Unfortunately, the contract doesn't fit within takings law.
A takings is a government unilateral taking without just compensation.
The original contract was a bilateral agreement instituted by an offer, acceptance of that offer and legal compensation.
A valid contract can not, under any legal circumstance, be deemed a taking.
Whether the contract was "unfair" is irrelevant because a court never determines whether consideration was adequate a long as it was legal.
When the government gave up their right to force receivership, the eyes of the law look at that as a legal detriment, and that is adequate compensation.
Because there was adequate compensation in the eyes of the law and the offer and acceptance were completed by parties with the authority to complete them, the contract is extremely valid.
So, Im sorry...but the law disagrees with you that the original 2008 contract was a taking.
Of course, the NWS was an attempted modification of the contract by the government. In this instance, modifications require additional compensation. The government gave nothing in addition to the original contract, so the modification should be invalid...making the NWS invalid as part of the contract. Because the NWS is invalid as part of the contract due to lack of additional compensation, it WOULD fit as a taking without just compensation.
So, as you can see there is a GREAT difference between the original contract and the NWS in the eyes of the law.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
