Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
405 U.S. App. D.C. 130
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Washington Mutual's collapse led to FDIC receivership; JPMorgan agreed to acquire assets and certain liabilities under a Purchase and Assumption Agreement with indemnity by FDIC; Deutsche Bank sued FDIC for misrepresented loan repurchases tied to WM trusts; proposed intervenors held WM senior notes and sought intervention to protect their receivership claims; district court denied intervention for lack of crystallized interests; court affirms but holds lack of standing.
- Deutsche Bank sued in DC District Court; FDIC moved to dismiss arguing no liability; litigation concerns two main questions: which successor bears liabilities and the damages; three-party ongoing dispute among Deutsche Bank, FDIC, and JPMorgan.
- Proposed intervenors argued Rule 24(a) intervention as of right, claiming risk to receivership funds; FDIC represents creditors, but intervenors contend conflict due to indemnity; court analyzes standing and prudential limits to intervention.
- Court emphasizes standing as jurisdictional; intervenors must have Article III standing and satisfy Rule 24, with prudential standing considerations; court notes that even if Article III existed, the claim is not imminent and prudential standing is lacking as they are not intended beneficiaries.
- Conclusion: appellants lack standing, district court’s denial affirmed; separate concurrence discusses preservation of standing doctrine for defendant-intervenors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to intervene | Appellants claim injury to receivership funds is concrete and imminent | No imminent harm until contract interpretation and liability are settled | Appellants lack Article III standing |
| Rule 24(a) requirements satisfied | Timely intervention; concrete interest threatened; FDIC inadequately represents | Interests not crystallized; delay and lack of concrete injury | Rule 24(a) not satisfied |
| Prudential standing as third-party beneficiaries | Intervenors have a qualifying interest in enforcing contract terms | Intervenors are not intended beneficiaries; no standing to enforce terms | Lack prudential standing; no intervention right |
| Relation between Rule 24 and Article III standing | Relation is straightforward and supports standing analysis | Need for separate standing analysis | Rule 24 and Article III standing aligned; appellants lack both |
Key Cases Cited
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Rio Grande Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 178 F.3d 533 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (intervenors may require standing for defendants)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (S. Ct. 1992) (injury-in-fact; concrete and particularized; actual or imminent)
- Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (discusses standing for intervenors in defense)