Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
FDIC denies Section 32 application to serve as director or officer of a troubled institution. By a preponderance of the evidence FDIC concludes that Respondent's record shows a pattern of inaction and disregard for banking laws and regulations, demonstrating that Applicant does not have requisite competence, experience, character or integrity.
[.1] FDI Act Section 32Application for EmploymentStandard of Proof
[.2] FDI Act Section 32Application for EmploymentCompetence and Experience
In the Matter of
This proceeding arises out of an application submitted July 16, 1990 ("Application"), by Stanley A. Smith ("Applicant" or "Smith") submitted to the San Francisco
{{9-30-91 p.A-1698}}Regional Office of the Division of Supervision under section 32(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ("the FDI Act"), 12 U.S.C. § 1831(i), seeking approval to be employed as a director or senior executive officer of Landmark Thrift and Loan Association, San Diego, California ("Landmark"), a troubled institution. The San Francisco Regional Office of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's ("FDIC") Division of Supervision disapproved the Application on August 14, 1990, based on a determination that the Applicant lacked the statutory prerequisites of competence, experience, character, and integrity to become a director or senior executive officer of Landmark. By letters dated August 24 and August 31, 1990, the Applicant and Landmark appealed the Notice of Disapproval. On September 27, 1990, the Director of the FDIC's Division of Supervision ("Director") denied the Applicant's appeal from the Regional Director's disapproval. On October 18, 1990, the Applicant requested a hearing before a presiding officer but later waived, in writing, his right to a hearing.
A. Application
One July 16, 1990, Applicant and Landmark submitted a Notification of Addition of a Director or Employment of a Senior Executive Officer ("Application") to the FDIC's San Francisco Regional Office in compliance with section 32 of the FDI Act. The Regional Director (supervision) of the FDIC's San Francisco Regional Office ("Regional Director") disapproved the Application on August 14, 1990, based on a review of the Applicant's competence, experience, fitness of character, and integrity under section 32(e). The Applicant and Landmark were informed by letter dated August 14, 1990, that, based on the Applicant's prior performance at Landmark and * * *, Smith's addition to the board of directors of Landmark would not be in the best interests of Landmark, its depositors, or the public.
B. Appeal
The Applicant and Landmark appealed the decision of the Regional Director. On September 27, 1990, the Applicant and Landmark were notified of the decision of the Director not to reverse the Regional Director's disapproval of August 14, 1990. Thereafter, by letter dated October 18, 1990, the Applicant requested a hearing pursuant to section 308.97 of the FDIC Rules of Practice and procedures, 12 C.F.R. § 308.97. Subsequently, pursuant to section 308.98(9)(c) and by agreement of the parties and the Presiding Officer, the Applicant waived in writing a hearing and elected to have the matter determined on the basis of written submissions.
C. The FDIC's Evidence
Evidence submitted by the FDIC1showed that the Assistant Regional Director from the San Francisco Regional Office ("ARD") reviewed and investigated an application for deposit insurance submitted by * * *, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, in 1984, which was later withdrawn, and a second application submitted in 1985. At the time of each application, Smith was chairman of the board of directors, a controlling shareholder of * * * and president of * * *, the wholly-owned subsidiary of * * *. After each review and investigation, the ARD determined that the management was unfavor-
D. Applicant's Evidence
The Applicant submitted evidence of his education, employment and banking expe-
{{9-30-91 p.A-1698.2}}rience, and overall fitness to serve as director or senior executive officer of Landmark. The Applicant's evidence relied significantly on contributions he made at Landmark subsequent to many violations of Federal banking regulations and to the issuance of the Order.
E. FDIC Supplemental Evidence
The FDIC presented additional support for its original evidence and added significant new evidence regarding the number of real estate classifications in the 1988 FDIC examination and the current condition of Landmark.
F. Applicant's Rebuttal
The Applicant argued that the * * * loans only lacked "documentation which examiners are accustomed to seeing". R.D. at 11. the FIAC report supported the quality of the loans and stated they were not third-party loans but were notes owned by insiders and contributed to * * * to increase its capital in exchange for preferred stock. R.D. at 11. In
{{9-30-91 p.A-1698.3}}support of its transactions regarding issuance of preferred stock, the Applicant produced preferred stock ledgers and a Business Plan of * * * which allowed for alternative forms of consideration for payment of stock. R.D. at 11.
In a thorough analysis of the documentary evidence presented by the FDIC and the Applicant, the Presiding Officer concluded that on the basis of Smith's record at Landmark, * * * and * * *, the Division of Supervision was fully justified in denying approval for him to serve as a director or senior executive officer of Landmark. In reaching this decision, the Presiding Officer considered the evidence of the FDIC and the Applicant and concluded that Smith's action or inaction during his tenure at Landmark, * * * and * * * demonstrated his lack of competence, experience, character, and integrity. The Presiding Officer focused largely on the following factors in reaching his decision:
[.1] Based upon a thorough review of the written submissions and evidence and the Presiding Officer's Recommended Decision, the Board agrees with the Presiding Officer's conclusion and Recommendation. The Board also finds that the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof is appropriate in reviewing a section 32 application and adopts the Presiding Officer's Recommended Decision with respect to this standard. See, e.g., Herman & McClean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375 (1983).
[.2] The entire record reflects a pattern of poor management, failure to comply with state and federal banking requirements and failure to exhibit the competence, experience, character, or integrity required and expected by banking institutions, their depositors, and the public.
Section 32 is a regulatory tool by which the FDIC may further the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions by screening those persons who seek to manage the affairs of institutions that have been newly chartered, have recently changed control, and/or are in a troubled condition. The senior officials of a troubled institution must be persons with demonstrated management ability. The Applicant's record demonstrates a pattern of inaction and disregard for federal banking laws and regulations and for the trust and confidence placed in him by the institutions and public he served. Actions taken by the Applicant were contrary to the best interests of * * * Landmark, their depositors, and the public. The Applicant implemented corrective actions at Landmark only after violations were reported and penalties threatened.
The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, having considered the entire record in this proceeding, hereby adopts the recommendation of the Presiding Officer to continue the Notice of Disapproval of Stanley A. Smith.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Executive Secretary by § 308.98 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") rules and regulations, I was designated as presiding officer by letter dated November 21, 1990, to conduct a hearing in this matter and to submit a recommendation to the Board of Directors of the FDIC. The hearing was scheduled to begin on Monday, December 17, 1990 in San Diego, California.
This matter arose when Smith signed a Notification of Addition of a Director ("Notification") of Landmark Thrift and Loan Association ("Landmark") as provided in Section 32 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ("FDIC Act"). 12 U.S.C. 1831(a). Smith signed the Notification on July 13, 1990.
Petitioner contends in its December 14 brief that the FDIC has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence, and not a mere preponderance of the evidence that the competence, experience, character or integrity of Smith to be a director of Landmark are inconsistent with the best interests of its depositors or the public.
The remaining issue is whether Smith possesses the competence, experience, character and integrity to permit him to be a director of Landmark.
The FDIC December 14, 1990 submissions include a statement of the case, affidavits of examiners and a list of exhibits.
Accompanying Petitioner's brief is a declaration of Smith which sets forth his educational, employment and banking experiences, including a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Washington, an M.B.A. in Finance from San Diego State University and a Doctor of Business Administration from United States International University.
The FDIC's additional statement of the case states that contrary to the assertion in the Petitioner's brief, the FDIC does not argue that Smith was responsible for Landmark's growth in 1985 nor for initiating the troubled auto lending program. However, the statement refers to comments made by Examiner Raplee in her affidavit that Smith, as an approving director, was directly responsible for approximately one and one-half million dollars of real estate loans, deficient at inception and argues that although loans may ultimately be collected doesn't diminish risk of loss if made without proper documentation at inception.
Petitioner in its reply brief argues that the * * * loans criticized by FDIC lacked only documentation which only examiners are accustomed to seeing. The FIAC report supports the quality of these loans which claimed no losses to * * * and questions the need for documentation when the loan amount if $25,000 or less and the loans could be justified on the basis of unremitting standards applied to unsecured loans. (Reply brief p.1).
Smith's actions at * * * and its whollyowned subsidiary * * * which are detailed in Doerr's affidavits reflects adversely on his qualifications to be a director at Landmark. |
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |