12 U.S.C. § 1850

Acquisition of subsidiary and tying arrangement: Federal Reserve Board proceedings; application for authorization; competitor as party in interest and person aggrieved; judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

With respect to any proceeding before the Federal Reserve Board wherein an applicant seeks authority to acquire a subsidiary which is a bank under section 1842 of this title or to engage in an activity otherwise prohibited under chapter 22 of this title, a party who would become a competitor of the applicant or subsidiary thereof by virtue of the applicant’s or its subsidiary’s acquisition, entry into the business involved, or activity, shall have the right to be a party in interest in the proceeding and, in the event of an adverse order of the Board, shall have the right as an aggrieved party to obtain judicial review thereof as provided in section 1848 of this title or as otherwise provided by law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1975–1983 · leading case: Marshall & Ilsley Corp. v. John G. Heimann, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, 652 F.2d 685 (7th Cir. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marshall & Ilsley Corp. v. John G. Heimann, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, 652 F.2d 685 (7th Cir. 1981). “12 U.S.C. § 1850 . Here, there is no Board order for plaintiffs to challenge.”

Anthony R. Martin-Trigona v. Fed. Reserve Bd., Bank Am. Corp., Intervenor, 509 F.2d 363 (D.C. Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “We have no occasion in this case to determine whether the different policies applicable to standing before this Court and before an administrative agency might in a different context require different concepts of standing.”

Indep. Bankers Ass'n v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 516 F.2d 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “to engage directly or indirectly in a nonbanking activity pursuant to section 1843 of this title, . a party who would become a competitor of the applicant or subsidiary thereof by virtue of the applicant’s or its subsidiary’s acquisition, entry into the business involved, or…”

Repub. of Texas Corp. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 649 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1981). “25 *1040 And while another part of the 1970 amendments to the Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1850 (1976), affords competitors of both section 3(a) and section 4(c)(8) applicants the right to join as parties in interest in proceedings before the Board, that provision does not require that such…”

Inv. Co. Inst. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 606 F.2d 1004 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “12 U.S.C. § 1850 . As noted in the Conference Committee Report to the 1970 Amendments, the purpose of this provision is to guarantee a “properly liberal attitude concerning the right of competitors of banks and bank holding companies to have standing” such that “the broadest…”

Bank of Com. & First Nat'l Bank of Sheridan v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. & Wyoming Bancorporation, 513 F.2d 164 (1st Cir. 1975). “The Board gave its- approval to the application on May 3, 1974. *166 The instant review is pursuant to 12 U.”

Jolene Gustafson v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 717 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1983). “Despite Congress’ conferral of standing upon such competitors in 12 U.S.C. § 1850 , our colleagues ruled that actual notice of the filing of the application was not commanded by the due process clause where the Board had published the necessary information in the Federal…”

Bank of Boulder v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 535 F.2d 1221 (10th Cir. 1976). “Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1850 appellant protested the application and requested a hearing before the Board to oppose approval of the charter.”

Bankamerica Corp. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 596 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “Under 12 U.S.C. § 1850 , National had “the right as an aggrieved party to obtain judicial review” of the Federal Reserve Bank’s original approval of Decimus’ Piscataway operation.”

First Nat'l Bank v. Bd. of Governors, 509 F.2d 1004 (8th Cir. 1975). “Petitioners next argue that dismissal here would be improper in light of 12 U.S.C. § 1850 which, in their view, specifically grants them the status of “aggrieved parties” for purposes of review, yet does not require that they first present objections to the Board.”

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.