PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8559-8561)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 30, 2009
Resolution Reform Act of 2009 - Amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to make it the responsibility of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and its Board of Directors, using the powers and authorities conferred by this Act, to resolve depository institution holding companies of failed or failing insured depository institutions (including their affiliates and subsidiaries).
Requires the FDIC to accept appointment and act as receiver of a covered depository institution holding company if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such appointment will reduce the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund, and that specified grounds exist.
Sets forth conditions for appointment of the FDIC as receiver.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits the FDIC to decline to accept appointment for a covered depository institution holding company, when, in its sole discretion, it determines that resolution of the company would be better accomplished under either federal bankruptcy law or state insurance law.
Shields the FDIC from direction or supervision of any other federal or state agency when in its status as receiver it exercises its rights, powers, and privileges.
States that: (1) appointment of the FDIC as receiver terminates any proceeding under either federal bankruptcy law or state insolvency law with respect to the subject holding company; and (2) no case or proceeding may be commenced against such holding company while the FDIC acts as receiver without the written agreement of the FDIC.
Permits judicial review regarding appointment of the FDIC as receiver.
Sets forth the powers and duties of the FDIC as receiver. Authorizes the FDIC to make a determination of troubled condition for any covered company that does not have an appropriate federal banking agency.
Authorizes the FDIC to cooperate and coordinate with foreign courts, foreign representatives, and foreign regulatory or supervisory authorities.
People & committees
Sen. Corker, Bob [R-TN] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8559-8561)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1540 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1540 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1540 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1540 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.