Document: 502 U.S. 32 112 S.Ct. 459 116 L.Ed.2d 358 BOARD OF GOVERNORS THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.MCORP FINANCIAL, INC., et al. MCORP, al., Petitioners, v. STATES. Nos. 90-913, 90-914. Argued Oct. 7, 1991. Decided Dec. 3, Syllabus After MCorp, a bank holding company, filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions, it initiated an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court against Board of Governors Federal Reserve System (Board) seeking to enjoin prosecution two pending administrative proceedings, one charging MCorp with violation Board's "source strength" regulation and other alleging § 23A Act. The District transferred its own docket, ruled that had jurisdiction from prosecuting both entered preliminary injunction halting those proceedings. Appeals vacated barring proceeding, reasoning plain language judicial review provisions Financial Institutions Supervisory Act 1966 (FISA), particularly 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(1), deprived either proceeding. However, also interpreted Leedom Kyne, 184, 79 180, 3 210, authorize any conducted without statutory authorization, promulgation enforcement source strength exceeded authority, remanded case instructions enforcing regulation. Held: lacked regulatory Pp. 37-45. (a) This litigation is controlled by 1818(i)(1)'s plain, preclusive language: "[N]o court shall have affect . issuance or [Board] notice order." That not qualified superseded Code's automatic stay provision, 11 362. planned actions fall squarely within 362(b)(4), which expressly provides will reach proceedings enforce "governmental unit's police power." protected §§ 362(a)(3) 362(a)(6)—which "any act" obtain possession of, exercise control over, property estate, recover claims debtor arose prior filing petition—because such do application ongoing, nonfinal as at issue here. Moreover, MCorp's reliance on 28 1334(b)—which authorizes district courts concurrent over certain bankruptcy-related civil would otherwise be subject exclusive another "court"—is misplaced, since "court," entry final order commencement action, seems unlikely impair Court's estate 1334(d). 37-42. (b) erred interpreting Kyne In contrast situation FISA, 1818(h)(2), meaningful adequate opportunity for regulation's validity if when finds has violated and, clearly directly demonstrates congressional intent preclude review. circumstances, ongoing 42-45. 900 F.2d 852 (CA 1990): No. reversed; 90-914, affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, all Members joined, except THOMAS, who took no part consideration decision cases. Jeffrey P. Minear, Washington, D.C., System. Alan B. Miller, New York City, Justice STEVENS Court. 1 petitions March 1989. It then regulation1 Act, added, 48 Stat. 183, amended.2 enjoined appealed. held but that, under doctrine set forth 210 (1958), authority promulgating (CA5 1990). We granted certiorari, 499 ----, 111 1101, 113 212 (1991), entire action but, because we conclude merits challenge 2 * 1984, promulgated requiring every company "serve financial managerial subsidiary banks."3 October 1988, commenced MCorp,4 engaged unsafe unsound banking practices jeopardized condition banks. issued three temporary cease-and-desist orders.5 first forbids declaring paying dividends approval Board. App. 65-67. second dissipating nonbank assets Id., 68-70. third directs use "all provide capital support Subsidiary Banks need additional capital." 85. By agreement, was suspended while sought assistance Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).6 1989, FDIC denied request assistance. Thereafter, creditors involuntary petition Southern York, Comptroller Currency determined 20 banks were insolvent accordingly, appointed receiver Texas later consolidated forum. 4 At end March, causing extend unsecured credit approximately $63.7 million affiliate. For convenience refer "§ proceeding" earlier proceeding." 5 May this complaint declaration been automatically stayed pursuant Code; alternative, prayed further On motion, docket. 6 June restrained exercising "its companies. attempt effect, indirectly, reorganization group [of companies] through participation proceedings." re 101 B.R. 483, 491 (S.D.Tex.). 7 Although did differentiate between could go forward should enjoined. reasoned 80 1046, amended, 1818, seq. (1988 ed. Supp. I), our nevertheless authorized authorization. authority. Accordingly, Both parties petitioned certiorari. 8 challenges Appeals' interpretation well invalidation relationship governing address latter challenge. II 9 A series federal statutes gives substantial power companies establishes comprehensive scheme actions. See FISA; Bank Holding Company 1956 (BHCA), 1841 I); International Lending Supervision 1983, 3901 litigation, most relevant these FISA.7 10 FISA institute culminating orders, 1818(a)-(b) ed., orders are effective upon service company. 1818(c). addition, tripartite regime First, 1818(c)(2) days after order, may seek restraining completion related Second, 1818(h) appeals aggrieved party.8 Finally, 1818(i)(1) apply outstanding order. None controls litigation: before us neither nor Instead, FISA's preclusion provision appears speak jurisdictional question "[E]xcept provided section section, review, modify, suspend, terminate, aside I). Notwithstanding language, argues Code, 362, Judicial Code authorizing 1334(b). find merit argument. 13 operates several categories proceedings.9 constitute "continuation. [of] administrative. proceeding[s]" appear 362(a)(1). power."10 14 contends 362(b)(4) obtain, must determine whether proposed legitimate therefore, lower examine legitimacy disagree. broad reading require scrutinize brought bankrupt entity. Such problematic, conflicts discretion Congress many entities inconsistent limited vested courts. therefore reject petitioner's 362(b)(4). 15 362(a)(6) Code. Those petition. ultimate objective corporate seeks prepetition claim. 16 characterizations point, only "Notices Charges Hearing" expressed specified provisions. possible, course, like actions, possibility cannot sufficient justify operation exempted subsection (b)(4). To adopt characterization render 362(b)(4)'s exception almost meaningless. If culminate proper persuaded, however, proceedings.11 17 argument rests court.12 misplaced. Section 1334(b) concerns allocation "courts," agency "court." contrary contention, 1334(d).13 sum, agree specific I) general relies. III 18 found precluded exercised based (1958). involved challenging determination National Labor Relations unit including professional nonprofessional employees appropriate collective-bargaining purposes—a direct conflict Act.14 determination. Relying Switchmen Mediation Board, 320 297, 64 95, 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943), argued establishing indicated bar Court.15 rejected argument, emphasizing presumption normally intends protect rights created. Concluding jurisdiction, stated: "This lightly infer does intend protection confers taken excess delegated powers." U.S., 190, S.Ct., 185. 19 alleged agency's differs critical ways. central fact wholly deprive union means vindicating rights. "Here, differently Switchmen's case, 'absence courts' mean 'a sacrifice obliteration right Congress' given employees, there means, their control. right." Ibid. 21 today entirely different regulation, have, Appeals, unquestioned application. 22 second, related, factor distinguishing clarity FISA. contended implied, silence, contested contrast, spoken directly: section." (emphasis added). way well, Kyne.16 23 Viewed way, stands familiar proposition "only showing 'clear convincing evidence' legislative restrict access review." Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 141, 87 1507, 1511, 681 (1967). As explained, statute clear evidence intended deny IV 24 consider judgment remanding reversed. vacating 25 so ordered. 26 THOMAS part: "A serve con[d]uct operations manner." CFR 225.4(a)(1) (1991). sets restrictions companies' practices, transactions affiliates. 371c. n. 1, supra. 1987, clarified policy stated "bank company's failure assist troubled failing bank. generally viewed practice [12 ] both." 52 Fed.Reg. 15707-15708 (1987). term "MCorp" refers corporation owned subsidiaries, Financial, Inc., Management. timely challenged Northern Texas, 1818(c)(2). resolution Brief Respondents 3. current status unclear. Tr. Oral Arg. 22-25, 41-42. effort express continuing vitality orders. relied BHCA, e.g., 57, 72, focused former. note, BHCA includes similar 1844(e)(2). characterizes "exclusive" provides: "(2) Any party paragraph (1) United States circuit home office depository institution located, Columbia Circuit, thirty date written praying modified, terminated, aside. Upon petition, record last sentence said exclusive, affirm, aside, whole part, agency." 1818(h)(2) referenced permission court. "(a) Except 301, 302, 303 title, 5(a)(3) Securities Investor Protection 1970 (15 78eee(a)(3)), stay, applicable entities, of— "(1) continuation, employment process, judicial, administrative, claim title; "(3) act "(6) collect, assess, title....." 362(a). Title "(b) operate stay— "(4) (a)(1) continuation governmental power....." suggests automatic-stay 362 themselves confer court, thus where court's already 1818(i)(1). light than courts, original arising title 11, cases 11." "(d) property, wherever estate." 29 159(b)(1). 306, 99, reasoned: "When types awards same omitted respects type, drew line distinction. And inference strong history distinction inadvertent. read supports view gave 2, Ninth finality sections Act." Appeals—Bowen Michigan Academy Family Physicians, 476 667, 106 2133, 90 623 (1986); Breen Selective Service 396 460, 661, 653 (1970); Oestereich 393 233, 89 414, 402 (1968)—are distinguishable reasons. each cases, recognized unduly narrow construction severely prejudice construed allow provided.

Category: 8