Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:92-cv-00872-LAS

Document 341-2

Filed 07/14/2008

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:92-cv-00872-LAS

Document 341-2

Filed 07/14/2008

Page 2 of 4

American Savings Bank v. United States December 7, 2007

Page 1

UNITED

STATES

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

American Savings Bank, Plaintiff-Appellee,
V.

) ) ) ) ) )

United States, Defendant-Appellant.

Friday, December 7, 2007

U.S. Court of Appeals The above-captioned oral argument came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.

BEFORE: Chief Circuit Judge Paul Michel The Honorable Pauline Newman The Honorable Sharon Prost

202-347-3700

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

800-336-6646

Case 1:92-cv-00872-LAS

Document 341-2

Filed 07/14/2008

Page 3 of 4

American Savings Bank v. United States December 7, 2007

Page 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22

The plaintiffs said "Let's be done with the case. We've got 400 million in damages and we'll consent to entry of judgment on that claim as a final judgment." JUDGE MICHEL: Well, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If the takings claim wasn't withdrawn by you, and wasn't rejected on sgme legal basis by the trial judge, then it would appear to still be hanging out there unadjudicated? MR. YALOWITZ: It would, if we hadn't consented to final judgment. I think that claim is merged into the final judgment. So if this Court affirms the final judgment -JUDGE MICHEL: The final judgment doesn't say anything about the takings claims as now moot or it's dismissed or.it's conceded to be no longer part of this case or any"such thing. It just gives judgment on the breach, claim. MR. YALOWITZ: But I may be disremembering, Your Honor, but I believe that the plaintiffs stipulated to the entry of final judgment on all claims, on the basis of the trial judge's

202-347-3700

Ace-~deral~po~e~iInc.

8~-336-6~6

Case 1:92-cv-00872-LAS

Document 341-2

Filed 07/14/2008

Page 4 of 4

American Savings Bank v. United States December 7, 2007
Page 23

damages decision.
2

If I'm incorrect in that, I will send the Court a letter, confirming what the procedural posture was. JUDGE MICHEL: All right. Then on the merits. MR. YALOWITZ: Okay. May it please the Court, regulatory capital is the lifeblood of a bank. In this case, the plaintiffs promised to provide 70

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22

percent of the regulatory capital in exchange for seven percent ownership. The FSLIC promised to provide 30 percent of the regulatory capital in exchange for a warrant worth 30 percent of the bank, 350 million from the plaintiffs in cash, 167 million from the FSLIC in the form of the deposit based intangible, as regulatory capital. JUDGE pROUST: And you say you're entitled to restitution in this case? MR. YALOWITZ: JUDGE PROUST: MR. YALOWITZ: Partial restitution. Partial restitution. Correct, Your Honor.

202-347-3700

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

800-336-6646