CAS Price Adjustments Limited To "Affected" Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.16.10
In Donley v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (June 10, 2010) (litigated by Crowell & Moring), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ASBCA's decision that a CAS-covered contract that was completely repriced with full disclosure after a change in accounting was not "affected" by the change and was not subject to price adjustment to reflect the impact of the change -- an argument that could also preclude price adjustments on task orders that are negotiated without reliance on cost accounting information under CAS-covered IDIQ contracts. The Court rejected the Justice Department's arguments that the repriced contract was "affected" by the change either because it had been modified rather than completely terminated and re-awarded or because the PCO's agreement to a new price constituted an impermissible "waiver" of the ACO's exclusive right to determine the impact of an accounting change.
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
