## Facts

- First Pacific Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware one-bank holding company, was the sole shareholder of First Pacific Bank.
- On August 7, 1990, California banking authorities appointed the FDIC as receiver for the bank.
- In May 1996, the FDIC notified plaintiffs it was terminating the receivership and provided two pages of unaudited, summary financial information covering the receivership period.
- Plaintiffs requested additional information, citing the lack of meaningful detail and the need to evaluate the receivership and respond to an FDIC directors-and-officers liability suit.
- The FDIC provided four more pages of unaudited summary financial data, which plaintiffs still viewed as inadequate.
- Bancorp and certain shareholders sued seeking a full accounting, asserting that 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(15) required the FDIC to provide an accounting conforming to FDIC practices and procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(15) creates an express or implied private right of action allowing a bank’s shareholder or holding company to compel the FDIC (as receiver) to provide a detailed accounting.
2. Whether related claims premised on an alleged statutory duty to furnish such an accounting can proceed absent a private right of action under § 1821(d)(15).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit consolidated the related appeals and affirmed summary judgment for the FDIC.
- The court held that § 1821(d)(15) does not expressly authorize private suits by shareholders or a holding company to compel an accounting.
- Applying implied-right-of-action analysis, the court concluded Congress did not intend to create a private remedy under § 1821(d)(15).
- Because the asserted theories in the related action depended on the same claimed enforceable accounting duty, those claims also failed.

## Legal Principles

- A federal statute that imposes duties on an agency does not, without clear congressional intent, create a privately enforceable right or remedy.
- Courts are reluctant to imply private rights of action where Congress has established a detailed remedial and review scheme, particularly in a regulatory framework governing agency administration of failed financial institutions.
- Under implied-right-of-action factors, the absence of rights-creating language, lack of legislative intent to provide a private remedy, and inconsistency with the statute’s structure and purposes weigh against implying a cause of action.
- FIRREA’s receivership framework prioritizes efficient resolution and limits judicially created remedies that could interfere with FDIC discretion and the statutory claims-review process.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that FIRREA’s accounting provision, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(15), does not provide shareholders or a holding company a private right of action to compel an FDIC receivership accounting, and it affirmed judgment for the FDIC on both the accounting claim and related claims dependent on that theory.


First Pac. Bancorp, Inc. v. Helfer, 224 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000)