Government Liable for $99 Million in Breach of Contract Damages Under Indemnification Clause
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.24.18
On July 18, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Shell Oil Co., et al. awarding $99.5M to Shell and other oil companies for the government’s breach of World War II-era contracts for high-octane aviation gasoline production (previously discussed here, and here).
The case began when the U.S. and California sued the oil companies under CERCLA for costs of cleaning up acid sludge caused by the gasoline production. After being found liable under CERCLA, the companies filed claims against the government at the COFC for reimbursement of their CERCLA costs under the theory that the government had breached the “Taxes” clauses in their contracts, which, they argued, required the government to pay “any” charges related to gasoline production. In a decision which may encourage other contractors to pursue recovery under similar contract provisions such as “hold harmless” clauses in facilities contracts, and indemnification clauses authorized under Public Law 85-804, the Federal Circuit ruled that the COFC properly determined that the government breached the Taxes clause, and affirmed the award of $99.5M in damages (including nearly $31 million in interest on the companies’ claims).
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







