12 U.S.C. § 4101
PURPOSE.
“The purpose of this subtitle is to address the ongoing effects of the financial crisis on small businesses by providing temporary authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Cienega Gardens v. United States, 503 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Cienega Gardens v. United States, 503 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “101-625, § 604 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. § 4101 note (Transition Provisions) (2000)).”
CCA Assocs. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “Code, including 12 U.S.C. §§ 4101 to 4124), stripped the partnership of its contractual right to prepay its mortgage and thereby to exit the low-income housing program under which it was operating and begin to operate the apartment complex on a conventional basis.”
Cienega Gardens v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 434 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “Code, including 12 U.S.C. §§ 4101 to 4124) (“LIHPHRA” or “Title VI”).”
Cienega Gardens v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 64 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “4249, codified at 12 U.S.C.A § 4101 et seq. (West 1993). 9 *70 Under LIHPRHA, whether a developer wishes to prepay the mortgage or to apply for incentives, the same procedures apply.”
Chancellor Manor v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 137 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “Plaintiffs allege that these contracts were breached by the United States when federal legislation was enacted in 1990 — the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 4101 et seq. — which anticipatorily repudiated the…”
Anaheim Gardens, L.P. v. United States, 953 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “; see 12 U.S.C. § 4101 . In 1996, however, Congress enacted the Housing Oppor- tunity Program Extension Act of 1996, Pub.”
Burbank Apts. Tenant Ass'n v. Kargman, 48 N.E.3d 394 (Mass. 2016). “18 The defendants’ argument that § 4122(a) of the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Home Ownership Act of 1990, 12 U.S.C. §§ 4101 et seq. (prohibiting any State law that “[1] restricts or inhibits the payment of any mortgage .”
Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 582 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2009). “[29] The Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, 12 U.S.C. §§ 4101 et seq. (1994). [30] The Park Owners have not claimed that the government action is impermissible because it fails to meet the "public use" requirement.”
CCA Assocs. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 580 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “Code, including 12 U.S.C. §§ 4101 to 4124), breached its contractual obligations to CCA or alternatively effected a temporary taking of its property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Topa Equities, Ltd., Coalition for Econ. Survival, Intervenor-Appellee v. City of Los Angeles, Maria Lourdes Lara Tai Park, Intervenors-Appellees, 342 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). “12 U.S.C. § 4101 . LIH-PRHA imposed stringent requirements upon property owners who wanted to prepay their mortgages and exit the federal program.”
Cienega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “4249 (1990) (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq.) (hereinafter “LIH-PRHA”), breached contracts between the plaintiffs, owners of low-income housing, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).”
Cca Assocs. v. United States, 667 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “See 12 U.S.C. § 4101 (2000). The Claims Court here acknowledged that it was "possible" that CCA could have "found a buyer and obtained the necessary approval from HUD to complete a sale" before HOPE lifted the prepayment restrictions.”
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.