Julia Moses, Administratrix v. City of Moundsville

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claims “relate to” assets where they depend on “proving that malfeasance by [holding company’s] directors depressed the Bank’s assets”
• explaining that cases applying direct-derivative test “are consistent with” court’s holding under statutory test
• applying Succession Clause where Plaintiff sought “to recover from assets, like insurance, that the FDIC also seeks in its own action related to the Bank’s failure.”
• “The long history of extensive federal involvement in the savings and loan industry reveals that the protection of depositors and the stability of thrift institutions are paramount among congressional concerns.”
• “[T]hat the claims depend on the Holding Company's proving that malfeasance by its directors depressed the Bank's assets means that the claims relate to or concern the assets of the Bank.”
• “We reject the Administrator's favored reading of § 1821(d)(2)(A), which limits the provision's key language to claims that shareholders may assert derivatively under state law on behalf of the institution in receivership.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).