12 U.S.C. § 194
Dividends on adjusted claims; distribution of assets
From time to time, the comptroller shall make a ratable dividend of the money so paid over to him by such receiver on all such claims as may have been proved to his satisfaction or adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction, and, as the proceeds of the assets of such association are paid over to him, shall make further dividends on all claims previously proved or adjudicated; and the remainder of the proceeds, if any, shall be paid over to the shareholders of such association, or their legal representatives, in proportion to the stock by them respectively held.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102
cases, 1930–2011 · leading case: Am. Sur. Co. v. Bethlehem Nat'l Bank, 314 U.S. 314 (1941).
Am. Sur. Co. v. Bethlehem Nat'l Bank, 314 U.S. 314 (1941). “§ 5236; 12 U.S.C. § 194 . The question for decision is therefore one of federal law.”
Branch v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 825 F. Supp. 384 (D. Mass. 1993). “12 U.S.C. § 194 ; see also 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(ll)(B).”
BANK ONE, TX, NA v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 878 F. Supp. 943 (N.D. Tex. 1995). “Among the questions the court must decide are whether the creditors have a provable claim, as required by 12 U.S.C. § 194 ; whether the transaction is a preference rendered invalid by 12 U.”
Interfirst Bank Abilene, N.A., Cross-Appellant v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., as Receiver of Ranchlander Nat'l Bank, Cross-Appellee, 777 F.2d 1092 (1st Cir. 1985). “VALIDITY OF THE OFFSET BY INTERFIRST As receiver of Ranchlander, FDIC is responsible to marshall the bank’s assets and distribute them ratably “on all such claims as may have been proved to [the receiver’s] satisfaction.”
Woodbridge Plaza, a Gen. P'ship v. Bank of Irvine, 815 F.2d 538 (9th Cir. 1987). “12 U.S.C. § 194 . Based on these statutes, we concluded that the receiver could not enter into a purchase and assumption agreement that did not provide for the assumption of all creditors’ claims.”
Senior Unsecured Creditors' Comm. of First Repub.-Bank Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 749 F. Supp. 758 (N.D. Tex. 1990). “V Plaintiffs allege in count IV that the purchase and assumption agreements entered into between the FDIC and the subsidiary banks discriminate between unsecured non-subordinated creditors within the same class and thus violate the ratable distribution requirements of 12 U.S.C.…”
Harold v. Beighley v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Etc., 868 F.2d 776 (5th Cir. 1989). “On appeal, Beighley also contends that he is entitled, as a creditor of the failed bank, to a ratable distribution of the bank’s assets held by the FDIC-Receiver under 12 U.S.C. § 194 (1982). Beighley raises this argument for the first time on appeal.”
Texas Am. Bancshares, Inc. v. Robert Logan Clarke, the Comptroller of the Currency, Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 954 F.2d 329 (5th Cir. 1992). “” 12 U.S.C. § 194 . *335 Section 91 continues the proscription against unequal distributions by invalidating preferences: “All transfers of the notes, bonds, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt owing to any national banking association, or of deposits to its credit .”
Rushton v. Schram, 143 F.2d 554 (6th Cir. 1944). “national banks in liquidation at the time the amendatory act was passed, for the reason that Congress has provided that the Comptroller of the Currency shall make ratable dividends of money paid over to him by the receiver of a national bank on such claims as may have been…”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., as Receiver of Franklin Nat'l Bank v. Jean M. Grella, Jean M. Grella, 553 F.2d 258 (2d Cir. 1977). “To state it another way, such a claim must be due and owing at the time of the insolvency, 12 U.S.C. §§ 194 & 1821(d), otherwise it does not constitute a claim against a receiver regardless of what other rights the obligee may have.”
Citizens State Bank of Lometa v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. as Receiver of North Cent. Nat'l Bank, 946 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1991). “12 U.S.C. § 194 . The National Bank Act itself does not otherwise set forth specifically the requirements of a “provable claim.”
Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 156 F.2d 615 (6th Cir. 1946). “” The basis for the foregoing contention, as has been observed, is that the interest became part of the debt, and that the obligation of the receiver to pay interest on delayed dividends was (1) statutory — being implied by the very nature of his promise to make a ratable…”
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.