Each depositor insured to at least $250,000 per insured bank



Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders




FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders

ED&O Home | Search Form | Text Search | ED&O Help


{{4-30-92 p.I-39}}
   [8010] In the Matter of Jose M. Anotado, Joyce B. Desveaux, Daniel S. Geiger, Robert G. Jacobsen, and Donna R. Watson, First Pacific Bank, Beverly Hills, California, Docket No. FDIC-90-156b&c (2-5-91).

   Board adopts ALJ's recommendation and grants FDIC enforcement counsel's unopposed motion to delete as parties five named Respondents who were not responsible for the alleged unsafe and unsound practices in a temporary order to cease and desist.

In the Matter of
JANICE J. FRANCE, et al., and
FIRST PACIFIC BANK
BEVERLY HILLS,CALIFORNIA
(Insured State Nonmember Bank)
FDIC-90-156b&c

DECISION

   The matter before the Board of Directors ("Board") of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") is an unopposed motion to amend the Notice of Charges and of Hearing ("Notice") to delete certain parties from this proceeding. After issuance of the Notice, it was determined that these parties were not responsible for the alleged unsafe and unsound banking practices.
   Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Steven M. Charno issued a recommended decision granting the motion. The Board agrees with the ALJ's recommended decision and incorporates it herein by reference.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

   On August 10, 1990, the Notice, a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, and a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were issued to thirteen individuals who were officers, directors, former directors, or employees of First Pacific Bank, Beverly Hills, California (the "Bank").1

The Notice was also issued to four law firms which were alleged to be institution-affiliated parties of the Bank.2

The Notice states (at 8) that, at a July 12, 1990 meeting with the California State Banking Department, the Bank was found to be operating with unsafe or unsound practices. The Bank was determined to be insolvent based upon a deficit of $1,565,000 and it was advised that it must increase its capital by $6,400,272 by no later than August 7, 1990. Notice at 8. Next, the Notice describes six (6) transactions occurring July 13, 1990 through August 7, 1990 in which Bank funds were improperly advanced. Amounts ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 were advanced to the four named law firms for the purpose of defending certain officers, directors, and a former director against any claim that may arise from their association with the Bank. One of the six advances was a general retainer for "any future matters related to the California State Banking Department." Notice at 9.
   Under the terms of the Notice, each of the named Respondents knew of, should have known of, or participated in the improper transfer of assets in anticipation of insolvency. The Notice states that these improper transfers of Bank funds significantly dissipated the Bank's assets or earnings and weakened its condition. The Temporary Order to Cease and Desist ("Order") served with the Notice orders the Bank to cease this practice and reverse the six transactions. If these funds cannot be recaptured, the Order states that the directors, officers, and former director on whose behalf the legal fees were advanced, must make restitution directly to the Bank. Order at 7.

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE

   On October 11, 1990, FDIC Enforcement Counsel filed an unopposed motion to amend the Notice seeking to delete as parties the following named Respondents:
   (a) Jose M. Anotado
   (b) Joyce B. Desveaux
   (c) Daniel S. Geiger
   (d) Robert G. Jacobsen
   (e) Donna R. Watson.
   The motion states that this amendment re-


1 The Notice was issued to the following thirteen individuals: Janice J. France, Leo D. Kaplan, M.D., Berrien E. Moore, Richard A. Palmer, Ada P. Sands, Leonard S. Sands, Michael A. Zugsmith, Jose M. Anotado, Joyce B. Desveaux, Daniel S. Geiger, Robert G. Jacobsen, Donna R. Watson, and Leon Zuckerman.

2 The four institution-affiliated Los Angeles, California law firms named in the Notice are: KECK, MAHIN & CATE; the law offices of RONALD D. JAMAN; CROWLEY & CUNEO; and CHRISTENSEN, WHITE, MILLER, FINK & JACOBS.
{{4-30-92 p.I-40}}flects continuing examination by the FDIC of the transactions at issue as well as the answers and responses received from each of these Respondents.3

The Board has reviewed the answers and responses from the above-named Respondents contained in this record and finds that they do assert facts in support of this motion.
   By recommended decision of November 5, 1990, the ALJ found that good cause has been shown to grant FDIC Enforcement Counsel's motion to amend the Notice. The ALJ concluded, and the Board agrees, that entry of an Order to amend the Notice is appropriate.

ORDER

   IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

   1. The Notice in this proceeding is dismissed without prejudice insofar as it relates to Jose M. Anotado, Joyce B. Desveaux, Daniel S. Geiger, Robert G. Jacobsen, and Donna R. Watson.
   2. The Notice is amended by deleting the names of the following Respondents: Jose M. Anotado, Joyce B. Desveaux, Daniel S. Geiger, Robert G. Jacobsen, and Donna R. Watson.
   By direction of the Board of Directors.
   Dated at Washington, D.C., this 5th day of February, 1991.

____________________________________________
RECOMMENDED DECISION

In the Matter of
Janice J. France, et al., and
First Pacific Bank
Beverly Hills,California
(Insured Nonmember State Bank)
Steven M. Charno, Administrative Law Judge:

   This proceeding was initiated by the issuance of a Notice of Charges and of Hearing (Notice) on August 10, 1990. By unopposed motion filed October 15, 1990, Petitioner seeks to amend that Notice by deleting therefrom the names of the following Respondents:
   Jose M. Anotado,
   Joyce B. Desveaux,
   Daniel S. Geiger,
   Robert G. Jacobsen and
   Donna R. Watson.
During a prehearing conference on October 18, 1990, counsel for Petitioner stated in support of the motion that pleadings filed and correspondence sent since the Notice was issued, as well as unspecified investigative efforts by Petitioner, had demonstrated that the above-named Respondents were not in any way responsible for the unsafe or unsound banking practices alleged in the Notice. Good cause having been shown, there is ample basis to grant Petitioner's motion to amend the Notice.
   Because the motion to amend is, in effect, "dispositive" within the meaning of Section 308.07(b)(7) of the Corporation's Rules of Practice, 12 C.F.R. §308.07(b)(7), I hereby issue the following recommended:

ORDER

   It is ORDERED that:

   1. The Notice in this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice insofar as it relates to Jose M. Anotado, Joyce B. Desveaux, Daniel S. Geiger, Robert G. Jacobsen and Donna R. Watson.
   2. The Notice is amended by deleting the names of the following Respondents: Jose M. Anotado, Joyce B. Desveaux, Daniel S. Geiger, Robert G. Jacobsen and Donna R. Watson.
   Done at Washington, D.C., this 5th day of November, 1990.


3 The motion also states that none of the remaining parties to this proceeding will be prejudiced by deletion of these specific Respondents.

ED&O Home | Search Form | Text Search | ED&O Help

Last Updated 6/6/2003 legal@fdic.gov