1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Closing A Business Unit Creates An Opportunity To Recover Unfunded Pension Costs

Closing A Business Unit Creates An Opportunity To Recover Unfunded Pension Costs

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.08.05

Although the Government has never contested that contractors with underfunded pension plans are entitled under CAS 413 to claim a lump sum adjustment for underfunded pension costs in connection with a segment closing, both the Defense Department and the Justice Department have asserted that a contractors' right to recover such costs may be limited by the standard Limitation of Costs clause, by standard contract release of claims language, and by regulatory provisions that require that pension plan contributions be made in the same year that the contractor claims pension costs. In a decision issued on July 5, 2005, in General Motors Corp. v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims rejected all of those Government arguments, only agreeing with the Government that GM will be required at some point to make contributions to its plan in an amount at least equal to the reimbursement it receives from the Government, and leaving open the possibility that contributions already made to the plan by GM since the segment closing will satisfy that requirement.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights