1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |WMATA OIG Announces Partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force

WMATA OIG Announces Partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.20.20

On February 18, 2020, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Inspector General Geoffrey A. Cherrington announced a partnership between WMATA Office of Inspector General special agents and the Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF).

This new law enforcement partnership underscores the PCSF’s willingness to team up with state and local agencies to aggressively pursue allegations of procurement fraud and prosecute any wrongdoing. It is important that government contractors of all sizes and in all industries ensure they have the appropriate antitrust protections in place, and that they conduct routine training for all employees involved in the procurement process.

WMATA recently launched a $15.5 billion capital improvement program at the beginning of FY 2020 with funding coming from state and local governments in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, as well as federal grants. Through the program WMATA will purchase new railcars and buses and make other investments in infrastructure and equipment over the next ten years. These projects will provide many business opportunities for government contractors and they will also create a local area of focus for the WMATA-DOJ team.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....