Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jennings
Decision Date | 15 August 1985 |
Docket Number | No. CIV-84-1612-W.,CIV-84-1612-W. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Parties | FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver of Penn Square Bank, N.A., Plaintiff, v. Bill P. JENNINGS; Eldon L. Beller; William G. Patterson; John R. Preston; Carl W. Swan; and C.F. Kimberling, Sr., Defendants, and Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co., a partnership, Additional Party-Defendant. |
Richard B. Noulles, Charles C. Baker, David L. Bryant, Gable & Gotwals, Tulsa, Okl., Ted N. Pool, Sherman, Pool, Thompson & Coldiron, Del City, Okl., for plaintiff.
Charles C. Green and Robert Turner, Turner, Turner, Green & Braun, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Jennings.
Richard Talley and L. Keye Farrar, Norman, Okl., for Beller.
Burck Bailey, Warren F. Bickford, IV, Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Patterson.
John Goodman, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Preston.
John W. Vardaman, Jr., Washington, D.C., Peter B. Bradford, Bradford, Haswell & Jones, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Swan.
John E. Green, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for the U.S.
Ross Arbiter, Stanley W. Levy, Weinberg, Zipser, Arbiter & Heller, Los Angeles, Cal., Erwin E. Adler, Carol Lynch, Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon, Los Angeles, Cal., Gene A. Castleberry, Robert A. Wiener, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Professional Asset Management, Inc.
Gary A. Bryant, G. Blaine Schwabe, III, Mock, Schwabe, Waldo, Elder, Reeves & Bryant, Oklahoma City, Okl., Larry K. Griffis, Butzell, Keidan, Simon, Myers & Graham, Detroit, Mich., for Michigan Nat. Bank, N.A.
J. William Conger, James C. Prince, Hartzog, Conger & Cason, Earl D. Mills, Mills, Whitten, Mills & Mills, Oklahoma City, Okl., Edwin D. Scott, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., New York City, William E. Hegarty, Mathias E. Mone, Dean Ringer, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, New York City, for Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
David T. Hedges, Jr., Vinson & Elkins, Houston, Tex., James E. Work, Shirk, Work, Robinson & Williams, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Coe, Cook, Haugland, Richardson, Smelser, Kenworthy, Randolph and Ross.
James A. Kirk, Kirk & Chaney, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Stubbs.
Robert C. Margo, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Marvin K. Margo, M.D.
Harold M. Durall, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Murphy.
K. Phillip Knierim, Mark S. Simonian, Wood, Lucksinger & Epstein, Los Angeles, Cal., Joan M. Bernott, Special Litigation Counsel, Torts Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for James and Roe.
James W. Bill Berry, Oklahoma City, Okl., Wilmer Cutler Pickering, Washington, D.C., for Burks.
Phillip F. Horning, Horning, Johnson & Grove, Judson M. Fink, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Dunn.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Penn Square Bank, on behalf of the Bank's depositors and shareholders, has filed suit against the Bank's officers, directors and independent auditors. As to the auditors, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. ("Peat"), the Receiver alleged negligence, malpractice, and breach of common law duties and professional standards. Peat responded by filing a third-party action against the FDIC, in its corporate capacity, and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency ("OCC"), alleging that the Comptroller's examination and declaration of the Bank's insolvency, and the FDIC's determination to liquidate the Bank, constituted common law negligence, breach of statutory duties to depositors and creditors, and concurrent liability for any damages recovered from Peat. Presently before the Court is the motion of the United States, on behalf of OCC and FDIC as third party defendants, to dismiss Peat's counterclaim and third party action.
The Federal Tort Claims Act is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity allowing certain enumerated kinds of lawsuits to proceed against the government. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The Act contains express exceptions for suits which remain barred by sovereign immunity. The exceptions include:
The Act's legislative history indicates that Congress did not intend to create liability for errors by government agencies or officials in administration, policy judgments or exercise of "discretionary functions". Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 33-37, 73 S.Ct. 956, 966-69, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953); Emch v. United States, 630 F.2d 523 (7th Cir.1980). The Court finds that Peat's third-party claims fall within the "discretionary function" exceptions to the Tort Claims Act. The Court also finds that Peat's claims in Counts I and II of its third-party complaint are premised on concepts of governmental duty that case law does not recognize. Accordingly, for the reasons explained below, Peat's third party complaint is dismissed.
Peat critizes the FDIC for "refusing" to arrange a purchase and assumption of Penn Square and for failing to devise other means of financially assisting the Bank and protecting its depositors. Peat alleges that the FDIC's decision to liquidate the Bank, rather than attempt to "revive" it, was a concurrent cause of the Bank's losses for which Peat is being sued. (Although Peat has targeted the FDIC as the defendant on these counts, presumably because of the Corporation's authority to arrange emergency loans and "purchase and assumption" transactions (12 U.S.C. § 1823(c), (e), the Comptroller of the Currency, who is empowered to declare a national bank insolvent and appoint a receiver (12 U.S.C. § 192, 1821(c)) seemingly would also be involved.)
It is evident that the decisions of whether and how to intervene in failing banks is discretionary with the FDIC. 12 U.S.C. § 1823 provides that:
Similarly, the FDIC can issue cease and desist orders if, in its "opinion", the Bank is engaging in unsafe and unsound practices. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b)(1). This determination is also a matter of agency discretion. Davis v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 369 F.Supp. 277 (D.Colo.1974).
Just as the Comptroller and FDIC have been attacked for not giving adequate assistance to some banks, they have been critized for giving too much to others. In the Franklin National Bank situation, "rescue attempts" through emergency reserve infusions and merger efforts were unsuccessful. Appellants in Huntington Towers Ltd. v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir.1977), argued that the Comptroller's rescue attempts were "in effect throwing good money after bad (and) should not have been made," but the Second Circuit held that such claims based on the Comptroller's decision and manner of intervention were barred. Observing that under the Federal Reserve Act the Comptroller "may" appoint a Receiver "whenever ... he shall become satisfied of the insolvency of a national banking association," the Court noted that "needless to say, the powers of determining the point at which a bank is no longer able to meet its obligations as they fall due involves a substantial amount of discretion", 559 F.2d at 870. Accord, Matter of American City Bank & Trust Co., 402 F.Supp. 1229, 1231 (D.Wis.1975) ( ). As explained by the Second Circuit:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grant Thornton, Llp v. F.D.I.C.
...barrier, they are rejected. See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991); FDIC v. Jennings, 615 F.Supp. 465, 467 (D.C.Okla. 1985) ("It is evident that the decisions of whether and how to intervene in failing banks is discretionary with the FDIC and thus......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Carter
...at 1223; Williams, 599 F.Supp. at 1209; Huang, supra, slip op. at 4; Imperial Bank, supra, slip op. at 2; but see FDIC v. Jennings, 615 F.Supp. 465, 467 (W.D. Okla.1985) (FTCA exemptions do apply). The better view is that the substantive portions of the FTCA which relate to the determinatio......
-
United States v. Leuthe, Civil Action No. 01-203 (E.D. Pa. 3/20/2002), Civil Action No. 01-203.
...620 F.2d 948, 952 (3d Cir. 1980); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Renda, 692 F. Supp. 128, 134-35 (D.Kan. 1988); FDIC v. Jennings, 615 F. Supp. 465, 467 (W.D.Okla. 1985). 18. The government correctly notes that defendant actually pled "attempted" conversion and has cited no authority which su......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Stanley
...Hudson County, 599 F.2d at 564, or for negligence in the decision to impose or accept a receivership, Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jennings, 615 F.Supp. 465 at 468 (W.D.Okl.1985). These are policy decisions which a court cannot second-guess. After the FDIC makes the decision to become the ......