Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States v. MCorp Financial, Inc.

PETITIONER: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States
RESPONDENT: MCorp Financial, Inc.
LOCATION: Etowah County Commission

DOCKET NO.: 90-913
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

CITATION: 502 US 32 (1991)
ARGUED: Oct 07, 1991
DECIDED: Dec 03, 1991

ADVOCATES:
Alan B. Miller - on behalf of MCorp, et al
Jeffrey P. Minear - on behalf of the Federal Reserve System

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States v. MCorp Financial, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 07, 1991 in Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States v. MCorp Financial, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 03, 1991 in Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States v. MCorp Financial, Inc.

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 90-913, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System versus MCorp Financial, Inc. and a companion case will be announced by Justice Stevens.

John Paul Stevens:

These two cases come to us on cross-petitions for certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

They arise out of two separate administrative proceedings brought by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System against a Bank Holding Company.

In No. 90-913, there is a challenge to the Court of Appeals holding that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enjoin proceedings challenging the Board's so-called source of strength regulation.

And the cross-petition challenges that court's holding that the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction to enjoin an administrative proceeding alleging a violation of Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act.

I am sure all of this is perfectly clear to you.

Based on our interpretation of the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act in the relevant precedents, we hold that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin either proceeding.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in one case and affirmed in the other.

Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.