Page 36 - Sharp-Hundley 2012
P. 36

insider.”  12 C.F.R. § 215.3(f).  However, an exception applies if the loan is made on substantially the
        same terms as loans to non-insiders, the loan does not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or
        present other unfavorable terms, and the borrower uses the proceeds in a bona fide transaction to acquire
        property, goods or services from the insider.  In addition, Regulation O requires that the insiders’ interest
        be disclosed and that they abstain from voting on the loan.  See 12 C.F.R. § 215.4.

             Because  the  loan  in  the  first  transaction  involved  unusual  risk,  because  the
        brothers’  roles  were  not  fully  disclosed,  and  because  they  participated  in  the
        approval, they could not find solace in Regulation O, the court said.  The failure to
        properly  disclose  their  roles,  a  lending  limit  violation,  and  their  failure  to  abstain  from
        voting also caused the court to find Reg O violations in the third transaction.

             But  the  FDIC  and  the  court  also  found  breaches  of  fiduciary  duty  in  these
        transactions.  “Self-dealing, conflicts of interest, or even divided loyalties are inconsistent
        with fiduciary responsibilities,” the court said.  “A person can breach a fiduciary duty by
        failing to disclose material information, even if not asked.”

             The agency and the court also found the brothers to have engaged in unsafe or unsound practices.
        They found that the first and third transactions exposed the bank to abnormal risk of loss or harm contrary
        to prudent banking practice, and constituted willful disregard under § 1818(e)(1).  They also found that the
        double-pledging of stock was an unsafe and unsound practice which exposed a bank to loss or harm.

             Persons interested in bank insider liability issues should also review FDIC v. Spangler, 836 F.Supp.2d
        778 (2011), in which the court sustained the FDIC’s complaint against a bank’s officers, directors and loan
        committee members on state-law grounds.

                              New Law Prohibits False U.C.C. Filings

             Illinois’ enactment of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/9-101 et seq.) has been
        amended to prohibit and punish filing of false financing statements.

             Not only does P.A. 97-0836 make such false filings a crime, it creates a powerful civil remedy for
        injured persons.   Under new § 9-501.1, injured persons may sue and recover the greater of $10,000 or
        actual  damages;  attorney’s  fees;  expenses  of  bringing  the  action;  and,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,
        exemplary damages.  It also creates an administrative procedure for termination of the false filing.

              Reformation Request Not Barred By Credit Agreements Act

             The  Illinois  Credit  Agreements  Act  (815  ILCS  160)  does  not  prohibit  a  debtor  from  seeking
        reformation  of  a  written  agreement  on  grounds  of  mutual  mistake  of  fact,  a majority  of  a  panel  in  the
        Appellate Court’s Third District has ruled.

             At issue in Schafer v. UnionBank/Central, 2012 IL App (3d) 110008, was a security agreement which
        had  been  checked  to  cover  “All  Debts”  instead  of  “Specific  Debts.”   When  the  bank  used  the  security
        agreement to seize and sell debtors’ property upon default on transactions other than the one in which it
        was given, the debtors sued for conversion.  The bank raised the security agreement as a defense, and
        the debtors asked that it be reformed.  Over an objection by the third judge, the majority said the Credit
        Agreements Act does not prevent such reformation.

                                                                      - John T. Hundley, Jhundley@lotsharp.com, 618-242-0246
        John\SharpThinking\#73.doc
        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
                                           THE  SHARP  LAW  FIRM,  P.C.

                1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170 • www.thesharpfirm.com

           Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’ Rights •
                          Arbitration • Administrative Law • Employment Matters • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Matters

          Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com; Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rreinhardt@lotsharp.com;
                                             Bentley J. Bender: Bbender@lotsharp.com

                                                        Advertising Material
   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41