failed bank litigation

In many jurisdictions, corporate officials sued for their actions undertaken in their corporate capacity may be able to defend themselves in reliance on the “business judgment rule.” This rule is designed to prevent courts from second-guessing the decisions of directors and officers. The defense has become particularly important in connection with the extensive litigation the

One of the most contentious issues in the litigation the FDIC has been pursuing in its capacity as receiver of various failed banks is whether the defendant former directors and officers can assert affirmative defenses against the FDIC for the agency’s own conduct.

In a part of a December 23, 2013 Eleventh Circuit opinion

Not only have the number of 2013 filings of FDIC’s lawsuits against the former directors and officers of failed banks already exceeded any prior year’s filings, but the pace of filings in the second and third quarter this year exceed the filing rate in an any equivalent period during the prior three years, according to

One of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues that has arisen during the current wave of failed bank litigation has been the question whether coverage for an action by the FDIC in its role as receiver of a failed bank against a failed bank’s directors and officers is precluded by the Insured vs. Insured exclusion

On July 15, 2013, the FDIC provided the latest update on the web page on which the agency is tracking the litigation it has filed and that has been authorized against the directors and offices of failed banks. According to the latest update, the FDIC has now filed a total of 69 lawsuits against failed