We represented an aerospace company involved in the development of small spacecraft and associated technologies. Our client and another party jointly sought a Congressional earmark for funds for spacecraft development and the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) setting forth a 50/50 split of those funds. However, after the earmark passed and the funds were released, the other party failed to live up to its obligations under the MOU; it essentially kept the entire amount for itself. We filed suit on behalf of our client in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The defendant counterclaimed, with both parties alleging breach of contract and multiple tortious interference claims.
The litigation strategy involved aggressive document discovery (including third-party subpoenas) followed by extensive document requests and information exchanges that allowed each party to ascertain the strength and weaknesses of each other’s position—with the aim of achieving a settlement prior to incurring expensive discovery costs.
Before engaging in any depositions and without any travel to the East Coast, we engaged in informal settlement discussions with the opposing side that ultimately resulted in our client obtaining a very favorable settlement amount.
Our client was a lender seeking repayment of a multi-million dollar commercial loan to a failed developer. After filing a lawsuit against the guarantor of the loan, we prevailed via summary judgment against the guarantor and his community property.
Our client was the incumbent contractor performing armed security guard services at various locations for the Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”). When that contract neared the end of its term, BPA issued a new solicitation for the work.
Our client was the electrical subcontractor on the $178 million Bassett Army Hospital on Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Our client incurred millions of dollars of additional, increased costs caused by a variety or circumstances—including defective specifications and delay and disruption.
Our client, a general contractor on a large federal project in Texas, faced a multi-million dollar claim brought by a subcontractor under the Miller Act. The subcontractor alleged various impacts and delays for which it blamed our client.