Connection lost
Server error
Robert D. Rapaport v. United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Thrift Supervision Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A federal banking agency ordered a shareholder to pay for a failed bank’s capital shortfall. The court reversed, holding the agency lacked authority because merely breaching a capital agreement, without personal gain, does not constitute the “unjust enrichment” required for such administrative action.
Legal Significance: This case significantly limits a federal banking agency’s power to impose personal liability in administrative proceedings. It clarifies that “unjust enrichment” under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b)(6) requires more than a simple breach of contract and must align with common law principles of restitution.
Robert D. Rapaport v. United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Thrift Supervision Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Robert Rapaport, as a condition for his savings and loan (Great Life) to receive federal deposit insurance from the FSLIC, entered into a Net Worth Maintenance Agreement. This agreement personally obligated him to maintain the institution’s capital at the minimum regulatory level. When Great Life began experiencing capital deficiencies, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), as successor to the FSLIC, demanded Rapaport contribute his pro rata share of the shortfall, which he failed to do. The institution was eventually liquidated. The OTS initiated an administrative proceeding, not a judicial one, to enforce the agreement. An Administrative Law Judge and the Acting Director of the OTS found Rapaport liable, ordering him to pay approximately $1.5 million. The agency’s sole basis for imposing this administrative remedy was its finding that Rapaport was “unjustly enriched” under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b)(6)(A)(i) by retaining the funds he had agreed to contribute while the S&L received the benefit of deposit insurance. Rapaport’s role was limited to that of a stockholder; he held no management position.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a party’s failure to make a contractually required capital contribution to a financial institution, without more, constitute “unjust enrichment” sufficient to authorize a federal banking agency to impose personal liability through an administrative proceeding under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b)(6)(A)?
No. The court held that the OTS failed to demonstrate that Rapaport Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a party’s failure to make a contractually required capital contribution to a financial institution, without more, constitute “unjust enrichment” sufficient to authorize a federal banking agency to impose personal liability through an administrative proceeding under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b)(6)(A)?
Conclusion
The decision establishes a crucial limit on administrative agency power, confirming that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
Legal Rule
Under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b)(6)(A), a federal banking agency may only order Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the statutory term "unjustly enriched" in 12 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has statutory authority to enforce