The Effect of the Repeal of law that grants rights to a party has on a successor party assigned to carry out the duties described in the repealed law

Question

Does the repeal of a statute granting a party authority to enforce a contract eliminate a successor-in-interest party’s ability to enforce the contract?

12 USC 1441a granted the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) certain authority and responsibilities. 12 USC 1831q granted the FDIC the power to carry out any remaining authority and responsibilities of the Resolution Trust Corporation, as set forth in section 1441a.

12 USC 1441a was subsequently repealed.

Since FDIC's powers were predicated on the authority and responsibilities defined in 12 USC 1441a, does the repeal prevent FDIC from continuing to carry out any remaining authority and responsibilities?

Since FDIC powers are predicated on duties

Answer 1

Since FDIC's powers were predicated on the authority and responsibilities defined in 12 USC 1441a, does the repeal prevent FDIC from continuing to carry out any remaining authority and responsibilities?

Probably not, although language in the not yet codified Public Law repealing the statute regarding the effective date might provide further clarity.

Usually, the rights and responsibilities would be seen as "vested" when the RTC took on a case and governed by the statute on the books at that time, with the FDIC authorized to be a successor in that context. It might even be expressly included in the contractual language in some cases.

There probably also weren't that many live cases in which the issue could have come up. If I recall correctly, the RTC provisions were repealed effective during a lull in bank failures, so there may have been few, if any, live cases in which the FDIC needed any continuing authority at the time.