Federal Deposit Insurance v. Harrington
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1738, 844 F. Supp. 300, 1994 WL 58257 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) establishes a federal statutory standard of gross negligence for claims against officers and directors of federally insured depository institutions, thereby preempting federal common law claims for simple negligence. Texas common law, through the business judgment rule, also holds corporate officers and directors liable only for conduct amounting to gross negligence, not simple negligence.
Facts:
- Defendants were former officers and/or directors of United City Corporation ('UCC'), a bank holding company, and its five subsidiary banks.
- The five subsidiary banks were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
- The FDIC alleged that the Defendants' actions and omissions constituted negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, and breach of fiduciary duties, which caused financial damages to the banks.
- By September 1990, all five of UCC's subsidiary banks had failed.
- Following the failures, the FDIC was appointed as the receiver for each of the five banks.
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as receiver for five failed banks, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the banks' former officers and directors.
- The FDIC's complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence.
- The Defendants filed multiple Motions to Dismiss the claims for simple negligence, negligence per se, and breach of fiduciary duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Defendants argued in their motions that no cause of action exists under Texas law for simple negligence against bank officers and directors, and that liability requires a showing of gross negligence.
- The FDIC responded, arguing that federal common law provided a simple negligence standard that survived FIRREA, or alternatively, that Texas law also permitted such claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does federal law, specifically the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), and Texas common law permit claims against bank officers and directors for simple negligence, or is a higher standard of gross negligence required for liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanders, Chief Judge
No, neither federal law under FIRREA nor Texas common law permits claims against bank directors and officers for simple negligence; a standard of at least gross negligence is required for liability. Regarding federal law, the court holds that the plain language of FIRREA, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 1821(k), directly establishes a federal statutory standard of gross negligence. This specific congressional legislation supersedes and preempts any pre-existing federal common law that might have allowed for claims based on simple negligence. Regarding state law, the court determines that Texas law, as articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Gearhart Industries, Inc. v. Smith Int’l, Inc., applies the business judgment rule. This rule protects non-interested directors from liability for acts of simple negligence, imposing liability only for actions that are ultra vires, fraudulent, or amount to gross negligence, which involves an abdication of directorial duties.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a significant limitation on the ability of federal regulators like the FDIC to recover losses from the officers and directors of failed financial institutions. By holding that FIRREA preempts more lenient federal common law standards and that Texas state law similarly requires gross negligence, the court raises the bar for proving personal liability. This aligns with the business judgment rule's goal of protecting directors from liability for good-faith, albeit unsuccessful, business decisions, thereby encouraging qualified individuals to serve on corporate boards without fear of litigation over ordinary mistakes. The ruling clarifies that FIRREA's savings clause preserves state law actions, but the practical effect is limited in states like Texas where the state law standard is already as high as the federal one.
