United States: In Win For Financial Services Industry, Second Circuit Limits Use Of FCA To Enforce Banking Regulations

In United States ex rel. Bishop v. Wells Fargo & Co., 823 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2016), the Second Circuit rejected an attempt to use the False Claims Act ("FCA") as an enforcement mechanism for banking regulations in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Expressing deference to the federal government's role in maintaining the stability of financial markets, the Second Circuit declined to hold that the defendant banks' broad representations of regulatory compliance gave rise to FCA liability. The case represents a victory for the financial services sector.


In Bishop, relators brought FCA claims against Wells Fargo, alleging fraud by executives at two banks Wells Fargo had acquired – Wachovia and World Savings Bank. The relators alleged that Wachovia executives had used improper accounting practices to hide toxic assets and conceal the fact that the bank was undercapitalized. They also asserted that World Savings Bank had failed to implement required internal controls and had made loans that were prohibited by applicable laws and regulations.

These alleged activities alone, however, did not involve claims for payment from the government, an essential element under the FCA.. To bridge that gap, relators argued that Wachovia, and later Wells Fargo, made false statements to the Federal Reserve System (the "Fed") by concealing this conduct when they borrowed money from the Fed's "discount window."

In particular, relators pointed to three representations in the Fed's Operating Circular No. 10 (the "Lending Agreement"), which they claim the banks could not have made truthfully when applying for those loans: Section 9.1(b), attesting that the borrower is not in violation of any laws or regulations relevant to the Lending Agreement; Section 9.1(g), attesting that the borrower has made no false statements in any documents furnished to the Fed; and Section 9.1(i), attesting that no event of default has occurred.

Relators argued that the banks had violated the FCA by making express false certifications under Sections 9.1(b), (g), and (i); making implied false certifications under Section 9.1(b); fraudulently inducing the Fed to lend them money; and conspiring to submit false claims.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, and relators appealed.

Second Circuit Majority Opinion Affirms Dismissal

In an opinion by Chief Judge Katzmann, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

The court began by providing a detailed background on the operation and policy goals of the Fed's discount window. As the court explained, the discount window allows banks to borrow funds to meet their federally-mandated reserve requirements. Banks had originally been reluctant to avail themselves of this mechanism, for fear that doing so would give the impression that they were financially unsound. This reluctance, in turn, hampered the Fed's ability to maintain the stability of the U.S. financial system by cushioning shocks to the market. To remedy this, the Fed revised its regulations in 2003 to allow banks in "generally sound financial condition" to borrow at the primary credit rate (a rate set above the target Federal Funds Rate) with very minimal requirements. 12 C.F.R. § 201.4(a).

During the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed created another tool to manage liquidity: the Term Auction Facility ("TAF"). Under TAF, banks could bid on the amount of money they wanted to borrow and the interest rate they wanted to borrow at, and the Fed awarded loans based on the bids it received. Just as with the primary credit program, the TAF was available to banks in "generally sound financial condition."

The court in Bishop emphasized that the Fed's regulations required very little of institutions seeking to borrow under the primary credit program or TAF. Those regulations impose "minimal administrative burden," and they provide the Fed with discretion to lend even where an institution does not actually qualify for the primary credit rate. 823 F.3d at 40. In the vast majority of cases, the borrower must submit no more than the amount and term of the loan being sought.

Express False Certification

Turning to relators' express certification claims, the court first addressed the Section 9.1(b) certification in the Lending Agreement, under which defendants affirmed that they were not in violation of any laws or regulations relating to the contract. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that this certification was too vague to support a false certification theory. In doing so, the court rejected relators' attempt to draw a parallel to the Tenth Circuit's decision in United States ex rel. Lemmon v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 614 F.3d 1163, 1171 (10th Cir. 2010). There, the Tenth Circuit had held that a certification of compliance with all the terms in a contract was sufficiently specific to give rise to an FCA claim if the defendant violated one of those terms. In contrast, the certification here was hopelessly broad, implicating "thousands of laws and regulations that could plausibly affect . . . the terms of the Lending Agreement." 823 F.3d at 45. Nor was the court convinced that industry practice required that these certifications be read as narrow, enforceable representations. The Fed, it noted, is not a commercial bank, and providing such sweeping enforcement authority to relators under the FCA could undermine the Fed's goals of market stabilization.

The court similarly affirmed dismissal of the express false certification claims under Section 9.1(g), which requires borrowers to certify that they have not provided any false documents or made any false statements to the Fed in connection with borrowing funds. As the court explained, the minimal documentation submitted by discount-window borrowers did not contain any of the detailed financial information that relators claimed had been falsified.

Finally, the court affirmed dismissal of the claims under Section 9.1(i), which required certification that no event of default had occurred. Because these claims relied on the same conduct as the other two express false certification theories, they failed for the same reasons.

Implied False Certification

In addition to advancing an express false certification theory under Section 9.1(b), relators argued that the fraudulent conduct they had alleged also resulted in an implied false certification under that provision. Relying on its earlier decision in United States ex rel. Mikes v. Strauss, 274 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 2001), the court rejected this theory as well.

The court disagreed with relators that its analysis should focus on whether the regulations at issue lay "at the heart of" the banks' agreements with the Fed. 823 F.3d at 48. Instead, it pointed to its holding in Mikes that the relevant regulations must expressly state that they are conditions of payment in order to give rise to an implied certification claim. That was simply not the case here.

Notably, in reaching this decision, the court also clarified that Mikes applied beyond the healthcare fraud context that had been at issue in that case. As the court explained, Mikes' deference to existing regulatory mechanisms, designed to facilitate the functioning of a complex, and publically significant industry, applied just as strongly here.

Fraudulent Inducement and Conspiracy

The court dealt with the remaining fraudulent inducement and conspiracy claims in summary fashion. Because these claims were derivative of their other theories, they failed for the same reasons.


The Second Circuit's decision in Bishop stakes out an important limitation on complaints that premise FCA liability on broad certifications of compliance with laws and regulations. The decision is particularly relevant for the financial services industry, where an endorsement of relators' theory could have subjected banks to treble damages under the FCA for an extraordinarily wide range of regulatory violations. Especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, which has seen a proliferation of suits against banks and mortgage lenders, the case is a victory for financial institutions.

The decision may also provide a useful precedent for defendants in other industries who face FCA claims based on broad certifications of laws and regulations. Boilerplate certifications of general legal compliance are common in a number of areas, and the court's reiteration that such certifications may not be used as "a blunt instrument to enforce compliance with all . . . regulations," Mikes, 274 F.3d 699, is significant.

Bishop, however, pre-dates the recent Supreme Court decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S.Ct. 1989 (2016). In Escobar, the Supreme Court recognized that nondisclosure of noncompliance with a specific legal requirement could provide a basis for FCA liability where, as a result of the nondisclosure, defendant knowingly made a statement in a claim for payment that was materially false. In evaluating materiality under this standard, the Court disagreed with one aspect of Mikes, stating that it was relevant but not dispositive that a regulation may expressly state that it is a condition of payment. As a result, the contours of the Second Circuit's post-Escobar implied certification standard will require further development. We will continue to monitor decisions as they issue.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions