1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |ASBCA Finds Stock Option Costs Based on Black-Scholes Model Unallowable

ASBCA Finds Stock Option Costs Based on Black-Scholes Model Unallowable

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.22.18

In Luna Innovations, Inc. (ASBCA No. 60086), the Board determined that Luna’s stock option costs were unallowable (but not expressly unallowable) pursuant to FAR 31.205-6(i), because such costs “constitute[d] compensation that [were] determined by changes in stock prices.”  Specifically, the Board concluded that Luna’s stock option costs were unallowable because they were “valued using the Black-Scholes model,” which relies upon five inputs, including the stock price variance.  According to the Board, the Black-Scholes model not only “values” a stock option, but “the value is ‘based on’ share price volatility.”  Indeed, the Board found that “the volatility measure is one of the most important, if not the most important, inputs into [such model], such that the compensation is ‘based on’ on [sic] asset volatility.”  Though the Board concluded that such costs were unallowable, it did not agree with the Government that they were expressly unallowable.  In this respect, the Board recognized “significant differences” existed between the Black-Scholes model that Luna used and “the TSR equation at issue in Raytheon and Exelis,” namely that the latter “determined the number of shares to be awarded based explicitly on the change in share prices during the evaluation period.”  The Board also pointed out that “the use of the Black-Scholes model [was] a question of firm impression” and “there [were] legitimate differences of opinion regarding the allowability of the costs at issue in this appeal.”

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....