffected).
On May 24, 2011, one of our Government Contracts lawyers, Marko W. Kipa, was interviewed by host Roger Waldron on Federal News Radio’s (Washington 1500AM) Off The Shelf – a weekly radio program devoted to topics of interest to the government contracting community. The interview focused on key issues facing government contractors when assessing an acquisition transaction and conducting a due diligence. Among other things, Marko discussed the risks associated with various contract types, small business contracts, the Anti-Assignment Act / Novations, the Mandatory Disclosure Rule, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and foreign investors. In addition, Marko discussed recent regulatory changes impacting government contractors and due diligence best practices.
Click here to listen to the full interview.
By Marko W. Kipa
We all now realize that, contrary to the pronouncements of certain pundits, the world is not economically flat. But it is undeniable that its citizens and businesses are more economically connected than ever before. One manifestation of this interconnectedness is the increasing number of cross-border acquisitions of business enterprises. In most cases these transactions do not become the subject of public discussion or detailed government scrutiny. But when foreign entities seek to purchase U.S. government contractors who perform classified national security work and therefore hold facility security clearances (“FCLs”), the U.S. Government is anxious to know, among other things, the extent to which the company is the subject of foreign ownership, control or influence (“FOCI”). Being under FOCI can sound the death knell for a company’s ability to perform classified work, with consequent loss of business that may be critical to the company’s continued status as a going concern. But that outcome can often be avoided by development and submission of a FOCI mitigation plan which, if accepted either as submitted or modified, can enable the company to continue performance of national security work.
As though the risks inherent in a merger or acquisition were not enough to turn any business person prematurely gray, when one or both of the entities in play are federal contractors, the risks become even greater. One of the primary sources of these additional risks is the federal Government’s novation rules. Anyone looking to buy or sell a federal contractor must be familiar with these rules, which are set out at FAR 42.1204.
Effective December 22, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) issued new rules relating to the procedures that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or “the Committee”) will use in reviewing foreign investments in U.S. companies. See 73 Fed. Reg. 70702. The revised, final rules continue to focus on the potential impact that a particular transaction may have on U.S. national security and retain many of the features of the proposed rules, which we have previously discussed here and here.
Continue Reading...As discussed in a prior posting on this blog, the U.S. Department of the Treasury published on April 21, 2008 proposed rules designed to strengthen the process by which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS") reviews and approves certain business transactions involving foreign investment. The proposed rules were issued under the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-49 (“FINSA”), which requires a more intense CFIUS process that allows the government more discretion in investigating and altering business transactions that may impact national security. The U.S. Department of the Treasury invited comments on the proposed rules through June 9, 2008. Now that the comment period is over, we thought it might be worthwhile to see what types of comments were received. Not surprisingly, it is a mixed bag.
Continue Reading...On April 21, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Treasury ("Treasury") proposed new rules relating to the procedures that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) should use in reviewing (and potentially halting) foreign investments in U.S. companies based on a potential impact on national security. See 79 Fed. Reg. 21861. While Congress previously mandated that changes be made to the CFIUS process following the much ballyhooed Dubai Ports World controversy in 2006, the current rules are merely proposed, and are not yet final. Treasury is accepting comments on the proposed rules until June 9, 2008.
Continue Reading...A government contractor participating in an acquisition transaction must comply with both commercial and government-specific regulations. And there are numerous issues unique to government contractors that threaten a successful closing. If not identified or mitigated in a timely fashion, a contractor might unknowingly assume liabilities or fail to consummate the deal altogether. One issue involves the transfer of government contracts, which generally requires the government's consent, or a "novation." If the contractor does not novate the contract in accordance with designated rules, a buyer faces the possibility that its newly acquired contracts will be terminated for default. This could leave the contractor without the benefit of its bargain and with a "scarlet letter" on its record. While several exceptions to the general rule prohibiting the sale or transfer of government contracts have been carved-out in applicable regulations and case law, there are also structural alternatives available to the contractor that may not be so obvious. It is imperative that these options be considered and evaluated in order to attain the contractor's specific needs and expectations.
Click here to view a PDF copy of the article.
Authored by:
(202) 772-5302
and
(202) 218-0004
Enter keywords:
