April 9, 1999

                    Wall Street Journal
 

                   Judge Rules in Thrift's Favor,

                   Paving Way for More S&L Suits


                   Dow Jones Newswires

                   WASHINGTON -- A federal court ordered the U.S. government Friday
                   to pay $908.9 million in restitution and damages to a California thrift in a
                   case with broad implications for similar lawsuits arising out of the 1980s
                   savings and loan rescue.

                   The case, brought by Glendale Federal Bank, was sent to the claims court
                   after a 1996 Supreme Court decision that found the government could be
                   held liable for the equivalent of breach of contract. The Supreme Court
                   found the government violated contracts with Glendale and others when it
                   changed regulations that effectively revoked accounting advantages it had
                   used in the 1980s to induce healthy thrifts to take over failing savings and
                   loans.

                   The ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims could add billions to the
                   federal government's price tag for cleaning up the nation's battered thrifts a
                   decade after Congress allocated more than $100 billion for it. A number of
                   related suits have arisen over a 1989 accounting-rule change that brought
                   financial harm to thrifts that acquired weak S&Ls before the regulations
                   were altered. The rule change was part of the law that provided funds to
                   close insolvent thrifts.

                   Friday's case brightens the prospects for another 120 thrifts to go forward
                   and press their claims for billions of dollars in damages.

                                        The U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge in the
                                        case also urged litigants with those similar
                                        claims to try to settle instead of continuing to
                   fight it out in court.

                   "The court strongly believes that settlements, where fair compromise
                   occurs, are in everyone's interest. The court calls upon all parties involved
                   in pending cases to consider what alternatives, short of continuing litigation
                   over the coming years, may resolve these cases fairly," said Chief Judge
                   Loren Smith in a 25-page opinion issued late Friday.

                   The thrifts claim the government broke promises made to them when they
                   agreed to acquire a number of insolvent institutions in the 1980s. At the
                   time, the government didn't have the money to liquidate the sick thrifts and
                   pay off insured depositors. It offered prospective buyers a profusion of tax
                   breaks and accounting gimmicks that enabled them to keep the ailing
                   institutions afloat. In essence, the government enabled the thrifts to pretend
                   to have capital they didn't have.

                   However, in 1989, Congress took away that leeway, called "supervisory
                   goodwill," which resulted in many of the merged thrifts becoming
                   technically insolvent.

                   The issue took several years to wind through the court system until the
                   1996 Supreme Court decision. The Glendale was the first case to reach
                   the damages phase and saw extensive concentration on how to calculate
                   damages to the thrifts.

                   Glendale, which merged with San Francisco-based California Federal
                   Bank in September 1998, said it suffered damages of up to $2 billion from
                   the policy change. It claimed the change caused it to incur heavy losses on
                   asset sales that it was forced into to raise new capital.

                   The Justice Department issued a brief statement after the decision's
                   release. "We are currently reviewing the decision. We remain confident in
                   our position and look forward to a fair and expeditious resolution of all the
                   ... cases. The Glendale case is one part of this process," it said.