The DoD Issues Memo Regarding Section 3610 of the CARES Act; Implementing Guidance to Follow
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.31.20
On March 30, 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acting Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) issued the Managing Defense Contracts Impacts of the Novel Coronavirus Memorandum. The Memorandum recognizes the challenges the Department of Defense faces in response to COVID-19, and reiterates the importance of ensuring the health and vitality of the defense industrial base (DIB) during this national emergency. The Memorandum notes the regulatory tools already in place to address COVID-19 impacts—e.g., FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays, various termination clauses, various changes clauses, and FAR 52.212-4 for commercial contracts—and highlights the protection of health and safety of contract employees as an important consideration when assessing requests for equitable adjustment. In addition to pointing to these traditional clauses, the Memorandum recognizes Section 3610 of the CARES Act as a mechanism to allow recovery for COVID-19 impacts and states that DPC will provide implementing guidance for such recovery. The Memorandum concludes by noting that contracting officers “are trusted and empowered to make the difficult decisions on appropriate adjustment to each contract” and that they “must work closely with our industry partners to ensure continuity of operations and mission effectiveness, while protecting the continuing vitality of the DIB that is so critical to our national security.”
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






