HINDES v. F.D.I.C. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Shareholders of a failed bank sued the FDIC, alleging a wrongful seizure. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) broadly precludes judicial review that would interfere with the FDIC’s actions as receiver.
Legal Significance: This case demonstrates the expansive power of FIRREA’s anti-injunction provisions, which bar judicial review of agency actions—even against third parties—if the relief sought would “affect” the FDIC’s functions as a receiver, thereby insulating the agency from pre-enforcement challenges.
HINDES v. F.D.I.C. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
At the FDIC’s request, Meritor Savings Bank assumed the liabilities of a failing bank in 1982. In return, the FDIC agreed in writing that Meritor could count $796 million in “supervisory goodwill” toward its regulatory capital requirements. The FDIC reaffirmed this agreement in 1991. However, after Congress passed the FDIC Improvements Act of 1991, the FDIC adopted new regulations that created uncertainty about the continued viability of the goodwill. On December 11, 1992, the FDIC formally notified Meritor that the goodwill would no longer count as capital, rendering the bank undercapitalized. In the same notification, the FDIC threatened to terminate Meritor’s deposit insurance. Acting on this notification, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Banking closed Meritor that same day and appointed the FDIC as receiver. Meritor’s shareholders (appellants) sued the FDIC and the Secretary, seeking, among other things, APA review to declare the FDIC’s notification void and to rescind the Secretary’s closure order. The shareholders did not use the available state procedure to challenge the receiver’s appointment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) preclude judicial review of an FDIC notification that a bank is undercapitalized, or of a state official’s subsequent decision to close the bank, when such review would affect the FDIC’s powers as the appointed receiver?
Yes. The court held that FIRREA’s anti-injunction provision, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j), Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est labor
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) preclude judicial review of an FDIC notification that a bank is undercapitalized, or of a state official’s subsequent decision to close the bank, when such review would affect the FDIC’s powers as the appointed receiver?
Conclusion
The decision solidifies the extensive insulation from judicial interference granted to the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labor
Legal Rule
Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occ
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded on several independent administrative law grounds. First, it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A federal agency, such as the FDIC, is not a “person”