May 23, 2016

Second Circuit Reaffirms Its View That Extender Statutes Supersede Statutes of Repose

订阅

Jump to...

 

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) includes a so-called Extender Statute prescribing the limitations period for actions brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as conservator or receiver for a failed bank.  The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) includes a materially identical provision governing the limitations period for actions brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) as conservator or receiver for government-sponsored entities within its regulatory purview, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  These Extender Statutes have been utilized by the FDIC and FHFA to pursue residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) claims that otherwise would have been barred by various statutes of repose, and in 2013, in FHFA v. UBS, the Second Circuit held that the FHFA Extender Statute displaced the Securities Act’s three-year statute of repose. However, in 2014, the Supreme Court held in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger that a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) provision preempting state statutes of limitations did not preempt state statutes of repose.  Since then, RMBS defendants have invoked CTS to argue that the FDIC, FHFA, and similar Extender Statutes do not displace statutes of repose.  The Fifth and Tenth Circuits have rejected such arguments (relying, in part, on UBS). In FDIC, as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. First Horizon Asset Sec., Inc., 2016 WL 2909338 (2d Cir. May 19, 2016) (“Colonial Bank”), a divided panel of the Second Circuit concluded that CTS did not undermine the rationale of UBS, and accordingly held that the FDIC Extender Statute supersedes the Securities Act’s three-year statute of repose.  Although the Colonial Bank decision did not result in a Circuit split that could have been helpful in obtaining Supreme Court review, the thoughtful dissent suggests that this issue may well generate ongoing judicial disagreement and find its way to the Supreme Court.

View Full Memo, Second Circuit Reaffirms Its View That Extender Statutes Supersede Statutes of Repose

Authors and Contributors

Stuart J. Baskin

返聘高级顾问

诉讼

+1 212 848 4974

+1 212 848 4974

纽约

Matthew L. Craner

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 5255

+1 212 848 5255

纽约

Agnès Dunogué

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 5257

+1 212 848 5257

纽约

H. Miriam Farber

Knowledge Management Attorney

诉讼

+1 212 848 5156

+1 212 848 5156

纽约

Stephen Fishbein

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 4424

+1 212 848 4424

纽约

Alan S. Goudiss

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 4906

+1 212 848 4906

纽约

John Gueli

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 4744

+1 212 848 4744

纽约

Adam Hakki

Senior Partner

诉讼

+1 212 848 4924

+1 212 848 4924

纽约

Daniel H.R. Laguardia

合伙人

诉讼

+1 415 616 1114

+1 415 616 1114

+1 212 848 4731

+1 212 848 4731

旧金山

Christopher L. LaVigne

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 4432

+1 212 848 4432

纽约

Daniel Lewis

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 8691

+1 212 848 8691

纽约

John A. Nathanson

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 8611

+1 212 848 8611

纽约

Jeffrey J. Resetarits

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 7116

+1 212 848 7116

纽约

William J. F. Roll, III

General Counsel

诉讼

+1 212 848 4260

+1 212 848 4260

纽约

Richard F. Schwed

合伙人

诉讼

+1 212 848 5445

+1 212 848 5445

纽约

Mark D. Lanpher

合伙人

诉讼

+1 202 508 8120

+1 202 508 8120

华盛顿特区

业务