12 U.S.C. § 4108

CREDIT REFORM; FUNDING.

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

“(a)Credit Reform.—The cost of purchases of preferred stock and other financial instruments made as capital investments under this subtitle shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).“(b)Funds Made Available.—There are hereby appropriated, out of funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to pay the costs of $30,000,000,000 of capital investments in eligible institutions, including the costs of modifying such investments, and reasonable costs of administering the program of making, holding, managing, and selling the capital investments.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases, 1994–2015 · leading case: CCA Assocs. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

CCA Assocs. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 11× “12 U.S.C. § 4108 (a)(1)(A). If prepayment would result in increases beyond these thresholds, the Secretary was not permitted to approve prepayment.”

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 434 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 6× “12 U.S.C. § 4108 (a). Title VI, however, did not permit prepayment under a plan approved by a state agency.”

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 265 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 6× “12 U.S.C. § 4108 . In particular, section 4108(a) precludes HUD from approving a prepayment request unless it finds that: (1) implementation of the plan of action will not— (A) materially increase economic hardship for current tenants, and will not in any event result in (i) a…”

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 503 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 4108 (a). The Court of Federal Claims found that this was not a viable alternative for the markets involved here because "HUD could not make the factual findings that were a necessary predicate for prepayment approval.”

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 196 (Fed. Cl. 1995). · cites it 3× “12 U.S.C. § 4108 ; 24 C.F.R. § 248.141 (1994).”

Woodrow Wilson of Middletown, LLC v. Connecticut Hous. Fin. Auth., 986 A.2d 271 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 4× “” The federal regulation implementing 12 U.S.C. § 4108 provides in relevant part as follows: “For purposes of approving a plan of action under [ 12 U.”

Chancellor Manor, Gateway Investors, Ltd., & Oak Grove Towers Assocs. v. United States, 331 F.3d 891 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “12 U.S.C. § 4108 (a) (Supp. II 1990). In 1996, Congress enacted the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act (“HOPE”).”

Biafora v. United States, 773 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “”) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 4108 (a)). Prepaying the mortgage was one step in removing affordability restrictions on properties so that they could be rented at market prices.”

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 64 (Fed. Cl. 1997). · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 4108 . HUD must approve or disapprove a POA within 180 days of filing, provided the POA is not deficient.”

Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 24 (Fed. Cl. 1995). · cites it 4× “12 U.S.C. § 4108 , see also §§ 4104(a) and 4110(d).”

CCA Assocs. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 580 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “Both ELIHPA and LIHPRHA required HUD approval to prepay, which required an owner to obtain the Secretary's certification that prepayment would not have adverse effects on the low-income housing stock or on current tenants.”

Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 404 (Fed. Cl. 2012). · cites it 2× “LIHPRHA, 12 U.S.C. § 4108 . None of the owners at issue here proposed POAs, Def.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

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.