DOD Required to Reimburse Pension Cost Deficit
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.18.12
In Raytheon Co. v. U.S. (July 16, 2012), the Court of Federal Claims awarded Raytheon $59.2 million for the "segment closing adjustment" required by CAS 413 to cover unreimbursed pension costs in two business units sold by Raytheon in 2001 and 2002, finding on virtually every contested issue that the calculation of Raytheon's expert actuarial witness was reasonable and that the government's expert had not carried the burden of proving that the Raytheon calculations were noncompliant with CAS. In addition, effectively reversing a prior decision in Raytheon Co. v. U.S., 96 Fed. Cl. 548 (2011), and addressing an issue that will have potentially broader implications beyond CAS 413 segment closing cases, the court found that Raytheon's agreement to the standard form novation language under which the seller "waives" all claims against the Government on novated contracts did not result in a waiver of the CAS 413 segment closing claim on several grounds.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
