that the Government was relieved of honoring this forbearance if applicable laws and regulations changed. See Hometown Fin., Inc. v. United States, 409 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.2005). The Federal Circuit in Hometown recognized that a similar provision in a forbearance letter “clearly sets forth the understanding of the parties that regulatory change was possible because it refers to calculating the [regulatory capital] requirement in accordance with ‘any successor regulation.’ ” Id. at 1367-68. However, a proviso excepted the five-year period following consummation of the acquisition, during which the regulatory capital requirement was required to take into account the forbearances granted. Id. at 1368; cf. Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 378 F.3d 1336, 1339-43 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Guar. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ryan, 928 F.2d
holding that contract uniformly placed risk of regulatory change on plaintiff holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract holding that a breach of contract action by the department of health for the commonwealth of puerto rico did not qualify as an exercise of police or regulatory power even if related to the departments general regulatory power holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract