Iraq War Contractor Navigates CDA Jurisdictional Minefield to Victory
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.10.17
In Leviathan Corp. (Apr. 20, 2017), the ASBCA ruled in favor of Crowell & Moring client Leviathan in its 11-year contract dispute with the U.S. Army. Leviathan delivered military supplies to the Iraqi army during the Iraq War. The contract was technically between a different prime contractor and the Coalition Provisional Authority (the predecessor to the new Iraqi government), not the U.S. government. The U.S. Army administered the contract and signed a termination settlement agreement. But the Army refused to pay Leviathan because the Government argued that: (1) the Board lacked jurisdiction over Coalition contracts, (2) Leviathan lacked standing because it was not the prime contractor, and (3) a termination settlement is not a CDA “procurement” contract. Leviathan successfully argued that the Army and Leviathan both became parties to the contract through two respective implied-in-fact novations. Further, because of the Army’s novation, the Army stepped into the Coalition’s shoes from the outset, thereby converting the original contract into a CDA “procurement” contract.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate




