Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
FDIC found that Petitioner failed to set forth any factual or legal basis upon which the stay could be granted. Motion for Stay Pending Judicial Appeal was denied. (Related proceedings in this docket appear at [¶5140]).
[.1] FDIC ActStay of FDIC Order
[.2] Practice and ProcedureJudicial ReviewStay of FDIC Action
In the Matter of
On October 16, 1989, and October 24, 1989, respectively, Harold A. Hoffman and Joseph L. Hayes (the "Petitioners") filed motions with the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "Board") seeking a stay of the Board's Decision and Order to Cease and Desist (the "Order") dated September 12, 1989 ("Motions for Stay"), pending review of the Board's Order by enforcement in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.1 Opposition to the Motions for Stay was filed by enforcement counsel for the FDIC on October 24, 1989.
[.1] In response to Petitioners' first assertion, the Board notes that section 8(h)(3) of the Act specifically provides that the commencement of proceedings for judicial review shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of any order issued by the appropriate Federal banking agency. Thus, the grant of a stay is an extraordinary exercise of the Board's discretion.
[.2] In deciding whether to stay an agency order, however, administrative agencies and the courts of appeal apply basically the same standards. Petitioners for a stay pending judicial review must demonstrate that four conditions are met before a stay will be entered, to wit: (1) a likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) irreparable injury to the petitioner unless the stay is granted; (3) no substantial harm to other interested persons; and (4) no harm to the public interest. 7 (pt. 2) J. Moore, J. Lucas & K. Sinclair, Jr., Moore's Federal Practice ¶65.04[1] at 3940 (2d ed. 1989) and the cases cited therein; Associated Securities Corp. v. S.E.C., 283 F.2d 773, 774-75 (10th Cir. 1960); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Assn. v. F.P.C., 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Petitioners do not meet any of these conditions.
|
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |