Director's Duty of Care and Liability of Failed Bank

国会打算用第1821（k）条来阻止州侮辱性法规。保护董事和高级职员免于因违反对公司和金融机构的义务而被起诉。但是，该法规是否禁止州法或普通法规定的较低责任标准（如过失）的诉讼存在争议。许多法院认为，第1821（k）条仅为金融机构董事和高级管理人员的责任规定了最低限度的注意标准，并不妨碍适用更严格的标准（如简单过失）。另一方面，一些法院认为，FIRREA强制规定了一个统一的标准，因此优先于其他标准。近年来，四位联邦巡回法院的法官认为，1821（k）条取代了联邦普通法，因为国会将《联邦土地使用权法》作为联邦的统一标准。查普曼法院认为，州法律的要求没有被预先采纳，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 ...更多信息 包括以简单的疏忽对董事和高级职员提起诉讼。被告方的董事和高级职员辩称，第1821（k）条仅限于董事和高级职员的重大过失或故意不当行为。因为有这样的分裂。最高法院应该解决这个问题。联邦存款保险公司是在1930年代银行业危机中根据1933年法案诞生的。除了作为接管人或保管人之外，FDIC还获得了广泛的调查权力和普通法下的其他超级权力。联邦存款保险公司的监管在保护存款人和减少银行倒闭方面取得了成功。但是，20世纪80年代的银行界人士认识到，保险资金并不一定取之不尽用之不竭。并改变了银行业监管。现在，FDIC的责任是为了保护保险基金和纳税人。联邦存款保险公司承认它不仅代表存款人、股东和债权人，而且代表存款保险基金。因此，PDIC试图最大限度地收回损失的资金，并让董事为他们的管理不善负责。有时，法院驳回联邦存款保险公司关于需要保留国家保险基金的政策论点。例如，奥梅维尼和迈尔斯法院最近认为，没有任何联邦政策规定保险基金应该总是获胜。'.因此，董事们可以根据商业判断规则或监管机构的共同过失对FDIC的诉讼进行辩护。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