Cape Fox Corp. v. United States

ERA VI — Permanence & Amendments
Court Case
1988

Extension of a timber sales contract that was in existence at time village corporation selected affected land for conveyance did not amount to an unconstitutional taking since title had not yet been conveyed. The United States did not have a fiduciary obligation regarding management of selected land.

What Happened

Plaintiff, Cape Fox Corporation (Cape Fox), is a village corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Alaska pursuant to section 8(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).[1] Plaintiff’s petition was filed in the United States Court of Claims on December 10, 1980, pursuant to an order and judgment on August 4, 1978, by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, and an amended petition was filed on February 19, 1981. The case was transferred to the United States Claims Court pursuant to section 403(d) of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982.[2]The amended petition (now complaint) asserts the United States is liable in damages in excess of $8,648,156, plus interest, as a result of the extension of a Forest Service timber sale contract on December 23, 1974, on lands that plaintiff had selected under ANCSA on December 12, 1974. The case is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability issues and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.Plaintiff asserts a taking claim under the fifth amendment, or, alternatively, liability for alleged violations of standards established by statute and regulation applicable to extension of timber sale contracts or, for failure to perform fiduciary duties to manage plaintiff’s timber resources. Defendant denies that the extension of the timber sale contract amounts to a fifth amendment taking, and asserts that the court is without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s claims relative to breach of fiduciary duties or violation of statutory standards. Eklutna, Inc., a native village corporation, by counsel, has submitted a statement of interest as amicus curiae on behalf of plaintiff on the scope of the authority of the United States to manage selected lands prior to conveyance of the land to a selecting corporation.

Why It Matters Today

Adds precedent that influences how ANCSA corporations, regulators, and shareholders interpret governance rights and remedies.

Related Patterns

Pattern 7: Cultural Expectations vs. Corporate Law

Related Governance Themes

Transparent Conflict-of-Interest Frameworks

Sources

Primary Source
Secondary Source Link