Class Plaintiffs’ Claim Is Fit For Judicial Decision Sample Clauses

Class Plaintiffs’ Claim Is Fit For Judicial Decision. When evaluating the first prong of a ripeness inquiry, the “fitness” for judicial resolution, this Court has instructed that the relevant factors to consider are “whether the issue is purely legal, whether consideration of the issue would benefit from a more concrete setting, and whether the agency’s action is sufficiently final.” Nat’l Oilseed Processors, 769 F.3d at 1182 (internal quotations and citations omitted). If the issue is purely legal, a court must “assume its threshold suitability for judicial determination.” Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 905, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1985); see also Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agr. Implement Workers of Am. x. Xxxxx, 783 F.2d 237, 249 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (holding that a claim satisfies the fitness requirement if it is “essentially legal” and “sufficiently final”). The liquidation rights claim is “purely legal,” at least as to liability. It presents the issue whether the Net Worth Sweep breached the contractual rights of private shareholders to liquidation distributions by providing that 100% of all assets, profits, and net worth in the Companies shall be distributed to Treasury, with not a xxxxx for private shareholders. That issue can be resolved by comparing the terms of the Certificates providing contractual rights to the private shareholders with the terms of the original Government Stock Agreement and the Third Amendment. A review of these contractual terms makes clear that the Third Amendment nullified—and thereby breached—the contractual rights to a