NOTE: CASE RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF UNIQUE FACTORS AND DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT SIMILAR RESULTS FOR FUTURE CASES.
Recently, FH+H Partner Jack White helped a major government contractor win an unemployment compensation benefits appeal filed with an Unemployment Insurance Benefits Agency located in the DC/MD/VA area (“DMV Unemployment Office”). In this case, our client terminated an employee for misconduct, related to the improper use and reimbursement of thousands of dollars of expenses charged to a company credit card. After termination, the DMV Unemployment Office initially approved the employee’s unemployment insurance claim, which our client appealed. On appeal, FH+H’s Employment Law Practice Group argued that the DMV Unemployment Office shouldn’t authorize unemployment insurance benefits for an employee who had stolen thousands of dollars from the company. The Hearing Officer agreed, and reversed the unemployment insurance benefits claim.
FH+H was contacted by a local business regarding a clawback request from an insurance company. The term clawback, as used in this case, refers to money or benefits that have been given out, but sought to be returned due to special circumstances. FH+H Associate Jill Helwig was able to determine that not only was the request for clawback in violation of the contract between the parties, but was also in violation of the laws of Virginia, which governed the contract. With the help of our counsel, the client was able to avoid a considerable financial clawback.
FH+H recently helped a government contractor avoid debarment by the U.S. Government. Upon receipt of a Notice of Suspension and Proposed Debarment the contractor reached out to FH+H’s Government Contracts team. Despite the fact that the Government’s investigators had identified significant negative facts, and that administrative action seemed all but inevitable, FH+H was able to effectively demonstrate the contractor’s present responsibility, thereby avoiding debarment. “For any government contractor the prospect of debarment is an absolute nightmare,” said FH+H Managing Partner Tom Craig, “but as legal counsel our job is to, against all odds, enable our clients to wake up from that nightmare and continue providing valuable goods and services to the U.S. Government.”
FH+H’s Litigation + Investigations team assisted a client in filing a lawsuit in federal court to protect a client’s intellectual property and the client’s right to continue to produce and sell its products in the face of contrary claims by an out-of-state business entity. The counter-party launched an attempt to move the case to its home district on both constitutional and procedural grounds. FH+H successfully defeated their arguments, and was thereby able to keep the case in our client’s home district.
FH+H Partner Jack White recently obtained a favorable result in an employment matter for a senior executive in the aerospace industry. Our client was a very successful and highly-compensated aerospace executive who had been wrongfully terminated from employment. FH+H’s Employment Law Practice Group was able to negotiate a solution to the matter without resorting to formal litigation. In fact, after FH+H presented our theory of the case to the former employer, the employer agree to a confidential settlement agreement on terms favorable to our client.
FH+H Managing Partner Tom Craig and the FH+H Government Contracts team filed a bid protest on behalf of a client who was improperly excluded from the competitive range for a large multi-award IDIQ contract. After reviewing the protest, the agency agreed to take remedial action without requiring any further action by the GAO, effectively conceding the protest based solely on the arguments presented by FH+H.
FH+H Managing Partner Tom Craig, along with Senior Associate Adam Munitz and others, assisted a client in filing a bid protest on the basis that the putative awardee was not actually a small business, but was actually an affiliate or alter ego of a large corporation. The Small Business Administration agreed. As a result the work was re-awarded, allowing a truly small company to perform the work as the Agency, and the law, intended.
In August, 2014, FH+H worked with a government subcontractor to amicably resolve payment discussions with its prime contractor. After the prime contractor terminated the subcontract at issue for convenience, the subcontractor turned to FH+H to help negotiate the settlement in such a manner that it could recoup its costs and preserve a valuable client relationship. FH+H did just that and, as a result, the subcontractor and its customer can look forward to additional collaboration.
FH+H partner Craig Guthery recently negotiated a complex intellectual property dispute between a government contractor and the U.S. Government. After years of performance by the contractor under a services contract, the Government claimed ownership of proprietary software used by the contractor in performing these services. Leveraging his considerable experience as a litigator and his familiarity with the federal procurement sector, Guthery convinced the Government to abandon its ownership claim and license the software from the contractor going forward. “As an attorney,” said Guthery, “there is no greater privilege than to help a client navigate a seemingly unnavigable problem and to negotiate an arrangement that fulfills the needs of all those involved.”
FH+H recently helped a government contractor secure an $8.1M contract with the U.S. Navy. For nearly twenty years, the contractor had been working side-by-side with the U.S. Navy to develop next generation sonar technology, and FH+H provided strategic advice during the pre-award discussions that positioned the contractor for success. “As a firm,” said FH+H Senior Associate Adam Munitz, “this is exactly what we strive to do: provide high quality legal support to our clients, so that they can grow their businesses and deliver products and services that are critical to U.S. national security.”