Culture Clash? the Miller & Modigliani Propositions Meet the United States Court of Federal Claims

By Citron, Rodger D. | The Review of Litigation, Spring 2003 | Go to article overview

Culture Clash? the Miller & Modigliani Propositions Meet the United States Court of Federal Claims


Citron, Rodger D., The Review of Litigation


I. INTRODUCTION

Often it is said that there is a divide between the practice of law and the concerns of legal academics.1 This sentiment may apply with equal force to the business of banking and the pursuits of scholars of financial institutions.2 Such views arise because, in part, the realms of theory and practice do not intersect often. When they do, as they have in a set of cases following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Winstar Corp.,3 the intersection is worth considering.4

Winstar established the United States' liability for breach of regulatory contract in three cases in which acquirers of troubled savings and loan institutions sought favorable regulatory accounting treatment in exchange for doing the acquisitions.5 The Supreme Court remanded the Winstar cases to the United States Court of Federal Claims for damages proceedings.6 Although only three cases were involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court, there still are nearly 100 similar cases raising claims for compensation by acquirers of thrifts pending in the lower courts.7

In turn, the Court of Federal Claims has become a forum for evaluating the relevance of the basic principles of corporate finance-specifically, the Miller & Modigliani ("M&M") Propositions concerning capital structure and debt-equity ratios-to claims by savings and loan institutions for lost profits damages. In their 1958 article, Professors Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani set out a number of foundational principles of corporate finance, including the principle that the value of a private firm is independent of the mix of debt and equity used to fund its assets.8 The results thus far are mixed. The courts have not embraced the M&M Propositions, as evidenced by their decisions to allow plaintiffs to present claims for lost profits damages and, in a smaller number of cases, their discussion of the M&M Propositions. Nevertheless, courts generally have arrived at the results dictated by the M&M Propositions in awarding damages to claimants.9

The focus in the damages decisions is on whether an acquiring thrift with supervisory goodwill was damaged by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)10 phase-out and, if so, how it was damaged. Supervisory goodwill, as Justice Souter observed in his plurality opinion in Winstar, allowed an acquiring thrift to make more investments than it otherwise would have been able to, because it could include an intangible accounting entry in its regulatory capital requirements.11 Such an acquiring thrift could then operate with more debt and less equity than a comparable thrift that had not engaged in such an acquisition.

The United States, citing the M&M Propositions, has insisted that the only recoverable damages by a claimant are its mitigation costs-that is, the costs associated with obtaining replacement capital.12 The thrift claimants have responded that they were unable to mitigate and, therefore, should be entitled to present claims for lost profits damages.13 Furthermore, they have argued that the M&M Propositions are not relevant to the evaluation of their claims given the availability of deposit insurance, which they insist is a subsidy of that particular form of debt.14

In 1999, the Court of Federal Claims entered a $909 million judgment, one of the largest ever entered against the United States, in the first supervisory goodwill damages decision, Glendale Federal Bank v. United States.15 In allowing the thrift claimant to present a claim for lost profits, the trial court did not agree with the United States' arguments based upon the M&M Propositions and expressly rejected the testimony of Dr. Miller as "theoretical."16 The trial court did not, however, award lost profits. Subsequently, in 2001, an appeals court vacated the judgment in Glendale and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.17

In the journey from the Supreme Court's decision in Winstar to the current damages decisions, the lower courts developed a more complete understanding of the economics of the savings and loan industry, and of the accounting techniques used by regulators during the 1980s. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Culture Clash? the Miller & Modigliani Propositions Meet the United States Court of Federal Claims
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.