Termination Clause Trumps Cost-Sharing
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.23.06
The Federal Circuit in Jacobs Eng'g Group, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 19, 2006) had before it the interesting scenario of the government terminating a contract with an 80/20 cost share and the contractor insisting that it should get "all" its costs under the termination for convenience clause, not just 80% per the cost share. The court agreed, because the cost share had not been specifically incorporated in the termination clause and the termination had deprived the contractor of his compensating benefit for taking the cost share in the first place, patent rights in the finished work.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.05.26
Another Court Rules CASA Does Not Limit Universal Relief Available Under the APA
In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court significantly constrained the equitable authority of federal district courts to grant universal or nationwide injunctive relief, clarifying that, with specific exceptions, a federal court’s power to grant relief is limited to the parties before it. When it was issued, many bemoaned CASA’s implications for preventing government overreach.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 01.05.26
Consideration of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Terms of Reference
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.31.25
Raising the Bar: New York Expands Consumer Protection Law with FAIR Business Practices Act
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.30.25
