Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 885 F. Supp. 2d 156

In the 1970s, Pitney Bowes developed CMRS and USPS authorized it under a 1978 SOU; a 1979 CMRS regulatory framework established trust accounts and reporting.
Ascom and Neopost later developed CMRS and received USPS authorization in 1988 and 1990 respectively; CMRS allowed carriers to earn interest on customer deposits prior to USPS receipt.
In 1995, USPS issued new CMRS regulations eliminating commercial trustee accounts and directing deposits into USPS accounts, ending the interest income for manufacturers.
Plaintiffs allege contract, unjust enrichment, and takings claims arising from USPS’s 1995 regulatory changes and alleged promises to retain interest income.
USPS moved to dismiss, and after prior rulings, the case proceeded to trial on liability and damages; the court found no enforceable contracts or improper takings.
The court ultimately awarded judgment for USPS on several counts, finding no contract, no implied-in-fact or law contract, no promissory estoppel, and no regulatory taking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an express or implied contract on interest income?	Neopost alleged an informal contract mirroring Pitney Bowes’ arrangement.	USPS did not promise or bind itself to perpetual interest; no authority or definite terms established.	No binding contract established.
Did Ascom/Neopost have an implied-in-fact contract on interest income?	Ascom/Neopost relied on conduct implying agreement.	No mutual assent or clear term; no authority to bind USPS.	No implied-in-fact contract.
Did promissory estoppel support recovery for CMRS interests?	Promises conveyed reliance and detriment in developing CMRS.	Promises were indefinite; no justified injustice shown.	Promissory estoppel not established.
Did USPS’s 1995 CMRS regulations constitute a taking of property rights?	Loss of interest income was a regulatory taking requiring compensation.	Regulation served legitimate cash management and public purposes.	No regulatory taking under Penn Central; not too far.

United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (Supreme Court 1996) (promissory-like expectations in a regulatory context; government contracts with regulatory effects)
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court 1978) (three-factor test for regulatory takings: economic impact, investment-backed expectations, character of government action)
Fifth Third Bank of Western Ohio v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 264 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (contract formation and government contracting authority standards)
Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (regulatory changes outside expected scope may not preclude taking claims)
Full Value Advisors v. SEC, 633 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (three Penn Central factors; no per se approach)