FDIC suits against failed financial institutions seeing a spike
Nearly 40 percent of the 297 financial institutions that failed in 2009 or 2010 have been subject to FDIC litigation or have settled with the FDIC prior to a lawsuit.
February 14, 2014 at 06:34 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The failures of the financial crisis are now starting to be felt in court rooms, as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has reported that director and officer (D&O) litigation against failed financial institutions spiked in 2013 following multiple 2009 and 2010 bank failures.
A report from Cornerstone Research indicates that nearly 40 percent of the 297 financial institutions that failed in 2009 or 2010 have been subject to FDIC litigation or have settled with the FDIC prior to a lawsuit.
That number should rise even higher in early 2014 after a miniature lull in the fourth quarter of 2013. According to governmental regulations, the FDIC must file a D&O lawsuit within three to four years of a financial institution failing. That means the rest of those failed institutions from 2009 and 2010 will soon be seeing their day in court.
“While FDIC filings of new D&O lawsuits hit a lull in the fourth quarter of 2013, new filings are unlikely to continue at such a slow pace in the first half of 2014,” said Katie Galley, a senior vice president at Cornerstone Research, to the Wall Street Journal. “Three lawsuits were already filed in January, and as motions and discovery unfold in existing lawsuits, this year will be interesting to follow.”
These lawsuits should further place pressure on U.S. banks that have to cover rising legal costs. The total tab from the financial crisis reached $100 billion for U.S. banks last August.
Banks need to cope with changing FDIC strategies as well. As InsideCounsel noted in July 2013, the fact that all FDIC settlements are made public puts pressure on the agency to take a hard line with offenders. More often, the FDIC has preferred litigation to settlements, especially when it comes to directors and officers.
California-based IndyMac learned this lesson the hard way when, in December 2012, the FDIC suit resulted in a jury returning a $169 million verdict against three officers that had approved risky loans.
Financial institutions are regularly in legal news; catch up on the latest with us:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Here's What Corporate Litigators Expect Del. Courts to Address in 2025
- 2U.S. Supreme Court Has No Jurisdiction Over Trump's New York Criminal Case: Prosecutors
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: With KPMG's Proposed Entry, Arizona's Liberalized Legal Market is Getting Interesting
- 4Womble Bond Dickinson Adds New Leaders as Merger Is Completed
- 5Family's Disability Discrimination Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Six Flags
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250