Shearman & Sterling LLP multinational law firm headquartered in New York City, United States.

May 22, 2016

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

配信申込

ジャンプリンクテキスト

 

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

著者等

Stuart J. Baskin

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4974

+1 212 848 4974

ニューヨーク

Matthew L. Craner

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 5255

+1 212 848 5255

ニューヨーク

Agnès Dunogué

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 5257

+1 212 848 5257

ニューヨーク

H. Miriam Farber

ナレッジマネジメント・アトーニー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 5156

+1 212 848 5156

ニューヨーク

Stephen Fishbein

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4424

+1 212 848 4424

ニューヨーク

Jerome S. Fortinsky

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4900

+1 212 848 4900

ニューヨーク

Alan S. Goudiss

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4906

+1 212 848 4906

ニューヨーク

John Gueli

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4744

+1 212 848 4744

ニューヨーク

Adam Hakki

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4924

+1 212 848 4924

ニューヨーク

Daniel H.R. Laguardia

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 415 616 1114

+1 415 616 1114

+1 212 848 4731

+1 212 848 4731

サンフランシスコ

Christopher L. LaVigne

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4432

+1 212 848 4432

ニューヨーク

Daniel Lewis

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 8691

+1 212 848 8691

ニューヨーク

John A. Nathanson

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 8611

+1 212 848 8611

ニューヨーク

Brian H. Polovoy

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4703

+1 212 848 4703

ニューヨーク

Jeffrey J. Resetarits

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 7116

+1 212 848 7116

ニューヨーク

William J. F. Roll, III

ジェネラル・カウンセル

紛争解決

+1 212 848 4260

+1 212 848 4260

ニューヨーク

Richard F. Schwed

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 5445

+1 212 848 5445

ニューヨーク

Patrick D. Robbins

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 415 616 1210

+1 415 616 1210

サンフランシスコ

Mark D. Lanpher

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 202 508 8120

+1 202 508 8120

ワシントンDC

Brian G. Burke

パートナー

紛争解決

+1 212 848 7140

+1 212 848 7140

+86 21 6136 5000

+86 21 6136 5000

ニューヨーク

業務分野