Shearman Logo

balance scale

May 22, 2016

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

Subscribe

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

Jaculin Aaron

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4450

+1 212 848 4450

New York

Stuart J. Baskin

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4974

+1 212 848 4974

New York

Matthew L. Craner

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 5255

+1 212 848 5255

New York

Agnès Dunogué

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 5257

+1 212 848 5257

New York

Miriam H. Farber

Counsel

Litigation

+1 212 848 5156

+1 212 848 5156

New York

Stephen Fishbein

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4424

+1 212 848 4424

New York

Jerome S. Fortinsky

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4900

+1 212 848 4900

New York

Alan S. Goudiss

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4906

+1 212 848 4906

New York

John Gueli

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4744

+1 212 848 4744

New York

Adam Hakki

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4924

+1 212 848 4924

New York

Daniel H.R. Laguardia

Partner

Litigation

+1 415 616 1114

+1 415 616 1114

San Francisco

Christopher L. LaVigne

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4432

+1 212 848 4432

New York

Daniel Lewis

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 8691

+1 212 848 8691

New York

John A. Nathanson

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 8611

+1 212 848 8611

New York

Brian H. Polovoy

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 4703

+1 212 848 4703

New York

Jeffrey J. Resetarits

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 7116

+1 212 848 7116

New York

William J. F. Roll III

Of Counsel

Litigation

+1 212 848 4260

+1 212 848 4260

New York

Richard F. Schwed

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 5445

+1 212 848 5445

New York

Patrick D. Robbins

Partner

Litigation

+1 415 616 1210

+1 415 616 1210

San Francisco

Mark D. Lanpher

Partner

Litigation

+1 202 508 8120

+1 202 508 8120

Washington DC

Brian G. Burke

Partner

Litigation

+1 212 848 7140

+1 212 848 7140

New York

Practices