Army Can't Bypass Competition Without Court Scrutiny
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.18.04
Noting the Army "may not disregard" legal constraints "under the auspices of an unusual and compelling urgency," the Court of Federal Claims, in Filtration Development Co. v. U.S. (Feb. 3, 2004), held that a court can review an Army decision to bypass competitive procedures on the basis of "urgent and compelling circumstances" even when those circumstances – rapid deterioration of helicopters in Iraq – involve military needs of mobilized forces. The court rejected the argument that it had no standards against which to review the Army decision, stating that it could review the Army's written justification for rationality and the "fact that the ultimate destination . . . is Iraq does not alter this proposition."
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.13.26
Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief
A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.12.26
SBA Announces Doubling Veteran Contracting Target to 10% for FY 2027, but Questions Remain
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.12.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.11.26
President Trump Nominates Peter Feldman to Serve as CPSC Chairman and Commissioner
