FDIC v. Daniel Belcher, 978 F.3d 959

PCAOB investigated Ernst & Young (EY) for its audits of First NBC Bank Holding Company and took depositions, including of auditor Daniel Belcher; PCAOB treated the resulting transcripts as confidential and privileged under 15 U.S.C. § 7215.
First NBC Bank failed and the FDIC was appointed receiver for the Bank; the FDIC sought PCAOB materials for its own investigation into EY and received Belcher’s PCAOB deposition transcripts.
The FDIC served Belcher with an administrative (pre‑suit) subpoena to depose him; Belcher refused on advice of EY, arguing the PCAOB’s disclosure to the FDIC violated statutory confidentiality and raised ethical issues.
The district court enforced the FDIC’s subpoena, reasoning the FDIC (as receiver) qualified as “the appropriate Federal functional regulator” under § 7215(b)(5)(B)(ii)(II), so PCAOB could disclose the transcripts.
Belcher appealed; the district court denied his stay request and the deposition proceeded. The Fifth Circuit vacated the enforcement order, holding the FDIC acting as receiver was not the “appropriate Federal functional regulator,” so PCAOB lacked authority to share the transcripts, and remanded.
Judge Costa dissented, arguing the appeal was likely moot because the deposition already occurred and the PCAOB was not a party, so remedies on remand are speculative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FDIC acting as receiver is “the appropriate Federal functional regulator” under 15 U.S.C. § 7215(b)(5)(B)(ii)(II)	FDIC: it is the appropriate regulator for the Bank and therefore may receive PCAOB confidential materials	Belcher: FDIC in receiver capacity is not the statutory “appropriate” regulator; the Federal Reserve (regulator of the Holding Company) is the appropriate regulator here	Held: No — FDIC as receiver is not the appropriate Federal functional regulator; the Federal Reserve is the appropriate regulator in this context
Whether PCAOB lawfully disclosed Belcher’s PCAOB deposition transcripts to the FDIC	FDIC: PCAOB disclosure was lawful because FDIC qualified under the statutory exception	Belcher: disclosure was unlawful because FDIC did not meet the statutory definition of the appropriate regulator	Held: PCAOB lacked authority to disclose the transcripts to the FDIC in its receiver capacity
Whether enforcement of the administrative subpoena should stand given the above	FDIC: subpoena enforcement was proper and subpoenas were relevant and not overbroad	Belcher: enforcement was premised on unlawfully obtained materials and should be quashed	Held: District court’s judgment enforcing the subpoena was vacated because it rested on an incorrect statutory interpretation; case remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion

Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Source for Pub. Data, L.P., 903 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for administrative‑subpoena enforcement)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (definite article “the” can indicate a single entity fitting a statutory role)
Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954 (2019) (rules of grammar guide statutory interpretation absent contrary intent)
Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (2015) (use of noscitur a sociis to construe statutory lists)
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (appeal of document‑production order can remain live because reversal may require return of records)
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Ernst & Young LLP, 374 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2004) (treating the FDIC as acting in distinct capacities: corporate, receiver, and regulator)