Bollinger v. Northrop Grumman – Bollinger has a big day in court

by Michael DeKort

On 1/12/09 the US District Court in Eastern Louisiana decided on several motions by each party. In each case the court found for Bollinger and against Northrop Grumman

Bollinger filed to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings

Northrop Grumman filed to Stay Arbitration and to Dismiss several complaints. (Wrapped up inside of these Northrop also tried to move the jurisdiction to Mississippi from Louisiana)

In other related proceeding the court agreed to a request by both parities to move the hearing on setting court dates to Feb 8, 2009

Remember the original filings by NG included a recommendation by NG for Bollinger to seek its damages from Lockheed, ICGS (which NG is half of) or even the government (for terminating the 123 contract) instead of itself – the prime contractor for Bollinger. What a ridiculous convoluted mess. It appears all sides are trying to stick the other and/or the government for the refund and blame for the 123 debacle. ICGS may even go as far as to not only deny the refund but also ask for further compensation from the government because the contract was canceled.

As I am not an attorney I don’t know what the next options are. I wonder if the governmental parties investigating the same issues are paying attention to this and how these proceeding might factor in to that. Can NG take its issues to a higher court? Does NG now sue Lockheed to recover damages in case Bollinger wins their suit with them? Do all three contractors sue the government for contract termination even though neither of these parties has taken responsibility for the 123 problems or returned the $96m?

I will keep my eye on this and post more as it becomes available.

View the court documents here.