542 (“Thus, the government’s contention that Wickham and Gevyn Construction should be extended by requiring a match between capital expenditures and specific debt instruments is rejected.”). Subsequent cases have taken a slightly more stringent view than TVA. See, e.g., Carolina Power & Light v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 23, 54 (2008) (finding it unnecessary to determine if Wickham ap plies because plaintiff failed to provide any evidence tying borrowed funds to any specific mitigation project); System, Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 37, 70 (2007) (finding that System Fuels failed to establish that its claimed financing costs were directly related to required borrowing through specific debt instruments); Northern States Power Co. v. United States, 78 Fed.Cl. 449, 471 (2007) (<HOLDING>). A specific correspondence between the loan
holding that plaintiff faded to demonstrate beyond the existence of debt to augment its capital structure that any of the funds were used to mitigate does partial breach holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern recognizing that pursuant to statute actions of debt may be brought upon any judgment for debt damages or costs rendered in any court of record of the united states