InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Puerto Rico Federal District Court Denies Motions to Dismiss FDIC Suit Against Former Bank Officers and Directors
On October 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied motions to dismiss gross negligence claims against former directors and officers brought by the FDIC as receiver for a failed bank. The court further held that the FDIC as receiver is not precluded from recovering under the directors and officers’ insurance policies. W Holding Co. v. Chartis Ins. Co.-Puerto Rico, No. 11-2271, slip op. (D. Puerto Rico Oct. 23, 2012). The FDIC sued former officers and directors of the bank, alleging that they were grossly negligent in approving and administering commercial real estate, construction, and asset-based loans and transactions and seeking over $176 million in damages. The court concluded that the FDIC could not maintain claims for ordinary negligence against the former officers and directors because of the business judgment rule, but that the FDIC had stated sufficient facts to allege a plausible claim for gross negligence. The court held that (i) the FDIC’s complaint adequately specified which alleged misconduct was attributable to each director or officer, (ii) the claims should not be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, and (iii) separate claims against certain former officers and directors concerning fraudulent conveyances should not be dismissed. In addition, the court denied the insurers’ motions to dismiss the FDIC’s claims for coverage under the directors and officers’ liability policies. The court held that the policies’ “insured versus insured” exclusion did not apply to an action by the FDIC as receiver because the FDIC was suing on behalf of depositors, account holders, and a depleted insurance fund.
California Federal District Court Permits FDIC Suit Against Former Bank Officers to Proceed
On October 5, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several affirmative defenses invoked by a group of former bank officers sued by the FDIC as receiver for a failed bank, including their claim of protection from personal liability for business decisions. FDIC v. Van Dellen, No. 10-4915, 2012 WL 4815159 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012). The FDIC sued the former officers, alleging that, in pursuit of bonuses for high loan origination volumes, the officers approved homebuilder loans to unqualified borrowers. As part of their defense, the officers claimed that the court should apply the law of the state of Delaware where the bank was incorporated, and not California law where the bank had its principle place of business. The officers sought to invoke Delaware law protecting officers from personal liability for business decisions. The court disagreed and held that (i) California law applies under any choice of law test and (ii) California’s business judgment rule, both as codified and its common law element, immunizes directors from personal liability but not officers. With regard to the officers’ defense that the FDIC claims were time barred as allegations of professional negligence, the court held that the gravamen of the complaint actually is breach of fiduciary duty, which has a longer statute of limitations. The court also reiterated a previous ruling that the officers could not invoke any defenses that would rely on imputing the bank’s pre-receivership conduct to the FDIC as receiver. The court did agree with the officers that any recoveries made by the FDIC in another case should be considered when assessing damages in this case, and that claims regarding certain loans approved by the bank’s federal regulator should be reviewed by a jury.
Bank Officers Charged With Concealing Nonperforming Assets
On July 11, four former bank officers and two of their former customers were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on eighteen counts of fraud. Indictment, United States v. Woodard, No. 12-105 (E.D. Va.). The indictment alleges that in the run-up to the financial crisis, the bank more than doubled its assets primarily through brokered deposits, while the directors administered a lending program that violated industry standards and the bank’s internal controls. In connection with the financial crisis, the indictment states, the bank’s loan portfolio deteriorated and the directors conspired to conceal the institution’s financial condition. Ultimately, the bank failed, leaving the federal government insurance fund to cover approximately $260 million in deposits, the indictment claims. In addition to the criminal charges, the U.S. Attorney is seeking forfeiture of the defendants’ assets. Other bank officers, employees, and customers already have pled guilty to related charges.
Seventh Circuit Compels Coverage Under D&O Policy Despite "Insured vs. Insured" Exclusion
On June 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit directed a D&O insurance provider to cover certain claims against defendants insured under the same policy as some plaintiffs despite an “insured vs. insured” exclusion from coverage under the insurance arrangement. Miller v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., No. 10-3839 (7th Cir. June 29, 2012). The dispute began when five plaintiffs sued Strategic Capital Bancorp, Inc. (“SCBI”) for fraud and other state law claims flowing from SCBI’s alleged material misstatements relating to the company’s financial condition. Three of the plaintiffs were directors or officers covered under SCBI’s policy; the other two plaintiffs were not insureds under the policy. When SCBI notified its insurance carrier and requested indemnity and defense coverage under the insurance agreement, the carrier refused, citing the policy’s “insured vs. insured” provision. All parties to that initial lawsuit then filed a new action against the carrier in an effort to force it to provide coverage. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of those claims brought by the two non-insured plaintiffs. In a lawsuit involving both insured and non-insured plaintiffs, the court ruled, the insurance carrier must “provide indemnity for losses on claims by non-insured plaintiffs but not for losses on claims by insured plaintiffs.” The court reasoned that such a holding conforms to the parties’ expectations, minimizes the risk of arbitrary results, and discourages efforts to manipulate the result through strategic party joinder or case consolidation.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3