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.
We invite you to read and discover how Planned Furniture Promotions, Inc. Since 1962, Gene Rosenberg led Planned Furniture Promotions.
Today, PFP is recognized as the leading premier sale promotion company in the home furnishing industry. Rosenberg was inducted into the prestigious American Furniture Hall of Fame. Nominees are required to have shown personal integrity throughout their career, made significant contributions to the industry and consideration is even given to their philanthropic efforts.
Gene’s portrait will be included with the other members in the Walk of Fame, which can be experienced by visiting the first floor of the Plaza Building in High Point.
In 1992, Gene founded Bob’s Discount Furniture, which is recognized as one of the most successful and fastest growing retail chains in the furniture industry.
Our inquiry in this case is limited to the threshold question of subject matter jurisdiction. § 1821(j), deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enjoin the FDIC because the preliminary injunction unlawfully restrained the FDIC's exercise of its receivership powers and functions. § 1821(j) stripped the district court of its jurisdiction to enter the preliminary injunction. Cir.1993), reinstated in relevant part, 21 F.3d 469 (D. And § 1821(d)(3) grants the receiver the power to determine all claims against the institution in accordance with the comprehensive administrative claims procedures set forth in § 1821(d)(3)-(13). Thus, Bank of America's fear that the FDIC will make an erroneous determination of ownership is immaterial to our analysis because it is merely a fear of the FDIC's improper performance of its legitimate receivership functions. § 1821(d)(7)(A) (providing for judicial review of the FDIC's final administrative determination). § 1821(d)(2)(H), or process any administrative claims relating to the loans. Nor is our analysis affected by Bank of America's argument that the disputed items were custodial assets, unowned by Colonial, much like the contents of a safe deposit box. In addition, neither case examined whether the injunction sought would restrain the FDIC's exercise of a proper receivership power or function. C.2003) (reviewing de novo the FDIC's administrative claims determination with respect to large pools of residential mortgages held in custodial counts and serviced by a failed bank).
The FDIC argues that the anti-injunction provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U. Because we conclude that the FDIC's proposed actions with respect to the loans and loan proceeds at issue fall squarely within its statutory receivership powers and functions, we hold that 12 U. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand with instructions to dismiss Bank of America's motion for a preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe loans and loan proceeds at issue in this case originated from a series of June 2008 agreements between La Salle Bank N. (“La Salle”), Ocala Funding, LLC (“Ocala”), and Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. La Salle, representing certain secured parties as their custodian and collateral agent, provided capital for Ocala to purchase various mortgage notes originated and serviced by Taylor Bean for the benefit of the secured parties. Further, under § 1821(d)(2)(J)(i), the FDIC also enjoys “such incidental powers” as shall be necessary to carry out those powers expressly granted by statute. Congress contemplated the reality that the FDIC may err in its determination of receivership claims and provided all claimants with the remedy of de novo review in federal court of the FDIC's claims determination. There can also be no question that the district court would “restrain or affect” the exercise of these powers or functions by enjoining the FDIC from “selling, pledging, assigning, liquidating, encumbering, transferring, or otherwise disposing of all or any portion of the loans and loan proceeds related to the Ocala loans.” Under this broad injunction, the FDIC is left solely to possess the loans, unable to exercise the congressional mandate that it “shall pay all valid obligations” of the failed bank, 12 U. In essence, injunctive relief, like that issued here, violates the heart of what is commonly termed FIRREA's “anti-injunction provision.” See, e.g., Hindes v. FDIC, 126 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir.1997); Elmco Props., Inc. Even assuming arguendo that the nature of the assets at issue is purely custodial and that title to the loans and their proceeds never transferred to Colonial, § 1821(j) would still clearly bar judicial restraint of the FDIC as long as it acts in its receivership capacity. To the extent that these two lower court cases support the broad “non-owned assets” exception advanced by Bank of America, we do not find them persuasive. Bank of America's only argument that the administrative claims process is inapplicable to its claim is a conclusory assertion that the loans and their proceeds are contained in special accounts and that special accounts are not subject to the administrative claims process. Cir.1995) (claims by debtors of a failed bank alleging the fraudulent restructuring of their home mortgage loan are subject to the administrative claims process); Bueford v.
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.Bank of America, as La Salle's successor-in-interest, became the trustee and collateral agent for the secured parties and perfected its security interest by taking possession of the loans and loan documents. By marshaling the items found on hand at Colonial at the time of its failure, including custodial items held in trust, beginning the process of identifying their proper nature and ownership, and ultimately disposing of these items to parties with valid claims, the FDIC would engage in at least one if not all of these statutory receivership functions. Moreover, as previously noted, “the availability of injunctive relief does not hinge on our view of the proper exercise of otherwise-legitimate powers.” Gross v. In interpreting a statutory provision, “we must presume that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said.” United States v. We also decline to consider the parties' arguments with respect to § 1821(d)(13)(D), which is a distinct jurisdiction-stripping provision contained within FIRREA's administrative claims procedures. Assuming arguendo that Bank of America's claim relates to a special account, Bank of America has cited no authority in support of its position, and our independent research has uncovered none. Additionally, our sister circuits have held that all manner of claims are appropriate for resolution through the administrative claims process. FDIC, 348 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir.2003) (claims by debtors of a failed bank arising out of acts of the receiver, as opposed to the failed bank, are subject to FIRREA's administrative claims process); Freeman v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 484 (8th Cir.1993) (employment discrimination claims by former employees of the failed bank are subject to the administrative claims process); Henderson v.From June to August 2009, Bank of America then issued a series of Transmittal Letters to Colonial, which provided notice of its security interest in the loans and established that Bank of America would deliver the loans to Colonial and in return Colonial would hold the loans in trust and serve as custodian, agent, and bailee for and on behalf of the secured parties. Not only do these functions fall squarely within the FDIC's statutory powers contained in FIRREA, common sense and common experience make plain that such functions are routinely undertaken by receivers. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.1998) (en banc). Att'y Gen., 568 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir.2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Section 1821(j) provides ample support for the FDIC's jurisdictional defense, and there is no need for the FDIC to rely in addition on § 1821(d)(13)(D). The FDIC has consistently maintained in its pleadings before the district court and submissions to this court that it will adjudicate Bank of America's claim administratively. To the contrary, the only authority of which we are aware-Merrill Lynch-indicates that similar claims are indeed subject to the administrative claims process. Bank of New England, 986 F.2d 319, 321 (9th Cir.1993) (claims by a denied credit card applicant seeking damages and the right to discover derogatory credit card information are subject to the administrative claims process); Meliezer v. See also Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc., 293 F. Bank of America has not argued at any stage of this litigation that the administrative claims process is somehow inadequate to adjudicate its claim of ownership of the loans and loan proceeds, only that the process is inapplicable to its claim. Accordingly, we hold that the administrative claims process is the appropriate mechanism to evaluate Bank of America's claim.Summary: Beasley Allen files class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama on behalf of a local woman, alleging the Defendants namely Colonial Management Group, L. and Montgomery Liquidating Professional Corporation d/b/a Montgomery Metro Treatment Center and Gilberto Sanchez, M. They have been operating methadone clinics that promised to treat addictions to heroin and prescription drugs by providing detoxification and counseling services.Since 1962, Planned Furniture Promotions, LLC has established itself as the prominent retail home furnishing promotional specialist, and with good reason.