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 | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26
