12 U.S.C. § 91
Transfers by bank and other acts in contemplation of insolvency
All transfers of the notes, bonds, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt owing to any national banking association, or of deposits to its credit; all assignments of mortgages, sureties on real estate, or of judgments or decrees in its favor; all deposits of money, bullion, or other valuable thing for its use, or for the use of any of its shareholders or creditors; and all payments of money to either, made after the commission of an act of insolvency, or in contemplation thereof, made with a view to prevent the application of its assets in the manner prescribed by chapter 4 of title 62 of the Revised Statutes, or with a view to the preference of one creditor to another, except in payment of its circulating notes, shall be utterly null and void; and no attachment, injunction, or execution, shall be issued against such association or its property before final judgment in any suit, action, or proceeding, in any State, county, or municipal court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 141
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1928–2023 · leading case: Third Nat. Bank in Nashville v. Impac Ltd., Inc., 432 U.S. 312 (1977).
Third Nat. Bank in Nashville v. Impac Ltd., Inc., 432 U.S. 312 (1977). “In due course, the chancellor concluded that 12 U. S. C. § 91 removed his jurisdiction to grant an injunction "prohibiting the foreclosure of property in which the bank has a security interest.”
BANK ONE, TX, NA v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 878 F. Supp. 943 (N.D. Tex. 1995). “§ 194 ; whether the transaction is a preference rendered invalid by 12 U.S.C. § 91 ; whether the ipso facto clause is enforceable; and whether public policy considerations, and the FDIC's powers to disaffirm burdensome leases and marshal the assets of failed institutions, are…”
Branch v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 825 F. Supp. 384 (D. Mass. 1993). “12 U.S.C. § 91 (emphasis and numeration added).”
United States v. Harry Lemaire, Est. of Richard Patton, Hilmar R. Zeissig, Bert F. Scales, & Dieter J. Scherfenberg v. Mbank Abilene, N.A., 826 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1987). “POLITZ, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to define the term “final judgment” as used in 12 U.S.C. § 91 , which proscribes “attachment, injunction or execution” against a national bank “before final judgment in any suit” in state court.”
Senior Unsecured Creditors' Comm. of First Repub.-Bank Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 749 F. Supp. 758 (N.D. Tex. 1990). “Accordingly, the court holds the FDIA preempts state law to the extent pertinent here and dismisses plaintiffs’ state law claims. C The court next considers whether plaintiffs have pleaded valid claims under the applicable provisions of federal law.”
MCorp v. Clarke, 755 F. Supp. 1402 (N.D. Tex. 1991). “12 U.S.C. § 91 , 194. The act imposes upon these officials the duty to treat creditors fairly and ratably.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., in Its Capacity as Receiver of Century Nat'l Bank v. Billy B. Goldberg, 906 F.2d 1087 (5th Cir. 1990). “The FDIC claimed, in response to this defense, that the Board’s action was a transaction in contemplation of insolvency and therefore void pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 91 . Goldberg countered that he was entitled to the rescission because he had purchased the stock in reliance upon…”
Fed. Reserve Bank v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 45 F.2d 511 (8th Cir. 1930). “(12 USCA § 91), was not definitely passed upon on the .”
United States v. Theos, 709 F. Supp. 1007 (D. Colo. 1989). “On November 12, 1987, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 91 , and Colo.R.Civ.P. 62, the Bank filed a motion in the state trial court to stay execution of Theos’ judgment against it pending determination of post-trial motions and appeals.”
Kendall v. Sorani (In Re Richmond Produce Co.), 195 B.R. 455 (N.D. Cal. 1996). “Stay of Execution of Judgment In a post-judgment order, the bankruptcy court held: Having considered the authorities cited by the parties and the applicable statutes and rules, the Court is persuaded that 12 U.S.C. § 91 should be construed to preclude any pre- or post-judgment…”
Burrowes v. Nimocks, 35 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1929). “The transfer was attacked on two grounds: (1) That it had been made without authority from the board of directors of the bank; and (2) that it had been made in contemplation of insolvency and with a view of giving a preference to the treasurer, in contravention of section 5242…”
Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Bank of New England-West, N.A., 403 Mass. 473 (Mass. 1988). “In July of 1986, the insurance companies sought, and the Superior Court judge granted, a preliminary injunction to enjoin BNE from interfering with or seizing any monies in Tri-Town’s BNE account.”
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.