Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.

Second Circuit

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.

674 F. App'x 86

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2017

Docket15-1037-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 674 F. App'x 86 (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., 674 F. App'x 86 (2d Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”)—as receiver for two failed banks, Citizens National *87 Bank (“Citizens”) and Strategic Capital Bank (“Strategic”)—appeals from a judgment dismissing its securities claims against defendants, issuers and/or underwriters of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, as time-barred. The FDIC filed its complaint alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on May 18, 2012. The date of that filing was more than three years after Citizens and Strategic had purchased the certificates at issue, in 2006 and 2007, and thus the action would ordinarily be barred by the Securities Act’s statute of repose. See 15 U.S.C. § 77m. But the so-called “FDIC Extender Statute,” enacted as part of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, sets “the applicable statute of limitations” for an action brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver to be (at a minimum) three years from the FDIC’s appointment as receiver. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14). Here, the complaint was filed within three years of FDIC’s appointment. In granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, however, the District Court held that the FDIC Extender Statute “extends” or supersedes only statutes of limitations, and not statutes of repose.

That holding, which we review de novo, was error. Following the District Court’s ruling and the submission of briefing in this appeal, another panel of this Court held that the FDIC Extender Statute does supersede the Securities Act’s statute of repose, distinguishing CTS Corp. v. Wald-burger, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2175, 189 L.Ed.2d 62 (2014), and reaffirming this Court’s earlier ruling on a substantively identical Extender Statute in Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Americas Inc., 712 F.3d 136, 138 (2d Cir. 2013). See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Horizon Asset Sec., Inc., 821 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 69213, — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, 196 L.Ed.2d 518 (Jan. 9, 2017). Our sister panel’s decision controls the outcome of this appeal, and the District Court’s order dismissing the case on timeliness grounds must be vacated.

Accordingly, we VACATE the March 25, 2015 judgment of the District Court, and we REMAND the cause to the District Court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate in light of this order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”)—as receiver for two failed banks, Citizens National *87 Bank (“Citizens”) and Strategic Capital Bank (“Strategic”)—appeals from a judgment dismissing its securities claims against defendants, issuers and/or underwriters of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, as time-barred. The FDIC filed its complaint alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on May 18, 2012. The date of that filing was more than three years after Citizens and Strategic had purchased the certificates at issue, in 2006 and 2007, and thus the action would ordinarily be barred by the Securities Act’s statute of repose. See 15 U.S.C. § 77m. But the so-called “FDIC Extender Statute,” enacted as part of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, sets “the applicable statute of limitations” for an action brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver to be (at a minimum) three years from the FDIC’s appointment as receiver. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14). Here, the complaint was filed within three years of FDIC’s appointment. In granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, however, the District Court held that the FDIC Extender Statute “extends” or supersedes only statutes of limitations, and not statutes of repose.

That holding, which we review de novo, was error. Following the District Court’s ruling and the submission of briefing in this appeal, another panel of this Court held that the FDIC Extender Statute does supersede the Securities Act’s statute of repose, distinguishing CTS Corp. v. Wald-burger, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2175, 189 L.Ed.2d 62 (2014), and reaffirming this Court’s earlier ruling on a substantively identical Extender Statute in Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Americas Inc., 712 F.3d 136, 138 (2d Cir. 2013). See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Horizon Asset Sec., Inc., 821 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 69213, — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, 196 L.Ed.2d 518 (Jan. 9, 2017). Our sister panel’s decision controls the outcome of this appeal, and the District Court’s order dismissing the case on timeliness grounds must be vacated.

Accordingly, we VACATE the March 25, 2015 judgment of the District Court, and we REMAND the cause to the District Court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate in light of this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 F. App'x 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-deposit-insurance-corp-v-credit-suisse-first-boston-mortgage-ca2-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack