No Prime Liability = No Pass-Through
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.06.08
The Court of Federal Claims in Harper/Nielsen Dillingham, Builders v. U.S. (Apr. 29, 2008) denied a contractor's suit against the government in which it sought to pass through subcontractor claims for cost increases caused by government delays. The court acknowledged that the "Severin doctrine" allows such pass-through claims when the prime contractor is potentially liable to its subcontractor for the damages, but here found the prime could not be liable because the subcontract included an "iron-bound bar" against such liability due to a "no damage for delay" clause.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
