1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Board Confirms Unallowability of Executive Compensation Based on Changes in Securities and Dividends Prices

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.”

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....