Board Confirms Unallowability of Executive Compensation Based on Changes in Securities and Dividends Prices
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.31.17
In Exelis Inc. (ASBCA No. 58966, Mar. 29, 2017), the Board upheld the Government's disallowance of compensation paid under Exelis’ Long-Term Incentive Plan as expressly unallowable under FAR 31.205-6(i) and subject to level 1 penalties because it was “based on changes in the prices of corporate securities and dividends.” The amount of compensation was determined based on “total shareholder return” (TSR) using a formula that compared growth in the value of Exelis’ stock and dividends to other companies. The Board held that, “[a]s in Raytheon, the metric Exelis used to calculate and value the TSR compensation was TSR performance ratings, which were based on securities price changes and dividend payments.” The Board rejected Exelis’ argument that Raytheon could be distinguished because the TSR costs were “paid based upon a predetermined compensation award pool,” noting that “the plain language of the cost principle more broadly renders unallowable any compensation that is ‘calculated’ or ‘valued’ based upon‘changes in the price of corporate securities.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
