History
  • No items yet
midpage
42 F. Supp. 3d 574
S.D.N.Y.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, sued under the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misstatements tied to securities Colonial purchased in 2006–2007.
  • Colonial failed and FDIC was appointed receiver on August 14, 2009; FDIC sued on August 10, 2012.
  • The 1933 Act contains a one-year limitations period measured from discovery and a separate three-year statute of repose measured from the public offering date.
  • FDIC invoked the FIRREA "extender" statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14), arguing it resets accrual and thus lengthens the time the FDIC has to bring claims as receiver.
  • Defendants argued the extender statute does not override the 1933 Act’s three-year statute of repose; after the Supreme Court decided CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.
  • The district court held the FIRREA extender statute alters statutes of limitations but does not displace statutes of repose, and therefore dismissed the FDIC’s claims as time-barred.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the FIRREA extender statute displaces the 1933 Act’s three-year statute of repose FDIC: FIRREA’s extender was intended to preserve and extend time for receivers to sue, effectively lengthening both limitations and repose periods so FDIC claims are timely Defs: Extender governs statutes of limitations (accrual-based), not statutes of repose (measured from defendant’s last act); repose remains a hard outer limit Court: Extender alters accrual/limitations but does not affect statutes of repose; 1933 Act’s three-year repose bars FDIC’s claims

Key Cases Cited

  • CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014) (distinguishes statutes of limitations from statutes of repose and holds a federal statute that references "statute of limitations" does not pre-empt state statutes of repose)
  • Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Americas, Inc., 712 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2013) (addressed a similar extender provision under HERA and reached the opposite result on repose; relied on by parties during briefing)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Federal Deposit Insurance v. Chase Mortgage Finance Corp.
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Sep 2, 2014
Citations: 42 F. Supp. 3d 574; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122504; No. 12 Civ. 6166(LLS)
Docket Number: No. 12 Civ. 6166(LLS)
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.
Log In
    Federal Deposit Insurance v. Chase Mortgage Finance Corp., 42 F. Supp. 3d 574