La-Van, Lullo, and Skozek were, as individuals, ‘the acquirors’ who negotiated with the FHLBB to purchase the converted federally-insured institution. These individuals were the direct purchasers who then became ‘shareholders’ in the new institution.” LaVan, 53 Fed. Cl. at 300-01. Thus, the facts, although seemingly analogous to Cain, are markedly different, because the evidence shows that these specific Acquirors were critical to the conversion in this case, whereas the particular shareholders were unimportant to the conversion in Cain. Because this court affirms the Government’s direct contract with the Acquirors, it does not reach the issue of whether the Acquirors were third-party beneficiaries under the contract. Cf. Glass v. United States, 258 F.3d 1349, 1354-55 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>); First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v.
holding that the shareholders were not thirdparty beneficiaries because they were not directly benefited by the contract between the government and the thrifts holding that plaintiffs had standing because they were directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints were directed holding that shareholders lack standing to sue as thirdparty beneficiaries to allegedly breached contract unless the contract indicates the intent to benefit them directly independently of their shareholder status recognizing noncontracting parties rights as thirdparty beneficiaries of an insurance contract holding that beneficiaries of a trust that signed an agreement with the fhlbb were not in privity or have thirdparty beneficiary status because the government did not make any promises expressly intended to benefit them