Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FIRREA: Everything Old Is New Again
In the aftermath of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, Congress passed a number of financial reforms, including the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). Its purpose was to provide federal enforcement authorities with a powerful mechanism to pursue borrowers, bank officers and others whose fraudulent action “affected a federally insured financial institution.” In one high-profile prosecution, Charles Keating, the owner and chief executive of a federally insured thrift, Lincoln Savings and Loan Association (Lincoln), was charged in a multi-count indictment with myriad violations of federal law, including FIRREA. This prosecution ' with its focus on borrowers, appraisers and bank executives whose conduct harmed federally insured institutions ' was the norm for FIRREA cases for two decades.
Recent years have seen significant refocus of the FIRREA statute. Largely in response to the financial crisis of 2008, the government has brought claims against at least 2,900 individual defendants facing charges of mortgage fraud. While many cases involve causes of action based on the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. ' 3730, the government is also pursuing many of these defendants under FIRREA. 12 U.S.C. ' 1833. The language of FIRREA requiring that conduct “affect” a financial institution remains unchanged since the 1990s. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is relying on this language to address the risky lending practices of the financial institutions themselves as a basis for FIRREA claims. In other words, the focus 20 years ago was on protecting financial institutions from individuals, but FIRREA has now become an important instrument to address financial institutions' own improper lending or other business practices.
This premium content is locked for Business Crimes Bulletin subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.