Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-5175, - 5182

ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Edwin L. Fountain, Jones Day, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-cross
appellant. With him on the brief were Michael A. Carvin, Adrian Wager-Zito, Gregory A.
Castanias, Michael S. Fried, Geoffrey S. Irwin, Debra Satinoff Clayman, Erin M.
Fishman and Hashim M. Mooppan; and George T. Manning, of Dallas, Texas.

John J. Todor, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With
him on the brief were Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director. Of counsel on the brief were Kenneth M. Dintzer, Assistant
Director, and Scott D. Austin, Senior Trial Counsel. Of counsel were Brian A. Mizoguchi
and Delisa M. Sanchez, Trial Attorneys.

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims

Judge Lawrence J. Block
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5175, -5182

ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in 95-CV-039, Judge Lawrence J. Block.

__________________________

DECIDED: March 10, 2010
__________________________

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

This is one of the last of the “Winstar” cases arising out of the savings and loan

crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s. See United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S.

839 (1996). During those years, high interest rates and inflation placed hundreds of

savings and loan institutions, or “thrifts,” in severe financial distress. In order to prevent

the thrifts’ collapse and the resulting burden on the federal government, which insured

many of the thrifts’ depositors, the government developed a plan to induce healthy

financial institutions to take over the failing thrifts through so-called “supervisory
mergers.” Because the troubled thrifts were unattractive investments on their own, the

government offered significant incentives to the acquiring institutions. Those incentives

included cash and cash substitutes in the form of what was called “supervisory

goodwill.” Supervisory goodwill was an accounting credit equal to the negative net

worth of the thrift. Pursuant to the supervisory merger agreements, the acquiring

institution was permitted to treat supervisory goodwill as an asset and to amortize the

goodwill over a period of many years. That arrangement enabled the acquiring

institution to satisfy its regulatory capital requirements while working to integrate and

rehabilitate the failing thrift.

Anchor Savings Bank was among the institutions that contracted with the

government in the 1980s to acquire several failing thrifts. Anchor was a relatively strong

institution that had already engaged in significant expansion of its business and was

positioning itself to become a major player in the mortgage banking industry. Between

1982 and 1985, Anchor acquired the assets and assumed the liabilities of four failing

thrifts in a series of supervisory mergers arranged by the government. As part of the

transactions, the government promised Anchor that it could use more than $550 million

in supervisory goodwill in calculating its regulatory capital and that it could amortize that

supervisory goodwill over a period of 25 to 40 years. As the government understood,

the major attraction of the acquisition agreements to Anchor was the favorable

regulatory treatment of supervisory goodwill. Without those forbearances, Anchor

would have failed to satisfy its regulatory requirements as a result of acquiring so much

liability.

2008-5175, -5182 2
 In June 1988, Anchor purchased Residential Funding Corporation (“RFC”), a

mortgage banking company. That purchase was consistent with Anchor’s long-term

business plan to become more involved in mortgage banking as a way to insulate itself

from operating deficits created by the “interest rate spread”—the difference between the

high interest rates it had to pay on deposits at the time and the low interest rates it was

receiving on the fixed-rate mortgages in its loan portfolio. Anchor had already begun to

implement its plan through its 1983 supervisory merger with mortgage-banking

enterprise Suburban, which became Anchor Mortgage Services (“AMS”). AMS acquired

and sold whole mortgage loans, but it retained the servicing rights on those loans so as

to generate regular fees for the bank independent of interest rates.

Like AMS, RFC specialized in acquiring whole mortgage loans and reselling them

in the secondary market. However, RFC served a niche market as a “conduit”

specializing in wholesale originations of jumbo mortgages for resale as “private-label”

mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). 1 RFC performed “master servicing” for the MBS,

generating steady servicing fees.

RFC was an industry leader at the time Anchor purchased it. In the first quarter

of 1988, RFC was the largest issuer of private MBS in the nation. RFC generated over

$10.5 million in net profit in its first year under Anchor and $7.8 million in net profit

1
“Private-label” mortgage-backed securities are so designated because they
are not backed by government-sponsored entities and therefore must be credit-
enhanced by the issuer in order to receive an “investment grade” (AA or AAA) rating by
one of the nationally recognized credit rating agencies. Credit enhancement typically
occurs through a “senior-subordinated structure,” in which the security is divided into
two or more classes, with the subordinated class, or “B piece,” absorbing a
disproportionately larger share of any pool losses, so that the senior class, or “A piece,”
is insulated from loss and therefore qualifies for a higher credit rating.

2008-5175, -5182 3
during the first seven months of the following year. The business was highly successful

and fit well with Anchor’s long-term business plans—so well, in fact, that Anchor largely

discontinued its operation of AMS in favor of RFC. In mid-1989, Anchor’s CEO wrote

that RFC “continues to fly” and was “authorized to double its volume in 1990.” At about

the same time, Anchor and RFC developed a business plan designed to expand RFC’s

business into other areas.

On August 9, 1989, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform,

Recovery, and Enforcement Act, Pub. L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 (1989) (“FIRREA”).

The new statute—and particularly its implementing regulations, which were announced

in October 1989—effectively terminated the favorable treatment of supervisory goodwill

that had been promised to Anchor at the time of the supervisory mergers. The sudden

eradication of more than half a billion dollars of regulatory capital caused Anchor to fall

out of capital compliance by more than $300 million. Facing the threat of seizure and

liquidation by the government, Anchor scrambled to raise the necessary capital through

a swift series of asset sales. Those sales resulted in the divestiture of RFC and a

majority of Anchor’s branch offices. Anchor sold RFC in March 1990 to General Motors

Acceptance Corporation (“GMAC”) for $64.4 million. Under GMAC’s ownership, RFC

continued to operate with largely the same management, and it continued to implement

the Anchor-developed plan to expand its business.

Unlike some other thrifts at the time, Anchor survived FIRREA, and by July 1993

it received a “well capitalized” rating. At that point, it was able to resume its long-term

business plans. In January 1995, Anchor merged with Dime Savings Bank of New

York. Like post-FIRREA Anchor, Dime lacked a sophisticated mortgage banking

2008-5175, -5182 4
operation. Accordingly, in October 1997 the Anchor/Dime entity acquired the North

American Mortgage Company (“NAMCO”) for $351 million. Like RFC, NAMCO

engaged mostly in wholesale mortgage origination and was a major player in the

secondary mortgage market. NAMCO also provided and serviced individual mortgages,

generating regular fees. Unlike RFC, however, NAMCO operated primarily in the

market for mortgages that met the underwriting criteria of government-sponsored

entities (the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage

Corporation, and the Government National Mortgage Association).

Meanwhile, on January 13, 1995, Anchor filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims,

alleging that the adoption of FIRREA and its implementing regulations breached the

government’s obligations under the supervisory merger contracts. In accordance with

the Supreme Court’s decision in Winstar, which had held that those actions could

constitute a breach of contract by the government, the trial court concluded that the

United States had breached its supervisory merger contracts with Anchor.

The trial court then conducted a five-week trial on damages. Following the trial,

the court entered an award of $356,454,910.91 in damages to Anchor and issued a

detailed opinion explaining its decision. The damages award consisted of lost profits

from RFC’s operations after Anchor sold RFC to GMAC; mitigation costs for Anchor’s

purchase of NAMCO to replace RFC; expectancy damages for stock proceeds Anchor

would have received from a post-FIRREA stock offering if it had retained RFC;

damages from the sale of portions of Anchor’s branch network; increased FDIC

insurance premiums; and “wounded bank” damages. Anchor Sav. Bank, FSB v. United

2008-5175, -5182 5
States, 81 Fed. Cl. 1, 153 (2008). More than 90 percent of the award was attributable

to Anchor’s sale of RFC.

On appeal, the government challenges the trial court’s award of damages related

to the sale of RFC. The government argues that the trial court erred in four principal

respects: (1) it improperly applied the law of foreseeability and erred in finding that the

type and magnitude of damages from Anchor’s sale of RFC were reasonably

foreseeable; (2) it erred in finding that the government’s breach caused Anchor to sell

RFC; (3) it erred by measuring damages based on RFC’s profits after it was sold to

GMAC, rather than RFC’s market value at the time of the breach or the sale; and (4) it

erred in finding that the NAMCO purchase constituted mitigation for the loss of RFC. In

its cross-appeal, Anchor argues that the trial court made a calculation error that

erroneously reduced Anchor’s damages by more than $63 million. Anchor has also filed

a conditional cross-appeal in which it contends that if this court does not affirm the

award of expectancy damages, it should reverse the trial court’s decision denying

Anchor’s alternative claim for reliance damages.

I

Damages for breach of contract are designed to make the non-breaching party

whole. One way to accomplish that objective is to award “expectancy damages,” i.e.,

the benefits the non-breaching party would have expected to receive had the breach not

occurred. Glendale Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 239 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir.

2001). Expectancy damages “are often equated with lost profits, although they can

include other damage elements as well.” Id. To recover lost profits for breach of

contract, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the lost

2008-5175, -5182 6
profits were reasonably foreseeable or actually foreseen by the breaching party at the

time of contracting; (2) the loss of profits was caused by the breach; and (3) the amount

of the lost profits has been established with reasonable certainty. Cal. Fed. Bank v.

United States, 395 F.3d 1263, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Energy Capital Corp. v. United

States, 302 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Each of those inquiries presents a

question of fact as to which we exercise “clear error” review. Landmark Land Co. v.

FDIC, 256 F.3d 1365, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. United

States, 266 F.3d 1348, 1356-58 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although we have noted that the lost

profits theory of damages in Winstar cases often fails because it is too speculative, “[w]e

have not . . . barred as a matter of law the use of expectancy/lost profits theory.”

Glendale Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 378 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In its

appeal of the lost profits award relating to Anchor’s sale of RFC, the government

challenges the trial court’s conclusions as to each of the three elements of a lost profits

claim set forth above.

A

The government first argues that the trial court erred in finding that the damages

relating to the RFC sale were reasonably foreseeable. The government contends that

the court should have found those damages to be available only if the government could

have foreseen that Anchor would purchase and then sell RFC or an asset like RFC.

In the trial court’s view, the proper question was whether a reasonable person in

the government’s position could have foreseen the general type of use Anchor made of

its supervisory goodwill and that a profitable enterprise would be sacrificed if Anchor lost

that supervisory goodwill. It was enough, the court found, that the government could

2008-5175, -5182 7
reasonably have foreseen that its breach would force Anchor to divest itself of profitable

assets purchased in reliance on the benefits conferred by the contracts. 2 Anchor, 81

Fed. Cl. at 80-81.

According to the government, the breaching party must be able to foresee the

particular asset or type of asset to be purchased and sold in order to appreciate the risk

of loss flowing from a breach. The government argues that when the contract was

formed neither Anchor nor any other thrift had entered into RFC’s line of business,

which was novel and considered risky at that time. Therefore, the government contends

that it could not have foreseen: (1) that Anchor would purchase that type of asset, let

alone that it would later sell that asset to attain capital compliance in the wake of

FIRREA; and (2) that RFC would be so profitable, thus substantially increasing the

magnitude of the damages flowing from a contract breach.

The test that the government proposes is too narrow. In previous Winstar cases

we have recognized that the particular details of a loss need not be foreseeable, as long

as the plaintiff bank’s “need to raise capital in the event of a breach was foreseeable.”

See Fifth Third Bank v. United States, 518 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (plaintiff

was entitled to compensation for damages incurred in generating regulatory capital,

through branch sales, to replace lost goodwill and was not required to establish the

foreseeability of the poor economic conditions that created difficulties in raising capital).

2
The trial court found that even under the heightened burden of foreseeability
urged by the government, “[t]he record indicates that it was in fact reasonable at the
time of contracting for defendant to foresee that Anchor might become heavily engaged
in the type of business in which RFC specialized, and that a breach might force Anchor
from that market.” Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 81. Because we conclude that the plaintiff
need not satisfy that heightened burden, we do not address the question whether the
court’s findings on that issue are supportable.

2008-5175, -5182 8
“If it was foreseeable that the breach would cause the other party to obtain additional

capital, there is no requirement that the particular method used to raise that capital or its

consequences also be foreseeable.” Citizens Fed. Bank v. United States, 474 F.3d

1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (plaintiff was entitled to compensation for negative tax

consequences incurred in raising capital to replace lost goodwill; it did not need to prove

that the specific tax consequences were foreseeable).

The government contends that the loss at issue in this case was not foreseeable

because Anchor did not own RFC at the time it entered into the relevant contracts. It is

logical, however, to apply the reasoning of Fifth Third Bank and Citizens Federal Bank

to situations in which the government’s breach causes a bank to sell an asset that was

purchased prior to FIRREA in reliance on the supervisory goodwill obtained in the

mergers. First, the importance of supervisory goodwill to the merger agreements is

undeniable. Goodwill was critical to the government’s ability to induce banks to enter

into the supervisory mergers; without that inducement, the banks would have had little

incentive to purchase failing thrifts with substantial net liabilities. See, e.g., Winstar, 518

U.S. at 921 (Scalia, J., concurring) (characterizing favorable regulatory treatment as “an

essential part of the quid pro quo” of the merger contracts with the government); Cal.

Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 245 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The continued

use of supervisory goodwill as regulatory capital for the entire 35-40 year amortization

period initially promised was . . . a central focus of the contract and the subject of the

government’s breach.”). Second, the government expected the infusion of regulatory

capital in the form of supervisory goodwill to allow the acquiring institutions to make

profitable investments that could rehabilitate the failing thrifts. As the trial court found,

2008-5175, -5182 9
“the government needed and expected an acquiring thrift to leverage its goodwill into

profitable investments because retained earnings were essential to replace the

regulatory capital that a thrift lost each year when its goodwill was amortized.” Anchor,

81 Fed. Cl. at 78. By providing that supervisory goodwill would be amortized over time,

the government’s contracts encouraged institutions such as Anchor to invest early and

aggressively so as to take advantage of the supervisory goodwill before it was gone.

Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the trial court to apply the

foreseeability rule in a manner that encompassed both the purchase and the ultimate

sale of assets. The trial court thus properly required only a general showing that (1) the

government could reasonably have foreseen that the influx of supervisory goodwill

under the contracts would cause the acquiring institution to make investments in order

to generate profit and rehabilitate the failing acquired thrifts; and (2) the government

could reasonably have foreseen that a breach of contract would cause the acquiring

institution to sell off those very investments in order to raise capital to meet regulatory

requirements.

The government argues that our decision in Old Stone Corp. v. United States,

450 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stands for the proposition that damages cannot be

awarded unless the loss that actually occurred—here, the loss of the profits that RFC

would have generated if it had not been sold—was foreseeable. Old Stone, however,

involved quite different facts, and the analysis employed by the court in that case does

not preclude a damages award here.

Like this case, Old Stone involved supervisory mergers that generated

supervisory goodwill for the acquiring bank. This court in Old Stone allowed a recovery

2008-5175, -5182 10
of the payments made by the plaintiff to replace the regulatory capital eliminated by

FIRREA. However, the court denied an award of damages flowing from the bank’s

seizure, which resulted from “other problems” that were unrelated to the loss of

supervisory goodwill. According to the bank’s theory, it was entitled to a damages

award equal to the full amount that it had contributed to the acquired thrifts in the

supervisory mergers because (1) the breach had deprived the bank of regulatory

capital; (2) when the bank encountered the “other problems” unrelated to FIRREA, it

was forced to sell valuable assets that it would not have had to sell if it had retained the

regulatory capital from the supervisory mergers; and (3) the valuable assets, if they had

been retained, would have been sufficient to enable the bank to avoid seizure. 450

F.3d at 1376.

The Old Stone court pointed out that there was no testimony in that case “that

would suggest that the seizure of the thrift by itself was a foreseeable result of the

shrinkage,” and that the trial court did not find that the forced shrinkage of the bank had

“a foreseeable relationship to the seizure.” 450 F.3d at 1376. Because the plaintiff had

“failed to establish that [the] extended chain of causation” leading to the seizure of the

bank was foreseeable at the time of contract formation, this court rejected the plaintiff’s

reliance damages claim. Id. The court acknowledged that recovery can be predicated

on the need to replace regulatory capital or on the failure of a thrift due to a deficiency in

regulatory capital. Id. at 1376-77. In the case before it, however, the court held that the

bank’s theory of foreseeability—“that the seizure resulted from the fact that the

replacement capital was unavailable to resolve other problems not caused by

2008-5175, -5182 11
FIRREA”—was both unsupported by the evidence and too attenuated to support a

damages award. Id. at 1377.

In the course of its opinion, the court in Old Stone noted that “even if the need for

replacement capital was foreseeable, that hardly establishes that the adverse

consequences alleged to flow from the need to make infusions were foreseeable.” The

court then quoted from the Restatement of Contracts, which provides that the “mere

circumstance that some loss was foreseeable, or even that some loss of the same

general kind was foreseeable, will not suffice if the loss that actually occurred was not

foreseeable.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 351 cmt. a (1981), quoted in Old

Stone, 450 F.3d at 1376.

While the quoted comment from the Restatement limits damages awards when

unforeseeable events result in enhanced losses to the non-breaching party, it does not

suggest that the specific loss in question must have been within the contemplation of

the parties at the time of contracting. The Restatement makes that point clear, stating

that “the party in breach need not have made a ‘tacit agreement’ to be liable for the loss.

Nor must he have had the loss in mind when making the contract, for the test is an

objective one based on what he had reason to foresee.” Restatement § 351 cmt. a. As

a leading commentator has explained, summarizing the foreseeability limitation on

expectancy damages,

[t]he magnitude of the loss need not have been foreseeable, and a party is
not disadvantaged by its failure to disclose the profits that it expected to
make from the contract. However, the mere circumstance that some loss
was foreseeable may not suffice to impose liability for a particular type of
loss that was so unusual as not to be foreseeable.

E. Allan Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts § 12.14, at 262 (3d ed. 2004).

2008-5175, -5182 12
 The principle recited in Old Stone is consistent with the generally recognized rule

that foreseeability for purposes of determining contract damages requires “merely that

the injury actually suffered must be one of a kind that the defendant had reason to

foresee and of an amount that is not beyond the bounds of reasonable prediction.” 11

Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 56.7, at 108 (rev. ed. 2005). “Just as reason

to foresee does not mean actual foresight, so also it is not required that the facts

actually known to the defendant are enough to enable the defendant to foresee that a

breach will cause a specific injury or a particular amount in money.” Id.; see also

Farnsworth, supra, § 12.14, at 260-61 (“There is no requirement that the breach itself or

the particular way that the loss came about be foreseeable.”).

Contrary to the government’s contention, Old Stone does not depart from those

general principles and impose a restrictive test of foreseeability in which the specific

mechanism of loss must be foreseeable. As this court stated in Citizens Federal Bank,

“If it was foreseeable that the breach would cause the other party to obtain additional

capital, there is no requirement that the particular method used to raise that capital or its

consequences also be foreseeable.” 474 F.3d at 1321.

In light of the applicable test, the trial court did not commit clear error in finding

that Anchor’s loss was foreseeable. As the trial court found (and the government does

not dispute), the government expected that Anchor would “take advantage of the special

treatment of supervisory goodwill to acquire additional assets, grow the bank, and

generate new profits that would fill the capital void created by the annual amortization of

goodwill.” Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 79. The evidence also supports the court’s conclusion

that it was foreseeable that the withdrawal of favorable regulatory treatment for goodwill

2008-5175, -5182 13
would deprive Anchor of capital, that Anchor would have difficulty or be delayed in

raising the required capital, and that Anchor would therefore have “to sacrifice assets

and forgo the very profit opportunity that made the contracts appealing in the first

place.” Id. at 78-79; see also Restatement § 351 cmt. e (where “the lender has reason

to foresee that the borrower will be unable to borrow elsewhere or will be delayed in

borrowing elsewhere, the lender may be liable for much heavier damages based on the

borrower’s inability to take advantage of a specific opportunity . . . , his having to

postpone or abandon a profitable project . . . , or his forfeiture of security for failure to

make prompt payment”).

The evidence also shows that the specific type of investment made by Anchor

was among the options available to Anchor at the time of contracting. As the market for

private MBS issuers was emerging and thriving during that period, it was reasonable to

expect that thrifts would gravitate toward that industry, as they were already familiar with

many aspects of that trade. The government even sold Anchor a mortgage-banking

enterprise (Suburban, later AMS) through one of the early supervisory mergers. Anchor

described that acquisition in its 1983 Annual Report as a means of “positioning itself for

a major entrance into nationwide mortgage origination and secondary market activity.”

A memorandum from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to Anchor describing the

large amount of new capital needed to sustain and grow Suburban is a further indication

that the government was aware that Anchor was becoming more involved in that type of

capital-intensive business. In light of that evidence, we reject the government’s

contention that the trial court committed clear error in finding the type of Anchor’s

damages to be foreseeable.

2008-5175, -5182 14
 We also sustain the trial court’s finding that the magnitude of Anchor’s damages

was foreseeable. See Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 79 (finding that the “sheer volume of

goodwill” rendered the magnitude of the lost profits from RFC’s sale foreseeable). This

case involved an exceptionally large amount of supervisory goodwill. The court found

that the contracts, which provided Anchor with more than $550 million in regulatory

capital, permitted it to leverage more than ten billion dollars in assets while still meeting

its regulatory capital requirements. Id. Moreover, as the court noted, the supervisory

mergers at issue did not involve “small ‘mom and pop’ thrifts or single-branch

institutions”; the agreements constituted “big business.” Id. Anchor was expected to

contribute nearly $80 million to Suburban alone over a six-year period, and the acquired

thrift was expected to experience nearly $100 million in losses during that same period.

In light of that substantial anticipated commitment, it was reasonable for the trial court to

conclude that the government expected that Anchor would use each dollar of regulatory

capital allotted to create a dollar of capital through future profits. Id. at 81. The trial

court thus did not commit clear error in finding that it was foreseeable that the breach

would result in lost profits to Anchor in an amount commensurate with the ultimate

award for lost profits. 3

3
We also reject the government’s argument that RFC’s post-sale profits were
not foreseeable because they exceeded contemporaneous estimates of RFC’s value,
based on a preliminary, non-binding 1988 merger offer of $170 million for Anchor as a
whole. The trial court found “little evidence to suggest that the $170 million . . . offered
for the entire Anchor franchise was probative of the bank’s value at the time.” Anchor,
81 Fed. Cl. at 54. According to the court, the government did not present credible
evidence that Anchor could not have exacted a higher price, or that no other potential
buyers might have made an offer. In addition, a shareholder lawsuit challenged the
offer as “substantially below [Anchor’s] fair or inherent value.”

2008-5175, -5182 15
 B

The government next asserts that the trial court erred when it found that the

breaching provisions of FIRREA, which deprived Anchor of more than $500 million in

regulatory capital, caused Anchor to sell RFC. The government asserts that, even

absent the breach, Anchor would have sold RFC because the risk-based capital

requirements that were enacted as part of FIRREA (and did not breach the supervisory

merger agreements) would have made it impossible for Anchor to operate RFC

profitably. Under the risk-based capital provisions, a thrift was required to “risk-weigh”

its assets, so that a smaller percentage of “riskier” assets could be counted toward its

regulatory capital obligations. That requirement was a particular problem for RFC,

which relied on a senior/subordinated MBS structure in which the securities in the

subordinated class absorbed a large percentage of the risk, were of non-investment

grade, and were frequently held for extended periods for “credit enhancement”

purposes.

The trial court disagreed with the government’s contention that it was the risk-

based capital requirements that caused Anchor to sell RFC, rather than the changes in

the treatment of supervisory goodwill. The court made detailed findings as to that issue,

devoting 16 pages of its opinion to its findings on causation and another 20 pages to its

discussion of the expert testimony regarding Anchor’s ability to retain and operate RFC

in a hypothetical non-breach world. Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 59-75, 98-117.

Causation is an “intensely factual determination.” Cal. Fed. Bank, 395 F.3d at

1270. While a “causal connection between the breach and the loss of profits must be

definitely established,” id. at 1268, the breach need not be the sole factor or the sole

2008-5175, -5182 16
cause of the plaintiff’s loss. Although a plaintiff may recover only for those losses that

would not have occurred but for the breach, “[t]he existence of other factors operating in

confluence with the breach will not necessarily preclude recovery based on the breach.”

Id.

We find no clear error in the trial court’s determination that Anchor established a

causal connection between the government’s breach and the sale of RFC. The court’s

findings are well supported by the record and reflect a careful weighing of documentary

and expert evidence. The court relied on contemporaneous documents and “highly

credible” testimony from Anchor and RFC officials, which revealed that Anchor never

planned to sell RFC unless absolutely necessary, because RFC was performing well

beyond Anchor’s expectations and provided Anchor with its pick of “spectacular” quality

loans. Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 60-61. Even with the threat of FIRREA looming in mid-

1989, Anchor’s contemporaneous documents describe the sale of RFC as merely a

“[b]ack up plan” and note that RFC “continues to fly” and is “authorized to double its

volume in 1990.” The documents support the trial court’s conclusion that only after the

full extent of FIRREA’s impact became known—including its effect in creating an

enormous capital shortfall for Anchor—did Anchor’s management conclude that the sale

of RFC was necessary as part of company-wide “triage” efforts. Id. at 60, 68.

The evidence also supports the trial court’s finding that the “risk-based capital

provisions required the sale of RFC only because of Anchor’s capital deficiency

resulting from the breach.” Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 70. In other words, but for the

breach, Anchor’s supervisory goodwill would have given it an ample capital cushion with

which to continue operating RFC even under the risk-based capital regime. The

2008-5175, -5182 17
government’s own expert acknowledged that, absent the breach, Anchor would have

been well capitalized (and able to absorb additional assets) when the risk-based capital

provisions went into effect. Anchor’s MBS expert, Mr. Lederman, whose testimony the

trial court deemed “extremely credible,” explained that Anchor and RFC could have

employed other credit enhancement options (besides retaining the subordinated

securities) by selling the subordinated pieces into the secondary market or using pool

insurance to credit enhance the securities. The trial court was entitled to weigh the

competing expert testimony on that issue and find Anchor’s evidence more persuasive.

The government asserts that in a non-breach world Anchor and RFC would not

or could not have implemented Mr. Lederman’s suggestions of eliminating the risky “B”

pieces and purchasing pool insurance as a means of dealing with the risk-based capital

requirements. Contrary to the government’s contention, not only were Anchor and RFC

aware of Mr. Lederman’s options for alternative credit enhancement, but they had

actually used both measures prior to the sale of RFC. RFC sold $66 million in “B”

pieces in early 1990. Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 71 (citing Mr. Lederman’s testimony that

his own investment company participated in the purchase of all of those “B” pieces). In

addition, Mr. Lederman testified that RFC had used pool insurance in 1989, after the

enactment of FIRREA. Id. Documents from March and December 1989 confirm that

RFC considered, and ultimately used, pool insurance in at least 37 different

transactions.

Finally, it was not error for the trial court to discount the government’s evidence

purporting to show that Anchor sold RFC because of the risk-based capital

requirements. The government introduced evidence that Anchor’s executives had

2008-5175, -5182 18
made public statements, including a 1991 filing with the Securities and Exchange

Commission, suggesting that it was the risk-based capital requirements that caused

RFC’s sale. The trial court, however, noted that it had difficulty evaluating those

documents, particularly in light of credible contrary testimony by Anchor’s witnesses,

because the government never presented the documents to Anchor’s witnesses at trial.

Moreover, the court observed that nearly all of Anchor’s public statements (including its

SEC filing) were made after the breach and must be read in the context of Anchor’s

severely impaired capital position. The post-breach statements thus shed no light on

whether the risk-based provisions would have forced the sale in the absence of any loss

of supervisory goodwill. In fact, the statements are consistent with the court’s finding

that, while the risk-based capital requirements operated in confluence with the breach,

Anchor’s post-breach, impaired capital condition was the but-for cause of RFC’s sale. 4

We thus uphold the trial court’s finding of a causal connection between the

government’s breach of contract and Anchor’s sale of RFC.

C

The government argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law by measuring

damages based on the profits RFC earned after Anchor sold it. According to the

4
For a similar reason, we reject the government’s argument that the trial
court’s position is internally inconsistent because “the court found that a capital shortage
forced Anchor to cease an activity that the trial court found Anchor could have continued
without additional capital.” The court’s suggestion that Anchor could have eliminated
most of its recourse, and thus could have continued to operate RFC absent a breach,
does not compel the conclusion that the breach had no effect on Anchor’s ability to
retain RFC. As the court found, Anchor’s breach-induced capital deficit necessitated a
swift shedding of assets, which included assets that Anchor could have retained if it had
had to contend only with FIRREA’s risk-based capital requirements.

2008-5175, -5182 19
government, damages should have been measured based on RFC’s market value at

the time of the contract breach or RFC’s sale.

The trial court first addressed whether to measure damages based on RFC’s fair

market value at the time of its sale to GMAC shortly after the breach. The court noted

that, in early 1990, Goldman Sachs valued RFC at approximately $60-70 million, which

is consistent with the $64.4 million price paid for RFC in March 1990. Nevertheless, the

court concluded that the Goldman Sachs appraisal did not reflect RFC’s fair market

value because in the tumultuous post-FIRREA climate all prospective buyers knew that

Anchor was desperate to sell RFC quickly. Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 86-87.

The court then addressed whether to measure damages based on RFC’s post-

breach profits as a GMAC subsidiary. The court concluded that the latter method was

more reliable, particularly because, after its acquisition by GMAC, RFC continued to

operate under largely the same management and in accordance with the business plan

developed under Anchor. The court concluded that “where the goal of the contracts

was to enable the plaintiffs to generate ongoing profits that would, over time, fill the

shortfall between the various acquired institutions’ assets and liabilities, it seems

especially and unreasonably static and wooden to limit the expectation interest to the

then-present value of individual assets.” Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 89.

The government argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law by

considering post-breach evidence of damages, when the only relevant evidence

concerns RFC’s market value at the time of the March 1990 sale. The government cites

this court’s decision in First Federal Lincoln Bank v. United States, 518 F.3d 1308 (Fed.

Cir. 2008), for the proposition that damages for the loss of “income-generating property”

2008-5175, -5182 20
must be measured by the asset’s market value as of the time the property is lost, not by

the loss of the profits the asset could have produced in the future. Id. at 1317.

According to the government’s theory, the market valuation should already reflect RFC’s

expected future risks and future profit stream. While the trial court did not consider

Lincoln, which issued just nine days before its own opinion, we conclude that the trial

court’s approach is consistent with our precedent, including Lincoln.

In Lincoln, this court reviewed a damages award to a thrift that had prevailed on

its Winstar-related breach-of-contract claim. 518 F.3d at 1311. The damages were

allegedly incurred when the thrift reduced its deposit base to raise regulatory capital

following the enactment of FIRREA. Although the trial court permitted the plaintiff to

recover the lost value of the deposits as of the time of trial, it rejected the plaintiff’s

theory that it should recover for future lost profits that would have been generated by

the forgone deposits. On appeal, the parties disputed only the ruling as to the claim for

the lost value of the deposits. Characterizing that claim as one “for loss of income-

generating property,” this court stated that “damages for lost income-producing property

is properly determined as of the time the property is lost (usually the time of the breach)

because the market value of the lost property reflects the then-prevailing market

expectation as to the future income potential of the property.” Id. at 1317. For support,

the court cited the Second Circuit’s decision in Schonfeld v. Hilliard, which stated that

[w]hen the defendant’s conduct results in the loss of an income-producing
asset with an ascertainable market value, the most accurate and
immediate measure of damages is the market value of the asset at the
time of breach—not the lost profits that the asset could have produced in
the future.

2008-5175, -5182 21
218 F.3d 164, 176 (2d Cir. 2000). Based on that language, the government argues that

Lincoln adopted the rule that damages for the loss of income-generating assets must

always be measured by the market value of the lost asset at the time it is lost, and

never by evidence of post-breach profits generated by the asset after it has been

purchased by a third party.

The government’s interpretation of Lincoln is incorrect for two reasons. First,

Lincoln recognized two permissible methods of measuring damages: (1) the market

value of a lost income-producing asset (“lost asset” or “lost asset value” damages); and

(2) future lost profits that could have been derived from the lost income-producing asset

(“lost profits” damages). Both Lincoln and Schonfeld discuss the award of lost asset

damages as an alternative to lost profits damages. See Lincoln, 518 F.3d at 1317

(“First Federal has [correctly] recognized that ‘The Trial Court Awarded Damages Based

on the Value of the Foregone Deposits, Not the Earnings that the Foregone Deposits

Would have Generated.’”); Schonfeld, 218 F.3d at 176 (“Although lost profits and . . .

lost asset damages are both consequential, rather than general, in nature, courts have

universally recognized that they are separate and distinct categories of damages.”).

Neither decision mandates that one measurement method must invariably be used, as

opposed to the other.

Second, the procedural posture and factual circumstances of Lincoln differ from

those in the present case. In Lincoln, only lost asset damages were at issue on appeal.

The plaintiff did not appeal the denial of lost profits damages, which the trial court had

considered and rejected as speculative. Lincoln, 518 F.3d at 1315, 1317. Therefore,

Lincoln’s focus on a market value measurement stemmed from the posture of that case,

2008-5175, -5182 22
not from any conclusion that market value was the only permissible method of

measuring damages under the law. 5 Moreover, rather than favoring one method of

measuring damages over the other, Lincoln focused more specifically on the proper

timing of the damages measurement, ruling that the trial court had erred in valuing the

lost deposits as of the date of trial rather than the date the breach. Id. at 1317-18.

Neither Lincoln nor any of our other Winstar decisions bars the court from

considering post-breach evidence in determining the quantum of a lost profits award.

As we have repeatedly recognized, the rule favoring the measurement of damages as

of the time of the breach “does not apply . . . to anticipated profits or to other expectancy

damages that, absent the breach, would have accrued on an ongoing basis over the

course of the contract. In those circumstances, damages are measured throughout the

course of the contract.” Energy Capital Corp., 302 F.3d at 1330; see also Lincoln, 518

F.3d at 1316. Likewise, our decision in Fifth Third Bank, issued shortly after Lincoln,

recognized that “strict application of the [time-of-breach] rule may not result in the most

accurate assessment of expectancy damages.” 518 F.3d at 1377. Thus, where it is

necessary to fashion an appropriate award, a court “may consider post-breach evidence

when determining damages in order to place the non-breaching party in as good a

position as he would have been had the contract been performed.” Id.; see also Cal.

Fed. Bank, 245 F.3d at 1349-50 (reversing award of summary judgment for defendant

and remanding because plaintiff’s evidence, including the actual post-sale performance

5
In Schonfeld, the Second Circuit likewise discussed the measurement of lost
asset damages only after reviewing and affirming the trial court’s determination that the
plaintiff’s separate lost profits claim was too speculative. 218 F.3d 164, 172-76.

2008-5175, -5182 23
of assets the plaintiff was forced to sell, created a genuine issue of material fact as to

the existence and quantum of lost profits).

That is particularly apt to be true where, as here, the court is required to choose

between (1) equivocal evidence as to the market value of an income-generating asset

many years earlier, unenhanced by interest, and (2) reliable evidence as to the actual

earnings the asset would have produced over the pertinent period. Notably, this is not a

case in which the government’s breach forced Anchor to sell RFC but left it free to

invest the proceeds of the sale in another equally profitable income-generating asset, so

that the forced sale would in theory produce little by way of damages. In this case, by

requiring Anchor to sell RFC in order to buttress its capital accounts, the breach

deprived Anchor of the profits it would have obtained from retaining RFC while at the

same time preventing Anchor from investing the proceeds of the RFC sale in a similarly

profitable enterprise. In effect, that meant that the proceeds of the RFC sale lost much

of their value as a potential source of profit, and thus that the difference between the fair

market value of RFC and the proceeds from the sale was not necessarily a reliable

measure of Anchor’s loss from the breach.

The trial court, which presided over the five-week-long trial on damages and was

intimately familiar with the circumstances of the breach and the parties’ competing

arguments, considered the two permissible methods of calculating damages—lost asset

value and lost profits. It also reviewed extensive documentary and testimonial evidence

and weighed the relevant expert analysis. Ultimately, the court concluded that the most

accurate approach was to base the award of damages on RFC’s actual post-breach

2008-5175, -5182 24
profits under GMAC. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in measuring

Anchor’s damages by the post-breach profits generated by RFC. 6

Quite apart from the unsuitability of RFC’s fair market value to provide full

compensation to Anchor for the breach, the evidence supports the trial court’s finding

that the $64.4 million estimate of RFC’s value was likely a substantial undervaluation of

RFC’s fair market value on the date of sale. As the Supreme Court has held, “fair

market value presumes conditions that, by definition, simply do not obtain in the context

of a forced sale.” BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 538 (1994). Those

conditions include a price “fixed by negotiation and mutual agreement, after ample time

to find a purchaser, as between a vendor who is willing (but not compelled) to sell and a

purchaser who desires to buy but is not compelled to take the particular . . . piece of

property.” Id. at 538. Here, the evidence suggests that “RFC was sold in a veritable fire

sale” and that there was “blood in the water,” because potential buyers knew of

Anchor’s need to sell RFC. Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 63, 87. Contrary to the government’s

argument, the trial court reasonably concluded that assessing RFC’s fair market value

at the time of the breach would have been a more speculative means of measuring

Anchor’s damages than looking to RFC’s actual post-breach profits.

The record also reflects that the trial court carefully weighed the pertinent expert

testimony. While acknowledging that Anchor’s damages model was not a perfect proxy

for the profits that an Anchor-owned RFC (as opposed to a GMAC-owned RFC) would

6
The government argues that Lincoln also bars the trial court’s award of $42
million for lost stock proceeds, which was based on RFC’s post-sale profits. Because
we disagree with the government’s interpretation of Lincoln, and because the
government has not offered any other specific reason to question that component of the
court’s damages award, we reject the government’s argument.

2008-5175, -5182 25
have earned, the court concluded that it nevertheless provided “a concrete, reasonable

and appropriate model” by which to develop a “sound and appropriate” damages award.

Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 107-08. The evidence showed that, even after its sale to GMAC,

RFC’s management team remained in place and that RFC followed the same business

plan it had developed under Anchor, including entering into all the new lines of business

it had planned to enter under Anchor. Id. at 118.

Where “reasonable certainty” as to lost profits was established, such as for the

1990 to 1995 period, the trial court used Anchor’s damages model. However, where the

model broke down, such as for 1996 and 1997, the trial court denied lost profits, instead

crediting the government’s argument that RFC’s large post-1995 increase in volume, if

risk-weighted under FIRREA, would have caused Anchor to incur a capital deficiency.

Id. at 121. We conclude that the trial court’s findings and analysis are reasonable and

well supported by the record. Accordingly, we uphold the trial court’s award of the lost

profits damages attributable to Anchor’s forced sale of RFC.

II

The government challenges the trial court’s decision to award damages based on

the amount paid by Anchor/Dime to purchase NAMCO in 1997. The government

asserts that the trial court erred when it found that Anchor’s purchase of NAMCO

constituted a compensable form of mitigation for the loss of RFC. While the

government does not dispute either the trial court’s application of the mitigation doctrine

or its calculation of mitigation costs, the government contests the court’s finding that

NAMCO constituted a commercially reasonable substitute for RFC.

2008-5175, -5182 26
 As the trial court noted, our decision in Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v.

United States, 271 F.3d 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2001), likened damages for substitute goods or

performance to the Uniform Commercial Code concept of “cover.” Regarding the types

of goods or services that constitute “cover,” or mitigation, we held:

The substitute goods or services involved in cover need not be identical to
those involved in the contract, but they must be “commercially usable as
reasonable substitutes under the circumstances.” Whether cover provides
a reasonable substitute under the circumstances is a question of fact.

Id. at 1066 (citing U.C.C. § 2-712 cmt. 2 (1997)). Under that standard, a court must

determine what a reasonable person in the non-breaching party’s position would

consider to be commercially useable as a substitute, in light of the particular

circumstances of the transaction. Following that approach, the trial court focused on the

reasonableness of NAMCO as a substitute for RFC, given Anchor’s business purposes

and needs. We conclude that the court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.

The trial court found that NAMCO was an appropriate substitute for RFC.

According to the court, the two companies “are functionally similar, operate in the same

market, require similar skills to effectively operate, and provide many similar operational

benefits.” Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 126. Both originated mortgages nationally and in large

volume; both sold a majority of mortgages into the secondary market, while providing

Anchor the opportunity to cherry-pick a preferred handful of mortgages to be held in

portfolio; both generated servicing rights that led to steady servicing fee income; and

both were a source of interest-free financing for Anchor. Id. at 130. Moreover, NAMCO

and RFC were similar in size with respect to the volume of their originations and

earnings. Id. Even the government’s expert, Dr. Carron, conceded that NAMCO and

RFC brought the same functional attributes and benefits to Anchor and served the same

2008-5175, -5182 27
needs. Id. at 132. The trial court gave weight to the similarities between the

companies, while regarding the “slightly different product focuses” as less significant.

Id. at 132.

The government maintains that NAMCO and RFC were fundamentally different

businesses that operated in different markets. RFC issued private-label MBS (for which

RFC provided credit enhancement), whereas NAMCO issued only agency-sponsored

MBS (for which government-sponsored entities provided credit enhancement). RFC did

not directly make loans, whereas NAMCO did so for a certain percentage of its

mortgages. RFC maintained no direct contact with borrowers, whereas NAMCO

maintained contact with some borrowers to service the loans it originated. According to

the government, the trial court’s conclusion that those differences were only a matter of

“product focus” fails to acknowledge that NAMCO and RFC were in different businesses

altogether.

The trial court’s findings as to the significance of the differences between the two

companies are not clearly erroneous. The court considered and analyzed each point

raised by the government. It noted, for example, that most of NAMCO’s mortgages

were wholesale originations, like RFC’s mortgages, and that both NAMCO and RFC

engaged in servicing and generating servicing income, albeit at different ends of the

“servicing spectrum.” See Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 130-32. The court also pointed to

considerable evidentiary support for its conclusion that the similarities between NAMCO

and RFC outweighed the differences between the two companies. See id. at 126, 129-

30 (discussing documents and testimony describing NAMCO’s large geographic

2008-5175, -5182 28
presence, significant proportion of wholesale mortgage originations, and reliable non-

interest revenue streams).

Under the mitigation standard articulated by this court, the substitute services

“need not be identical,” but merely a “reasonable” replacement in light of the particular

circumstances. Hughes, 271 F.3d at 1066. While NAMCO and RFC may not have

served identical markets or used identical strategies, they were both major players in

the secondary mortgage market that Anchor sought to re-enter, generating interest-rate-

independent servicing fees and allowing Anchor to diversify its portfolio and its risk. The

court therefore permissibly concluded that NAMCO was a reasonable commercial

substitute for RFC, and its purchase thus qualified as mitigation for the loss of RFC.

III

In light of our conclusion that the trial court did not err in measuring and awarding

expectancy damages, we need not address Anchor’s conditional cross-appeal seeking

reliance damages. Anchor’s remaining argument on cross-appeal concerns a purported

“calculation error” by the trial court in the portion of the award relating to mitigation

damages.

After concluding in its mitigation analysis that NAMCO was a reasonable

substitute for RFC, the trial court quantified Anchor’s costs associated with acquiring

NAMCO. The court agreed with the government that the purchase price of $351 million

was partially duplicative of Anchor’s 1990 to 1997 lost profits claim. That is because

NAMCO traditionally distributed very little of its profits to shareholders as dividends, and

the amount of shareholders’ equity consisting of retained earnings increased each year.

The trial court credited the government’s expert’s conclusion that

2008-5175, -5182 29
 [i]f the court were to award plaintiff damages based on RFC’s lost profits
from 1990 to 1997, it would be duplicative to also reimburse the full
purchase price of NAMCO since much of that purchase price simply
liquidated the shareholder equity (including retained earnings) that built up
over the same 1990-97 period. In other words, such a damage award
would provide plaintiff with RFC’s profits and NAMCO’s profits over the
same period.

Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 133. As a result, the court reduced the $351 million purchase

price to $185.9 million, which was shown (in Dime’s 1997 Annual Report) to be the

“premium” that Anchor paid, over and above accumulated assets. The trial court

concluded that the $165.1 million reduction constituted a “conservative best estimate” of

the offset for NAMCO’s retained earnings (i.e., the duplicate profit for 1990-97). Id. at

134. The court did not address or make any adjustment for the fact that it had only

awarded RFC-related lost profits for 1990 to 1995.

Anchor argues that because the court declined to award any RFC-related lost

profits damages for the years 1996 and 1997, it should not have reduced NAMCO’s

purchase price by the amount of NAMCO’s retained earnings through 1997. Anchor

asserts that a proper offset would reduce NAMCO’s purchase price only by its retained

earnings through 1995. According to Anchor, there is no need for a remand on this

issue, because the proper “correction” amount is clear from the record. Anchor

calculates that amount by subtracting NAMCO’s retained earnings through 1995

($101,909,000, according to NAMCO’s 1996 Annual Report) from the trial court’s “best

estimate” of retained earnings through 1997 ($165,100,000). Thus, Anchor requests

that we increase its damages by $63,191,000, for a total award of mitigation costs of

$249,091,000.

2008-5175, -5182 30
 It appears that the trial court may have reduced Anchor’s mitigation costs to

avoid a “double counting” that did not actually occur. As we understand it, the trial court

determined that Anchor would have been entitled to recover the full purchase price of

NAMCO, were it not for a concern about double counting profits from both RFC and

NAMCO during “the same 1990-97 period.” See Anchor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 133. However,

because no lost profits were awarded for 1996 and 1997, there could have been no

double recovery that would justify extending the offset of mitigation damages to those

years.

Nevertheless, we are not sufficiently confident that our assessment comports

with the trial court’s methodology and intent, or that Anchor’s proposed correction would

appropriately and reliably “correct” the error, if any. In fact, Anchor’s calculation mixes a

precise figure (derived from the NAMCO annual report) with an admittedly imprecise

“estimate” by the trial court. Thus, while it appears possible that a correction is

warranted, it also appears possible that no correction is required—either because the

trial court’s mitigation estimate was “close enough” or because the trial court’s full 1990-

97 offset was made deliberately and appropriately in the first instance. On the

information before us, we cannot make that determination. We therefore remand to the

Court of Federal Claims to allow that court to determine whether an error was made in

offsetting Anchor’s mitigation costs by NAMCO’s retained earnings through 1997 (rather

than through 1995) and, if so, how to correct that error.

AFFIRMED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART.

2008-5175, -5182 31