12 C.F.R. § 308.146

Powers of person conducting investigation

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The person designated to conduct the investigation shall have the power, among other things, to administer oaths and affirmations, to take and preserve testimony under oath, to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum and to apply for their enforcement to the United States District Court for the judicial district or the United States court in any territory in which the main office of the bank, institution, or affiliate is located or in which the witness resides or conducts business. The person conducting the investigation may obtain the assistance of counsel or others from both within and outside the FDIC. The persons who issue the order of investigation may limit, quash, or modify any subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, upon application and for good cause shown. The person conducting an investigation may report to the Board of Directors any instance where any attorney has engaged in contemptuous, dilatory, obstructionist, or contumacious conduct or has otherwise violated any provision of this part during the course of an investigation. The Board of Directors, upon motion of the person conducting the investigation, or on its own motion, may make a finding of contempt and may then summarily suspend, without a hearing, any attorney representing a witness from further participation in the investigation.

[80 FR 5013, Jan. 30, 2015]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1992–1993 · leading case: Texas Lawyers Ins. Exch. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 822 F. Supp. 380 (W.D. Tex. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Texas Lawyers Ins. Exch. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 822 F. Supp. 380 (W.D. Tex. 1993). “The RTC asserts, which TLIE has not rebutted, that TLIE made no effort before *386 filing this action to file objections with the RTC to have the subpoena quashed, limited or modified although the pertinent regulation ( 12 C.F.R. § 308.146 ) allows for such action.”

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Mayor, Day, Caldwell & Keeton, 794 F. Supp. 18 (D.D.C. 1992). “89 (1991) (currently codified at 12 C.F.R. § 308.146 (1992)) (emphasis added).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.