Teaming Agreements: Date or Marriage?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.16.13
In Cyberlock Consulting, Inc. v. Information Experts, Inc. (E.D.Va. Apr. 3, 2013), the district court, based on "plain meaning," dismissed the sub's claim for breach of a teaming agreement by the prime for failure to subcontract with it after the award of a prime contract, holding that the subcontract provisions in the teaming agreement were "unenforceable agreements to agree" because the teaming agreement merely described the sub's scope of work as 49 percent of the functions and work in the prime contract, did not include subcontract terms, and provided for termination of the teaming agreement if the parties could not agree on a subcontract after good faith negotiations. This decision confirms that precise drafting of teaming agreements can make the difference between an unenforceable date and an enforceable marriage.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.17.26
On March 18, 2026, the Antitrust Division (Division) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with Broadway Across America (“BAA”), resolving a criminal antitrust investigation into agreements between BAA and another entertainment company (“Company A”) that included non-compete restrictions on Company A’s ability to offer potentially competing programming. Notably, the restrictions were contained in a vertical agreement by which BAA presented touring shows at theaters owned by Company A. The announcement is a reminder that the agencies continue to scrutinize non-compete agreements contained in business contracts, and all non-compete provisions, even those included between vertical partners, should be reviewed by antitrust counsel.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.16.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.16.26
ROI Tracking as Mens Rea? Novartis Ruling Reframes AKS Pleading Risk
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.15.26
