Opinion ID: 752382
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Possible Violations of Any Law Requirement

Text: 22 The third point raised by Retsinas on appeal is that the Haley Memo referred only to Haley's personal disagreement with the OTS's policy regarding MCM, and not to any illegal activity of which the OTS may have been guilty. In his brief, Haley argues at length that the OTS's policy regarding MCM was a possible violation of many laws and regulations. The issue, of course, is not what arguments can be made in retrospect, but what information was conveyed in the memo itself. 23 In the memo, Haley stated, among other things, 24 I cannot believe that Congress intended for the FIRREA legislation to be used as a pretext for removing a board of directors and management who have managed soundly and fulfilled all of their fiduciary responsibilities from an institution which is viable and poses no risk to the insurance fund. After all, this is America. The Federal government should not be permitted to take a profitable business away from anyone without a lengthy period of due process and until all reasonable alternatives are exhausted. 25 The language of section 1831j(a)(2) is broad. It refers to information ... regarding any possible violation of any law or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. After reviewing the memo, we cannot conclude that it does not contain information regarding any possible violation of any law, or, at least, information regarding an abuse of authority by the OTS. Accordingly, we find that Haley's disclosure is protected by section 1831j(a)(2). 26 We have reviewed Retsinas's other arguments on appeal, and we also find them to be without merit.