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 | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
