Who Knew? Limitations Defense Kept in Play Against U.S.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.23.12
In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. U.S., the Court of Federal Claims found there to be triable issues of fact with regard to the contractor's statute of limitations defense as to when the government's claim accrued, i.e., when the government "knew or should have known" of alleged CAS 418 noncompliance. This case follows a series of similar recent cases at the CFC and the ASBCA and raises the issue of who in the government needs to have notice of a claim for it to accrue -- a contracting officer or "other responsible actors" such as DCAA auditors -- a question the court declined to resolve "[a]t this early juncture" in the proceedings.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.20.26
On July 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) setting up a new federal framework that allows state, local, Tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement and correctional agencies to detect, track, and, in some cases, disable or seize drones. The rule directly affects SLTT agencies looking to stand up counter-drone programs, as well as drone and counter-drone technology companies whose products will be subject to federal review and approval. Although the IFR bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act’s standard notice-and-comment process on good cause grounds — citing the statutory 180-day deadline and urgent public safety needs — the rule is already legally binding and effective as of July 1, 2026. The Departments are nonetheless accepting post-promulgation comments through September 4, 2026.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.20.26
QFMA Introduces International Licensing Regime for Financial Services Firms
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.17.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.15.26
CMMC Phase II Suspension Requires Reconsideration of Such Requirements in Solicitations
