1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court of Federal Claims Grants Summary Judgment on Affordable Care Act "CSR" Litigation

Court of Federal Claims Grants Summary Judgment on Affordable Care Act "CSR" Litigation

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.05.18

In Montana Health Co-Op v. U.S. (September 4, 2018), an important decision likely to reverberate throughout the health insurance industry, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of C&M client Montana Health in a lawsuit seeking to recover "cost-sharing reduction" (CSR) payments pursuant to §1402 of the Affordable Care Act, deciding on the merits that: (i) Section 1402 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Montana Health is entitled to full payments owed to it under the statutory formula set forth in the ACA, and (iii) the federal government has a statutory obligation to provide Montana Health with the CSR payments notwithstanding the purported lack of appropriations to fund such payments. The Court agreed with Montana Health that the obligation to make payment under a money-mandating statute is distinct from the appropriation used to fund it, and that the lack of an appropriation merely restricts the Government’s agents (here, HHS), but does not negate the United States’ statutory payment obligation. The Montana Health decision is a significant decision in COFC money-mandating statute jurisprudence.

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....