FDIC v. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott
Decision Date | 14 December 1990 |
Docket Number | No. CV 90-0488.,CV 90-0488. |
Citation | 754 F. Supp. 22 |
Parties | FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION as Receiver of Guardian Bank, N.A., Plaintiff, v. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, A Pennsylvania Partnership, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Reid & Priest, New York City (Evan Widlitz, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City (Mark H. Alcott, of counsel), for defendants.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver of Guardian Bank, N.A., moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), to strike the Twelfth and Thirteenth Affirmative or Other Defenses asserted by Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott ("Eckert").
The Twelfth Affirmative Defense claims a failure on the part of the FDIC and "its current counsel, to pursue claims against the OCC, the FDIC, Ginnie Mae, and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") for the losses alleged in the complaint ..."
The Thirteenth Affirmative Defense states:
By reason ( of its conflict of interest in acting as receiver of a Bank which as a regulator it hoped to close, )plaintiff FDIC has failed to marshall all the assets of the receivership.
The amended complaint recites the appointment of FDIC as receiver of the Guardian Bank, N.A. ("bank") on June 21, 1989, by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency upon the determination of the insolvency of the bank. It alleges that on or about December 14, 1984, the bank retained defendant Robert C. Zimmer, then a member of the law firm of Lane & Edsen, as counsel; that subsequently, on or before September 30, 1986, Zimmer left Lane & Edsen and became a member of the Eckert firm; that Eckert became and remained as general counsel to the bank through the date of closing the bank on June 21, 1989.
The amended complaint alleges claims based on a breach of fiduciary duty, malpractice, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The basis for the claims is that while acting as counsel for the bank and its subsidiaries (¶ 2).
Motion to Strike Pursuant to Rule 12(f)
A motion to strike an affirmative defense pursuant to Rule 12(f) is not favored and will be granted only if it clearly appears that the plaintiff "`would succeed despite any state of facts which could be proved in support of the defense.'" William Z. Salcer, etc. v. Envicon Equities, 744 F.2d 935, 939 (2d Cir.1984), quoting Durham Industries, Inc. v. North River Insurance Co., 482 F.Supp. 910, 913 (S.D. N.Y.1979), quoting Lehmann Trading Corp. v. J. & H. Stolow, Inc., 184 F.Supp. 21, 22-23 (S.D.N.Y.1960). Where the defense is insufficient as a matter of law, the defense should be stricken to eliminate the delay and unnecessary expense from litigating the invalid claim. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Berry, 659 F.Supp. 1475, 1478-79 (E.D.Tenn.1987); Anchor Hocking Corp. v. Jacksonville Elec. Authority, 419 F.Supp. 992, 1000 (M.D.Fla.1976). The extensive pre-trial discovery available to Eckert in these affirmative defenses could take many months. The extra cost and the delay in bringing the case to trial is substantial.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the "Act"), 12 U.S.C. § 1811 et seq., provided that the FDIC "shall insure, as hereinafter provided, the deposits of all banks ..." Id. at § 1811. FDIC acts in its corporate capacity as an insurer under the provisions contained in section 1821 (Permanent Insurance Fund). The Act also authorized the FDIC to act as a receiver of insolvent banks pursuant to section 1822. The purpose of creating the FDIC was to lend stability and confidence in the national banking system, first by providing depositors with insurance for payment in the event of a bank's insolvency, and second by taking custody of a failed bank's assets through FDIC's authority as a receiver of the failed bank. Congress thus authorized the FDIC to act in its corporate capacity as insurer and in a separate capacity as a receiver of a failed bank. Gunter v. Hutcheson, 674 F.2d 862 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826, 103 S.Ct. 60, 74 L.Ed.2d 63, reh'g denied, 459 U.S. 1059, 103 S.Ct. 477, 74 L.Ed.2d 624 (1982); First State Bank of Hudson County v. United States, 599 F.2d 558 (3rd Cir.1979).
In Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jenkins, 888 F.2d 1537, 1539-40 (11th Cir. 1989), the court discussed the manner in which the FDIC is authorized to deal with the obligations of the FDIC in its corporate capacity as insurer and the alternative as a receiver. The court stated:
In Gunter, 674 F.2d at 865, the court observed:
A purchase and assumption involves three entities: the receiver of the failed bank, the purchasing bank, and the FDIC as insuror. In most cases, the FDIC is appointed receiver by the appropriate banking authority and thus acts in two separate capacities: as receiver and as corporate insuror. See FDIC v. Ashley, 585 F.2d 157 (6th Cir.1978) (footnote omitted).
FDIC may act simultaneously in both capacities, as it does when it assigns commercial paper as a receiver to the FDIC as an insurance corporation. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Godshall, 558 F.2d 220, 223 (4th Cir.1977).
It appears that the Twelfth Affirmative Defense asserts FDIC's failure to mitigate based on its failure to prosecute claims against the named governmental agencies after the authority of NYGMC to service Ginnie Mae and Fannie Mae mortgages was terminated; a failure that allegedly deprived the bank of the income derived therefrom. The basis of FDIC's claim against Eckert for losses due to Eckert's alleged participation in a fraudulent scheme, resulting in Bernstein's appropriation of millions of dollars of the bank's funds, is unrelated to a claim of the improper exercise of the named governmental agencies' authority. Further, we find that the assertion of any claim based on FDIC's conduct in its corporate capacity may not be asserted against FDIC as a receiver of the bank. In re F & T Contractors, Inc., 718 F.2d 171 (6th Cir.1983).
The availability of the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages has not been decided in this Circuit Court of Appeals. Numerous district court opinions persuade this court that the defense is unavailable against the FDIC as receiver. One court, in Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Burdette, 718 F.Supp. 649, 663 (E.D.Tenn.1989),1 states the public policy reasons for denying affirmative offenses as follows:
In cases of the failure of a savings institution, it is important to the public that the receiver rapidly and efficiently convert the assets of that institution to cash to repay the losses incurred by the insurance fund and the depositors for deposits not covered. Suits by the FSLIC as a receiver to recover assets, or to recover damages for wrongdoing, should not be encumbered by an examination in court of the correctness of any specific act of the FSLIC in its receivership. The rule that there is no duty owed to the institution or wrongdoers by the FSLIC/Receiver is simply a means of expressing the broad public policy that the banking laws creating the FSLIC and prescribing its duties are directed to the public good, and that every separate act of the FSLIC as a receiver in collecting assets is not open to second guessing in actions to recover damages from wrongdoing directors and officers. If there is no wrongdoing by the officer or director, there can be no liability, but if wrongdoing is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FDIC v. Howse
...in one capacity may not be asserted against the FDIC acting in a totally different capacity. See generally FDIC v. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, 754 F.Supp. 22, 25 (E.D.N.Y.1990) (citing In re F & T Contractors, Inc., 718 F.2d 171 (6th Cir.1983) (ruling that a claim against FDIC corporat......
-
FDIC v. Niblo
...v. Isham, 782 F.Supp. 524, 531-2 (D.Colo.1992); FDIC v. Crosby, 774 F.Supp. 584, 587 (W.D.Wash.1991); FDIC v. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, 754 F.Supp. 22, 25-6 (E.D.N.Y. 1990); FDIC v. Baker, 739 F.Supp. 1401, 1403-07 (C.D.Cal.1990); FSLIC v. Burdette, 718 F.Supp. 649, 662-64 (E.D.Tenn.......
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Arrillaga-Torrens
...overseer and regulator; and as conservator or receiver of troubled and insolvent financial institutions. FDIC v. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott , 754 F.Supp. 22, 24 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) ; Ernst & Young , 374 F.3d at 581 ; Schroeder, supra , at p. 12–1. It insures deposits of banks and savings a......
-
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Scaletty
...acting as receivers or conservators of the property. FSLIC v. Shelton, 789 F.Supp. 1367 (M.D.La.1992); FDIC v. Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, 754 F.Supp. 22 (E.D.N.Y.1990); FDIC v. Greenwood, 719 F.Supp. 749 (C.D.Ill.1989); Burdette, 718 F.Supp. 649; FDIC v. Carlson, 698 F.Supp. 178 (D.......