Joel R. Gaff, on Behalf of Himself, as a Class Action on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, & as a Stockholder's Derivative Action for the Benefit of the Corp., Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., in Its Corp. Capacity, Intervening v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Receiver of Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. Of Traverse City, a Nat'l Banking Ass'n David E. Pearce Bruce W. Mann & Other Unknown (88-1566), Robert S. Collins Maxine Collins Mark S. Collins Karen Collins Brown Margaret C. Strong Carter C. Strong, Jr. Brian E. Strong Nancy R. Strong Arthur Versluis Frank W. Tezak Donald Arnold Thereon McGillis Elizabeth McGillis Howard Reenders Bernard Schiopieray Virginia Schiopieray Keith Rose Donald G. Jennings Donald C. McKenzie Amber C. Mark Bernard L. Pleva Irene Pleva Paul Pleva John R. Pleva Donna K. Pleva Vernon Elzinga George W. Kelderhouse Agnes C. Kelderhouse Gerald J. Brow William C. Andresen Diann Godbold, on Behalf of Themselves, & as a Class Action on Behalf of Others, as Herein Described, Defined, Similarly Situated v. Bruce W. Mann Bernard J. Kroupa James P. Preuett, & Other Unknown (89-1044/1066), 933 F.2d 400 (6th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Joel R. Gaff, on Behalf of Himself, as a Class Action on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, & as a Stockholder's Derivative Action for the Benefit of the Corp., Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., in Its Corp. Capacity, Intervening v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Receiver of Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. Of Traverse City, a Nat'l Banking Ass'n David E. Pearce Bruce W. Mann & Other Unknown (88-1566), Robert S. Collins Maxine Collins Mark S. Collins Karen Collins Brown Margaret C. Strong Carter C. Strong, Jr. Brian E. Strong Nancy R. Strong Arthur Versluis Frank W. Tezak Donald Arnold Thereon McGillis Elizabeth McGillis Howard Reenders Bernard Schiopieray Virginia Schiopieray Keith Rose Donald G. Jennings Donald C. McKenzie Amber C. Mark Bernard L. Pleva Irene Pleva Paul Pleva John R. Pleva Donna K. Pleva Vernon Elzinga George W. Kelderhouse Agnes C. Kelderhouse Gerald J. Brow William C. Andresen Diann Godbold, on Behalf of Themselves, & as a Class Action on Behalf of Others, as Herein Described, Defined, Similarly Situated v. Bruce W. Mann Bernard J. Kroupa James P. Preuett, & Other Unknown (89-1044/1066), 933 F.2d 400 (6th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Federal Deposit Insurance v. Harrington (txnd, 1994-01-18) · Strongest negative: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Gilbert Bierman (ca7, 1993-08-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Gilbert Bierman
7th Cir. · 1993 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. Gaff v. FDIC, 919 F.2d 384 , 390-91 (6th Cir.1990), modified on other grounds, 933 F.2d 400 (6th Cir.1991).
cited Cited "but see" Federal Deposit Insurance v. Bierman
7th Cir. · 1993 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. Gaff v. FDIC, 919 F.2d 384 , 390-91 (6th Cir.1990), modified on other grounds, 933 F.2d 400 (6th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Federal Deposit Insurance v. Harrington
N.D. Tex. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Gaff v. FDIC, 919 F.2d 384 , 391 (6th Cir.1990) ("Congress has clearly indicated that the liability of officers and directors of a bank are determined under federal law."), modified, 933 F.2d 400 (6th Cir.1991); FDIC v. Swager, 773 F.Supp. 1244, 1248 (D.Minn.1991) ("[Section] 1821(k) establishes a federal standard of liability ... and precludes the FDIC from maintaining actions against bank directors and officers based upon state law for conduct not amounting to gross negligence or a greater disregard of a duty of care.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Federal Deposit Insurance v. Moll
D. Colo. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Gaff v. FDIC, 919 F.2d 384 , 391 (6th Cir.1990), modified, 933 F.2d 400 (6th Cir.1991); FDIC v. Isham, 777 F.Supp. 828, 831 (D.Colo.1991). 27.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joel R. Gaff, on Behalf of Himself, as a Class Action on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and as a Stockholder's Derivative Action for the Benefit of the Corporation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity, Intervening
v.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Receiver of National Bank & Trust Co. Of Traverse City, a National Banking Association David E. Pearce Bruce W. Mann and Other Unknown (88-1566), Robert S. Collins Maxine Collins Mark S. Collins Karen Collins Brown Margaret C. Strong Carter C. Strong, Jr. Brian E. Strong Nancy R. Strong Arthur Versluis Frank W. Tezak Donald Arnold Thereon McGillis Elizabeth McGillis Howard Reenders Bernard Schiopieray Virginia Schiopieray Keith Rose Donald G. Jennings Donald C. McKenzie Amber C. Mark Bernard L. Pleva Irene Pleva Paul Pleva John R. Pleva Donna K. Pleva Vernon Elzinga George W. Kelderhouse Agnes C. Kelderhouse Gerald J. Brow William C. Andresen Diann Godbold, on Behalf of Themselves, and as a Class Action on Behalf of Others, as Herein Described, Defined, Similarly Situated v. Bruce W. Mann Bernard J. Kroupa James P. Preuett, and Other Unknown (89-1044/1066)
89-1044.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
May 20, 1991.
933 F.2d 400
Published

933 F.2d 400

59 USLW 2757

Joel R. GAFF, on behalf of himself, as a class action on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a
stockholder's derivative action for the
benefit of the corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its corporate
capacity, Intervening Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Receiver of National
Bank & Trust Co. of Traverse City, a National Banking
Association, et al.; David E. Pearce; Bruce W. Mann; and
other unknown defendants (88-1566), Defendants-Appellees.
Robert S. COLLINS; Maxine Collins; Mark S. Collins; Karen
Collins Brown; Margaret C. Strong; Carter C. Strong, Jr.;
Brian E. Strong; Nancy R. Strong; Arthur Versluis; Frank
W. Tezak; Donald Arnold; Thereon McGillis; Elizabeth
McGillis; Howard Reenders; Bernard Schiopieray; Virginia
Schiopieray; Keith Rose; Donald G. Jennings; Donald C.
McKenzie; Amber C. Mark; Bernard L. Pleva; Irene Pleva;
Paul Pleva; John R. Pleva; Donna K. Pleva; Vernon
Elzinga; George W. Kelderhouse; Agnes C. Kelderhouse;
Gerald J. Brow; William C. Andresen; Diann Godbold, on
behalf of themselves, and as a class action on behalf of
others, as herein described, defined, similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Bruce W. MANN; Bernard J. Kroupa; James P. Preuett, and
other unknown defendants (89-1044/1066),
Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 88-1566, 89-1044 and 89-1066.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

May 20, 1991.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND ON PETITION TO REHEAR

Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, NELSON, Circuit Judge, and LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge.

1

After issuing its opinion in the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, on November 19, 1990, 919 F.2d 384, the Court requested our Court's Settlement Officer, Mr. Robert Rack, to determine if the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, and the Collins case, Nos. 89-1044 and 89-1066, may be settled in order to avoid the expense of further litigation. As a result the parties to both cases, which arise from a common core of operative facts, have now settled their claims. The settlement includes the reinstatement of the District Court's decision of November 1988 in the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, dismissing the shareholder claims and the dismissal of the Collins appeals. The Court approves the settlement agreement.

2

Accordingly, it is so ORDERED.

3

After considering the settlement process undertaken and the parties' petition to rehear, we modify our opinion in the Gaff case on November 19, 1990, No. 88-1566, by adding at the end of Section III of our opinion the following paragraph:

4

Where settlement of litigation involving FDIC would be facilitated by the prior adjudication of the legal sufficiency of the shareholder claims under Rule 12(b)(6), on summary judgment, or otherwise, the district court may lift the stay on the prosecution of shareholder claims and proceed to determine the sufficiency thereof. As a result of the settlement process and the rehearing petitions, the Court has learned that its prior opinion did not take fully into account the procedural steps needed to facilitate a settlement process in such cases. We therefore make this modification in our earlier opinion.

5

Accordingly, it is so ORDERED.