1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |ASBCA Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of FEHBP Contractor on Audit Disallowance

ASBCA Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of FEHBP Contractor on Audit Disallowance

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.30.03

On October 29, 2003, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals granted partial summary judgment against the Office of Personnel Management's disallowance as an unallowable premium tax of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield's Ohio franchise taxes paid in years 1991 through 1995 and charged to an FEHBP contract. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association, ASBCA No. 53632 (Oct. 29, 2003). Following a draft OPM OIG audit that questioned Anthem's method of allocating Ohio franchise taxes, the parties entered into a series of waivers extending the five-year limitations period for the issuance of a decision contained in the contract's Audit Disputes clause. The Board determined that the waiver did not preserve OPM's claim for years 1991 through 1993 because the waivers only addressed the allocability of the franchise taxes as raised in the draft audit report (an issue which BCBSA no longer disputes). OPM's challenge to the allowability of the franchise taxes was raised for the first time when the final audit report was issued in June 1999. The Board reasoned that "[a]llocability is not synonymous with allowability; it is merely one factor to be considered in determining allowability." Accordingly, the Board concluded that the waivers did not extend to the allowability of the franchise taxes, and OPM's claims related to the franchise taxes paid in years 1991 through 1993 were time-barred. The Board also denied OPM's motion for summary judgment that the Ohio franchise tax is an unallowable tax imposed directly or indirectly on premiums. 

See full decision

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....