Document: 512 U.S. 79114 S.Ct. 2048129 L.Ed.2d 67 O'MELVENY & MYERS, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION as Receiver for American Diversified Savings Bank et al. No. 93-489. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 21, 1994. Decided June 13, Syllabus * Respondent Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, receiver an insolvent California savings and loan (S L), caused § L to make refunds investors in certain fraudulent real estate syndications which had been represented by petitioner law firm. The FDIC filed suit against District alleged state causes action professional negligence breach fiduciary duty. Petitioner moved summary judgment, alleging, inter alia, that knowledge conduct L's officers must be imputed L, hence FDIC, which, receiver, stood shoes; thus was estopped from pursuing its tort claims. court granted motion, but Appeals reversed, indicating a federal common-law rule decision controlled. Held: decision, rather than rule, governs petitioner's liability. Pp. ____. (a) State imputation corporate officers' corporation is asserting created law. There no general common law, Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 64, 78, 58 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188, remote possibility corporations may go into receivership conceivable basis adopting special divesting authority over entire imputation. (b) also narrower question whether can suing receiver. This will not adopt judge-made supplement comprehensive detailed statutory regulation; matters left unaddressed such scheme are presumably Title 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(2)(A)(i) states "the [FDIC] shall . operation succeed to—all rights, titles, powers, privileges insured depository institution"—places shoes pursue claims under except where some provision extensive framework Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, Enforcement Act 1989 (FIRREA) specifically creates decision. (c) Judicial creation would justified even if FIRREA inapplicable instant receivership, began 1986. Instances warranted few restricted, limited situations there significant conflict between policy or interest use has identified here, one implicating most lightly invoked interest: uniformity. 969 F.2d 744 (CA 9 1992), reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. STEVENS, concurring opinion, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, JJ., joined. Rex Lee, petitioner. Paul Bender, respondents. Justice SCALIA 1 issue this case whether, Corporation federally bank, it federal-law state-law liability attorneys who provided services bank. 2 (ADSB L) California-chartered loan. following facts have stipulated to, uncontroverted, parties case, we assume them true purposes our ADSB acquired 1983 Ranbir Sahni Lester Day, respectively obtained 96% 4% stock, served chairman/CEO president. Under their leadership, engaged many risky transactions, principally through partnerships sponsored subsidiaries. Together, Day fraudulently overvalued ADSB's assets, sham sales assets create inflated "profits," generally "cooked books" disguise dwindling (and eventually negative) net worth. 3 In September 1985, O'Melveny Myers, Los Angeles-based firm, connection with two syndications. At time, investigation regulators, fact made public. completing work did contact accounting firms previously done ADSB, nor regulatory authorities, inquire about financial status. offerings on worked closed December 31, 1985. On February 14, 1986, regulators concluded incurred substantial losses because violations unsound business practices. stepped ADSB,1 19, Messrs. Court, alleging duty and, Sahni, RICO violations. Soon after taking respondent receiving demands claimed they deceived rescind return all investors' money plus interest. 4 May 12, 1989, sued Central California, arguing (1) owed affiliates uncover own fraud; (2) controlling respondent, L; (3) knowledge. 15, 1990, explaining only "entitled judgment favor matter law." Ninth Circuit grounds discuss below. (1992). petition writ certiorari, granted. 510 ----, 114 543, 126 445 (1993). II 5 It ground contends adjudication those determines acting corporation's corporation; former question, more narrow so when sues corporation.2 6 first these contentions need detain us long, plainly wrong. "There law," 1188 (1938), (to anticipate somewhat point elaborate fully respondent's second contention) See America Nat. Trust Assn. Parnell, 352 29, 33-34, 77 119, 121-122, 93 (1956). believed conclusion harmony Schacht Brown, 711 1343 (CA7 1983), Cenco Inc. Seidman Seidman, 686 449 1982), re Investors Funding Corp. N.Y. Securities Litigation, 523 F.Supp. 533 (SDNY 1980), F.2d, at 750, cursory examination cases shows contrary. Cenco, cause similarly arose Seventh Circuit's analysis "circumstances fraud part plaintiff's directors [would] plaintiff [was] merely attempt divine how Illinois courts decide issue." Schacht, 1347 (citing 455). Likewise, Funding, analyzed potential affirmative defenses applying "[t]he legal principles [of] New York F.Supp., 540. expressly noted [at issue] arises RICO, statute; therefore write clean slate bring bear policies deciding estoppel question." 1347. 7 seeking defend holding, quote caption argument) "The Wrongdoing Of Insiders Would Not Be Imputed To Generally Accepted Common Law Principles," Brief support attempts show nonattribution dishonest applied vast bulk decisions 43 jurisdictions, ranging Rhode Island Wyoming. See, e.g., id., 21-22, n. (distinguishing, Cook Tubing Webbing Co., 28 R.I. 41, 65 A. 641 (1905), Powell Foodbasket, 497 P.2d 546 (Wyo.1972)). supposed relevance set forth footnote: "It position does govern issue, content corresponds independently adopted jurisdictions." 3. If were generalized (which not), see reason why necessarily conform "independently But short victims negligence, chooses follow majority rule." 8 We turn, then, below, asserts pre-emption generally, application begins defense principle quoting Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 715, 726, 99 1448, 1457, 59 (1979), effect "federal questions involving rights arising nationwide programs." States, begging than, ADSB. any event, knowing governs" Foods sense—a sense includes adoption rules, 727-729, 1457-1459—does much advance ball. present displaced, theoretical California's sovereign power disposition. Boyle Technologies Corp., 487 500, 507, 3, 108 2510, 2516, 101 442 (1988). answering central displacement course contradict explicit provision. Nor court-made regulation detailed; subject disposition Northwest Airlines, Transport Workers, 451 77, 97, 1571, 1583-1584, 750 (1981); Milwaukee Illinois, 304, 319, 1784, 1793, 68 (1981). both apply (1988 ed., Supp. IV), legislation part, (FIRREA), Pub.L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183. 10 Section 1821(d)(2)(A)(i), captioned "Powers duties [the FDIC] receiver," institution. ." IV). language appears indicate "steps shoes" failed cf. Coit Independence Joint Venture FSLIC, 489 561, 585, 109 1361, 1374, 602 (1989), obtaining "of institution" existed prior receivership. Thereafter, litigation L—in potentially defeasible showing knowledge—" 'any good original party receiver.' " 751 (quoting Allen Ramsay, 179 Cal.App.2d 843, 854, Cal.Rptr. 575, 583 (1960)). 11 argues should read nonexclusive grant supplemented modified law; whole, demonstrating high area, confirms courts' promulgate argument demolished provisions rules regarding by, against, 1821(d)(14) IV) (extending statute limitations beyond period might exist law); §§ 1821(e)(1), (3), (precluding contracts authorized repudiate); 1821(k) (permitting gross regardless require greater culpability); 1821(d)(9) (excluding based oral agreements L). Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius. hard avoid places out provides otherwise. additional common-law" exceptions "supplement" scheme, alter it. thought necessary resolve argued prevent positively reluctant rest alone, however, since enacted while took willing "assume taken time relevant case," 35, self-evident assumption correct. Landgraf USI Film Products, 511 ---- - 1483, 1498-1499, 1502, 128 229 (1994); 1522, 1524 (SCALIA, judgment). seems imprudent retroactivity without briefing, inefficient pretermit FDIC's concession, value other cases. As proceed explain, assuming inapplicability judicial justified. 13 Such are, said past, "few restricted," Wheeldin Wheeler, 373 647, 651, 83 1441, 1445, 605 (1963), "significant Wallis Pan Petroleum 384 63, 68, 86 1301, 1304, 16 369 (1966). Our uniformly existence precondition recognition Kamen Kemper Services, 500 90, 98, 111 1711, 1717, 152 (1991); Boyle, U.S., 508, S.Ct., 2516; 728, 1458. permissibility scope turns upon conflict. Kamen, 1717; 2516. What fatal identifiable stake generic invoked) interests, here do primary agents contractors, affect liabilities, respect private actors already occurred. Uniformity facilitate suits, eliminating state-by-state research reducing uncertainty—but avoidance ordinary consequences qualified interest, awash rules. Yazell, 382 341, 347, 504, 15 404 14 closest comes identifying specific, concrete compromised contention "deplet[e] deposit insurance fund," 32. neither sets anticipated level fund, what mean "depletion" simply forgoing accrue fund. That broad indeed, just elimination new, "federal-common-law" enrich that, fund always win. rejected "more money" arguments remarkably similar here. 737-738, 1463-1464; 348, 504; Robertson Wegmann, 436 584, 593, 98 1991, 1996, 56 554 (1978). Even less persuasive—indeed, probative dangers facile approach federal-common-law-making—is "disserve program" permit insulate attorney's accountant's malpractice," thereby imposing costs "on nation's taxpayers, negligent wrongdoer." By presuming judge constitutes malpractice, demonstrates runaway tendencies law" untethered genuinely (as opposed judicially constructed) policy. sort impose lawyers accountants general, provide institutions particular, 'involves host considerations weighed appraised,' 1584, 41 Gilman, 347 512-513, 74 695, 698, 898 (1954))—including, example, incentives careful work, fair treatment third parties, assurance adequate recovery enablement reasonably priced services. Within system, least, decided function weighing appraising 'is appropriately laws, interpret them.' 513, 698). conclude extraordinary warranted. earlier, agreement California; vigorously disagree provides. leave point. remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 17 So ordered. 18 whom O'CONNOR SOUTER join, concurring. 19 While I join Court's add comment emphasize important difference courts. entirely proper jurisdiction fashion agency protect creditors wrongdoing itself, shareholders, bound acts agents. Indeed, well attach significance interests taxpayers affected case. courts, "unlike counterparts, vested open-ended lawmaking powers." 95, 1582, Because claim, elements defenses. Unless Congress otherwise directed, court's task 20 Cases like one, problem. They raise issues, definitively settled brought, nevertheless resolved judges confront issues surely simplified uniform apply. stand, best estimate perform task, then emulate sometimes purely hypothetical model. correctly avoids suggestion merits remand arise elsewhere. deal regularly respective districts circuits better determine local dispose comparable issues." Butner 48, 58, 914, 919, 136 (1979). syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 499. For simplicity's sake, refer "receiver" throughout, identify FDIC. reality complicated. entity involved Loan (FSLIC), appointed conservator 1986 1988. 183, abolished manager FSLIC resolution substituted 215, 401(a)(1), 401(f)(2). agreed contentions. Instead second, embraced proposition prevents attributed being used Since nothing formalistic distinction described text, treat separately.

Category: 9