Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
The FDIC Board adopts ALJ's recommendation and finds violation of law and Regulation O in a loan to an affiliated institution; it rejects ALJ's recommendation and also finds violation in an unreimbursed tax overpayment to the Bank's holding company. Finding that individual respondents benefited from the violations, the board rejects ALJ's recommendation of $3,000 penalties and orders penalties of $200,000 for one respondent and $125,000 for each of the other two.
[.1] Regulation ODefinitionExtension of Credit
[.2] Regulation OCivil Money Penalties for ViolationFactors
[.3] Civil Money PenaltiesAmountLosses to Bank
{{6-30-92 p.A-1960}}
[.5] Regulation OPreferential TermsPersonal Gain
[.6] Civil Money PenaltiesAmountHistory of Violations
[.7] Civil Money PenaltiesAmountAbility to Pay
In the Matter of
This proceeding arises out of a Notice of Assessment of Civil Money Penalties, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Order to Pay, and Notice of Hearing, dated March 12, 1991, ("Notice"), against Ira Lee Brannan for $200,000, David Brannan for $125,000, and Stephen L. Brannan (collectively "Respondents")1 for $125,000, issued pursuant to former section 18(j)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ("Act"), 12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(4), and Part 308 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") Rules of Practice and Procedure, 12 C.F.R. § 308.74-.76. The Notice alleges that Respondents violated section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. § 371c(c) (1), and Regulation O of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("Regulation O"), 12 C.F.R. § 215, with respect to Freedom Bank (formerly known as Farmers & Merchants Bank), DeLeon, Texas ("Bank"), by allowing a loan to BGroup, Inc., an affiliate, secured by another affiliate's securities; and an overpayment of estimated income taxes to the holding company that was not reimbursed to the Bank. An evidentiary hearing was held October 89, 1991, in Austin, Texas before Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose ("ALJ").
A. The 1989 Estimated Income Tax
The Respondents were each officers and/or members of the board of directors of the Bank. (Stip. at 3).2 The Respondents had a controlling influence over the management, policies, and practices of the Bank, includ-
(Stip. at 25). The Bank's cumulative pre-tax earnings in 1989 were reported in the Bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income ("Call Reports") as follows:
(Stip. at 26). Due to the Bank's negative income in 1989, it had no income tax liability and the estimated tax payments should have been refunded. (Stip. at 27) (FDIC Ex. 26, p. 1).
B. The Loan to BGroup, An Affiliate
On November 14, 1985, the Bank extended a credit to W.D. Brannan,3 for $289,027.45, which was secured by 12,550 shares of B-Banc stock. (Tr. at 55). On November 25, 1986, the maturity date of W.D. Brannan's loan was extended to March 9, 1987. (Tr. at 55; FDIC Ex. 82, p. 1). On April 8, 1988, the Bank extended a credit for $240,000, secured by 12,550 shares of B-Banc stock, to BGroup, Inc., an affiliate company wholly owned by Respondents. (Stip. At 34 and 35). The proceeds of the $240,000 extension of credit to BGroup, Inc., were used to pay the loan in the name of W.D. Brannan. (Tr. at 4849). The same 12,550 shares of B-Banc stock secured the credits to W.D. Brannan and BGroup, Inc. (Tr. at 5152).
C. The ALJ's Recommended Decision
After considering the testimony and documentary evidence presented by Enforcement Counsel and the Respondent, the ALJ made the following significant conclusions of law.
D. Enforcement Counsel's Exceptions
Enforcement Counsel filed exceptions to the ALJ's findings and conclusions, arguing that: 1) the tax overpayment was an extension of credit within the meaning of Regulation O; 2) there were previous insider violations at the Bank; and 3) that the Bank lost $321,211 as a result of the violations. The FDIC also took exception to various conclusions of law in the Decision and to the recommended amount of civil money penalty. In addition, Enforcement Counsel seeks the adoption of twenty-five findings of fact and six conclusions of law which were not adopted by the ALJ. Exceptions to the ALJ's Decision and Brief of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC-91-37k ("Exceptions").
Based upon a thorough review of the testimony, the documentary evidence, the briefs and arguments of the parties, the ALJ's Recommended Decision, and the Exceptions, the Board of Directors ("Board") of the FDIC adopts the ALJ's Findings of Fact Nos. 1 through 23 and 27, concurs with Conclusions of Law Nos. 1 through 7 and 9 through 11, but rejects Conclusions of Law Nos. 8, 12, and 13 and the proposed Order. In addition, the Board adopts, with one exception,5 the Enforcement Counsel's proposed undisputed facts as set forth in the Exceptions. Further, the Board finds that the unreimbursed estimated tax overpayment was an extension of credit requiring compliance with Regulation O, and that the Respondents benefited directly or indirectly from both the tax overpayment and the preferential loan to the affiliate. The ALJ's proposed
A. Violations
[.1] 1. The 1989 Estimated Income Tax Payment
(8) Any other transaction as a result of which a person becomes obligated to pay money (or its equivalent) to a bank, whether the obligation arises directly or indirectly, or because of an endorsement on an obligation or otherwise, or by any other means whatsoever.
2. The Loan to BGroup, Inc.
As the ALJ noted, Respondents do not dispute that the $240,000 loan to BGroup, Inc., an affiliate, by the Bank was in violation of section 23A and Regulation O.R.D. At 10; see also Respondent's Brief at 6. The loan was secured by the stock of an affiliate and the Board agrees that this was a clear violation of Regulation O and section 23A.
[.2] B. The Statutory Factors
[.3] 1. Losses to the Bank
2. Benefit Received Related to Estimated
The imposition of penalties would not necessarily be warranted for this violation if the Bank had corrected the violation within a reasonable time. The Board recognizes that the violation did not originally arise as part of a scheme of insider dealing. However, unless violations are corrected within a reasonable period after their discovery, what began as an inadvertent violation can evolve into an intentional one. The Bank has not corrected this violation to date,7 apparently due to the holding company's inability to repay. See R.D. at 6.
3. Benefit Received relating to The Loan
There is no dispute that the loan to BGroup, Inc., was in violation of section 23A and Regulation O. The only question is whether the amount of the penalties assessed by the ALJ are appropriate. As of the date of the hearing, the FDIC was authorized to assess civil money penalties for this violation of over $1,270,000 (Tr. at 131). The respondents stress that the violation was merely a "technical violation" of Regulation O which does not warrant a civil money penalty. Id. However, even if Respondents are correct that the violation was a technical one, civil money penalties can be assessed for even a "technical violation." In the Matter of R. Wayne Lowe, FDIC-89-21k, 2 P-H FDIC Enf. Dec. ¶5153 (1990).
[.5] Where loans to affiliates are preferential, the economic benefit is the amount by which the terms, including interest rates and collateral, are favorable compared to those prevailing at the time for comparable arms length transactions. See J.D. Miller, 1992 WL 14625. This loan was certainly preferential since the evidence indicates that it could not have been obtained from any other source. Tr. at 225). See In the Matter of R. Wayne Lowe, FDIC-89-21k, 2 P-H FDIC Enf. Dec. ¶5153 (1990). An extension of credit that otherwise would not have been made obviously provides a direct economic benefit to BGroup, Inc., and therefore to the Respondents as principals of BGroup, Inc. Id. BGroup, Inc. Never made any payments on this loan, with the exception of an initial payment upon its assumption of $23,000 on principle and interest. Thus, BGroup, Inc., a "related interest" of Respondents, see 12 C.F.R. 215.2(k), received a substantial benefit in having the use of these funds, all to the detriment of the Bank. Therefore, while the record does not permit an exact quantification of the benefit received by each Respondent, the Board finds that Respondents benefited substantially from this loan because the loan itself and the terms could not have been obtained elsewhere, no payments have been made, and respondents gained control of 12,500 shares of B-Banc stock.
[.6] 4. Prior Violations
5. Good Faith
The ALJ found that the Respondents acted in "good faith." R.D. at 13. In reconsidering the amount of benefit and the prior violations, the Board does not find evidence of good faith in this record. See FDIC-87-61e, 2 P-H FDIC Enf. Dec. ¶5113, A-1243 (1988). Therefore, good faith will not be a mitigating factor in the amount of the penalties assessed.
[.7] 6. Ability to Pay
C. Amount of the Penalties.
1. Ira Brannan
The Board finds that, while Ira Brannan is least able to pay a substantial penalty, he nevertheless reaped the greatest benefit from, and is the most culpable for the violations because of the benefit received and his position of control in the Bank and its holding company. In light of the substantial loss to the Bank, the Board must assess a penalty that punishes Respondent Ira Brannan for his violations, deters future violations, and which at least denies him the economic benefit of his violations. Therefore, after carefully considering all the statutory factors, the Board finds that Enforcement Counsel's
2. David and Stephen L. Brannan
Both David and Stephen Brannan were involved in violations which benefited them at least indirectly and caused a substantial loss to the Bank. In light of this loss, the benefit received, and their involvement in the prior violations, a substantial penalty is warranted. The only mitigating factor is the negative net worth of each Respondent. Nevertheless, the Board fins that while Respondents David and Stephen Brannan may not be able to presently pay a substantial penalty, they are both currently employed as licensed professionals and therefore have the capacity to pay a penalty based upon potential future earnings. Therefore, after considering all the statutory factors, the Board finds that Enforcement Counsel's recommended penalties of $125,000 each against David Brannan and against Stephen L. Brannan are appropriate in order to adequately punish them for the violations and to provide an effective deterrent against future violations by these Respondents and others.
The Board finds that Respondents violated section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O with respect to the unreimbursed tax overpayment and the loan to BGroup, Inc. The Board also finds that the Respondents either directly or indirectly benefited from both of these violations. Therefore, the Board has reconsidered the appropriate amount of penalty to be assessed with respect to the violations after re-weighing the statutory factors in light of the conclusions herein and concludes that penalties of $200,000 against Ira Lee Brannan, and penalties of $125,000 each against David Brannan and Stephen L. Brannan are appropriate.
The Board of the FDIC, having considered the entire record in this proceeding, finds that Respondents have violated section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O in connection with a 1989 estimated income tax payment by the Bank to B-Banc and a preferential loan transaction from the Bank to BGroup, Inc., in April 1988. The Board further finds that the Respondents caused the Bank to suffer substantial losses, benefited directly or indirectly from these violations, have a history of prior violations, but currently have a negative net worth.
In the Matter of
{{6-30-92 p.A-1969}}
This case was tried before me at Austin, Texas, on October 8 and 9, 1991, upon a notice of civil money penalty assessment against Ira Lee Brannan for $200,000. David Brannan for $125,000 and Stephen L. Brannan for $125,000. Assessments against the other named respondents were resolved prior to hearing.
This matter involves two situations occurring at Freedom Bank (f/k/a Farmers & Merchants Bank, herein the Bank) about which there is essentially no factual dispute.
A. The 1989 Income Tax Payments.
Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act (along with other sections) and Regulation O are meant to limit the use of a bank's funds by insiders.
{{6-30-92 p.A-1972}}
The principals of BGroup are the three Respondents, thus there is no question that it is an affiliate of the Bank. BGroup was apparently formed for the purpose of holding B-Banc stock, and to this end borrowed $240,000 from the Bank on April 8, 1988, putting up as collateral 12,550 shares of B-Banc stock. At this time, B-Banc stock was worth "at most $20.00 a share." Stip. 38)
C. Civil Money Penalty Assessments.
The FDIC seeks an assessment of $200,000 against Ira Lee Brannan, and $125,000 each for David and Stephen Brannan. Since the violation of law occurred in 1988 and continues to date, it is clear that the proposed assessments are well within the amount allowed by statute, even if the Pre-FIRREA limit of $1000 per day is the applicable standard. However, the amount of any penalty assessed must be based on an analysis of the five statutory factorssize of financial resources, good faith, gravity of the violation, history of previous violations and such other factors as justice may require. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(2)(G).
1. Size of Financial Resources.
Each of the Respondents submitted financial statements and the parties stipulated to the net worth of each. Also, Ira Lee and David Brannan testified concerning their respective financial condition.
2. Good Faith.
The examiner who first cited the BGroup violation suggested that it appeared inadvert-
{{6-30-92 p.A-1973}}ent. This is consistent with the testimony of the Brannans. There is simply no evidence that they acted other than in good faith with regard to the BGroup credit.
3. Gravity of the Violation.
The FDIC does not dispute the Respondents' contention that the BGroup loan was essentially a renewal of the W.D. Brannan. The FDIC argues that notwithstanding, as finally structured there was a $240,000 loan to BGroup, an affiliate of the Bank, secured by the stock of B-Banc, also an affiliate. Therefore, the Bank violated Section 23A.
4. History of Previous Violations.
At the examination as of October 24, 1986, an extension of credit was cited as an apparent violation of Regulation O. (Stip. 19) This was not the same as the violation in the BGroup loan; nevertheless, it was similar in that it related to loans to insiders. While this previous citation scarcely establishes a pattern of Section 23A or Regulation O violations, it is a factor to be considered against the Respondents in arriving at the appropriate assessment.
5. Such Other Matters as Justice May Require.
As the FDIC Board has held, the purpose of a civil money penalty is to deter the respondent and others and to insure that any gain from the violation is negated. Here there was no gain. I conclude that deterrence can be achieved for the violation proved by the imposition of a minimal penalty.
1. At all material times, Freedom Bank, DeLeon, Texas (herein the Bank), was a corporation existing and doing business under the laws of the State of Texas, having its principal place of business at DeLeon, Texas. (Stip. 1)
14. Due to the Bank's negative income in 1989, it had no income tax liability. (Stip. 27)
1. At all material time, the Bank was an insured state nonmember bank subject to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1811-181k, the Rules and Regulations of the FDIC, 12 C.F.R. Part III, and the laws of the State of Texas. (Stip. 2)
The Board of Directors of the FDIC, having considered the entire record in this proceeding, including briefs and arguments of counsel, and after taking into consideration the size of the financial resources of and good faith of the Respondents, the minimal gravity of the violation of law they have been found to have committed, the history of previous violations, and such other matters as justice may require, concludes that a penalty of $3,000 be, and the same hereby is, assessed against Ira Lee Brannan, David Brannan and Stephen L. Brannan pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(4). |
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |