Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
Board adopts ALJ's recommendation to assess civil money penalties against five outside directors for participating in extensions of credit to bank's executive officer and principal shareholder in violation of Regulation O; they failed in their responsibility to police insider transactions and to protect the bank from unsafe or unsound practices. Amount of penalty was $10,000 for one director, $20,000 for each of the other four.
[.1] Regulation O Statutory Exceptions For Bank's Protection
[.2] Regulation O Definition Extension of Credit
{{1-31-93 p.A-2107}}
[.3] Regulation O Defenses Reasonable Reliance
[.4] Civil Money Penalty Amount of Penalty Good Faith
[.5] Civil Money Penalty Amount of Penalty Matters of Justice
In the Matter of
This proceeding is an action brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC" or "Petitioner") against James C. Amberg, Robert Ray Carroll, W.M. Causey, Billy Ray Whitehead, and Benny Zeagler (collectively "Respondents"), individually and as directors of The Olla State Bank, Olla, Louisiana ("Bank"), seeking civil money penalties pursuant to former section 18(j)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ("FDI Act"), 12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(4),1 and Part 308 of the FDIC Rules of Practice and Procedure, 12 C.F.R. Part 308. Respondents are charged with violations of section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act ("Act"), 12 U.S.C. § 375b, and sections 215.2(f), 215.4(a) and 215.4(c) of Regulation O of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("Regulation O"), 12 C.F.R. Part 215, as promulgated thereunder and made applicable to insured State nonmember banks by section 18(j)(2) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(2).
A. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
On September 28, 1989, the FDIC issued a Notice of Assessment of Civil Money Penalties, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Order to Pay, and Notice of Hearing ("Notice of Assessment") against Respondents and W. Scott Maxwell ("Maxwell"), Dan W. Bowker, Roscoe P. Steen, and J.J. Silagy, for the alleged violations of Regulation O cited above. The cases against Messrs. Maxwell, Bowker, Steen, and Silagy have been resolved.2 The Notice of Assessment charged that a January 18, 1988, extension of credit to Maxwell in the amount of $557,464.85 exceeded the Bank's existing lending limit under sections 215.2(f) and 215.4(c) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. §§ 215.2(f) and 215.4(c), and involved more than the normal risk of repayment in violation of section 215.4(a) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 215.4(a); and that on March 15, 1988, Respondents caused or allowed the Bank to extend credit of $875,000 to Maxwell, exceeding the lending limit under sections 215.2(f) and 215.4(c) of Regulation O, and violating the creditworthiness requirements of section 215.4(a) of Regulation O. The Notice of Assessment assessed a $10,000 civil money penalty against Respondent Causey, and civil money penalties of $20,000 each against Respondents Amberg, Carroll, Whitehead, and Zeagler.
Controlling interest in the now-closed Bank (approximately 56 percent) was owned by M.W. Maxwell ("Maxwell Sr."), FDIC Ex. 18; Tr. at 409,4 who served as chairman of
C. THE TRANSACTIONS AT ISSUE
The transactions at issue here occurred in January and march 1988 and must be viewed in the context of the prior events summarized above.
D. THE ALJ'S RECOMMENDED DECISION
1. The Alleged Regulation O Violations.
E. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDED DECISION
Respondents take a number of exceptions to the ALJ's findings and conclusions that the January 13 and March 15 transactions constitute extensions of credit, as well as various findings and conclusions made with respect to the five statutory factors to be considered in determining the amount of the penalties. FDIC Enforcement Counsel has taken exception to the ALJ's failure to conclude that the March 15 approval of a line of credit for Maxwell violated the creditwor-
A. THE JANUARY 1988 TRANSACTION
The transaction approved by the directors at the January 13, 1988, meeting is an extension of credit to Maxwell unless it falls within the exception provided in section 215.3(a)(6),6 or the exception provided in section 215.3(b)(3),7 of Regulation O. The Board has previously held that statutory exceptions to insider lending limitations must be strictly construed. In the Matter of****, Docket No. FDIC-85-82e, 2 P-H Enf. Dec. ¶5137 (1989); In the Matter of Ronald J. Grubb, Docket Nos. FDIC-88-282k and FDIC-89-111e (8-25-92). That principle is applicable here.
[.1] As to the exception provided in section 215.3(b)(3), the Board concludes that the Central Bank note could be considered to have been acquired by the Bank "through foreclosure or similar proceedings," since Central Bank had either instituted or was on the brink of instituting foreclosure proceedings.8 Hence, the question is whether the acquisition was "for the protection of the bank," as provided in section 215.3(b)(3). That determination must be objective, not subjective. That is, the question is not whether Respondents sincerely, albeit erroneously, believed that the acquisition would protect the Bank; but rather, whether reasonably prudent directors in the exercise of their fiduciary and statutory duties would conclude that the acquisition would protect the Bank.
B. THE MARCH 1988 TRANSACTION
At the March 15, 1988, meeting, the directors set a "Line of Credit" for each director, at the suggestion of President Bowker. Maxwell's line was set at $875,000, "the [interest] rate could be determined at the time of the loan determined by the Profitability Analysis formula." The directors also approved renewal of two Maxwell "loans coming due that need to be renewed," one in the amount of $42,387.36, and one in the amount of $212,046.61. The minutes note that, "[t]his loan at the present time is classified, but has no effect on renewal."
[.2] The re-affirmation at the March 15 meeting of an $875,000 line of credit to Maxwell established at the January 13 meeting is no mere technicality without
C. ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES
Pursuant to former section 18(j)(4)(A) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(4)(A), the FDIC is entitled to assess civil money penalties of up to $1,000 per day for each day the violation occurred. The ALJ correctly stated that in determining the amount of penalty to be assessed, the FDIC must consider five factors: size of the financial resources of the person charged, his good faith, gravity of the violation, history of previous violations, and such other matters as justice may require. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i) (2)(G), formerly 12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(3)(B).
[.3] Nevertheless, the Board adopts the ALJ's conclusion that the directors did not reasonably rely on the actual and implied advice received from the Bank's officers and advisers at the January 13 meeting. As the R.D. states, although directors are entitled to rely on the technical expertise of the executive officers of the bank when making decisions, Briggs v. Spaulding, 141 U.S. 132 (1891), insider transactions are so serious and have had such a devastating effect on the banking industry, that board members are charged with having independent knowledge of the restriction on insider lending. R.D. at 11, 12.
[.4] For purposes of the good faith analysis, the Board accepts Respondents' assertions that they had no desire, and were not attempting, to help Maxwell in approving the January 1988 transaction, and rejects the ALJ's findings to the contrary. Moreover, the Board accepts the ALJ's findings that Respondents did not benefit from the transactions at issue. Nevertheless, Respondents were completely derelict in their duty to be vigilant concerning insider transactions. Whatever good faith credit they are entitled to for the fact that they were misled by the Bank's advisers was fully accounted for in the initial assessment of penalties.
4. History of Previous Violations.
The October 1986 Report notes that four credit lines to directors, including Maxwell and Maxwell Sr., were not properly approved in advance, in violation of Regulation O. FDIC Ex. 18 at 1-a, 6-b.
5. Other Factors as Justice May Require.
The Board is mindful that several other matters were raised by Respondents at the hearing and in briefs as bearing on the culpability of Respondents. The Board has considered these factors, not raised by Respondents in their Exceptions, and determined that they are not factors which would tend to lower the amount assessed in the Notice.23
[.5] The Board is troubled by the fact that Respondent Silagy, a paid consultant to the Bank and an active supporter of the policies and initiatives of the Maxwells, was assessed so light a penalty in relation to other directors, for his role in the transactions at issue. Nevertheless, the Board concludes that this imbalance of penalties does not require as a matter of justice that the penalties assessed against these Respondents be reduced. Rather, the question is whether the penalties assessed here are appropriate under the factors set forth in 12 U.S.C. §1818(i)(2)(G). A major purpose of civil money penalties under the FDI Act is to deter bank directors and insiders from initiating and/or approving improper insider transactions. While the penalty against Mr. Silagy may have been too light, the Board concludes that the size of the penalties against these Respondents appropriately reflects their almost total abdication of responsibility as directors at the January 13 and March 15 meetings, thereby allowing the improper use of Bank assets by the Maxwells to continue.
Respondents, all outside directors of the Bank, approved the highly risky purchase of the $500,000 Central Bank note of insider Maxwell in January 1988, based upon real estate appraisals which were questionable on their face and at a time when the Bank had a composite rating of 4. This transaction alone exceeded the Regulation O lending limit by more than $100,000. When added to the Maxwell credits already outstanding, most of which had been classified Doubtful, the lending limit was exceeded by $470,000. The directors took this action without any investigation of the real estate appraisal values or other relevant factors, in total derogation of their obligations to exercise due diligence on behalf of the Bank and to protect it from unsafe or unsound practices; and in spite of the fact that less than 30 days earlier, they had been warned by the FDIC examiners of previous Regulation O violations involving Maxwell and Maxwell Sr.
Based upon substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding, and for the reasons set forth in the above Decision and the Recommended Decision of the ALJ, the Board of the FDIC hereby ORDERS that:
/s/ Hoyle L. Robinson
In the Matter of
This matter was tried before me at New Orleans, Louisiana, on March 16, 17 and 18, 1992, upon a Notice of Assessment of Civil Money Penalties against W. Scott Maxwell and others. This proceeding involves only James C. Amberg, Robert Ray Carroll, W.M. Causey, Billy Ray Whitehead and Benny Zeagler, cases involving the other Respondents having been resolved.1Following the hearing, Counsel for the FDIC and the Respondent submitted extensive briefs, and reply briefs.
The Respondents had been members of the Board of Directors of the Olla State Bank (herein the Bank) for some years and all were members of the Board of Directors of Olla Bancshares, Inc. a one-bank holding company which owned 92.8 percent of the Bank's voting stock.2Along with the other directors, they were assessed civil money penalties in connection with the Bank's purchase of a credit to the Central Bank of Louisiana from W. Scott Maxwell, approved by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors on January 13, 1988, and originating on January 18, in the amount of $557,464.85 (which included the principal of about $534,000 and accrued interest).
As applicable at the time of the events in this matter, 12 U.S.C. §1828(j)(4) (for nonmember state banks) provided that a civil money penalty assessment could be levied against one violating Section 375b of not more than $1,000 for each day the violation occurred. In determining how much of an assessment to levy, the FDIC is to consider five factors: size of the financial resources of the person charged, his good faith, gravity of the violation, history of previous violations, and such other matters as justice may require.
A. Financial Resources
The parties stipulated that the financial resources of each Respondent is not an issue herethat they have sufficient resources to pay an assessment of $20,000, or $10,000 in the case of Causey. (Jt. Ex. 1)
C. Gravity of the Violation
"Problem banks and insider abuses have been virtually synonymous. Nothing appears more often on the fever charts of sick financial institutions than self-dealing ailments." H.R. Rep. No. 1383, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 1012, reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad.News 9273.
D. History of Previous Violations
At the examination as of October 23, 1987 (FDIC Ex. 19), Regulation O violations as to Maxwell and his father were noted. At the FDIC meeting with the board on December 16, 1987, this was discussed. Yet less than a month later, the Respondents embarked on a course of action which would again violate the insider lending proscriptions, albeit in a different way. That there was a history, and it was recent, tends to operate against the Respondents.
E. Other Factors as Justice May Require
There are no additional factors which I
{{1-31-93 p.A-2128}}believe would tend to lower the amount assessed in the Notice.
1. At all times material the Bank was a corporation existing and doing business under the laws of the State of Louisiana, having its principal place of business in Olla, Louisiana. It was insured by the FDIC and not a member of the Federal Reserve. (Jt Ex 1, No. 8)
1. At all times material, the Bank was an insured state nonmember bank subject to the Act, 12 U.S.C. §§1811, et seq., the Rules and Regulations of the FDIC, 12 C.F.R. Chapter III and the laws of the state of Louisiana.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT a civil money penalty of $20,000 be, and the same hereby is, assessed James C. Amberg, Robert Ray Carroll, Billy Ray Whitehead and Benny Zeagler and a of $10,000 against W.M. Causey, pursuant to section 18(j)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. §1828(j)(4).
/s/ James L. Rose |
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |