<PAGE>

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D. C. 20549

                                    FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

(x)  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2002
        OR
( )  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _________________ to __________________

                        Commission file number 333-44155
                        ---------------------------------
            COAST FEDERAL LITIGATION CONTINGENT PAYMENT RIGHTS TRUST
            --------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

          DELAWARE                                      13-7140975
- ---------------------------------                  -------------------
(State or other jurisdiction of                      (I.R.S. Employer
Incorporation or organization)                     Identification No.)

E.A. Delle Donne Corporate Center, Montgomery Building, 1011 Centre Road,
Wilmington, Delaware                                         19805-1266
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Address of principal executive offices)                    (Zip Code)

                                 (302) 636-3300
              ----------------------------------------------------
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last
report.)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days. Yes (X) No ( )

As of May 7, 2002 the registrant had 20,703,817 Contingent Payment Rights
Certificates, no par value, outstanding.

<PAGE>


PART I  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


            COAST FEDERAL LITIGATION CONTINGENT PAYMENT RIGHTS TRUST
                   Unaudited Statement of Financial Condition


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             March 31,    December 31,
ASSETS                                                         2002          2001
                                                          -------------   -------------
<S>                                                       <C>             <C>
Cash in bank                                              $  4,443,399    $  4,771,756
Other assets                                                   188,309         238,439
                                                          -------------   -------------

     Total Assets                                         $  4,631,708    $  5,010,195
                                                          =============   =============

LIABILITIES AND CERTIFICATEHOLDERS' EQUITY
Expense fund                                              $ 19,884,294    $ 19,884,294
Deferred litigation trustee fees                             2,585,000       2,300,000
Other liabilities                                            5,182,639       4,800,826
                                                          -------------   -------------

     Total Liabilities                                      27,651,933      26,985,120
                                                          -------------   -------------
Certificateholders' Equity
     Certificates, no par value, 20,703,817 authorized,
          issued and outstanding                                    --              --
     Accumulated deficit                                   (23,020,225)    (21,974,925)
                                                          -------------   -------------

          Total Certificateholders' Equity                 (23,020,225)    (21,974,925)
                                                          -------------   -------------

                                                          $  4,631,708    $  5,010,195
                                                          =============   =============
</TABLE>


See accompanying Notes to Unaudited Financial Statements.

<PAGE>


            COAST FEDERAL LITIGATION CONTINGENT PAYMENT RIGHTS TRUST
                        Unaudited Statement of Operations

                                                Three Months Ended March 31,
                                              -------------------------------
                                                    2002               2001
                                              ------------      -------------
REVENUE                                       $         -        $         -
                                              ------------      -------------
EXPENSES
Litigation trustee fees                          (400,000)          (400,000)
Legal fees                                        (96,068)          (177,374)
Litigation consulting - expert witnesses                -            (55,305)
Litigation and trust administration               (65,000)           (65,000)
Interest expense                                 (400,391)          (485,530)
Premises and equipment                            (12,900)           (12,900)
Insurance                                         (50,705)           (50,665)
Other                                             (20,236)           (37,596)
                                              ------------      -------------

     Total Expenses                            (1,045,300)        (1,284,370)
                                              ------------      -------------
          Net Loss                            $(1,045,300)       $(1,284,370)
                                              ============      =============
          Net Loss Per Certificate            $     (0.05)       $     (0.06)
                                              ============      =============


See accompanying Notes to Unaudited Financial Statements.

                                       3

<PAGE>



            COAST FEDERAL LITIGATION CONTINGENT PAYMENT RIGHTS TRUST
                        Unaudited Statement of Cash Flows


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                ----------------------------------
                                                                      2002              2001
                                                                ---------------   ----------------
<S>                                                             <C>               <C>
Cash flows from operating activities:
     Net loss                                                   $ (1,045,300)        $ (1,284,370)
                                                                ---------------   ----------------
     Adjustments to reconcile net loss to cash used in
          operating activities:
          Decrease in other assets                                    50,130               50,130
          Increase in deferred litigation trustee fees               285,000              150,000
          Increase in other liabilities                              381,813              349,869
                                                                 --------------    ---------------
               Total adjustments                                     716,943              549,999
                                                                 --------------    ---------------
               Net cash used in operating activities                (328,357)            (734,371)

Cash at beginning of period                                        4,771,756            6,951,030
                                                                 --------------    ---------------
Cash at end of period                                            $ 4,443,399          $ 6,216,659
                                                                 ==============    ===============
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
     Cash paid during the period for interest                    $         -          $         -
                                                                 ==============    ===============
</TABLE>


See accompanying Notes to Unaudited Financial Statements.

                                       4

<PAGE>


            COAST FEDERAL LITIGATION CONTINGENT PAYMENT RIGHTS TRUST
                     Notes to Unaudited Financial Statements
                                 March 31, 2002

The Coast Federal Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust (the "CPR Trust")
is a statutory business trust created under Delaware law on January 8, 1998. The
CPR Trust was created by Coast Savings Financial, Inc. ("Coast") in connection
with its merger, effected on February 13, 1998, with and into H. F. Ahmanson &
Co. For a further description of the CPR Trust, see Item 2 herein, "Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -
General."

The unaudited financial statements of the CPR Trust included herein reflect all
adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, which are, in the
opinion of the Litigation Trustees, necessary to present a fair statement of the
results for the interim periods indicated. The Litigation Trustees are the four
senior executives of Coast with knowledge of the facts underlying the
Litigation, which were retained by the CPR Trust as "Litigation Trustees."
Certain information and note disclosures normally included in financial
statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The results of operations for the three
months ended March 31, 2002, are not necessarily indicative of the results of
operations to be expected for the remainder of the year.

These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial
statements and notes thereto included in the CPR Trust's annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                       5

<PAGE>

Item 2.   MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
          AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 with respect to the CPR Certificates referred to herein
filed by Coast Savings Financial, Inc. ("Coast") with, and declared effective
by, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on January 13, 1998 (SEC
File Number 333-44155).

GENERAL

The Coast Federal Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust (the "CPR Trust")
is a statutory business trust created under Delaware law on January 8, 1998. The
CPR Trust was created by Coast in connection with its merger, effected on
February 13, 1998 (the "Merger"), with and into H. F. Ahmanson & Co.
("Ahmanson"), for the purpose of holding the Commitment Agreement entered into
by Ahmanson and the CPR Trust, dated as of February 13, 1998 (the "Commitment").
The Commitment represents Ahmanson's obligation to pay to the CPR Trust an
amount equal to any net after-tax proceeds, as more particularly defined in the
CPR Trust Agreement referred to below (the "Commitment Amount"), that may be
received by Coast's wholly-owned subsidiary, Coast Federal Bank, FSB ("Coast
Federal") (or its successor), from Coast Federal's regulatory capital litigation
claims against the United States government in the case entitled Coast Federal
Bank, FSB v. United States, No. 92-466C (Cl. Ct. filed July 9, 1992) (the
"Litigation"). Subsequent to the merger, Ahmanson merged Coast Federal with and
into Ahmanson's wholly-owned subsidiary, Home Savings of America, FSB ("Home
Savings"), with Home Savings being the successor institution. Ahmanson merged
into Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WAMU") on October 3, 1998, and Home Savings was
thereafter merged into WAMU's wholly-owned subsidiary, Washington Mutual Bank,
F.A. ("Washington Mutual").

The governing instrument of the CPR Trust is the Amended and Restated
Declaration of Trust, dated as of February 13, 1998 (the "CPR Trust Agreement"),
entered into among Coast, the Litigation Trustees, Bankers Trust Company (the
"Institutional Trustee") and Bankers Trust (Delaware) (the "Delaware Trustee").
Pursuant to the CPR Trust Agreement, the four senior executives of Coast with
knowledge of the facts underlying the Litigation were appointed as "Litigation
Trustees" of the CPR Trust, and were given full authority to make all decisions
on behalf of Coast Federal (and its successors) with respect to the prosecution
and resolution of the Litigation.

The assets of the CPR Trust consist solely of the Commitment and the right to
draw on amounts in the Expense Fund for purposes of funding expenses of the CPR
Trust, including expenses of the Litigation, fees and expenses of the Litigation
Trustees and all administrative expenses. Under the CPR Trust Agreement,
Ahmanson agreed to provide the sum of $19,884,294 (which is equal to $20 million
less expenses related to the Litigation incurred by Coast Federal between
September 1, 1997 and February 13, 1998) (the "Expense Fund") to fund the
Litigation and other expenses of the CPR Trust, which amount is to be reimbursed
to Ahmanson from any proceeds of the Litigation, including any amounts received
in settlement of the Litigation, prior to the payment of any amounts to holders
of the Contingent Payment Rights Certificates (the "CPR Certificates"). The
Expense Fund is on deposit in a non-interest bearing demand deposit account in
the name of the CPR Trust at Washington Mutual.

                                       6

<PAGE>

Within 60 days of the receipt of any Commitment Amount, the CPR Trust is
required under the CPR Trust Agreement to pay such amounts (other than $10
million or such greater amount as the Litigation Trustees reasonably determine
may be reasonably likely to be required to pay additional expenses or to satisfy
the CPR Trust's indemnification obligations (the "Retained Amount")) less the
amount of any accrued but unpaid expenses payable by the CPR Trust but not
covered by the Expense Fund, to the holders of the CPR Certificates as of a
record date to be set by the Litigation Trustees. The Retained Amount will be
retained for a period of two years, or such longer period as the Litigation
Trustees reasonably determine may be required.

THE LITIGATION

The following description of the Litigation does not purport to be a complete
description of the legal and factual issues presented, the court opinions
rendered or the relevant law, and the description is in all respects qualified
by reference to the documents filed in the Litigation, such opinions and the
relevant law.

On July 9, 1992, Coast Federal commenced litigation entitled Coast Federal Bank,
Federal Savings Bank v. United States, Civil Action Number 92-466C, against the
United States in the U.S. Claims Court (now the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
hereinafter, the "Claims Court") alleging that the United States is in breach of
a contract with Coast Federal and has unlawfully taken Coast Federal's property
without just compensation or due process of law in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.

As further described below, Coast Federal's claims arose from changes with
respect to the rules for computing Coast Federal's regulatory capital that were
mandated by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of
1989 ("FIRREA") and certain regulations promulgated thereunder.

On April 10, 1987, Coast Federal acquired substantially all of the assets and
liabilities of Central Savings and Loan Association ("Central") from the Federal
Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (the "FSLIC") in a supervisory
transaction (the "Acquisition") that Coast Federal alleges was induced and
arranged by the FSLIC and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board ("FHLBB"). As part of
the Acquisition, Coast Federal entered into a contract with the FSLIC (the
"Assistance Agreement") under which the FSLIC made a cash contribution to Coast
Federal in the amount of $298.3 million (the "Capital Credit"). In the
Litigation, Coast Federal alleges that the Assistance Agreement and certain
resolutions and a forbearance letter issued by the FHLBB in connection with the
Assistance Agreement each expressly provided that the Capital Credit was to be
treated as a permanent addition to Coast Federal's regulatory capital. Coast
Federal further alleges that such treatment of the Capital Credit for regulatory
capital purposes was essential to inducing Coast Federal to consummate the
Acquisition.

Pursuant to FIRREA, which became effective on August 9, 1989, the FSLIC and the
FHLBB were eliminated and were replaced as the regulators of federally insured
savings institutions by the Office of Thrift Supervision (the "OTS"). In
regulations implementing FIRREA (the "Capital Regulations") and subsequent
actions, the OTS took the position that the Capital Credit should be classified
as supervisory goodwill, as defined in the Capital Regulations, which action
resulted in an immediate exclusion of the Capital Credit from one of the three
measures of Coast Federal's regulatory capital, and effected a five-year phase-
out of the Capital Credit from such inclusion in the other two measures.

                                       7

<PAGE>

Coast Federal alleges that FIRREA and the Capital Regulations constituted a
breach by the United States of its contractual commitment regarding the
regulatory capital treatment of the Capital Credit and an unlawful taking of
Coast Federal's property rights in the Capital Credit. Coast Federal seeks
damages for this breach of the contract by the United States.

SIMILAR LITIGATION

The Litigation is one of a number of cases filed against the federal government
in the Claims Court involving acquisitions of failed or distressed savings
institutions and alleging that the changes in regulatory capital calculations
brought about by FIRREA and the Capital Regulations constitute a breach of the
contract between the acquiring party and the federal government. For purposes of
the administration of such claims, the Claims Court bifurcated the trial
proceedings in the first three of such cases to be heard by it (Winstar
Corporation, et al. v. United States, Docket No. 90-8C; Statesman Savings
Holding Corp., et al. v. United States, Docket No. 90-773C (the "Statesman
Case"); and Glendale Federal Bank v. United States, Docket No. 90-772C (the
"Glendale Case")(which cases are collectively referred to herein as the "Related
Cases"). In July 1992, the Claims Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the
Related Cases on the initial question of liability, finding in each case that
the plaintiff had a contract as alleged with the federal government and that the
federal government is in breach of that contract as a result of the enactment of
FIRREA and the issuance of the Capital Regulations thereunder. The decision of
the Claims Court on liability was appealed by the federal government. After
extended appellate proceedings, culminating in an appeal to the Supreme Court,
the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Related Cases in
United States v. Winstar Corp., et al., 518 U.S. 839 (1996) (the "Winstar
Case").

LIABILITY

The Claims Court stayed proceedings in each of the other cases against the
federal government, including the Litigation, pending the outcome of the
liability phase of the Related Cases. After the Supreme Court's decision in the
Winstar Case in July of 1996, the stay was lifted and Coast reinstated its
motion for partial summary judgment as to the federal government's liability,
which motion had been pending since March of 1993. On February 20, 1998, the
United States filed its response to Coast Federal's motion. In its response, the
Government stated that "at this point, entry of an order regarding the
Government's liability would be appropriate. We believe that such an order
should reflect the Government's concession that a contract existed with respect
to Coast's claim for a capital credit to its net worth, and that the Government
acted inconsistently with the contract." On March 23, 1998, Judge Smith entered
an order in the Litigation granting Coast Federal's motion for partial summary
judgment as to liability with respect to Coast Federal's claim for a capital
credit to its net worth.

PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO TRIAL

To manage the numerous cases against the federal government involving the
calculation of regulatory capital as a result of the adoption of FIRREA (all
such cases being referred to herein as the "Regulatory Capital Cases"), twelve
of such cases were designated as priority cases (the "Priority Cases") that
would be the first cases to go to trial following the trial on damages in the
Glendale Case. The Litigation was included among the first group of thirty

                                       8

<PAGE>

cases (the "First Group of Thirty Cases") scheduled to go to trial following the
completion of trial in the Priority Cases.

Case specific fact discovery for the First Group of Thirty Cases, including the
Litigation, was substantially completed by July 31, 1999. As of May 1, 2000,
expert witness discovery had been completed by Coast and the government,
concluding the discovery phase of the Litigation.

Pursuant to an Order dated July 31, 2000, the Litigation was reassigned from now
Senior Judge Smith to Judge Emily C. Hewitt.

On August 23, 2000, the government filed with the Claims Court a motion seeking
summary judgment denying the damage claims asserted by Coast Federal. The
government sought a summary judgment holding that (i) Coast Federal's expectancy
damages claims are too remote, speculative, uncertain and unforeseeable as a
matter of law, (ii) Coast Federal is barred from recovering expectancy damages
in any event because it failed to mitigate its damages, and (iii) Coast Federal
has overstated the amount of contractual regulatory capital taken from it as a
result of FIRREA because such capital was effectively required under generally
accepted accounting principles to be amortized over a period no greater than
12.7 years and was not a permanent addition to Coast Federal's regulatory
capital. On September 13, 2000, Coast Federal filed an opposition and
cross-motion for partial summary judgment with the Claims Court that asked the
Claims Court to reject the government's motion for summary judgment and
requested that the Claims Court enter partial summary judgment for Coast Federal
that (i) the capital credit received by Coast Federal was a permanent addition
to Coast Federal's regulatory capital, and (ii) the damages suffered by Coast
Federal from the government's breach of contract were foreseeable.

In an order dated December 28, 2000 (the "December 2000 Order"), Judge Hewitt
issued a ruling on the government's motion and Coast Federal's cross-motion for
summary judgment. The Claims Court held in part for the government, ruling that
(i) Coast Federal's capital credit in the amount of $299 million was not a
permanent addition to Coast Federal's regulatory capital and was to have been
amortized over a period of 12.7 years, and (ii) Coast Federal may not claim
increased deposit costs as "wounded bank" damages. Its also held in part for
Coast Federal, ruling that (i) Coast Federal's expectancy damages were not
unforeseeable, and (ii) Coast Federal is not barred from recovering expectancy
damages because of a failure to mitigate.

On January 16, 2001, the government filed a motion for reconsideration and
clarification of the December 2000 Order. The government requested (i) a final
ruling from Judge Hewitt that the "level yield" method of amortization governed
the amortization of Coast Federal's capital credit, (ii) reconsideration of
Judge Hewitt's denial of summary judgment concerning Coast Federal's lost
profits claims in light of the Judge's other rulings and analysis, and (iii)
reconsideration of the Order's forseeability holding because it was based upon
alleged mistakes of fact and errors of law. By a ruling dated February 5, 2001,
Judge Hewitt denied the government's motion for reconsideration.

On January 17, 2001, Coast Federal filed a motion with Judge Hewitt requesting
that Judge Hewitt certify for interlocutory appeal that portion of her December
2000 Order that granted partial summary judgment to the government as to the
duration of Coast Federal's capital credit. Coast Federal sought to appeal Judge
Hewitt's conclusion that Coast Federal's capital credit did not constitute a
permanent credit to its regulatory capital as well as Judge

                                       9

<PAGE>

Hewitt's subsequent determination that the capital credit is required to be
amortized over 12.7 years rather than 25 years. Coast Federal's motion also
requested that all proceedings in the Litigation be stayed pending resolution of
the requested appeal. By a ruling dated February 6, 2001, Judge Hewitt granted
Coast Federal's motion and also stayed all proceedings in the Litigation in the
Claims Court.

On February 16, 2001, Coast Federal filed a petition with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") to hear Coast
Federal's appeal of the December 2000 Order (the "Appeal"), and on February 26,
2001, the government filed an opposition to the petition. By an order dated
April 16, 2001, the Court of Appeals declined to hear the Appeal at that time,
and the Litigation returned to the Claims Court for further proceedings. By
order dated May 4, 2001, Judge Hewitt directed Coast Federal to submit revised
expert reports with the Claims Court by July 1, 2001, that reflect the effects
of the December 2000 on Coast Federal's damages claims.

On June 19, 2001, Coast Federal filed a Second Expert Report with the Court of
Claims (the "Second Report"). The Second Report calculates the damages suffered
by Coast Federal from the breach of its capital credit contract as $53.2
million, if that capital credit is amortized as required by the December 2000
(the "New Damage Claims"). As described in the Second Report, the New Damage
Claims reflect the actual costs to Coast Federal of two debt issuance
transactions in 1992 and 1993 which Coast Federal would not have undertaken but
for the government's breach.

On August 9, 2001, the government filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with
regard to Plaintiff's New Damage Claims disputing the damages set forth in the
Second Report.

On October 2, 2001, Coast Federal filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Claims Court's December 2000 Order holding that Coast Federal's capital credit
in the amount of $299 million was not a permanent addition to Coast Federal's
regulatory capital and was to have been amortized over a period of 12.7 years.
In its motion, Coast Federal stated that it would not be able to prove damages
from the government's breach of Coast Federal's contractual right to a capital
credit if that right was limited as contemplated by the December 2000 Order.
Coast Federal's motion further stated that it understood and contemplated that,
if the Claims Court did not reconsider the December 2000 Order, the Claims Court
would enter a final judgment awarding no damages to Coast Federal, and that
Coast Federal would appeal that judgment for purposes of seeking appellate
review of the December Order.

By order dated October 18, 2001, the Claims Court entered judgment in favor of
the government. The Claims Court ruled that no further proceedings in the Claims
Court were necessary or appropriate in light of Coast Federal's statement that
Coast Federal could not prove damages under its contract with the government as
interpreted by the Claims Court in the December 2000 Order.

On February 4, 2002, Coast Federal filed its appeal with the Court of Appeals
seeking reversal of the December 2000 Order. Coast Federal maintains that it has
a contractual right to a permanent, nonamortizing $299 million capital credit
and that the government's breach of that right inflicted substantial damages
that Coast Federal will pursue in full on remand if the Court of Appeals accepts
Coast Federal's view of the scope of its contractual rights. On March 19, 2002,
the government filed its response to Coast Federal's appeal. In its response,
the government alleges that (i) the Court of Appeals lacks

                                       10

<PAGE>

jurisdiction over the appeal because, the government claims, Coast Federal
failed to prosecute its remaining claim for damages after the December 2000
Order, thus rendering the appeal interlocutory and (ii) the Claims Court
correctly held in its December 2000 Order that all of the goodwill acquired by
Coast Federal in connection with its acquisition of Central was required to be
amortized over a 12.7 year period. Coast Federal filed its reply to the
government's response on April 5, 2002. A three member panel of the Court of
Appeals will establish a date to hear oral argument of the appeal. Following
oral argument, the panel will take the appeal under submission pending its
decision. Coast Federal is unable to predict when the panel will issue its
decision.

If the Court of Appeals upholds the Claims Court's December 2000 Order and Coast
Federal does not seek or does not obtain certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court, no award of monetary damages will be made to Coast Federal, and therefore
no payment from the Trust to certificateholders will be possible. If the Court
of Appeals reverses the Claims Court's December 2000 Order, it is expected that
the Litigation will be remanded to the Claims Court for further proceedings in
accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision reversing the December 2000
Order.

DAMAGES

Each savings institution affected by FIRREA's and the Capital Regulations'
limitation on the inclusion in regulatory capital of supervisory goodwill or
FSLIC capital contributions reacted to the resulting reduction in its regulatory
capital in an individual fashion dictated by the unique facts and circumstances
faced by the institution. Accordingly, the extent and amount of damages awarded
to each institution that has brought an action against the federal government is
expected to be dependent on the specific facts in each case.

Plaintiffs in the Regulatory Capital Cases have tended to pursue recoveries
based on one or more of three alternative theories: (1) expectation damages, (2)
restitution, and (3) reliance damages. It is impractical to provide a full
description of the elements of each of these alternative theories of recovery.
However, the following descriptions are provided for purposes of communicating a
basic understanding of these legal theories.

Expectation damages are generally intended to place the injured party in as good
a position as it would have been in if the contract had been fully performed.
Such damages may include the loss of any monetary benefits that the injured
party would have received in the absence of the breach plus any other losses
caused by the breach, less any costs or losses avoided by the injured party as a
direct result of the breach.

Restitution generally involves restoration to the injured party of any benefits
conferred by it on the breaching party. The injured party's restitution interest
is ordinarily measured by the reasonable value of the benefits conferred by its
performance of the contract on the breaching party, reduced by any benefits
received by the injured party through the breaching party's partial performance.

Reliance damages are generally intended to restore the injured party to the
position it would have been in if the contract had not been made.  Reliance

                                       11

<PAGE>

damages are generally measured by any expenditures made by the injured party in
the course of performance of the contract or as a result of entering into the
contract.

The plaintiff has the burden of proving the amounts of its damages, or the value
of its performance as a basis for restitution, by a preponderance of the
evidence.

On September 29, 1999, Coast Federal filed the first reports of its expert
witnesses (the "First Reports") with the Claims Court. The First Reports
describe the amounts and methods of calculation of the damages which the experts
believed Coast Federal suffered as a result of the government's breach. Coast
Federal's principal expectation damages analysis as set forth in the First
Reports calculated the damages to be not less than $1.397 billion. This
expectation damages analysis included calculations of damages for lost profits,
for the cost of replacing the Capital Credit going forward, for the cost of
capital raised by Coast, and for increased operating costs (such as increased
deposit costs, OTS assessments, and deposit insurance premiums) caused by the
government's breach. An alternative expectation damages analysis set forth in
the First Reports calculated the damages to be $782.1 million, based solely upon
the cost of replacing the Capital Credit in past and future periods. No
calculations for either restitution or reliance damages were included in the
First Reports. The First Reports were attached as exhibits to a filing made on
September 29, 1999, on behalf of Coast Federal with the Claims Court in
Washington, D.C.

On January 27, 2000, the government submitted its own experts' reports on
damages in response to the conclusions set forth in the First Reports of Coast
Federal's experts. The government's experts' reports were filed with the Claims
Court on August 23, 2000, as exhibits to the government's motion for summary
judgment on damages. The government's experts' reports in general opined that
the damages Coast Federal sought from the government were too speculative to
permit a recovery. In addition, the government's experts' reports opined that
the capital credit received by Coast Federal in connection with its acquisition
of Central was in essence required by generally accepted accounting principles
to be amortized over a period of approximately 12.7 years.

As discussed above under "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations - Proceedings Leading to Trial," on December
28, 2000, the Claims Court issued its December 2000 Order with respect to the
government's motion and Coast Federal's cross-motion for summary judgment. In
the December 2000 Order, the Claims Court largely accepted the government's
contention with respect to the capital credit in ruling that the capital credit
was not a permanent addition to Coast Federal's regulatory capital and was
required to be amortized over 12.7 years. Also as described above, on October
18, 2001, the Claims Court entered judgment in favor of the government and
awarded no damages to Coast Federal in light of Coast Federal's statement that
Coast Federal would not be able to prove damages if its contract with the
government is as interpreted by the Claims Court in the December 2000 Order.

As discussed above under "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations - Proceedings Leading to Trial," Coast
Federal filed an appeal to the Claims Court's ruling in the December 2000 Order.
If the December 2000 Order is upheld on appeal and Coast Federal does not seek
or does not obtain certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, no

                                       12

<PAGE>

award of monetary damages will be made to Coast Federal, and therefore no
payment from the Trust to certificateholders will be possible. If the Court of
Appeals reverses the December 2000 Order, it is expected that the Litigation
will be remanded to the Claims Court for further proceedings on damages in
accordance with the Court of Appeals decision reversing the December 2000 Order.

There can be no assurance that Coast Federal will obtain any monetary or other
recovery in the Litigation. As discussed below under "Management's Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Damages Rulings
in Other Cases," no judge in any of the Winstar related cases which have gone to
trial has made an award for lost profits damages, which is one of the primary
theories of damages for which Coast Federal is currently seeking a recovery.

DAMAGES RULINGS IN OTHER CASES

The United States has argued in the Glendale Case and in the Priority Cases that
have gone to trial that some or all of the damages alleged by the plaintiffs in
those cases are too speculative to permit a recovery. Trial in the damages phase
of the Statesman Case commenced in May 1998, but the government and the
plaintiffs in that case reached a settlement prior to completion of the trial.
Trial of the damages phase of the Glendale case concluded in September 1998. The
plaintiff in the Glendale Case sought damages based on various damage theories
and ranging from approximately $800 million to $2 billion depending upon the
theory used. On April 9, 1999, the judge in the Glendale Case awarded the
plaintiff $909 million in restitution damages and for increased operating costs
(which the judge characterized as non-overlapping reliance damages), based on
that judge's evaluation of the evidence and analysis of the legal arguments
presented in the Glendale Case. The government appealed the damages ruling in
the Glendale Case, and on February 16, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling vacating the trial court's damage award
on the theory of restitution and remanded the case to the trial court for a
determination of total pre- and post-breach reliance damages suffered by the
plaintiff.

The damages phase of the first of the Priority Cases to go to trial on the issue
of damages, California Federal Bank v. the United States, Docket No. 92-138C
(the "CalFed Case"), concluded in February 1999. The plaintiff in the CalFed
Case sought damages of between $725 million and $1.642 billion based on damage
theories similar to those presented by the plaintiff in the Glendale case. On
April 16, 1999, the judge in the CalFed Case awarded the plaintiff approximately
$23 million in transaction costs under a cost of replacement capital theory,
based on that judge's evaluation of the evidence and analysis of the legal
arguments presented in the CalFed Case. A decision in another Priority Case,
LaSalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v. the United States, Docket No. 92-652C (the
"LaSalle Talman Case"), was filed on September 30, 1999. The plaintiff in the
LaSalle Talman Case sought damages of between $858.8 million and $1.197 billion
based on various damages theories. The judge in the LaSalle Talman Case awarded
plaintiffs approximately $5 million in reliance damages, based on that judge's
evaluation of the evidence and analysis of the legal arguments presented in that
case. A decision in a third Priority Case, Landmark Land Company, Inc. v. United
States, Docket No. 95-502C (the "Landmark Case"), was filed on March 3, 2000.
The plaintiffs in the Landmark Case sought damages of between $1.042 billion and
$1.432 billion based on various combined damages theories of both the private
plaintiff and the FDIC. The judge in the Landmark Case, who was the same judge
who had presided in the CalFed Case, awarded the

                                       13

<PAGE>

private plaintiff and the FDIC a total of approximately $39.2 million in
restitution and reliance damages, based on that judge's evaluation of the
evidence and analysis of the legal arguments presented in the Landmark Case. A
decision in a fourth Priority Case, Bluebonnet Savings Bank v. United States,
Docket No. 95-532C (the "Blubonnet Case"), was filed on July 6, 2000. The
plaintiffs in the Bluebonnet Case sought approximately $175.9 million in
expectation damages. The judge in the Bluebonnet Case awarded no damages to the
plaintiffs based on that judge's evaluation of the evidence and analysis of the
legal arguments presented in the Bluebonnet Case. A decision in a fifth Priority
Case, Bobby J. Glass, et al. v. United States, Docket No. 92-428C (the "Glass
Case"), was filed on July 21, 2000. The private plaintiffs in the Glass Case
sought approximately $8.4 million and the FDIC as plaintiff sought approximately
$2.5 million, both based on a combination of damages theories. The judge in the
Glass Case awarded $3.972 million in damages to the private plaintiffs and $2.1
million to the FDIC based on that judge's evaluation of the evidence and
analysis of the legal arguments presented in the Glass Case.

The courts in the Glendale Case, the CalFed Case, the LaSalle Talman Case, the
Landmark Case, the Bluebonnet Case and the Glass Case declined to award damages
under some or all of the plaintiffs' damage theories. No judge in any of the
cases has made an award for lost profits damages, which was one of the primary
theories of expectation damages for which Coast Federal initially sought
recovery as described in the First Reports. In addition, no judge in any of the
cases has made a significant award of damages for the cost of replacing capital
(other than damages related to transaction costs), for which Coast Federal also
initially sought recovery as described in the First Reports. Further, in only
one of the seven cases in which a judgment has been entered after a trial on
damages , Glendale Federal Bank v. United States, Claims Court Docket No.
90-772C (the "Glendale Case"), has an award been granted that is in excess of
$40 million. The award in the Glendale Case has since been vacated on appeal and
sent back to the Claims Court for further proceedings.

It is likely that rulings in other Priority Cases will occur before trial of
Coast Federal's damage claims is completed. Appeals of the judgments in several
of these cases have been filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, and appeals of other Priority Cases are likely. Any decisions reached
by the Court of Appeals in those cases could affect Coast Federal's damages
claims. For these and other reasons, there can be no assurance as to the type or
amount, if any, of damages that Coast Federal may recover. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, there can be no assurance that Coast Federal will
obtain any monetary award or other recovery in the Litigation.

MANAGEMENT OF THE LITIGATION

The Litigation Trustees are Ray Martin, Robert L. Hunt II, Norman H. Raiden and
James F. Barritt, who at the time of the Merger were the four senior Coast
executives with knowledge of the facts underlying the Litigation. Mr. Martin,
Mr. Hunt and Mr. Barritt were officers of Coast and Coast Federal both at the
time of the agreement with the federal government to treat certain amounts as a
permanent addition to Coast Federal's regulatory capital in connection with
Coast Federal's acquisition of Central, and also at the time of the alleged
breach of this agreement by the federal government, which gave rise to the
claims underlying the Litigation. Mr. Martin, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Barritt, together
with Mr. Raiden (who joined Coast soon after the alleged breach of the agreement
by the federal government), had been involved in the prosecution of the
Litigation prior to the Merger.

                                       14

<PAGE>

Pursuant to the CPR Trust Agreement, the Litigation Trustees have the sole and
exclusive right to instruct Coast Federal and its successors with respect to the
prosecution of the Litigation. This includes all decisions as to retention,
dismissal, terms of engagement of existing or new counsel, whose retention may
involve fees that are partly contingent, and other advisors. The CPR Trust
Agreement also provides that the Litigation Trustees have the right, in their
sole discretion, to instruct Coast Federal and its successors to dismiss,
settle, or cease prosecution of the Litigation at any time and on any terms;
Ahmanson, including any successor, is required by the CPR Trust Agreement to
cause Coast Federal and its successors to follow such instructions from the
Litigation Trustees unless such instructions are unreasonable.

The Litigation Trustees entered into a letter agreement, dated February 13, 1998
(the "Letter Agreement"), with the law firm of Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, PLLC
(the "Firm"). In the Letter Agreement the Firm agreed that it would not bill
Coast Federal or the CPR Trust for any fees incurred subsequent to September 1,
1997, in excess of $7,650,000 (the "Cap"). The Firm further agreed that up to $2
million of the Cap, i.e., any amounts over $5,650,000, would only be payable to
the Firm out of the Commitment Amount, if any, when received by the CPR Trust
from Ahmanson. In consideration of these limitations on the Firm's customary
charges for professional services, the Letter Agreement provided that the CPR
Trust would pay to the Firm, in addition to fees up to the amount of the Cap, a
contingent incentive fee in the amount of one percent (1%) of the Commitment
Amount, provided that no such incentive fee would be payable in the event (1)
that both Charles J. Cooper and Steven S. Rosenthal ceased to be partners of the
Firm prior to a final decision, including appeals, or other final resolution of
the Litigation, or (2) that either Mr. Cooper or Mr. Rosenthal ceased to be a
partner of the Firm prior to a final decision, including any appeals, or other
final resolution of the Litigation, other than by death, disability, or
appointment to federal office. As of May 7, 2002, the amount remaining to be
paid to the Firm under the Cap (less the $2 million payable solely out of the
Commitment Amount) was approximately $.22 million.

On April 24, 2001, Mr. Rosenthal announced that he had left the Firm. As a
result, pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement, the CPR Trust is not
obligated to pay the contingent fee to the Firm in the amount of one percent
(1%) of the Commitment Amount. However, the Litigation Trustees currently expect
to enter into an agreement with the Firm, renamed Cooper & Kirk, pursuant to
which the Firm will continue to represent Coast Federal in the Litigation.

The CPR Trust Agreement provides that as compensation the CPR Trust will pay
each Litigation Trustee, during the term of his service as a Litigation Trustee,
fees of $400,000 per year for five years (except that if the Litigation is
sooner terminated, the remainder of such fees (but in no event with respect to a
period longer than the remainder of such year plus two additional years) will be
accelerated upon final resolution of the Litigation and receipt by Ahmanson of
the Litigation Proceeds), plus reimbursement of all reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses. If the services of the Litigation Trustees continue to be necessary
after the initial five-year period or such receipt of Litigation Proceeds, the
Litigation Trustees shall be entitled to a fee of $200 per hour until
termination of the CPR Trust. The initial five-year period will end on February
13, 2003.

Pursuant to the CPR Trust Agreement, each Litigation Trustee may, but is not
obligated to, defer all or part of his compensation until 30 days after the
earliest to occur of (i) the date on which he elected to defer such

                                       15

<PAGE>

compensation, (ii) the date he ceases to be a Litigation Trustee, and (iii) the
date of the receipt of the Commitment Amount in full by the CPR Trust. Any
Litigation Trustee electing to so defer will receive the compensation he would
have received plus an amount, calculated on a monthly basis during the period of
deferral (and included in the amount deferred), equal to the product of the
monthly balance of the amount deferred and an annual rate equal to the Reference
Rate, as defined in the CPR Trust Agreement, plus 250 basis points.

For the year ending December 31, 2002, Mr. Hunt elected to defer 100% of his
2002 compensation, Mr. Barritt elected to defer 85% of his 2002 compensation,
and Mr. Martin and Mr. Raiden elected to defer 50% of their 2002 compensation.

SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The CPR Trust has no revenues. The Expense Fund is the CPR Trust's only source
of funding for the payment of the expenses of its operations. The amounts in the
Expense Fund will be applied to a variety or expenses, including the costs of
prosecuting the Litigation (including the fees and expenses of counsel, experts,
support staff and consultants), compensation of the Institutional Trustee, the
Delaware Trustee and the Litigation Trustees, the CPR Trust's indemnification
obligations, liability insurance for the CPR Trust's indemnification obligations
and any liabilities of the Litigation Trustees. To the extent that Coast Federal
and its successors must engage in protracted litigation, such fees and expenses
may increase significantly, and there can be no assurance that the Expense Fund
will be sufficient to cover such fees and expenses.

Following is a statement that details the activity in the Expense Fund (the
balance of which was $4,443,399 as of March 31, 2002) and expenses that have
been accrued but not yet paid for the three months ended March 31, 2002, as well
as the balance of the Expense Fund that was available to cover future expenses
as of March 31, 2002.

                                                              For the Three
                                                               Months Ended
                                                             March 31, 2002
                                                             --------------
Expense Fund balance available for future
   expenses as of December 31, 2001                              $1,372,833
Disbursements:
   Litigation Trustee fees                                         (160,000)
   Litigation and trust administration                              (65,000)
   Outside legal counsel and expert witness fees                    (80,068)
   Premises and equipment                                           (12,900)
   Office and other expenses                                        (28,811)
Accrued expenses:
   Deferred Litigation Trustee fees                                (285,000)
   Decrease in accrual for Litigation Trustee fees                   45,000
   Increase in accrual for outside legal counsel
      and expert witness fees                                       (16,000)
   Decrease in other accrued expenses                                 8,000
   Accrued interest on deferred Litigation
      Trustee fees                                                  (56,130)
                                                                  ---------

      Expense Fund balance available
         for future expenses as of
         March 31, 2002                                          $  721,924
                                                                  =========

In addition, approximately $4.0 million of expense was accrued through March 31,
2002, for interest payable to Ahmanson or its successor on disbursements from
the Expense Fund. The CPR Trust's obligation to pay such accrued interest

                                       16

<PAGE>

is contingent upon receipt of sufficient Litigation Proceeds. Expenses for
"Litigation and trust administration" refer to fees paid to three individuals
retained by the CPR Trust to provide litigation and trust administration support
services.

Through March 31, 2002, approximately $2.6 million and $.64 million of expense
was accrued, respectively, for deferred Litigation Trustee fees and interest due
and payable on such deferred fees. On December 18, 2001, the Litigation Trustees
adopted a resolution providing that no payments of deferred Litigation Trustee
fees which become due and owing to a Litigation Trustee shall be distributed by
the CPR Trust until the Litigation Trustees, by a majority vote, determine to
make such a payment.

As discussed above under "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations - Proceedings Leading to Trial," the
Litigation is presently before the Court of Appeals following a ruling in the
Claims Court in favor of the government awarding no damages to Coast Federal. In
the event that Coast Federal succeeds in its appeal before the Court of Appeals,
the Litigation will be remanded to the Claims Court for further proceedings.
Whether the funds remaining in the Expense Fund upon remand will be sufficient
to successfully prosecute the Litigation to completion is uncertain. If such
funds are not sufficient, the CPR Trust may issue additional CPR Certificates
that represent pro rata interests in the assets of the CPR Trust in order to pay
expenses, including expenses related to the Litigation. However, it may not be
possible to obtain purchasers of additional CPR Certificates and there is no
assurance that the terms of any such purchases would be reasonable. In the event
additional CPR Certificates are issued and existing CPR Certificateholders are
not given the opportunity to purchase, or do not purchase, a pro rata amount in
such issuance, such CPR Certificateholders' indirect interest in the Payment
Amount will be diluted. The CPR Trust is also authorized to borrow additional
funds for the sole purpose of funding expenses of the CPR Trust, including
expenses of the Litigation, but only if such borrowings represent debt of the
CPR Trust (and not ownership interests therein) for federal income tax purposes.
It may not be possible for the CPR Trust to borrow funds and, if it is able to
borrow funds, there can be no assurance as to the terms upon which such
borrowings may be available.

Item 3 is not applicable.

PART II  OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

For a discussion of Coast Federal Bank, FSB v. The United States, which is the
Litigation to which the Registrant's CPR Certificates relate, see PART 1, Item
2. "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations - The Litigation."

Items 2 through 5 are not applicable or the answers are negative.

Item 6.   EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K

(a)    Exhibits

     None

                                       17

<PAGE>

(b)    Reports on Form 8-K

During the quarter for which this report is filed, the following reports on Form
8-K were filed by the registrant:

       1. February 7, 2002, Item 5, Other Events.  Press release announcing
           filing of Appellate brief.

                                       18

<PAGE>




                                   SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                            COAST FEDERAL LITIGATION
                            CONTINTENT PAYMENT RIGHTS TRUST
                            -------------------------------
                                   (Registrant)


                              /s/ Ray Martin
                              -------------------------------------
                              Ray Martin, Litigation Trustee


                              /s/ Robert L. Hunt II
                              -------------------------------------
                              Robert L. Hunt II, Litigation Trustee


                              /s/ Norman H. Raiden
                              -------------------------------------
                              Norman H. Raiden, Litigation Trustee


                              /s/ James F. Barritt
                              -------------------------------------
                              James F. Barritt, Litigation Trustee

Dated: May 14, 2002

                                       19