Bank of Dixie v. Fed. Dep. Ins. Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Bank of La. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.

    No. 20-60380 (5th Cir. Dec. 28, 2020)

    Nor does a discontinuation of illegal practices render an FDIC cease-and-desist order moot. See First Nat'l Bank v. Comptroller, 697 F.2d 674, 683 (5th Cir. 1983); Bank of Dixie v. FDIC, 766 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1985). Alternatively, the Bank argues that it erroneously filed its petition for review with this court and asks us to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

  2. Jameson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

    931 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    Likewise, the FDIC correctly found that Jameson engaged in unsafe and unsound banking practices and breached his fiduciary duty to the Bank. It is uncontroverted that Jameson falsified the Bank's records to conceal his bonus from other Bank officials. The FDIC's conclusion that this falsification compromised the integrity of the Bank's records and constituted an unsafe and unsound banking practice as well as a breach of fiduciary duty, is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Bank of Dixie v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 766 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1985). IV.

  3. Sunshine State Bank v. Federal Deposit Ins. Co.

    783 F.2d 1580 (11th Cir. 1986)   Cited 10 times
    Noting deference to an examiner's recommendation is appropriate when recommendation is within a “zone of reasonableness”

    Unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious or outside a zone of reasonableness, the ALJ, the Board, and the courts must give significant deference to these experts. In addition to the deference that must be paid by the ALJ, and indeed, by the Board itself, to the judgment of such experts, this Court, in its review of the final agency action, cannot reverse the FDIC Board action unless the findings upon which it is based are not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, or unless the remedies formulated by the Board constitute an abuse of discretion or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A), (E); Fitzpatrick v. FDIC, 765 F.2d 569, 574 (6th Cir. 1985); Bank of Dixie v. FDIC, 766 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1985); Groos National Bank v. Comptroller of Currency, 573 F.2d 889, 897 (5th Cir. 1978); see also McHenry v. Bond, 668 F.2d 1185, 1190 (11th Cir. 1982). This Court has conducted an extensive review of the record on each of the loans particularly argued in petitioners' brief and has sampled from among the others.