Failure to Consider CAS Materiality Criteria Dooms Gov’t Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.10.16
In Raytheon Co. (ASBCA Aug. 9, 2016), a case involving disallowed cost increases following voluntary accounting changes, the board ruled that the CO violated FAR 30.602 and abused her discretion by considering only the amount of the dollar impact of the accounting changes and, thus, “fail[ed] to analyze the materiality of the cost impacts at issue” pursuant to the criteria set out in CAS 9903.305. Noting (without deciding) that a cost impact of less than 0.005 percent across affected contracts (roughly $142 per contract) might not be “material,” the board held that the government cannot recover on its claim when the CO “simply disregard[s],” rather than evaluates, the CAS materiality factors.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
