Long gone are the days when a financial institution’s primary security concern was protecting cash in the bank vault, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) acknowledges in its recent article, “A Framework for Cybersecurity,” released February 1, 2016.
Following the recent bank failure wave, the FDIC filed liability actions against the former directors and offices of many of the failed banks, as detailed here.
A Marginally Important Day: FDIC’s Board Approves Joint Final Rule On Margin for Uncleared Swaps and Finalizes Relief for End-Users
Earlier today, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approved a final rule to establish margin requirements on non-cleared swaps and security-based swaps (collectively, for this posting, “non-cleared swaps”).
The Long Arm of the FDIC is Even Longer After Recent 5th Circuit Opinion Extends the Extender Statute
One of the many tools of the FDIC in resolving failed banks is the Extender Statute which, by its terms, replaces existing statutes of limitation under state law by a period of years.
According to the FDIC’s website (here), as of March 24, 2015, 44 of the 106 failed bank lawsuits the agency has filed have settled.
Overall, the banking industry continued to improve in the first quarter of 2014, although banks did see their noninterest income decline due to reduced mortgage activity and a drop in trading revenue, according to the FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile for 1Q14.
On March 14, 2014, In the latest development in the long-running saga of the Libor scandal, the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of 38 banking institutions that failed between 2008 and 2011, has filed a massive new lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the U.S. dollar Libor rate-setting banks…
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued the first appellate decision holding that, in actions brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the officers and directors of failed banking institutions can assert affirmative defenses relating to the FDIC’s post-receivership conduct.
Eleventh Circuit Rejects FDIC’s “No Duty” Argument, Allows Post-Receivership Affirmative Defenses Against the Agency
One of the most contentious issues in the litigation the FDIC has been pursuing in its capacity as receiver of various failed banks is whether the defendant former directors and officers can assert affirmative defenses against the FDIC for the agency’s own conduct.