Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1492301
 


 



OTS vs. The Bar: Must Attorneys Advise Directors that the Directors Owe a Duty to the Depository Fund?


Susan Saab Fortney


Hofstra University School of Law

July 18, 1993

Annual Review of Banking Law, Vol. 12, 1993

Abstract:     
This article explores the liability of attorneys representing depository institutions. Part I of this article introduces the controversy over the proper role of bank counsel following the bank and thrift crisis. Part II discusses the first Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) actions against attorneys. Part III considers the emerging theory of liability based on counsel’s duty to advise directors on their duties to depositors and the depository fund. In Part IV, a comparison of the experience of the securities bar to that of the banking bar demonstrates how the government’s enforcement activity has already changed attorney’s perceptions of their role and their approach to law practice. Part V concludes by considering questions related to the proper role of counsel.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Keywords: depository institutions, bank counsel, director advisement

JEL Classification: K19

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 22, 2009 ; Last revised: November 12, 2009

Suggested Citation

Fortney, Susan Saab, OTS vs. The Bar: Must Attorneys Advise Directors that the Directors Owe a Duty to the Depository Fund? (July 18, 1993). Annual Review of Banking Law, Vol. 12, 1993. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1492301

Contact Information

Susan Saab Fortney (Contact Author)
Hofstra University School of Law ( email )
121 Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY 11549
United States
516-463-4744 (Phone)

Hofstra University Logo

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 310
Downloads: 17

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.204 seconds