Page 35 - Sharp-Hundley 2012
P. 35

Banking Law Roundup





               Sharp                                           Thinking







        No. 73                   Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C.                    October  2012

              Decision Shows FDIC Power to Ban Officials from Banking


             The  Federal  Deposit  Insurance  Corp.  (FDIC)  has  broad  powers  to  banish  bank  officials  from  the
        industry, a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals in Chicago demonstrates.

             The  FDIC  also  has  the  authority  to  impose  significant  civil  monetary  penalties  in  cases  of  insider
        wrongdoing, the decision indicates.

             At  issue  in  Michael  v.  FDIC,  687  F.3d  337  (7th  Cir.  2012),  were  conduct  and  omissions  of  two
                   brothers who formerly owed Citizens Bank & Trust Co., a state bank insured by FDIC.  The
                   brothers  were  found  to  have  violated  Regulation  O  (12  C.F.R.  Part  215),  which  regulates
                   banks’  loans  to  insiders;  to  have  double-pledged  stock  in  support  of  their  business
                   transactions; to have violated their fiduciary duties; and to have engaged in unsafe or unsound
                   banking  practices.    They  were  banned  from  banking  and  assessed  $175,000  in  civil
                   penalties, which the court called “modest.”

             The  FDIC  and  the  court  imposed  those  sanctions  because  of  the  brothers’  involvement  in  three
        separate transactions, but both bodies said banishment from banking would have been supported by their
        role in any one of the three situations.

             In one transaction, the brothers failed to disclose their personal roles in a transaction in which a hotel
        originally  had been purchased for $2.58 million and put through  a series of  trans-
        actions which supposedly justified a $3.95 million price, of which their bank agreed to
        lend  $2.9  million  in  an  approval  in  which  both  brothers  participated.    In  another
        transaction,  the  brothers  pledged  the  same  shares  of  their  bank’s  stock  to  two
        separate banks in support of the brothers’ transactions with those banks.  In the third
        transaction, the brothers failed to advise Citizens of their interest in a real estate deal
        that the bank financed and in which a co-investor was allegedly duped into signing numerous papers.

             The  FDIC  Board  found  that  a  common  theme  emerged  when  examining  the  transactions:
        “Respondents exploited their positions as Bank directors, deliberately overstated the value of assets, and
        concealed their true financial interest to entice lenders and investors to fund their business ventures.”

                            Affirming,  the  7th  Circuit  said  12  U.S.C.  §  1818(e)(1)  authorized  the  Board  to
                       permanently  remove  from  banking  a  bank  officer,  director,  employee  or  controlling
                       shareholder  if  (1)  the  person  directly  or  indirectly  violated  a  law,  rule,  or  regulation,
                       participated in an unsafe or unsound banking practice, or breached his fiduciary duty; (2)
                       as a result of this conduct, the bank suffered or will probably suffer a financial loss or the
                       person received a financial benefit; and (3) the conduct involved personal dishonesty or
                       demonstrated a willful or continuing disregard for the safety or soundness of the bank.

             The  court’s  examination  of  the  alleged  violation  of  a  law,  rule  or  regulation  focused  on
        Regulation O.     Under  Regulation  O,  “[a]n  extension  of  credit  is  considered  made  to  an  insider  to  the
        extent that the proceeds are transferred to the insider or are used for the tangible economic benefit of the


        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
        Sharp  Thinking  is  an  occasional  newsletter  of  The  Sharp  Law  Firm,  P.C.  addressing  developments  in  the  law  which  may  be  of  interest.    Nothing  contained  in  Sharp
        Thinking  shall  be  construed  to  create  an  attorney-client  relation  where  none  previously  has  existed,  nor  with  respect  to  any  particular  matter.   The  perspectives  herein
        constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation.  To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal
        advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.
   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40