Admiral Financial Corp. v. U.S.

13 Citing cases

  1. Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. U.S.

    366 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 69 times
    Holding government waived right to assert prior material breach by performing under contract by making assistance payments to thrift

    In due course, Barron renewed its previously filed motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, while the government filed a supplemental motion to dismiss the claims of the FDIC.Barron Bancshares, 53 Fed.Cl. at 311. There is no issue in this case as to whether the FDIC's claims satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution. See, e.g., Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1349-51 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1380-82 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Landmark, 256 F.3d at 1379-82. It is true that a claim by the FDIC that does not exceed the amount owed to the insurance fund does not present an actual case or controversy, because the FDIC and the United States are not truly adverse as to the FDIC's claims.

  2. Holland v. U.S.

    621 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding accord and satisfaction barred appellants' breach of contract claims "[i]n the alternative" after affirming that appellants failed to satisfy elements for breach of contract

    On August 9, 1989, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), Pub.L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183, to prevent the collapse of the thrift industry. Winstar, 518 U.S. at 856, 116 S.Ct. 2432. FIRREA abolished FSLIC and created a new thrift deposit insurance fund, the FSLIC Resolution Fund ("FRF"), under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"). Id.; Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003). With FIRREA's passage, the assets of FSLIC were placed in the FRF. Admiral 329 F.3d at 1374.

  3. Anderson v. U.S.

    344 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 119 times
    Holding that regulatory boilerplate provisions, added by the government as a regulator, are not contracts

    Aetna Life Ins. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). In light of our precedent interpreting that constitutional requirement, see Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Landmark, 256 F.3d 1365, we agree with the Court of Federal Claims that the FDIC's presence in this matter represents no more than an intergovernmental dispute which does not rise to the requisite level of a constitutional case or controversy. The Court of Federal Claims, though an Article I court, 28 U.S.C. § 171 (2000), applies the same standing requirements enforced by other federal courts created under Article III.

  4. Claybrook v. United States

    No. 10-734T (Fed. Cl. Apr. 18, 2012)

    Landmark Land Co. v. FDIC, 256 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("[F]or the FDIC to have standing, the total amount of the FDIC's claims must exceed the amount the failing thrift, for which the FDIC stands as receiver, owes the United States." (citing Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). The Trustee's description of the facts, however, is slightly inaccurate.

  5. Admiral Financial Corp. v. U.S.

    378 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that contract uniformly placed risk of regulatory change on plaintiff

    Two prior Court of Federal Claims decisions in this case set forth the facts in detail. See Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 247 (2002); Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 418 (2003). We include here only those facts necessary for our decision.

  6. Cias, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp.

    504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that argument to PTO on reexamination constituted disavowal of claim scope even though “no amendments were made”

    Similarly, in Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 346, 81 S.Ct. 599, 5 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961) the Court stated: "The decisions of this Court require the conclusion that reconstruction of a patented entity, comprised of unpatented elements, is limited to such a true reconstruction of the entity . . ."; this linguistic usage is not concerned with claim drafting; and, if anything, it is open-ended and non-limiting. The other cases to which Alliance directs us are not patent cases, and the usage is simply as descriptive text. An example is Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir.2003), where the court wrote that "Admiral . . . seek[s] total restitution in the amount of $14,395,075, comprised of $11,072,075, representing capital contributions to Haven, and $3,323,000, representing the amount that Admiral claims it saved the government." Similarly in Nissho Iwai Am. Corp. v. United States, 982 F.2d 505, 506 n. 1 (Fed. Cir.1992) the court explained that: "The parties estimated that the cars would be comprised of 57.45% Japanese-made components and 42.55% American-made components.

  7. Granite Management Corp. v. U.S.

    416 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that the alleged "value conferred" on the breaching party was "too speculative and indeterminate" to serve as a measurement of contract damages

    Glendale, 239 F.3d at 1382; Cal. Fed., 245 F.3d at 1351. See LaSalle Talman, 317 F.3d at 1376-77 (affirming Court of Federal Claims' determination that liquidation costs which the government allegedly avoided by acquirer's assumption of thrift's obligations were not "a meaningful measure" of damages); Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 418, 424 (2003) (relying upon Glendale in rejecting "liquidation cost savings" theory), aff'd, 378 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The trial court determined that the government had other ways to deal with the problem, such as arranging for the sale of the thrifts to another buyer. It suggested that the government might well have pursued these other options had Granite not acquired the thrifts, because "neither [the government] nor [Granite] ever liquidated the thrifts, and liquidation was an extremely rare and disfavored occurrence."

  8. F.D.I.C. v. U.S.

    342 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that indirect benefits resulting solely from being a shareholder, without more, are insufficient to establish third-party beneficiary status

    (ii) pay to depositors and other creditors the net amounts available for distribution to them. Under this statute, the Insurance Fund, a subrogated claimant, must be made whole before the claims of uninsured depositors and other creditors are paid. Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). As the Court of Federal Claims pointed out: "Section (d)(11) is captioned, `Distribution of assets.' The semi-colon between `Subrogated claims' and `claims of uninsured depositors and other creditors' in subsection (A) suggests that the former is intended to be considered separately from the later."

  9. Hansen Bancorp, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 92-828C (Fed. Cl. Aug. 24, 2005)

    Thus, materiality in these cases has come to signify proof that the regulatory maintenance agreement would not have been invoked absent FIRREA. See Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 418 (Fed. Cir. 2003),aff'd, 378 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004). III. The amount of goodwill that HSB was entitled to amortize

  10. Caroline Hunt Trust Estate v. U.S.

    No. 95-531C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 29, 2005)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that the set-off, or offset, equaled the value of benefits conferred on plaintiff

    SSA was going to fail anyway, the government argues, therefore FIRREA did not harm CHTE. In Admiral Financial Corp. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 418 (2003), the court concluded that by the time of the passage of FIRREA, or certainly its implementing regulations, "the thrift had failed, the investors had abandoned all hope of recovery with the existing resources and indeed of providing additional capital, and that operating control had passed from the owners to the FSLIC." 57