Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission

769 F. Supp. 19, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11074
CourtDistrict Court, D. Maine
DecidedJuly 30, 1991
DocketMisc. No. 91-0095-P
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 769 F. Supp. 19 (Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 769 F. Supp. 19, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11074 (D. Me. 1991).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

GENE CARTER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc., on behalf of its subsidiary Fleet Bank of Maine, moves to quash an investigative subpoena issued by Defendant Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter SEC) seeking certain documents relating to Maine Saving Bank’s loan loss reserves and provisions.1 Plaintiff argues that disclosing the requested documents would violate the Maine Confidential Financial Records Act, 9-B M.R.S.A. §§ 161-164, and would thereby subject Plaintiff to civil liability. Subpoenas which are not self-enforcing, and therefore threaten no sanction for failure to comply, may not be challenged in federal court when an adequate legal remedy is otherwise available. See Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 445-46, 84 S.Ct. 508, 511-12, 11 L.Ed.2d 459 (1964). See also Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 546 F.2d 646, 648-50 (5th Cir. 1977); Peoples Bank of Danville v. Williams, 449 F.Supp. 254, 260-61 (W.D. Va.1978); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Isbrandtsen, 245 F.Supp. 518, 520 (S.D.N.Y.1965). Congress has provided an exclusive forum in which Plaintiff may secure a full adjudication of its objections to this subpoena duces tecum: an enforcement action brought in a United States District Court by the SEC. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u(c); Sprecher v. Graber, 716 F.2d 968, 975 (2d Cir.1983) (section 78u(c) is the exclusive remedy). The Court is, therefore, without subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is hereby DENIED and this matter is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

So ORDERED.

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

Related

Lopes v. Resolution Trust Corp.
155 F.R.D. 14 (D. Rhode Island, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
769 F. Supp. 19, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleetnorstar-financial-group-inc-v-securities-exchange-commission-med-1991.