Opinion ID: 686728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mootness of the Subpoenas

Text: 84 The Directors contend, finally, that the FDIC's subpoenas have become moot in light of the fact that the FDIC has essentially completed its investigation of the appellants. Directors' Br. at 21. For this contention, the Directors rely on the fact that the FDIC sent letters dated February 17, 1994, to at least four of the Directors, stating that FDIC now is completing its investigation and requesting a meeting with directors and officers of Landmark, including the Directors, to discuss, among other things, the possibility of settlement. See letter of William R. Einhorn to Richard R. Rangoon, dated Feb. 17, 1994. If the investigation is essentially over, the Directors contend, the extensive personal financial information sought by the subpoenas is no longer needed. 85 We must disagree. First, we cannot accept the Directors' characterization of the investigation as essentially completed. This is a characterization which the FDIC contests, and one, furthermore, which is not supported by the letters on which the Directors rely, which characterize the investigation as ongoing. See id. 86 Second, the Directors' argument is legally meritless. As the D.C. Circuit has recently held, the initiation of civil proceedings does not moot an administrative subpoena. Walde, 18 F.3d at 950; Linde Thomson, 5 F.3d at 1518. If the actual commencement of a lawsuit against directors does not terminate the FDIC's investigative authority, certainly an invitation to a settlement conference does not either.