On November 2, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court decision that exposes government contractors to massive penalties whenever it is determined that even a portion of a contract claim submitted to the U.S. is not fully supported. The order declining review was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging the Court to grant review. WLF argued that the appeals court decision was based on a clear misreading of the Contracts Disputes Act and threatens to disrupt government contracting. WLF noted that under the decision, contractors could face penalties far in excess of any profit they could ever have hoped to derive from a government contract. WLF argued that, at the very least, fear of such penalties will deter contractors from submitting meritorious claims for post-award equitable adjustments – and the results of any such reluctance include increased opportunity for federal agency abuse of the procurement process and windfalls fo the government.