Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
FDIC Board denies Petitioner's motions for rehearing and for stay pending appeal of its Order of Removal and of Prohibition from Further Participation. (The decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 931 F.2d 290.)
[.1] Practice and ProcedureRehearingBurden of Persuasion
[.2] Practice and ProcedureStay Pending Appeal
In the Matter of
DECISION
On June 12, 1990, the Board of Directors ("Board") of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") entered an Order of Removal and of Prohibition from Further Participation ("Order") against Frank E. Jameson ("Petitioner"). The Order, which takes effect thirty days after the date of its entry and remains in effect for three years thereafter, removes Petitioner from his position as an officer and director of First State Bank, Liberty, Texas. It also prohibits him from acting as an institution-affiliated party or participating in any manner in the conduct of the affairs of any insured depository institution and several other related types of entities,1absent the prior written consent of the appropriate Federal financial institutions regulatory agency. Finally, the Order forbids petitioner to act with respect to voting
The Board denies Petitioner's motion for rehearing. He has failed to show sufficient grounds for reconsideration of his case, and the Board's Decision is fully supported by the evidence on the record below.
[.1] Petitioner bears the burden of persuading the Board to reconsider its Decision.2The FDIC's regulations require that, at a minimum, a petitioner seeking reconsideration of a Board decision should "(i) specify reasons why the FDIC should reconsider its action and (ii) set forth relevant information that for good cause was not previously set forth." 12 C.F.R. §308.44(b).
[.2] The Board denies Petitioner's motion for stay of the Order pending appeal because he fails to make any showing that the circumstances of this case warrant one.3The granting of a stay is an extraordinary exercise of the Board's discretion. FDIC Enf. Dec. 88-156c&b at 3 (Nov. 7th, 1989). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that his case warrants the issuance of a stay pending appeal. Id.; Ohio v. NRC, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir. 1987); Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 978 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Decision, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions for Rehearing and Stay are hereby DENIED. |
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |