IR&D Definition Clarified
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.19.10
In a decision that should resolve finally nearly 40 years of disagreement between contractors and the government about the definition of Independent Research and Development (IR&D), the Federal Circuit has held in ATK Thiokol Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 19, 2010), that R&D effort must be "specifically required" by the terms of a contract in order to be excluded from the definition of allowable IR&D costs, endorsing the contractors' argument that effort that is "implicitly" required in order to perform the contract or "necessary" to perform but not explicitly required by the contract is allowable IR&D. In addition, and perhaps even more important, the decision acknowledges more generally in its analysis of the distinction between direct and indirect costs that "CAS 402 gives the contractor considerable freedom in the classification of particular costs, so long as the contractor maintains consistency in making that determination."
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 06.09.26
Is Stock-a-palooza Over? Supreme Court allows SEC to Pursue Disgorgement
On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can continue to pursue disgorgement as an equitable remedy in securities fraud cases without showing pecuniary loss by investors. The Court’s ruling in Sripetch v. SEC resolves a split between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that the SEC must demonstrate pecuniary loss, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First and Ninth Circuits, which declined to require such a showing.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.09.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 06.09.26
Client Alert | 11 min read | 06.08.26
