12 U.S.C. § 632

Jurisdiction of United States courts; disposition by banks of foreign owned property

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

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity to which any corporation organized under the laws of the United States shall be a party, arising out of transactions involving international or foreign banking, or banking in a dependency or insular possession of the United States, or out of other international or foreign financial operations, either directly or through the agency, ownership, or control of branches or local institutions in dependencies or insular possessions of the United States or in foreign countries, shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, and the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of all such suits; and any defendant in any such suit may, at any time before the trial thereof, remove such suits from a State court into the district court of the United States for the proper district by following the procedure for the removal of causes otherwise provided by law. Such removal shall not cause undue delay in the trial of such case and a case so removed shall have a place on the calendar of the United States court to which it is removed relative to that which it held on the State court from which it was removed.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity to which any Federal Reserve bank shall be a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, and the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of all such suits; and any Federal Reserve bank which is a defendant in any such suit may, at any time before the trial thereof, remove such suit from a State court into the district court of the United States for the proper district by following the procedure for the removal of causes otherwise provided by law. No attachment or execution shall be issued against any Federal Reserve bank or its property before final judgment in any suit, action, or proceeding in any State, county, municipal, or United States court.

Whenever (1) any Federal Reserve bank has received any property from or for the account of a foreign state which is recognized by the Government of the United States, or from or for the account of a central bank of any such foreign state, and holds such property in the name of such foreign state or such central bank; (2) a representative of such foreign state who is recognized by the Secretary of State as being the accredited representative of such foreign state to the Government of the United States has certified to the Secretary of State the name of a person as having authority to receive, control, or dispose of such property; and (3) the authority of such person to act with respect to such property is accepted and recognized by the Secretary of State, and so certified by the Secretary of State to the Federal Reserve bank, the payment, transfer, delivery, or other disposal of such property by such Federal Reserve bank to or upon the order of such person shall be conclusively presumed to be lawful and shall constitute a complete discharge and release of any liability of the Federal Reserve bank for or with respect to such property.

Whenever (1) any insured bank has received any property from or for the account of a foreign state which is recognized by the Government of the United States, or from or for the account of a central bank of any such foreign state, and holds such property in the name of such foreign state or such central bank; (2) a representative of such foreign state who is recognized by the Secretary of State as being the accredited representative of such foreign state to the Government of the United States has certified to the Secretary of State the name of a person as having authority to receive, control, or dispose of such property; and (3) the authority of such person to act with respect to such property is accepted and recognized by the Secretary of State, and so certified by the Secretary of State to such insured bank, the payment, transfer, delivery, or other disposal of such property by such bank to or upon the order of such person shall be conclusively presumed to be lawful and shall constitute a complete discharge and release of any liability of such bank for or with respect to such property. Any suit or other legal proceeding against any insured bank or any officer, director, or employee thereof, arising out of the receipt, possession, or disposition of any such property shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States and the district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction thereof, regardless of the amount involved; and any such bank or any officer, director, or employee thereof which is a defendant in any such suit may, at any time before trial thereof, remove such suit from a State court into the district court of the United States for the proper district by following the procedure for the removal of causes otherwise provided by law.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to repeal or to modify in any manner any of the provisions of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, as amended, the Silver Purchase Act of 1934, as amended, or subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, or any actions, regulations, rules, orders, or proclamations taken, promulgated, made, or issued pursuant to any of such statutes. In any case in which a license to act with respect to any property referred to in this section is required under any of said statutes, regulations, rules, orders, or proclamations, notification to the Secretary of State by the proper Government officer or agency of the issuance of an appropriate license or that appropriate licenses will be issued on application shall be a prerequisite to any action by the Secretary of State pursuant to this section, and the action of the Secretary of State shall relate only to such property as is included in such notification. Each such notification shall include the terms and conditions of such license or licenses and a description of the property to which they relate.

For the purposes of this section, (1) the term “property” includes gold, silver, currency, credits, deposits, securities, choses in action, and any other form of property, the proceeds thereof, and any right, title, or interest therein; (2) the term “foreign state” includes any foreign government or any department, district, province, county, possession, or other similar governmental organization or subdivision of a foreign government, and any agency or instrumentality of any such foreign government or of any such organization or subdivision; (3) the term “central bank” includes any foreign bank or banker authorized to perform any one or more of the functions of a central bank; (4) the term “person” includes any individual, or any corporation, partnership, association, or other similar organization; and (5) the term “insured bank” shall have the meaning given to it in section 12B of this Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 236 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1934–2026 · leading case: Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “See 12 U.S.C. § 632 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). 3 *169 In July 2012, following the voluntary dismissal of certain defendants, but before the remaining defendants moved to dismiss, the district court held a “pre-motion conference.”

Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta v. Thomas, 220 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2000). · cites it 10× “The Federal Reserve claimed federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of 12 U.S.C. § 632 , which creates federal jurisdiction over “all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity to which any Federal Reserve Bank shall be a party.”

United States v. Maldonado-Burgos, 869 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “2d at 38 , and that its conclusion that section 3 of the Sherman Act no longer applied to Puerto Rico did not conflict with decisions holding that the application of other statutory provisions, such as 12 U.S.C. § 632 , was not affected by the change in Puerto Rico's political…”

Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 712 F.3d 775 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “§ 1292 (b), calling for interpretation of the jurisdictional provisions of the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. § 632 . In a suit brought in a New York state court, which was removed by Defendants to federal court under 28 U.”

Kirschner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 79 F.4th 290 (2d Cir. 2023). · cites it 9× “Gardephe, Judge) had subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. § 632 . The second issue presented is whether the District Court erroneously dismissed plaintiff’s state-law securities claims on the ground that he failed to plausibly suggest…”

Bank of Am. Corp. v. Lemgruber, 385 F. Supp. 2d 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). · cites it 5× “Edge Act Jurisdiction The Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.”

Wilson v. Dantas, 746 F.3d 530 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 5× “We hold that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case under the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. § 632 , because Wilson’s claims arose out of a foreign financial operation, and that it properly dismissed Wilson’s claims against the Citibank defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of…”

Jamie Viqueira v. First Bank, 140 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 1337 , and 12 U.S.C. § 632 . First Bank moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on April 16, 1997, On May 1, the plaintiffs moved to extend the time to oppose the motion.”

A.I. Trade Fin., Inc. v. Petra Int'l Banking Corp., 62 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “We therefore turn to the district court’s alternative assertion of jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 632 . B. Federal Question Jurisdiction The only possible alternative source of jurisdiction of which we are aware is 12 U.”

Calderon-Serra v. Wilimington Trust Co., 715 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “15(a)(1)(B), the appellants premised their assertion of subject matter jurisdiction on both the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. § 632 , and the TIA. 3 *17 Each appellee moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Ritchie Capital Mgmt. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 960 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “In November 2014, the -5- district court denied the Ritchie entities’ motion to remand, reasoning it had jurisdiction under the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. § 632 , and as a civil case related to Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding under 28 U.”

Fumero-Vidal v. First Fed. Sav. Bank, 788 F. Supp. 1275 (D.P.R. 1992). · cites it 10× “Plaintiffs assert federal jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 632 on the basis that their suit arises out of traditional banking transactions executed by the defendant, which was organized under laws of the United States.”

Show all 236 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.