The DoD Issues Memo Regarding Section 3610 of the CARES Act; Implementing Guidance to Follow
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.31.20
On March 30, 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acting Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) issued the Managing Defense Contracts Impacts of the Novel Coronavirus Memorandum. The Memorandum recognizes the challenges the Department of Defense faces in response to COVID-19, and reiterates the importance of ensuring the health and vitality of the defense industrial base (DIB) during this national emergency. The Memorandum notes the regulatory tools already in place to address COVID-19 impacts—e.g., FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays, various termination clauses, various changes clauses, and FAR 52.212-4 for commercial contracts—and highlights the protection of health and safety of contract employees as an important consideration when assessing requests for equitable adjustment. In addition to pointing to these traditional clauses, the Memorandum recognizes Section 3610 of the CARES Act as a mechanism to allow recovery for COVID-19 impacts and states that DPC will provide implementing guidance for such recovery. The Memorandum concludes by noting that contracting officers “are trusted and empowered to make the difficult decisions on appropriate adjustment to each contract” and that they “must work closely with our industry partners to ensure continuity of operations and mission effectiveness, while protecting the continuing vitality of the DIB that is so critical to our national security.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26





