Teaming Agreements: Date or Marriage?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.16.13
In Cyberlock Consulting, Inc. v. Information Experts, Inc. (E.D.Va. Apr. 3, 2013), the district court, based on "plain meaning," dismissed the sub's claim for breach of a teaming agreement by the prime for failure to subcontract with it after the award of a prime contract, holding that the subcontract provisions in the teaming agreement were "unenforceable agreements to agree" because the teaming agreement merely described the sub's scope of work as 49 percent of the functions and work in the prime contract, did not include subcontract terms, and provided for termination of the teaming agreement if the parties could not agree on a subcontract after good faith negotiations. This decision confirms that precise drafting of teaming agreements can make the difference between an unenforceable date and an enforceable marriage.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.13.26
Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief
A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.12.26
SBA Announces Doubling Veteran Contracting Target to 10% for FY 2027, but Questions Remain
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.12.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.11.26
President Trump Nominates Peter Feldman to Serve as CPSC Chairman and Commissioner
