ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Banking Law Blogs -> Bank Lawyers Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Banking Law

: Bank Lawyers Blog

The FDIC Will Abide

ADVERTISEMENTS

Big_lebowski Let me explain something to you. Um, I am not "Mr. Lebowski". You're Mr. Lebowski. I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
---Jeff Bridges as Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski in "The Big Lebowski"

Kevin LaCroix at The D&O Diary today discussed an interesting decision by a federal district court in Georgia that put a roadblock in the FDIC's inexorable drive for world domination of all things related to suing failed banks and the former shareholders, officers and directors of the same and of the holding companies that used to "hold" the banks' stock. In the past, when times were good and national banks were expanding their powers like mushroom caps multiplying in Hunter S. Thompson's cellar, we usually focused on the need for Lebensraum evinced by the OOC's preemption opinions and regulations. Now that Dodd-Frank has (purportedly) clipped the OCC's wings to a degree, and too-small-to-save community banks have been falling like wildebeests to the guns of Great White Hunters, the FDIC is gunning to become the one and only federal banking agency that everyone will have to refer to as "The Dude."

I wont rehash LaCroix's post or the judge's opinion. They're both short and you can read them quickly. It's good to know, however, that if shareholders who think they were defrauded when they bought holding company stock, sue the former controlling shareholders and directors of the holding company for fraud under federal and state securities laws, then just because the FDIC subsequently asserts that the fraud suit is actually a "disguised derivative action against the bank," that allegation won't magically "make it so." The judge correctly (in my view) found that the lawsuit was clearly what it purported to be and that the FDIC was dead wrong.

On the other hand, I have to admire the FDIC's lust for power and the ingenuity of the argument it made. In fact, I intend to use the FDIC's argument the next time I'm at a cocktail party and to allege that I'm actually Brad Pitt in disguise. Hey, I hear that Sheila Bair's been claiming she's actually Jessica Simpson in disguise and that she snagged John Mayer, so I might as well give it a shot.


Full post as published by Bank Lawyers Blog on January 04, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 10/31/26 08:48:14)