In the 1943 case Anderson v. Abbott, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a receiver of an insolvent national bank could recover dividends paid to shareholders when the bank was allegedly insolvent. The court held that under Section 60e of Title 12 in United States Code, receivers can indeed reclaim such dividends if they were made while the bank was insolvent or if their payment rendered it so. However, this right is not absolute and depends on certain conditions being met: namely, that insolvency must have been present at the time of dividend declaration and payment; also there should be no good faith defense available for stockholders who received these payments without knowledge of insolvency. This decision clarified how federal banking law interacts with state laws regarding corporate distributions to shareholders.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. Abbott, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power and a misinterpretation of federal banking laws. He contended that Congress had not intended to give preferential treatment to depositors in insolvent national banks when it passed legislation related to bank receiverships. Instead, he believed that all creditors should be treated equally under the law regardless of their status as depositors or non-depositors. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for creating a new rule without clear statutory authority or compelling policy reasons, asserting this could lead to unjust results and undermine public confidence in national banks.