1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Rejects Taxes Clause as Basis for Recovering Environmental Remediation Costs

CFC Rejects Taxes Clause as Basis for Recovering Environmental Remediation Costs

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.25.13

On January 13, the Court of Federal Claims in Shell Oil Co. v. U.S. held (1) the government was not liable for CERCLA environmental cleanup costs under the "Taxes" clause in certain World War II-era contracts; and (2) even if the "Taxes" clause had provided for indemnification, any indemnification rights were not preserved after contract termination. The "Taxes" clause and the absence of a reservation of rights to pursue indemnification in Shell is in contrast with the explicit "hold harmless" clauses in the facilities contracts cases in which the contractor reserved its rights to pursue indemnification (Ford and DuPont) and indemnification clauses authorized under Public Law 85-804, which contain explicit post-contract termination provisions.


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....