Insights

Washington – June 17, 2025: Sharmistha Das, who most recently served at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as deputy chief of staff and deputy general counsel, has rejoined Crowell & Moring as a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts Group. She also joins the firm’s Regulatory and Policy Department and will play a leading role in Crowell’s National Security practice, drawing on her experience at DHS working on highly sensitive intelligence matters.

Washington – September 7, 2018: The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled earlier this week in favor of Montana Health Co-Op, granting its cross motion for summary judgment and denying the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss in the first Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) case under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). CSR is a provision under the ACA which offers a discount to qualifying individuals to lower the cost of deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance through tax credits.

Washington – February 8, 2018: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce that Trina Fairley Barlow, a Washington-based partner in Crowell & Moring’s Labor and Employment and Government Contracts groups, has been selected as a member of the 2018 Fellows Program of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, one of the most comprehensive legal talent development programs in the United States.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals published its FY18 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, DLA, DCMA, CIA, NASA, other Defense agencies, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. According to this year's report, appellants prevailed, in whole or in part, in 69 percent of the appeals decided on the merits, a notable increase from the past several years. As usual, the Board had a high success rate in resolving matters via alternative dispute resolution (ADR), successfully resolving 85 percent of ADRs concluded in FY18 – including binding arbitration, non-binding mediation, and ADR of undocketed appeals.

In Montana Health Co-Op v. U.S. (September 4, 2018), an important decision likely to reverberate throughout the health insurance industry, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of C&M client Montana Health in a lawsuit seeking to recover "cost-sharing reduction" (CSR) payments pursuant to §1402 of the Affordable Care Act, deciding on the merits that: (i) Section 1402 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Montana Health is entitled to full payments owed to it under the statutory formula set forth in the ACA, and (iii) the federal government has a statutory obligation to provide Montana Health with the CSR payments notwithstanding the purported lack of appropriations to fund such payments. The Court agreed with Montana Health that the obligation to make payment under a money-mandating statute is distinct from the appropriation used to fund it, and that the lack of an appropriation merely restricts the Government’s agents (here, HHS), but does not negate the United States’ statutory payment obligation. The Montana Health decision is a significant decision in COFC money-mandating statute jurisprudence.

On July 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a decision in Air Center Helicopters Inc. v. Starlite Investments Ireland Ltd et al. (Case No. 18-599), upholding a temporary injunction issued by the American Arbitration Association that granted Defendant Starlite Aviation Group (a C&M client) the right to continue performing helicopter services in support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. In seeking to vacate the AAA’s Injunction Order, Plaintiff argued that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by granting Defendant relief under an implied-in-fact contract theory, and contemporaneously sought a preliminary injunction preventing Defendant from enforcing the AAA Injunction Order (which the parties briefed on an expedited basis). The Court rejected Plaintiff’s arguments and denied both motions, holding that (i) “[Plaintiff] cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding its petition,” such that “[Plaintiff]’s motion for preliminary injunction must necessarily be denied;” (ii) Plaintiff had “not met its high burden to show that the arbitrator imperfectly executed or exceeded his powers” in the AAA Injunction Order, and thus Plaintiff was not entitled to vacatur. The Court noted that its rulings were subject to a later determination as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to review the AAA Injunction Order.