Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

This is a consolidated appeal from two district court orders dismissing certain averments brought by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee on behalf of a bank holding company against former directors and officers of the holding company and its subsidiary bank.

In the first case. We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the statute of limitations ruling because it was not a final judgment properly subject to Rule 54(b) certification. We do not have jurisdiction to review the district court's dismissal of the averments that it held constitute a derivative action. Have jurisdiction over the final judgment dismissing the entire complaint insofar as it concerns two of the defendants. Holding that it is collaterally estopped by a holding in the first case. We have jurisdiction to review the judgment in the second case. The Bankruptcy Proceedings

Southeast Banking Corporation (

This is a consolidated appeal from two district court orders dismissing certain averments brought by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee on behalf of a bank holding company against former directors and officers of the holding company and its subsidiary bank.

In the first case. We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the statute of limitations ruling because it was not a final judgment properly subject to Rule 54(b) certification. We do not have jurisdiction to review the district court's dismissal of the averments that it held constitute a derivative action. Have jurisdiction over the final judgment dismissing the entire complaint insofar as it concerns two of the defendants. Holding that it is collaterally estopped by a holding in the first case. We have jurisdiction to review the judgment in the second case. The Bankruptcy Proceedings

Southeast Banking Corporation (

United States Court of Appeals. The district court approved the settlement and was faced with the issue of attorneys's fees and costs. Brandt attempts to appeal that ruling.

Brandt was not a named party. He attempts to base standing to appeal on his having objected to the request for attorneys's fees.

We find that our Circuit's precedent is clearly established in Guthrie v.

United States Court of Appeals. The district court approved the settlement and was faced with the issue of attorneys's fees and costs. Brandt attempts to appeal that ruling.

Brandt was not a named party. He attempts to base standing to appeal on his having objected to the request for attorneys's fees.

We find that our Circuit's precedent is clearly established in Guthrie v.

The origin of the present petition is the related federal case filed in 1989 by Society for Savings in the Southern District of Florida concerning a consumer loan. That case was settled by surrender of the vessel to Society for Savings and the agreed payment of $13. Which he alleges is the successor to Society for Savings with offices in Palm Beach County. Bank of Boston represented that it is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. That Rogers is a Florida citizen. The district court determined that Bank of Boston's failure to allege the state in which it is incorporated constituted an inadequate showing of its citizenship for diversity jurisdiction:

A review of the Notice of Removal reveals that Defendant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the controversy is between citizens of different states.

The origin of the present petition is the related federal case filed in 1989 by Society for Savings in the Southern District of Florida concerning a consumer loan. That case was settled by surrender of the vessel to Society for Savings and the agreed payment of $13. Which he alleges is the successor to Society for Savings with offices in Palm Beach County. Bank of Boston represented that it is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. That Rogers is a Florida citizen. The district court determined that Bank of Boston's failure to allege the state in which it is incorporated constituted an inadequate showing of its citizenship for diversity jurisdiction:

A review of the Notice of Removal reveals that Defendant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the controversy is between citizens of different states.

PER CURIAM:

Brandt is the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for the estate of Southeast Bank Corporation (the Holding Company). Southeast Bank was closed by federal and state regulators. The F.D.I.C. was named as its receiver. The cause found its way to district court where both the third party complaint and the Holding Company's complaint were dismissed. The third party complaint is therefore moot.

In 1991. The only exception to this standstill provision was that First Union was able to bid at any F.D.I.C. auction.

The Holding Company alleged that First Union leaked financial information concerning Southeast Bank to bank regulators resulting in the closure of the bank. The claim was that. While there was a contractual relationship between First Union and the Holding Company. Was the result of the Comptroller of the Currency's decision to close Southeast Bank.

PER CURIAM:

Brandt is the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for the estate of Southeast Bank Corporation (the Holding Company). Southeast Bank was closed by federal and state regulators. The F.D.I.C. was named as its receiver. The cause found its way to district court where both the third party complaint and the Holding Company's complaint were dismissed. The third party complaint is therefore moot.

In 1991. The only exception to this standstill provision was that First Union was able to bid at any F.D.I.C. auction.

The Holding Company alleged that First Union leaked financial information concerning Southeast Bank to bank regulators resulting in the closure of the bank. The claim was that. While there was a contractual relationship between First Union and the Holding Company. Was the result of the Comptroller of the Currency's decision to close Southeast Bank.