Capital Costs Must be Treated as Indirect Costs
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.31.11
On May 12, 2011, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals issued yet another decision in the on-going Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation appeal for reimbursement of costs associated with dry dock facilities. The Board's decision contained two key holdings: (1) the six-year statute of limitations for a CDA claim for cost recovery does not begin to run until the contractor has submitted an invoice for payment under the applicable contract's payment provisions (here the Allowable Cost and Payment Clause) seeking reimbursement of the amounts at issue, and the government has failed to pay the invoice, and (2) capital costs that benefit multiple cost objectives, such as those incurred by Todd for refurbishing a dry dock used for government and commercial work, must be charged as indirect costs and not direct costs.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
