United States Federal Circuit

In a suit involving a series of banking transactions and regulations, district court judgment is affirmed where there was no reversible error in the court's determination that: 1) a plaintiff filed its complaint within the statute of limitations; 2) two plaintiffs were not parties to a contract with the government; 3) the plaintiffs deserved no damages for replacing regulatory capital with retained earnings; 4) a plaintiff deserved an actual cost measure to replace lost capital; 5) a liquidating dividend was a cost of substituting tangible capital for the capital lost as a result of the breach of the government's contract with a plaintiff's predecessor in interest; 6) the predecessor in interest's average cost of funds supplied a measure of the damages for the capital phased-out as a result of the breach; 7) a plaintiff deserved no damages on its claim for a deposit forfeited in association with a failed acquisition; and 8) a plaintiff deserved no tax gross up of the damages awarded.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/26/2007
• Published 07/26/2007

Judges

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel