Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
FDIC denies request that Respondent be permitted to return to banking prior to expiration of three-year prohibition period. Respondent must show good cause, with substantive facts or new information, for FDIC to determine that early return is warranted.
{{9-30-91 p.A-1656.1}}
In the Matter of
On September 18, 1990, Frederick M. Pfeiffer ("Pfeiffer"), a former officer and director of the Pigeon Falls State Bank, Pigeon Falls, Wisconsin ("Bank"), applied for permission from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") to return to banking as proposed in the September 7, 1990 letter of Mr. James G. Sneer, President of Farmers State Bank of Mountain Lake, Mountain Lake, Minnesota ("Farmers Bank"). This application arises under section 8(j) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ("Act"), 12 U.S.C. § 1818(j).
Background
Following the issuance of a Notice of Intention to Remove From Office and to Prohibit From Further Participation ("Notice") against Pfeiffer and against George B. Sletteland ("Sletteland") (collectively "Respondents"), a hearing was held on the Notice. A Recommended Decision was issued by the Administration Law Judge ("ALJ") on December 28, 1987. After considering the Recommended Decisions, the Board of Directors of the FDIC ("Board") concluded that the remedies recommended by the ALJ were not appropriate. Specifically, the Board stated that:
By letter dated September 7, 1990, Mr. James G. Sneer, President of Farmers Bank, requested that Respondent Pfeiffer by allowed to return to banking prior to the June 1, 1991 expiration of the three-year prohibition period. Specifically, Mr. Sneer attested to the good character and banking experience of Mr. Pfeiffer and proposed to hire Mr. Pfeiffer.
Initially, Mr. Sneer indicates that Mr. Pfeiffer would be starting "in a bank that we are attempting to acquire in Fairmont, Minnesota." Thus, the proposed position does not currently exist, and, indeed, it is not certain that the proposed position will exist prior to expiration of the prohibition period. Regarding the duties of the proposed position, Mr. Sneer only states that Mr. Pfeiffer would be a "junior officer" responsible for correcting "any deficiencies" in bank operations. Finally, after stating that Mr. Pfeiffer would have "no responsibility regarding decisions on loans or overdrafts," two sentences later Mr. Sneer inconsistently states that "I would require Mr. Pfeiffer to consult with me personally should he be in a position of loan or overdraft responsibility."
[.1] Upon review of the record as a while, the Board finds that Mr. Pfeiffer has failed to present any sufficient evidence or persuasive argument warranting FDIC approval of his return to banking prior to the expiration of the three-year prohibition period specified in the Order. |
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |