1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DOD Required to Reimburse Pension Cost Deficit

DOD Required to Reimburse Pension Cost Deficit

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.18.12

In Raytheon Co. v. U.S. (July 16, 2012), the Court of Federal Claims awarded Raytheon $59.2 million for the "segment closing adjustment" required by CAS 413 to cover unreimbursed pension costs in two business units sold by Raytheon in 2001 and 2002, finding on virtually every contested issue that the calculation of Raytheon's expert actuarial witness was reasonable and that the government's expert had not carried the burden of proving that the Raytheon calculations were noncompliant with CAS. In addition, effectively reversing a prior decision in Raytheon Co. v. U.S., 96 Fed. Cl. 548 (2011), and addressing an issue that will have potentially broader implications beyond CAS 413 segment closing cases, the court found that Raytheon's agreement to the standard form novation language under which the seller "waives" all claims against the Government on novated contracts did not result in a waiver of the CAS 413 segment closing claim on several grounds.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26

PFAS Regulatory Alert: EPA Rolls Back RCRA Proposed Rule on “Hazardous Waste” but Does Not Disturb Proposed RCRA Rule on PFAS

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program....