GLENDALE FEDERAL BANK, FSB V. UNITED STATES
378 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 2004)
NATURE OF THE CASE: The United States (D) appeals the award by the Court of Federal Claims, to Glendale Federal Bank (P) of $381 million in 'wounded bank' damages; P cross-appeals the trial court's denial of another $527.5 million in reliance damages.
FACTS: This is the second appeal on the damages question. The first resulted in an award to P of $909 million in restitution and 'non-overlapping reliance damages.' D appealed. The appeals court concluded that the award of $909 million was not supportable, and vacated the judgment. In the first damages trial P sought 'expectancy damages,' the kind of damages often associated with lost profits. The trial court rejected that theory. The trial court fashioned a restitution remedy based on the assumed risk. The issue was the market value of the liabilities assumed by P. at The court awarded $510 million. In yet another review, the appeals court concluded that the restitution theory was flawed, because it was based on an assumption that the non-breaching party was entitled to the supposed gains received by the breaching party, when those gains in the context of these cases were both speculative and indeterminate. The $510 million was vacated. A viable theory on which damages could be based was a reliance theory. The trial court had considered reliance theory as a basis for an award, and had added specific reliance damages of $381 million to the total award granted P; these were denominated non-overlapping reliance damages, and identified as damages for post-breach events. Such damages had to be real, and reasonably ascertainable. Following the first appeal on damages and our remand to the trial court for further consideration of the issues, P moved in the trial court for entry of judgment, asking the court to reinstate the post-breach 'wounded bank' portion of its earlier judgment. This was the $381 million with an additional $527 million in out-of-pocket losses. D came up with zero. D contends that P-invented notion of 'wounded bank' damages. These losses were said to have occurred because three years after, and as a result of, the breach, P fell out of capital compliance; depositors and others became nervous about placing funds with it; the bank was required to pay more interest to attract depositors; and it was required to pay higher fees for deposit insurance. P relied upon the same model it presented in support of its earlier claim for lost profits under the now-discredited expectancy damages theory. P got the $381 million but not $527 million because its reliance model failed to measure the actual losses sustained by it as a result of D's breach. D appealed. P cross-appealed the denial of its claim for the additional $527 million.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment