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 | 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)....