DCAA's Use of a Statistically Invalid Analysis for Testing Compensation Reasonableness
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.03.12
The ASBCA in J.F. Taylor, Inc. (Jan. 18, 2012) rejected DCAA’s disallowance of executive compensation, based primarily on the credibility of differing expert opinions. The board concluded that the standard DCAA analysis relying on a “rule of reason” that permits compensation within 10% of the 50th percentile of an unweighted average of multiple surveys with different sample sizes is statistically invalid, at least in part because the contractor’s expert was credible and the government’s, who had included in his resume what was arguably a mail order PhD from a South African “university,” was not.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
