Rapaport v. USDOT, Office
of Thrift Supervision case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
59 F.3d 212, 313 U.S. App.
D.C. 216 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner,
the majority shareholder of failed savings and loan, sought review of
an order of respondent, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which
sought disgorgement for failure to maintain the savings and loan's
capital under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989, 12 U.S.C.S. § 1437.
FACTS: Petitioner, a majority shareholder of failed savings and loan, sought review of the administrative order of respondent Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), that required him to pay $ 1.5 million. Petitioner signed an agreement that personally guaranteed the saving and loan would maintain the minimum amount of capital required by regulation. OTS entered the order pursuant to an administrative proceeding where it found petitioner was unjustly enriched under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C.S. § 1818(b)(6)(A)(I), because he received the benefit of the savings and loan's having deposit insurance while retaining the capital he was supposed to contribute under the agreement. The court reversed the OTS order, finding that the OTS failed to make the requisite showing that petitioner was "unjustly enriched." The court found that the OTS failed to satisfy the first element of unjust enrichment because petitioner did not receive a benefit from the OTS by failing to contribute capital. The court found nothing was conferred upon petitioner, he merely failed to pay an alleged contract obligation.
CONCLUSION: The court granted the petition for review and set aside the order of respondent Office of Thrift Supervision's (OTS), in petitioner's favor, because OTS did not have the power to enforce capital maintenance under FIRREA in an administrative proceeding when there was no showing that petitioner was unjustly enriched.
FACTS: Petitioner, a majority shareholder of failed savings and loan, sought review of the administrative order of respondent Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), that required him to pay $ 1.5 million. Petitioner signed an agreement that personally guaranteed the saving and loan would maintain the minimum amount of capital required by regulation. OTS entered the order pursuant to an administrative proceeding where it found petitioner was unjustly enriched under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C.S. § 1818(b)(6)(A)(I), because he received the benefit of the savings and loan's having deposit insurance while retaining the capital he was supposed to contribute under the agreement. The court reversed the OTS order, finding that the OTS failed to make the requisite showing that petitioner was "unjustly enriched." The court found that the OTS failed to satisfy the first element of unjust enrichment because petitioner did not receive a benefit from the OTS by failing to contribute capital. The court found nothing was conferred upon petitioner, he merely failed to pay an alleged contract obligation.
CONCLUSION: The court granted the petition for review and set aside the order of respondent Office of Thrift Supervision's (OTS), in petitioner's favor, because OTS did not have the power to enforce capital maintenance under FIRREA in an administrative proceeding when there was no showing that petitioner was unjustly enriched.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment