12 U.S.C. § 4112

STUDY AND REPORT WITH RESPECT TO WOMEN-OWNED, VETERAN-OWNED, AND MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES.

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

“(a)Study.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of the impact of the Program on women-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, and minority-owned businesses.“(b)Report.—Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 27, 2010], the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a). To the extent possible, the Secretary shall disaggregate the results of such study by ethnic group and gender.“(c)Information Provided to the Secretary.—Eligible institutions that participate in the Program shall provide the Secretary with such information as the Secretary may require to carry out the study required by this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Cienega Gardens v. United States, 503 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 503 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “" [4] 12 U.S.C. § 4112 (a)(2)(A) (2000). III None of the plaintiffs here elected to pursue the sale option, and only four of the plaintiffs entered into use agreements after ELIHPA expired but during the period that LIHPRHA was in effect.”

Fredericksburg Non-Profit Hous. Corp. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 244 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 4× “For parties that intended to extend the affordability restrictions through sale, LIHPRHA requires that owners submit to HUD a Plan of Action (“POA”), in which the current and prospective owner describe, among other things, (1) any proposed changes in the status or terms of the…”

CCA Assocs. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 4× “12 U.S.C. § 4112 (a)(2)(A). Owners were required to petition HUD for a determination of when the useful life of the property had expired, but the owner could not submit such a petition until 50 years after the approval of a plan of action for the property.”

Anaheim Gardens, L.P. v. United States, 953 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “3d at 1273 (quoting 12 U.S.C. § 4112 ) (footnote omitted). The third category consists of Su Casa, which is differ- ent from the other five FWPs in one important respect: Su Casa did not own its property prior to the enactment of the Preservation Statutes.”

CCA Assocs. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 580 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “Compare 12 U.S.C. § 4112 (a)(2)(A), and 24 C.F.R.”

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 434 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “” 12 U.S.C. § 4112 (a)(2)(A). Petitions for the Secretary of HUD to determine that the useful life of a property had expired were not permitted until 50 years after the approval of a plan of action.”

City Line Jt. Venture v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 837 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “§ 17151 note (1988) (current version at 12 U.S.C. § 4112 (1994)). In practice, satisfying these requirements was difficult.”

Bridgeview II, LLC v. Mars, 51 Misc. 3d 29 (N.Y. App. Term. 2015). · cites it 2× “12 USC § 4112 states, in pertinent part: “(a) In general .”

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.