We invite you to read and discover how Planned Furniture Promotions, Inc. Since 1962, Gene Rosenberg led Planned Furniture Promotions.
Taylor, Bean & Whitaker was a top-10 wholesale mortgage lending firm, the fifth-largest issuer of Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae) securities.
DE 2.02,9.01 05/11/12 SHORE BANCSHARES INC MD 5.02 05/09/12 SI Financial Group, Inc. NV 5.02,7.01,9.01 05/09/12 AMEND TOWERSTREAM CORP DE 8.01 04/30/12 TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS IN DE 5.07 05/10/12 TRANS1 INC 2.02,9.01 05/08/12 TRANSCAT INC OH 5.02,9.01 05/07/12 TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA LLC 5.07,8.01,9.01 05/10/12 TREX CO INC DE 2.02,9.01 05/07/12 AMEND TRIAD GUARANTY INC DE 2.02,9.01 05/11/12 TRIMAS CORP DE 5.07 05/10/12 Uni-Pixel DE 8.01,9.01 05/11/12 UNION PACIFIC CORP UT 5.07 05/10/12 United Maritime Group, LLC FL 1.01,8.01,9.01 05/10/12 UNIVERSITY GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM, INC NV 9.01 03/31/12 UNWIRED PLANET, INC.
NV 5.02,5.07 05/08/12 SEMPRA ENERGY CA 8.01 05/11/12 SGS International, Inc. NV 1.01,2.03,9.01 05/09/12 Sutor Technology Group LTD 2.02,7.01,9.01 05/11/12 SWIFT ENERGY CO 5.02,5.07,9.01 05/08/12 SXC Health Solutions Corp. NV 5.02,9.01 05/10/12 TANDY LEATHER FACTORY INC DE 2.02,9.01 05/11/12 TAYLOR CALVIN B BANKSHARES INC MD 5.07 05/09/12 TAYLOR CALVIN B BANKSHARES INC MD 5.02 05/09/12 TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS INC DE 8.01 05/07/12 TENET HEALTHCARE CORP NV 5.07 05/10/12 TEREX CORP DE 5.07 05/10/12 TETRA TECHNOLOGIES INC DE 5.07 05/08/12 THOMAS & BETTS CORP TN 8.01,9.01 05/11/12 Thompson Creek Metals CO Inc. A6 1.01,2.03,9.01 05/07/12 Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp.
Before O'CONNOR,*Associate Justice Retired, and CARNES and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. The FDIC filed both a timely appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction order and a petition for a writ of mandamus to dissolve the district court's preliminary injunction. First, we evaluate whether the FDIC's challenged actions constitute the exercise of a receivership power or function. If so, the FDIC is protected from all court action that would “restrain or affect” the exercise of those powers or functions pursuant to § 1821(j), and we proceed to the secondary inquiry of whether the district court's actions do in fact restrain or affect the FDIC as receiver. The district court found and Bank of America argues that the FDIC would exceed its statutory powers and functions as receiver by controlling and disposing of the loans and loan proceeds at issue. Such actions fall squarely within the powers and functions granted to the FDIC by Congress in FIRREA. See also, e.g., Nat'l Trust for Historic Pres., 995 F.2d at 239 (concluding that an injunction against a planned sale of an historic property of the failed bank would “surely ‘restrain or affect’ the FDIC's exercise of those powers or functions”); Gross, 974 F.2d at 408 (concluding that an injunction requiring the receiver to release certain deposits would “restrain or affect” the receiver's exercise of its powers and functions); Tillman v. 8, 2009) (holding that § 1821(j) does not deprive a court of jurisdiction to enjoin the FDIC from initiating foreclosure proceedings where the failed bank's security interest in the property proposed for sale had been extinguished prior to the FDIC's takeover).
Thereafter, the district court converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction against the FDIC, rejecting the FDIC's arguments that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the FDIC as receiver and that Bank of America must first exhaust the administrative claims process prior to seeking a judicial remedy. Therefore, our jurisdictional inquiry under § 1821(j) is quite narrow.