Opinion ID: 580887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: preservation of pre-firrea agreements

Text: 11 Security argues, and the district court held, that Congress intended FIRREA's savings clause in § 401(g) to preserve FSLIC agreements and FHLBB resolutions such as those at issue in this case. FIRREA § 401(g) provides: 12 (g) Savings provisions relating to FHLBB.-- 13 (1) Existing rights, duties, and obligations not affected.--Subsection (a) shall not affect the validity of any right, duty, or obligation of the United States, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, or any other person, which-- 14 (A) arises under or pursuant to the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, or any other provision of law applicable to such Board ..., and 15 (B) existed on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act. 16 The Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have already considered the proper interpretation of FIRREA § 401(g) and agree with OTS that this provision does not exempt agreements, such as those between FSLIC and Security, from FIRREA's strengthened capital requirements. 17 Following the able instruction of those circuits, we too find OTS's interpretation of § 401(g) to be a reasonable one, 18 supported by FIRREA's structure, its broad language on capital requirements, the explicit provisions on supervisory goodwill, and the wording and context of § 401(g). FIRREA's legislative history, which is comprehensively reviewed by the Eleventh Circuit in Guaranty Financial Serv. Inc. v. Ryan, 19 also supports OTS's textual interpretation. 17 Inasmuch as we decide here that Congress intended FIRREA to abrogate agreements inconsistent with its rigorous capital requirements, we do not decide whether the New North and Security Trust Assistance Agreements specified that the cash contribution and the ICCs would be treated as capital, or whether the parties contracted to treat supervisory goodwill as an asset. Like the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, we find that if a taking of property rights occurred, 'the evidence of congressional intent is strong enough to infer that Congress wanted to effect a taking.'  20 A suit for compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, however. 21 Therefore, with regrets that our decision today necessarily prolongs this dispute, we reverse the district court's judgement on this issue so that it may be considered by the Court of Claims should Security elect to file a suit for compensation.