U.S. Code » Title 12 » Chapter CHAPTER 52— EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM

12 U.S.C. § 5213

Considerations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar
In exercising the authorities granted in this chapter, the Secretary shall take into consideration—(1) protecting the interests of taxpayers by maximizing overall returns and minimizing the impact on the national debt;(2) providing stability and preventing disruption to financial markets in order to limit the impact on the economy and protect American jobs, savings, and retirement security;(3) the need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize communities;(4) in determining whether to engage in a direct purchase from an individual financial institution, the long-term viability of the financial institution in determining whether the purchase represents the most efficient use of funds under this chapter;(5) ensuring that all financial institutions are eligible to participate in the program, without discrimination based on size, geography, form of organization, or the size, type, and number of assets eligible for purchase under this chapter;(6) providing financial assistance to financial institutions, including those serving low- and moderate-income populations and other underserved communities, and that have assets less than $1,000,000,000, that were well or adequately capitalized as of June 30, 2008, and that as a result of the devaluation of the preferred government-sponsored enterprises stock will drop one or more capital levels, in a manner sufficient to restore the financial institutions to at least an adequately capitalized level;(7) the need to ensure stability for United States public instrumentalities, such as counties and cities, that may have suffered significant increased costs or losses in the current market turmoil;(8) protecting the retirement security of Americans by purchasing troubled assets held by or on behalf of an eligible retirement plan described in clause (iii), (iv), (v), or (vi) of section 402(c)(8)(B) of title 26, except that such authority shall not extend to any compensation arrangements subject to section 409A of such title; and(9) the utility of purchasing other real estate owned and instruments backed by mortgages on multifamily properties.(Pub. L. 110–343, div. A, title I, § 103, Oct. 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 3770.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act” and was translated as reading “this division”, meaning div. A of Pub. L. 110–343, Oct. 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 3765, known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. For complete classification of division A to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5201 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2022 · leading case: Kevin Murray v. United States Dep't of Treasury, 681 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kevin Murray v. United States Dep't of Treasury, 681 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 5213 . In November 2008, the Treasury Secretary used his TARP authority to buy $40 billion worth of AIG preferred stock.”
Shirk v. JPmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In Re Shirk), 437 B.R. 592 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 5213 (2). Under TARP, the Secretary’s authority is cheeked by oversight committees and judicial reviews.”
Murray v. Geithner, 763 F. Supp. 2d 860 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “” 12 U.S.C. § 5213 . Despite the credit given to AIG under the FRA, the Board of Governors believed that AIG remained extremely vulnerable to an ongoing and intensifying financial crisis due to falling asset prices and substantial losses on its balance sheet.”
Elliott Levin v. William Miller, 900 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2018). “" 12 U.S.C. § 5213 (4). The standard for analyzing a bank's viability was left to the discretion of regulatory agencies, which included the discretion to decide whether TARP funds should be included in the analysis.”
Kevin Murray v. United States Dep't of Treasury (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 5213 . In November 2008, the Treasury Secretary used his TARP authority to buy $40 billion worth of AIG preferred stock.”
Elliott Levin v. William Miller (7th Cir. 2018). “” 12 U.S.C. § 5213 (4). The standard for analyzing a bank’s viability was left to the discretion of regulatory agencies, which included the discretion to decide whether TARP funds should be included in the analysis.”
Elliott Levin v. William Miller (7th Cir. 2018). “” 12 U.S.C. § 5213 (4). The standard for analyzing a bank’s viability was left to the discretion of regulatory agencies, which included the discretion to decide whether TARP funds should be included in the analysis.”
Inselberg Van Etten, Judith v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na (D.N.J. 2022). “” 12 U.S.C. § 5213 . The strict criteria developed for HAMP loan modifications seek to achieve that balance.”
Ehrenhaus v. Baker, 2008 NCBC 20 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “O; see generally 12 U.S.C.S. § 5213 (LEXIS through legislation of Oct.”
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.