12 U.S.C. § 1971
Definitions
As used in this chapter, the terms “bank”, “bank holding company”, “subsidiary”, and “Board” have the meaning ascribed to such terms in section 1841 of this title. For purposes of this chapter only, the term “company”, as used in section 1841 of this title, means any person, estate, trust, partnership, corporation, association, or similar organization, but does not include any corporation the majority of the shares of which are owned by the United States or by any State. The term “trust service” means any service customarily performed by a bank trust department. For purposes of this chapter, a financial subsidiary of a national bank engaging in activities pursuant to section 24a(a) of this title shall be deemed to be a subsidiary of a bank holding company, and not a subsidiary of a bank.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Brown v. Founders Bank & Trust Co., 890 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1994).
Brown v. Founders Bank & Trust Co., 890 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1994). “00 be in writing will bar a cause of action for fraud; and 3) whether the alleged facts may be sufficient to support a finding of a violation of the Bank Tying Act (Tying Act), 12 U.S.C. § 1971 (1989) et seq. *859 We find that: 1) an order dismissing a cause ■with prejudice…”
Youngblood Grp. v. Lufkin Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 932 F. Supp. 859 (E.D. Tex. 1996). “§ 1972 is defined in 12 U.S.C. § 1971 . Specifically, "bank” is defined to "have the meaning ascribed to [that] term[] in section 1841 of this title.”
Rhett G. Campbell, Tr., Joseph C. Canizaro, Intervenor-Appellant v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 781 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1986). “Campbell brought this action in the district court against the multiple defendant banks (“Banks") seeking damages and other relief under the Bank Tying Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1971 , et seq. The plaintiffs claimed that they were injured by the Banks’ intrusions into LEXCO’s operations.”
Dubose v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 318 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D. Miss. 2003). “§ 1971 , which prohibits tying, *423 reciprocity and exclusive dealing arrangements, and prohibits a bank from imposing certain conditional requirements for granting credit to a customer. Additionally, defendants contend that they were justified in removing this cause from state…”
Exec. Leasing Corp. v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico, 48 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 1995). “The plaintiffs, Executive Leasing Corporation, Manuel Gonzalez Gierbolini and Luz Iraida Gonzalez (both personally and on behalf of their conjugal partnership), allege that defendants Banco de Ponce (now Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, as successor-in-interest) and BanPonce…”
Cont'l Illinois Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Stanley, 585 F. Supp. 1385 (N.D. Ill. 1984). “§ 1 ; Count IV alleges violations of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970 (BHCA), 12 U.S.C.A. § 1971 et seq.; Count V alleges unlawful duress; Count VI alleges breach of fiduciary duty; Count VII alleges tortious interference with GHR’s business; and Count VIII…”
Donald R. Foval v. First Nat'l Bank of Com. in New Orleans, & Robert D. Brown, 841 F.2d 126 (1st Cir. 1988). “In April 1985, Foval commenced his first lawsuit against First NBC, asserting three state law causes of action, a cause of action for violation of the Bank Tying Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1971 , and subsequently adding a Rule 10b-5 securities claim.”
Wilburn S. Bruce v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Conroe, Inc., 837 F.2d 712 (1st Cir. 1988). “§ 1841 (c) (1980) (amended 1982); see also 12 U.S.C.A. § 1971 (1980). TIRA excepts from BHCA "an institution the accounts of which are insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation or an institution chartered by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.”
Dibidale of Louisiana, Inc. v. Am. Bank & Trust Co., New Orleans, 916 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1990). “appeals an adverse summary judgment dismissing its complaint that American Bank & Trust and the First National Bank of Houma illegally tied its approval for a loan to its use of a contractor of American Bank’s choosing, in violation of the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), 12…”
Maxwell Commc'n Corp. Plc Ex Rel. Homan v. Societe Gen. Plc (In Re Maxwell Commc'n Corp. Plc), 186 B.R. 807 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “3d at 1538-39 , the court found that the relevant conduct supporting the plaintiff’s claim under the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1971 et seq., was a loan made by a U.”
Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exch. Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 693 F. Supp. 666 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “The thirteen *669 counts are designated as follows: I — 12 U.S.C. § 1971 Tying Arrangement; II — 12 U.”
Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. App. 3d 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “( 12 U.S.C. § 1971 et seq.) After a hearing on June 19, 1989, the trial court denied the Bank’s motion for entry of judgment, granted Kruse’s motion for leave to amend, and granted the Jewells’ motion for leave to amend except as to the proposed causes of action for recission…”
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.