Unfortunate Change To Settlement Fees And Costs Allowability Law
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.21.09
Reversing the ASBCA decision in Tecom, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 53884 et al., 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,674 (Sept. 21, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holds in Geren v. Tecom, Inc., No. 2008-1171 (May 19, 2009), that legal fees and costs incurred in connection with settling a private action for employment discrimination unrelated to fraud will be allowable only if the contractor can establish that the private plaintiff had very little likelihood of success on the merits. This ruling, which will be discussed next week at Crowell & Moring's OOPS conference, will greatly complicate the determination of allowable costs and place the responsible government contracting officer in the difficult position of second-guessing each settlement decision.
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
