Director's Duty of Care and Liability of Failed Bank

国会打算根据第1821(K)条制定州侮辱法规。保护董事和高级管理人员免于因违反对公司和金融机构的职责而被起诉。但有争议的是，该法规是否禁止因州法规或普通法中的过失等较低责任标准而提起诉讼。许多法院认为，第1821(K)条只规定了对金融机构董事和高级管理人员责任的最低照顾标准，并未阻止适用更严格的标准，如简单过失。另一方面，几个法院认为，FIRREA规定了一个统一的标准，因此先发制人。最近，联邦巡回法院的四位议员认为，第1821(K)条取代了联邦普通法，因为国会将FIRREA作为联邦统一标准。查普曼法院认为，州法律的索赔没有先发制人，但得出结论，RTC不能对联邦特许机构提起诉讼。联邦存款保险公司的…更多的内容包括以简单的疏忽为由对董事和高管提起诉讼。持反对意见的董事和高级管理人员辩称，第1821(K)条限制了董事和高级管理人员的严重疏忽或故意不当行为。因为有这样的分裂。最高法院应该解决这个问题。FDIC是在1930年代的银行业危机中根据1933年法案诞生的。自那以来，除了担任破产管理人或托管人外，FDIC还获得了广泛的调查权力和普通法下的其他超权力。对FDIC的监管在保护储蓄者和减少银行倒闭方面取得了成功。但20世纪80年代的银行业人士意识到，保险基金并非取之不尽、用之不竭。并改变了银行监管。现在，FDIC的责任是同时保护保险基金和纳税人。FDIC承认，它不仅代表储户、股东和债权人，也代表存款保险基金。因此，PDIC试图最大限度地追回损失的资金，并追究董事对其管理不善的责任。有时，法院驳回了FDIC关于需要保留国家保险基金的政策论点。例如。O‘Melveny&Myers法院最近裁定，没有一项联邦政策规定保险基金应该永远获胜。因此，董事们可以针对FDIC针对商业判断规则或有时针对监管机构的共同疏忽提起的诉讼进行辩护。较少

Congress intended section 1821 (k) to precmpt state insulting statutes. shielding directors and officers from suits for breach of duty to corporations and financial institution. But there is an argument wheather this statute bars lawsuits for lesser standard of liability such as negligence under state statute or common law.Many courts have held that section 1821 (k) merely establishes a minimum standard of care for liability of directors and officers of financial institution and doesn't prevent from applying more stringent standard such as simple negligence. The other hand, several courts have held that FIRREA mandates a uniform standard, so preempting the other standard. Recently, four conrts in federal circuit have held that section 1821 (k) supersedes federal common law, because Congress acted FIRREA as federal uniform standard. And Chapman court held that state law claims weren't preempled, but concluded RTC could not bring suits against federally chartered in stitutions. The FDIC … More consists to bring suits against directors and officers for simple negligence. The dofendant directors and officers argue that section 1821 (k) limits to gross negligence or willful misconduct of directors and officers. As there are such splits. Supreme court should address this issue.The FDIC was born by the 1933 Act amid the banking crisis of 1930s. Additional to acting as receiver or conservator, FDIC has gained broad investigative powers and other superpowers under common law since then. The regulation of FDIC has been sucessful in protecting dipositors and reducing bank failures. But the banking cricis of 1980s realized that the insursnce fund was not necessary inexhaustible. and altered the banking regulation. Now, the FDIC's liability is taken to protect both of the insurance fund and taxpayrs. And the FDIC acknowledges that it does not only suit on behalf of depositors, shareholders and creditors, but also on behalf of the deposit insurance fund. So, PDIC tries to maximize the recover lost funds and hold directors accountable for their mismanagement.Sometimes courts reject the FDIC's policy arguments regarding the need to preserve the national insurance fund. For example. O'melveny & Myers court recently held, 'there is no federal policy that the insurance fund should always win.'. So, directors can assert the defense against FDIC'S suits on business judgment rule or sometimes on contributry negligence of the regulator. Less