1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Show Them the Money: ASBCA Finds Govt Claims Untimely When Contractor Provided Cost Impact Analyses

Show Them the Money: ASBCA Finds Govt Claims Untimely When Contractor Provided Cost Impact Analyses

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.05.13

In Raytheon Corp. (April 22, 2013), the most recent in a string of CDA statute of limitations cases barring untimely government claims (discussed here, here, here, and here), the ASBCA dismissed the government's CAS-based claims relating to 3 out of the 4 accounting practice changes at issue, reminding contractors of the importance of complying with the regulatory requirement to provide timely estimates of the impacts of accounting changes. The Board allowed one claim to proceed "where Raytheon only reported the fact of a change, not the implications of it or other data" from which the Government could have concluded it had a claim, but dismissed as untimely 3 claims because Raytheon had provided cost impact information more than 6 years prior to the final decision asserting a Government claim, noting that "[c]laim accrual does not depend on the degree of detail provided, whether the contractor revises the calculations later, or whether the contractor characterizes the impact as 'immaterial,'" but is pegged instead to when the contractor "notified the Government of a specific, adverse cost impact flowing from [the change]."


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....