The D & O Diary : Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

According to the latest update on the FDIC’s website, the pace of the agency’s filing of failed bank lawsuits picked up considerably in the last month. According to the agency’s website (here), which the agency updated on May 22, 2013 the agency has now filed a total of 63 lawsuits against the directors of failed banks, an increase of nine new lawsuits since the agency’s last update in April. With the latest lawsuits, the agency has now filed a total 19 new lawsuits so far this year, compared to 26 during all of 2012.

 

The agency’s quickened pace of lawsuit filings since its last website presents quite a contrast to the period preceding the agency’s last website update. As I noted at the time of the April update, the agency had filed only one new lawsuit since its prior update and had filed only four new lawsuit overall since February 1, 2013. I had noted in posts since the FDIC’s last website update that the agency had been filing a number of lawsuits. However, the agency’s website update contains a number of new lawsuits I had not previously noted.

 

First, on April 26, 2013, the FDIC filed an action in the District of Puerto Rico in its capacity as receiver for the failed Eurobank of San Juan, Puerto Rico, against nine of the bank’s former directors. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here. Regulators closed the bank on April 30, 2013, so the FDIC filed the action just before the third anniversary of the bank’s failure. The action seeks to recover over $55 million in losses the bank incurred on twelve commercial real estate loans approved between March 6, 2006 and December 22, 2008. The complaint alleges that the nine director defendants “failed to properly oversee Eurobank’s lending practices and approved 12 high-risk loans with glaring underwriting deficiencies that violated prudent lending standards as well as the Bank’s own credit risk management policy.”

 

Interestingly, it its lawsuit against the former Eurobank directors, the FDIC also named as defendants the spouses of several of the directors: the conjugal partnerships of several of the directors; and the bank’s D&O insurers, with respect to which the agency seeks a judicial declaration that the carriers’ policies cover the losses the agency seeks to recover. These additional defendants are named as defendants pursuant to Puerto Rican law. The insurers are named as defendants in reliance of Puerto Rico’s direct action statute. (The FDIC’s prior failed bank lawsuits in Puerto Rico also named spousal and insurer co-defendants, in reliance on the provisions of Puerto Rican law, as discussed here.)

 

Second, the FDIC filed an action on April 29, 2013 in the Eastern District of Missouri in its capacity as receiver of the failed Champion Bank of Creve Coeur, Missouri, against ten former directors and officers of the bank for negligence, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, for approving “sever high-risk out-of-territory commercial real estate loan participations and two business lines of credit resulting in damages of at least $15.56 million.” A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here. The bank failed on April 30, 2010, so the FDIC filed its suit just before the third anniversary of the bank’s failure.

 

Third, on May 13, 2013, the FDIC filed an action in the Southern District of Indiana in its capacity as receiver of the failed Irwin Bank and Trust Company and Irwin Union Bank against four former officers of the banks. Regulators closed the banks on September 18, 2009, which suggests that the parties may have previously entered into a tolling agreement. As reflected in the FDIC’s complaint (here), the FDIC asserts claims against the defendants for negligence, gross negligence and for breach of fiduciary duty, for approving nineteen “poorly underwritten” loans between May 27, 2005 and April 12, 2009. The agency seeks recovery of damages of “no less than $42 million.”

 

Finally, on May 20, 2013, the FDIC filed an action in the Northern District of Iowa against eight former directors and officers of the failed Vantus bank of Sioux City, Iowa, which failed September 4, 2009. Again, the fact that the complaint has been filed so far beyond the third anniversary of the bank’s closure suggests that the parties may have entered a tolling agreement. The FDIC’s complaint (here), asserts claims against the directors and officers for negligence, gross negligence and for breach of fiduciary duty. The FDIC bases its claims against the defendants for allegedly causing the bank to use $65 million (120% of the bank’s core capital) to purchase “high risk collateralized debt obligations back by trust preferred securities without due diligence and in disregard and ignorance of regulatory guidance about the risks and limits on purchases of such securities.”

 

All signs are that the number of failed bank lawsuits will continue to accumulate in the months ahead. Indeed, as has been the case for some months now, once again the FDIC has adjusted its website as part of its monthly update to reflect the increased numbers of authorized lawsuits. In the latest update, the FDIC has indicated that as of May 21, 2013, the agency has authorized suits in connection with 114 failed institutions against 921 individuals for D&O liability. These figures are inclusive of the 63 filed D&O lawsuits naming 488 former directors and officers, so the implication is that there is a backlog of as many as 51 approved but yet unfiled lawsuits in the pipeline.

 

At least by reference to bank closure dates, the assumption would seem to be that we should be near the high water mark for failed bank lawsuits, owing to the fact that the peak numbers of bank failures occurred in the last two quarters of 2009 and the first two quarters of 2010. The suggestion would seem to be that the number of failed bank lawsuit might start to begin to taper off as 2013 progresses. However, the presence on the latest filed lawsuits of several banks that were well past their third anniversaries suggests that there could be factors that prolong the filing curve into the future.

 

With lawsuits authorized in connection with 114 failed institutions, the agency has now authorized lawsuits in connection with just about 24% of all failed banks. In other words, the percentage of failed institutions for which lawsuits have been authorized is approaching the 24% of failed institutions that were involved in failed bank litigation during the S&L crisis.

 

Though the bank failure rate has clearly slowed during 2013, some banks nevertheless are continuing to fail. As reflected on the FDIC failed bank list (here), three banks have been closed so far in May 2013, bringing the 2013 YTD number of failed banks to 13.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Disputes over notice of claim requirements usually involve questions about the timing or content of the notice. A recent notice dispute involving UnitedHealth Group raised neither questions of timing or content; rather, the dispute involved the question of “to whom” the notice must be sent. In an April 25, 2013 opinion (here), District of Minnesota Judge Patrick J. Schlitz, applying Minnesota law, held that in order to satisfy the notice of claim requirements in an excess  insurance policy, the notice had to be sent to the insurer's claims department as specified in the policy. Because the policyholder had failed to establish a genuine issue of fact whether the claims department had received the notice of claim, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the excess insurer.

 

The dispute over the adequacy of notice arose in the context of a protracted and procedurally complicated action in which UnitedHealth is seeking insurance coverage from its insurers for a series of claims in which the company was involved between December 1998 and December 2000. The company’s primary insurance policy has been exhausted by payment of loss and the company has settled with five of its excess insurers. Four excess insurers remain as defendants.

 

In his April 25 order, Judge Schlitz considered a number of different motions in the continuing coverage litigation, including the motion for summary judgment of one of the remaining excess insurers, based on its assertion that it had not been provided notice of a claim known as the AMA claim. The AMA claim later settled for $350 million.

 

The notice provision in the excess insurer’s policy specified that:

 

It consideration of the premium charged, it is hereby understood and agreed that notice hereunder shall be given in writing to [the excess insurer], Financial Services Claims Department, 175 Water Street, New York, New York 10038 (herewritten the “Insurer”)

(a) The Company or the Insureds shall, as a condition precedent to the obligations of the Insurer under this policy give written notice to the Insurer as soon as practicable during the Policy Period, or during the Extended Reporting Period (if applicable), or [sic] any claim made against the Insureds.

 

According to the court’s opinion, the parties agreed that UnitedHealth had not provided written notice of claim sent to the specified address. UnitedHealth nevertheless argued that it had satisfied the notice requirements because it had “substantially complied” with the provisions. Judge Schlitz agreed with UnitedHealth that because Minnesota law “generally disfavors technical and narrow objections to the existence of coverage, especially when it comes to matters of notice,” substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy a “to whom” notice requirement. But, he added, “substantial compliance requires notice that is substantial.”

 

Judge Schlitz disagreed with UnitedHealth that the “to whom” requirement is satisfied if the company “provides any kind of notice to any kind of agent” of the excess insurer.  He found that under the policy’s provisions, the notice requirement “has not been substantially complied with unless the Claims Department received notice of claim – somehow, from someone --- during the policy period.” He added that if an agent of the insurer becomes aware of a claim “but the agent does not work in the Claims Department and does not notify the Claims Department of the claim, then there has not been substantial compliance with the ‘to whom’ requirement.” Judge Schlitz reasoned in that regard that:

 

“Compiance” with a provision of an insurance policy should not be deemed “substantial” if doing so would defeat the very purpose of the provision. And the very purpose of a “to whom” requirement – its entire reason for existing – is to ensure that notice is provided not just to the insurance company, but to a particular part of the insurance company. A large insurance company has a legitimate reason to require that notice of claim be given to a particular person or department with the company, rather than to any of the company’s thousands of employees and agents scattered around the globe. Otherwise, there is a substantial danger that the “notice” will not be recognized as such and will not serve its function.

 

Judge Schlitz added that “The Court can conceive of no reason why an insurer … should not be able to protect itself by requiring that notice be given to a particular person or department. And enforcing such a requirement does not place an onerous burden on an insured – particularly an insured such as United, which is itself a huge and sophisticated insurance company, and which has no excuse for failing to send notice of the AMA claim to the Claims Department, as [the excess insurer’s] policy clearly required United to do.” He concluded that in order for UnitedHealth to show that it substantially complied with the notice requirement, it must show that notice of the AMA claim was received by the Claims Department during the policy period.

 

Judge Schlitz then reviewed the various ways in which UnitedHealth claimed that it had provided notice of the claim. UnitedHealth argued that the AMA claim had been noticed in a monthly loss run report that the company’s broker supplied to the excess insurer and that the loss run report also was attached to UnitedHealth’s renewal insurance application. However, while Judge Schlitz found that there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that someone at the excess insurer received the loss runs, there was no evidence that that the loss runs were provided to the claims department.

 

And while the AMA claim apparently was discussed at a meeting in connection with UnitedHealth’s  insurance renewal, there was no evidence that anyone from the excess insurer’s claims department had attended the meeting. Judge Schlitz specifically concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the excess insurer’s claims department had received information about the AMA claims from the underwriting department.

 

Judge Schlitz also rejected UnitedHealth’s argument that because it had provided notice of claim to the primary insurer that is owned by the same insurance holding company as the excess insurer asserting the notice defense that the notice requirements had been satisfied.

 

Because UnitedHealth had “failed to show that there is a genuine issue of fact about whether the Claims Department received notice of the AMA claim during the policy period,” Judge Schlitz granted the excess insurer’s motion for summary judgment.

 

Discussion

Judge Schlitz’s conclusion that an insurance notice requirement is not satisfied unless it can be shown that notice has been given to the specific department identified in the notice provision is a cautionary tale for practitioners in this area. In the press of day to day business, it would be far too easy for a notice to be sent to the right company but to a person, location or address other than the one specified in the policy. The clear lesson is that everyone involved in the process of providing notice of claim to needs to help to ensure that notice is sent not just to the correct insurer but also to the correct location – and to the correct location for each of the insurers in an insurance program. The case also underscores the value of having processes to require and obtain acknowledgement of receipt of notice of claim as well.

 

UnitedHealth’s apparent failure to provide the requisite notice of claim here is a little bit of a mystery. The claim was obviously very serious (or, at a minimum, it became very serious). It is clear from the Court’s opinion that the primary insurer on UnitedHealth’s insurance program was provided with the notice of claim required under its policy. It isn’t explained in the opinion how it came about the notice of claim had been sent to the prmary insurer (and apparentlyto other excess insurers as well) but not to the excess insurer involved in this motion. The court’s reference to the monthly loss runs is a reminder that UnitedHealth is a big, complex company that apparently became involved in a number of claims. The suggestion is that in the hubbub the notice of the AMA claim to this excess insurer somehow slipped through the cracks. Reading between the lines, there may also have been a confusion of or breakdown in responsibilities among the varaious process participants.

 

There is one aspect of this opinion that I find interesting. There is nothing in Judge Schlitz’s opinion to suggest that the excess insurer was prejudiced in any way by the absence of compliance with the policy’s notice provisions. At least as presented in the court’s opinion, it does not appear that the excess insurer argued that its interests had been prejudiced. The court was concerned only with the question whether or not the policyholder had satisfied the procedural requirements stated in the policy. There is no sense in the opinion of a consideration of a “no harm, no foul” point of view. .

 

The arguably harsh outcome of this dispute might be more comfortable if the analysis had been accompanied by some suggestion that UnitedHealth’s failure to satisfy the procedural requirements had somehow caused a problem for the excess insurer with reference to the AMA claim. Here’s my concern. Some  insurers try to enforce their policies’ notice requirements as if the implementation of the provions were a game of “Mother May I?” On some occasions, some insurers brandish supposed notice issues as if, as a result of the supposed notice defect, they have won the game because the policyholder failed to say “Mother May !?” D&O insurers are of course fully entitled to expect compliance with policy requirements. However, reasonable business considerations should temper the enforcement of the requirements.

 

Judge Schlitz commented that it was fair to strictly enforce the requirements of the notice provision against a large sophisticated company like UnitedHealth. Whether or not that is true, my concern is that the same analysis as he is applying to a big sophisticated company like UnitedHealth could also be applied to a company that isn’t as big or sophisticated.

 

In all fairness, however, it should be noted that isn’t a case where a notice of claim as such was sent to the wrong address or the wrong department. Notwithstanding UnitedHealth’s arguments, it looks as if for whatever reason, there really was not a notice of claim as such sent to any address or department. Without that, UnitedHealth was left to argue that various fragments of informatoin about the claim could be shown to have filtered through a complex pattern of interaction between the company and the excess insurer. That was aloways going to present some difficulties for UnitedHealth. The company was not in the best position it could have been in on these issues. 

 

As I said at the outset, this case is a cautionary tale for all of us working in this business. The lesson for all of us is to try to make sure that the notice of claim both goes to the specific address stated in the policy and that it goes to all of the insurers.

 

Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court Holding That E&O Insurance Policy Exclusion Precluded Coverage: On April 26, 2012, in a terse, unpublished four-page decision, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of an insurance coverage action that Ticketmaster had filed against its error and omissions insurer. A copy of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

 

The errors and omissions insurance policy provided liability coverage for Ticketmaster for claims arising from the performance or the failure to perform professional services. The policy contained an exclusion, Exclusion E, specifying that the policy does not apply to any claim “based on or arising out of … any dispute involving fees, expenses or costs paid to or charged by the Insured.”

Ticketmaster was sued in a putative class action brought by ticketholders alleging that the company had made false representations regarding UPS delivery fees and order-processing charges for ticket events. Ticketmaster sought to have its E&O insurer defend it in the ticketholder claims. The insurer declined based on Exclusion E. Ticketmaster sued the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith. The district court granted the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleading. Ticketmaster appealed.

 

In its April 26 opinion, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court, holding that Exclusion E is “reasonably susceptible of at least two meanings, particularly in light of the Policy’s other 27 exclusions, and is thus ambiguous.” The appellate court identified the two possible meanings: “(i) Exclusion E may refer narrowly to a dispute regarding the monetary amount paid to or charged by Ticketmaster for uncontested services, or (ii) more generally, Exclusion E may refer to any dispute regarding a fee or charge for professional services, including a dispute regarding the relationship between services and the fees charged.”

 

The appellate court said that the E&O insurer had failed to carry its burden of showing that the second interpretation is the only reasonable one. The court noted that there are at least some allegations in the ticketholders’ action that do not involve the amount charged for uncontested services, such as the allegation that Ticketmaster performed no services in exchange for its order-processing charge. This allegation, the court said, did not dispute the amount charged but rather the relationship between any fee at all and the services provided. This dispute would be precluded by interpretation (ii) of Exclusion E but not interpretation (i).

 

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and reinstated the complaint, including Ticketmaster’s bad faith allegations.

 

FDIC Files Another Failed Bank Lawsuit and Two More Bank Fail: On April 26, 2013, the FDIC filed yet another lawsuit in its against the directors and officers of a failed bank. In its complaint (here), the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver of the failed Frontier Bank of Everett, Washington, has asserted claims for negligence, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against twelve former directors and officers of the bank. The bank failed on April 20, 2010, so the FDIC filed its action just before the three-year statute of limitations expired.

 

The FDIC alleges that the defendants breached their duties to the bank by “causing the Bank to violate its own policies and prudent, safe and sound banking practices” in connection with the approval of at least eleven loans between March 2007 and April 2008. The FDIC sees to recover damages “in excess of $46 million.”  An April 26, 2013 Puget Sound Business Journal article regarding the FDIC’s new Frontier Bank lawsuit can be found here.

 

Not only did the FDIC file the lawsuit against the former Frontier Bank directors and officers, but the agency also took over as receiver of two more failed banks on Friday. The two banks are the Douglas County Bank of Douglasville, Georgia and the Parkway Bank of Lenior, North Carolina. Between January 1, 2013 and April 20, 2013, there were only five bank failures total,  but just in the last two weeks there have now been five more, for a total of ten so far during 2013. As I recently noted, though it has seemed as if the bank failure wave had just about played itself out, it now appears that there may yet be more bank failures yet to come.

 

With the failing of the latest lawsuit, the FDIC has now filed a total of 57 lawsuits against the former directors and officers of failed banks, including 13 so far this year alone. As I discussed here, it seems likely there will be more to come, as well.

 

Speakers’ Corner: On Tuesday, April 30, 2013, I will be participating in Advisen’s Quarterly D&O Claims Trends Webinar. In this free webinar, which will take place at 11:00 am EDT, I will be participating on a panel with Paul Ferrillo of the Weil Gotshal law firm, David Murray of AIG, and Jim Blinn of Advisen. The panel will discuss claims trends and developments during the first quarter of 2013. Registration information for the webinar can be found here.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The fallout from the ongoing banking crisis continues to emerge, with the arrival in recent days of still more bank failures and of even more FDIC lawsuits involving failed banks. Unfortunately, the hopes that that all of the bank failures might be safely behind us, or, as I recently suggested on this blog, the hopes that we might be in a “lull” in the failing of failed bank lawsuits, have been dashed. As developments this past week show, banks continue to fail and the FDIC is continuing to actively pursue litigation against the directors and officers of failed banks – and even against the failed bank’s outside professionals.

 

With respect to the bank failures, the FDIC announced on its website this past Friday night the closure of three more banks, two in Florida and one in Kentucky. The two Florida banks are the Chipola Community Bank of Marianna, Florida and the Heritage Bank of Northern Florida of Orange Park, Florida. The Kentucky bank is the First Federal Bank of Lexington, Kentucky. Prior to the closure of these three banks on Friday, there had only been a total of five bank closures so far during all of 2013, and only two since February 1, 2013. It really did seem as if the bank failure wave might finally have played itself out and that the banking crisis of the past few years had safely moved into the moping up phase. These three latest bank failures suggest that the banking failure wave may yet have further to go and that we could continue to see still more bank closures as the year unfolds.

 

With respect to the failed bank lawsuits, just this past Tuesday I had noted that pace of the FDIC’s new lawsuit filings seemed to have slowed. In the preceding month, the FDIC had filed just one new lawsuit and the agency had filed only four new lawsuits since February 1, 2013. However, I did also note that late April 2010 had been a particularly busy period for bank failures and that during late April 2013 nearly two dozen banks would be reaching the third anniversary of their closure date. (The FDIC typically files its failed bank lawsuits close to the third anniversary owing to statute of limitations considerations.)

 

As I anticipated might happen given the number of bank closures in April 2010, this past week the FDIC filed at least two new failed bank lawsuits in connection with two banks whose third year anniversary date fell just after the date on which the FDIC filed its complaints.

 

First, on April 15, 2013, the FDIC filed a lawsuit in its capacity as a receiver for the failed City Bank of Lynwood, Washington filed a complaint against the bank’s founder and former CEO and against a loan officer in the bank’s real estate department. City Bank failed on April 16, 2010, so the FDIC filed its complaint the day before the third anniversary of the bank’s closure. In its complaint, a copy of which can be found here, the FDIC asserted claims against the two defendants for negligence, gross negligence and for breaches of fiduciary duties for “approving, in violation of the City Bank Loan Policy and prudent, safe and sound lending practices, at least 26 loans between May 2005 ad October 2008.” The FDIC’s complaint seeks damages of “not less than $41 million.” An April 16, 2013 Seattle Times article about the lawsuit can be found here.

 

Second, and also on April 15, 2013, the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of the failed Riverside National Bank of Ft. Pierce, Florida, filed a complaint in the Southern District of Florida against eight former directors and officers of the failed bank. Riverside National Bank also failed on April 16, 2010, so again the FDIC took it right down to the wire, filing its complaint the day before the three year statute of limitations period expired. In its complaint, a copy of which can be found here, the FDIC seeks to recover “in excess of $8 million” in damages caused by the defendants’ alleged breaches of duties, gross negligence and negligence “based on defendants’ permitting an excessive number of poorly underwritten loans to be made that were secured solely or largely by the stock of [affiliates of the bank’s holding company].” Owing to the familiarity with the circumstances involving these affiliates, the defendants “had personal knowledge of the dangers inherent in such stock loans.” An April 17, 2013 South Florida Business Journal article about the lawsuit can be found here.

 

So after filing only two lawsuits between March 1, 2013 and April 12, 2013, the FDIC filed two new lawsuits in a single day on April 15, 2013. As I noted in my recent post, there were 22 bank failures during the period between April 16, 2010 and April 30, 2010. I speculated that this large group of bank failures in a compressed period in late April 2010 might produce a flurry of new lawsuit filings during the last two weeks of April 2013; the arrival of these two latest lawsuit bears out this supposition and suggests that we may see further suits in the next few days as the third anniversary of these various April 2010 bank closures approaches. In any event, the arrival of these two new suits puts to rest any suggestion of a “lull” in the filing of new failed bank lawsuits.

 

In addition to these two latest lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks, the FDIC has also recently filed a lawsuit against the outside law firm of a failed bank. On March 15, 2013, the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver for the failed Orion Bank of Naples Florida, filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida against the Nason Yeager Gerson White & Lioce law firm, and against two partners of the firm, Alan I. Armour II and Ryan P. Aiello. Orion Bank failed in November 2009. In its complaint, a copy of which can be found here, the FDIC alleges that the defendants “inexcusably failed to recognize a slew of glaring red flags.”

 

The complaint alleges that the bank had retained the firm in connection with certain loans to entities controlled by a local businessman, Francesco Mileto, a borrower who already owed the bank $43 million. The complaint alleges that by June 29, 2009, the date the new loans closed, the defendants “should have known that these loans were in fact the center of a conspiracy among the Bank’s officers to manipulate the Bank’s accounting, deceive the Bank’s Board of Directors … and illegally finance the purchase of stock in the Bank’s own holding company.” The “obvious red flags” did not dissuade the defendants from disbursing $26.5 million in violation of the terms and conditions of the loans and in violation of the law. The defendants’ allegedly “turned a blind eye to the Bank’s officers’ brazen disregard for the internal and legal constraints on their lending.” As a result, the bank allegedly sustained losses in excess of $31 million. The complaint asserts claims of legal malpractice, professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

 

According to a April 17, 2013 South Florida Business Journal article about the lawsuit, here, Mileto and Orion Bank’s former CEO have both previously been sentenced to prison for inflating the bank’s capital levels through a scheme to purchase bank stock using  the proceeds of loans from the bank. 

 

The arrival of this lawsuit against the failed bank’s outside law firm is interesting. In many ways, the FDIC’s litigation approach during the current bank failure wave has been quite similar to the approach that the FDIC and the other banking regulatory agencies followed during the S&L Crisis. The one way the FDIC’s approach this time seemed to differ is that the last time around, the banking regulators had aggressively pursued the outside professionals that had advised the failed banks and the failed banks’ boards of directors. From my perspective, the FDIC has not been as aggressive in pursuing the FDIC’s outside professionals.

 

To be sure, there have been some noteworthy cases where the FDIC has filed claims against failed banks’ outside professionals. For example, as discussed here, in November 2012, the FDIC filed an action against PwC and Crowe Horvath, the former accountants for the failed Colonial Bank of Montgomery, Alabama. In addition, as discussed here, in the October 2011 lawsuit that the FDIC filed its capacity as receiver of the failed Mutual Bank of Harvey, Illinois, the FDIC’s complaint named as defendants not only certain former directors and officers of the bank, but also the bank’s outside General Counsel, who was also a director of the bank, and the General Counsel’s law firm.

 

But even though as these cases show there have been instances where the agency has pursued claims against failed banks’ former accountants or former lawyers, the FDIC has not as actively pursued claims against outside professionals as it did during the S&L crisis. The FDIC states on the professional liability lawsuit page on its website that, other than lawsuits involving the former directors and officers of failed banks, the agency has authorized an additional 51 lawsuits for “fidelity bond, insurance, attorney malpractice, appraiser malpractice, accounting malpractice, and RMBS claims.” The website does not specify from among these 51 additional authorized lawsuits how many relate specifically to attorney or accountant malpractice. The FDIC’s recent filing against the former outside law firm for the failed Orion Bank, as well as the prior two cases cited above, does show that at least in certain instances the FDIC does intend to pursue claims against failed banks’ outside attorneys and accountants.

 

In any event, with the FDIC’s filing of the latest two failed bank D&O lawsuits described above, the FDIC has now filed a total of 56 lawsuits against the former directors and officers of failed banks during the current bank failure wave, including 12 so far during 2013. The professional liability lawsuit page on the FDIC’s website states that as of April 12, 2013, the agency has authorized lawsuits against former directors and officers of in connection with 109 failed institutions, inclusive of the now 56 lawsuits involving 55 failed institutions that have already been filed. The gap between the number of suits authorized and the number filed suggests the possibility of as many as 53 additional lawsuits are yet to come. In addition, each month for the past several months, the FDIC has increased the number of lawsuits it has authorized, so the number of potential lawsuits in the pipeline likely is even greater than the current gap between the numbers of authorized and filed lawsuits suggests. In other words, it seems likely that we will continue to see the arrival of additional failed bank lawsuits in the weeks and months to come.

 

One final note. As I previously noted, in response to media pressure, the FDIC recently has added a new page to its website on which the agency has linked to settlement agreements that the agency has reached in connection with claims and lawsuits that agency has failed or asserted as part of the current bank failure wave. There is a lot of information in the settlement agreements to which the agency has linked on the page. As Joe Montelone notes in an interesting April 19, 2013 post on his blog, The D&O and E&O Monitor, the agency’s publication of these agreements on its website raises a number of interesting issues and presents some potential challenges for defendants and D&O insurers in other claims and lawsuits.

 

A Note to Readers: This past Wednesday, I added a new post about the $500 million settlement agreement that the parties reached in the Countrywide mortgage backed securities litigation. I composed and published the post while sitting in the boarding area at the Cleveland airport, waiting to board a delayed flight to Chicago (I spent quite a bit of time this past week sitting in airports waiting for various delayed flights). In my haste to publish the post before boarding the flight, I put the post up on my site with a typo in the blog post title – I referred to “Countrywide” as “Countywide.” I am grateful to a number of readers who caught the typo and who sent me notes about it. However, I have not corrected the error, for a very simple reason. If I were to make the change, the software running my blog would think I had added a new blog post, and would send out emails to all of my readers as if I had added a new post.

 

We all get too many emails. I don’t want to add to the burden by having a bunch of potentially confusing emails going out to all of my readers. Because I don’t want to burden everyone with a completely unnecessary email, I am just going to have to live with the typo. So – my apologies for the error, it is just one of the side effects of the way in which this blog is created, developed and maintained. I hope that readers can look at the typo and recognize that I am living with the embarrassment of the error rather than contributing to email pollution. My thanks to everyone who sent me notes about the typo. I always appreciate it when people help me out by spotting possible errors. In this instance, the error will have to stand uncorrected.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As it has been doing on a monthly basis during the current banking crisis, the FDIC has once again updated the page on its website describing the failed bank litigation that the agency has initiated. According to the latest update, as of April 12, 2013, the agency has now filed a total of 54 failed bank lawsuits during the current bank failure wave. But though the new suits continue to come in, the agency’s filing pace appears to have slowed, at least for now. In the month since its last web update, the agency has only filed one additional lawsuit, and only four overall since February 1, 2013, even though the significant numbers of institutions reached the third anniversary of their closure during that period (Due to statute of limitations concerns, the agency typically files its failed banks suits shortly before the a failed bank’s third anniversary.)

 

Since its last update last month, the FDIC did initiate one lawsuit in its capacity as receiver for New Century Bank of Chicago, Illinois, which failed April 23, 2010. On March 26, 2013 (that is, just a few weeks before the third anniversary of the bank’s failure), the agency filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the six former directors and officers named as defendants “acted negligently and grossly negligently and breached their fiduciary duties by disregarding the Bank’s loan policy, prudent lending practices, and regulatory warnings in connection with numerous commercial real estate and other loans during the period April 2005 through July 2008.” The FDIC seeks to recover “more than $33 million in losses.”

 

With the addition of just this one lawsuit, the FDIC has filed only two new complaints against former directors and officers of failed banks since March 1, 2013 and only four new complaints since February 1, 2013. By contrast, during January 2013, the FDIC filed five new complaints, just in that one month alone. In the two month period including December 2012 and January 2013, the FDIC filed a total of nine new lawsuits.

 

This relative slowdown since February 1, 2013 is all the more noteworthy given the number of banks that failed during the corresponding period three years ago. During the period February-April 2010, there were a total of 49 bank closures. By way of comparison, there were only 51 bank closures during all of calendar year 2012, and there have only been five so far during 2013. Early 2010 was a very active period for bank closures, and so given that the FDIC tends to file its suits, if at all, as the third anniversary approaches, it seemed that 2013 was going to be an active period of new lawsuit filing.

 

In addition, each month the agency updates its website to show the increased numbers of lawsuits that have been authorized. At its most recent update, the agency indicated that the number of lawsuits authorized has once again increased during the past month. As of April 12, 2013, the FDIC has now authorized suits in connection with 109 failed institutions against 888 individuals for D&O liability. This figure of 109 authorized lawsuits is inclusive of the 54 filed D&O lawsuits naming 407 former directors and officers that have already been filed. These figures suggest that there is a backlog of 55 cases that have been approved and not yet filed. The backlog seems to be growing. Given the monthly increase in the number of authorized lawsuits, you would really expect to see the agency’s new lawsuit pace moving along an active clip, not as seems to be the case, entering some sort of a lull.

 

There are a number of possible reasons for the apparent slowdown in the number of failed bank lawsuit filings. The first is just timing. I mentioned above that during the period February to April 2010, 49 banks closed, but of those 49 bank failures, 23 occurred in April 2010 alone (a very busy month for bank failures). Of the 23 bank closures in April 2010, 22 took place on or after April 16, 2010. In other words a very large percentage of the banks that failed during this period failed in late April 2010, and thus still have not yet reached the third anniversary of their closure. The third anniversary is coming up, but we are not quite there yet. There could be a flurry of new failed bank lawsuit filings in the next few days.

 

Another possible explanation for the apparent lull of new failed bank lawsuit filings over the last few weeks is that the agency may have entered tolling agreements with the failed banks directors and officers to see if they agency can reach a negotiated settlement with the directors and officers and with their bank’s D&O insurer. If the parties have entered tolling agreements, lawsuits involving some of the banks still could be filed later.

 

Finally, there are a number of cases in which the agency has reached a negotiated settlement with the directors and officers and with the D&O insurer without the agency actually filing the lawsuit. If the agency was able to reach a settlement agreement of this type in a number of cases, that too might account for the apparent filing slowdown over the past several weeks. (The agency has posted the settlement agreements in a number of these kinds of settlements on its website.)

 

Nevertheless, given the number of banks that failed in the first half of 2010 and given the growing number of lawsuits the agency has filed, it seems as if the failed bank lawsuit filing pace should be picking up again soon. As I have previously noted, there have previously been lulls in the FDIC's failed bank lawsuit filing activity (refer here, for example, wiht respect to the two month lull during mid-year 2012). But the prior lulls have in most instances been quicly followed by a period of quickened filing actiivity (as discussed, for example, here).. Circumstances may be poised for the same filing pattern again now.

 

Another FCPA Civil Lawsuit: There is no private right of action in the FCPA. Nevertheless, civil litigation has followed in the wake of the proliferation in the number of governmental enforcement actions alleging violations of the FCPA, as investors allege that company management have violated their corporate duties in allowing the bribery to take place or that, by failing to disclose the briber, management has misrepresented the company’s internal controls or financial condition.

 

The latest example of these kinds of civil suits is interesting because at least so far there is no formal enforcement action against the company involved or its senior officials, although the bribery allegations have been the subject of very high-profile publicity.

 

According to their April 12, 2013 press release, plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Wal-Mart de Mexico SAB (“Walmex”) and Ernesto Vega, the Chairman of Walmex’s board of directors and Chairman of the Board’s audit and corporate practices committee. The complaint, a copy of which can be found here, purports to be filed on behalf of investors who purchased ADRs of Walmex between February 21, 2012 and April 22, 2012. The complaint alleges seeks damages under the ’34 Act.

 

The investors’ complaint alleges that during the class period the defendants made false and misleading statements about Walmex’s business practices with respect to unlawful or unethical bribery conduct. Specifically, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers press release, the complaint alleges that Walmex “failed to disclose that it had been involved in a bribery scheme,” and that as a result of the defendants’ misleading statements the company’s ADRs traded at inflated prices during the class period.

 

Unlike many of these kinds of civil actions, the plaintiffs do not base their assertions on allegations derived from a prior regulatory enforcement action; so far, there has been no formal regulatory enforcement action taken against the company. Rather, the plaintiffs’ allegations rely heavily on information in an April 22, 2012 New York Times article entitled “Wal-Mart Hushed Up a Vast Mexican Bribery Case” (here). The lengthy article detailed the extensive payment program that executives at Walmex allegedly had pursued in order to obtain Mexican zoning approvals, reductions in environmental impact fees and the allegiance of neighborhood leaders. According to the article, an internal Wal-Mart investigation not only found evidence of the payments, but also that Walmex executives knew about the payments and took steps to conceal the payments from Wal-Mart’s headquarters. The lead investigator recommended that Wal-Mart expand the investigation, but instead, according to the article, Wal-Mart’s leaders shut it down.

 

The new compliant quotes extensively from the New York Times article; parts of the complaint are nothing more than lengthy block quotes from the article. Among other things, the Times article notes that in December 2011, after learning of the Times’s reporting in Mexico, Wal-Mart informed the Justice department that it had begun an internal investigation into possible FCPA violations. In subsequent regulatory filings, the company has stated that it is investigating possible improper payments in other countries. To date, there have been (so far as I am aware) no formal regulatory actions taken against Wal-Mart or its officials.

 

Nevertheless, though there had to date been no enforcement action, the Walmex investors have initiated a securities class action lawsuit based on the information provided in the Times article. The case is not the first civil action seeking damages in connection with alleged FCPA violations in the absence of a formal regulatory action. However, it does provide a high-profile example of the way in which FCPA allegations can lead to private civil litigation.

 

One other interesting feature of the Walmex situation is that the alleged bribery allegations first came to light in September 2005 when a whistleblower contacted a senior Wal-Mart lawyer. It is an interesting question of what might happen in similar circumstances today, given the potentially rich whistleblower bounty payments potentially available under the Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions. The bounty provisions provide a significant incentive for a whistleblower of the kind involved here to go straight to the SEC. These circumstances provide a powerful illustration of the kinds of circumstances that could make the Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions so significant and could lead to increased regulatory and enforcement activity.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Much happened in recent days while The D&O Diary was away on extended travel. Some of the developments were significant. What follows is a brief summary of the more significant events over the last few days.

 

Subprime-Related Citigroup Bondholders Action Settles for $730 Million: In what is the second-largest settlement of a subprime and credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuit, the parties to the Citigroup bondholders’ action have agreed to settle the case for $730 million. The settlement is subject to court approval. A copy of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ March 18, 2013 memorandum regarding the settlement can be found here. The plaintiffs’ lawyers’ March 18, 2013 press release regarding the settlement can be found here.

 

The settlement relates to a series of suits consolidated in the Southern District of New York and alleging that in connection with approximately 48 bond offerings between May 2006 and August 2008, Citigroup had misrepresented its exposure to subprime mortgages and related bonds as well as to subprime-related collateralized debt obligations. The consolidated litigation is described in greater detail here. As discussed here, on July 12, 2010, Southern District of New York Judge Sidney Stein substantially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the bondholders’ action.

 

The defendants in the consolidated litigation included not only Citigroup itself but also 28 current or former Citigroup directors and officers and nearly eighty investment banks that served as offering underwriters in the bond offerings. According to the parties’ March 18, 2013 stipulation of settlement (here), the settlement appears to resolve all of the claims against all of the defendants. However, the only payment mentioned in the stipulation of settlement is Citigroup’s agreement to pay the full $730 million settlement amount into escrow within the specified time following court approval. Of course, there may have been other arrangements between and among the other defendants with regard to the settlement amount.

 

As massive as this $730 million settlement is, there is a note of defensiveness about the settlement in the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ memorandum. The memo take great pains to emphasize that while the case was pending, the Second Circuit entered its opinion in Fait v. Regions Financial Corp. (about which refer here), in which the appellate court held that securities suit defendants cannot be held liable for statements of “opinion” unless the claimants can plead and prove that the defendants did not actually hold the stated opinions. The plaintiffs’ lawyers  underscore the fact that the defendants would likely argue in motions before the court that many of the valuation and reserve misstatements on which the Citigroup bondholder claimants rely are mere statements of opinion that are not actionable in the absence of allegations that the defendants did not actually believe the opinions. In their discussion of this issue as well as in other features of their memorandum, the plaintiffs’ lawyers -- by highlighting the vulnerabilities of their case -- appear to be anticipating criticism that the settlement is not even larger than it is. (As an aside, it will be interesting to see if in connection with this settlement, as there have been with several of the large subprime and credit crisis securities suits, a number of significant opt-outs from the settlement class.)

 

Just the same, among settlements of subprime and credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuits, this latest settlement is exceeded only by the massive $2.43 billion BofA/Merrill Lynch merger settlement, which is discussed in greater detail here. According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ memorandum regarding the latest settlement, the $730 million bondholders’ settlement, if approved by the court, would also represent the second largest recovery in a securities class action lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of debt securities, as well as one of the three largest recoveries in a case that does not involve a financial restatement. The settlement also ranks among the fifteen largest recoveries in any securities class action lawsuit.

 

The $730 million Citigroup bondholders’ action settlement also significantly exceeds the $590 million settlement in the separate subprime-related Citigroup shareholders’ action, about which refer here. I have updated my running tally of the subprime and credit crisis case resolutions to reflect this latest settlement. The tally can be accessed here. Here is an updated list of the ten largest subprime and credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuit settlements.

 

Case	Amount	Links
BofA/Merrill Lynch Merger	$2.43 billion	Here
Citigroup Bondholders’ Action	$730 million	This Post
Wells Fargo/Wachovia Bondholders Action	$627 million	Here
Countrywide	$624 million	Here
Citigroup Shareholders’ Action	$590 million	Here
Lehman Brothers (including offering underwriters’ settlement)	$507 million	Here
Merrill Lynch	$475 million	Here
Merrill Lynch Mortgage-Backed Securities	$315 million	Here
Bear Stearns	$275 million	Here
Charles Schwab	$235 million	Here

 

FDIC Failed Bank Litigation Update: As the FDIC has been doing on a monthly basis as the current banking crisis has evolved, the FDIC has updated the page on its website describing the failed bank litigation that the agency has been filing. In the latest update, as of March 19, 2013, the agency states that is has now authorized litigation against the former directors and officers of 106 failed banks (up from 102 as of February 15, 2013).

 

The agency has also now filed a total of 53 failed bank lawsuits against former directors and officers of 52 failed banks (up from 51 lawsuits involving 50 failed institutions as of February 15, 2013). The number of approved lawsuits (which is inclusive of the lawsuits that have been filed) suggests that there may be as many of 53 additional as yet unfiled lawsuits waiting to be filed – however, at least some of these lawsuits may be resolved though pre-lawsuit negotiation.

 

With respect to the two lawsuits filed since the FDIC last updated its website, one, involving the failed Carson River Community Bank, was previously mentioned in a post earlier this month (here, refer to the fifth item in the post). The other new lawsuit involves the failed InBank of Oak Forest, Illinois, which failed on September 4, 2009. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here. The fact that the FDIC filed the complaint so far past the third anniversary of the bank’s closure suggests that the FDIC”s claims as receiver of the failed bank may have been the subject of a tolling agreement.

 

In addition to the FDIC’s website page regarding failed bank litigation, the FDIC has also significantly updated the page the agency recently added to its site in which the agency has indicated that it will provide information regarding its settlement of failed bank claims. As discussed in a recent post (here), the FDIC has been the target of media scrutiny for its failure to disclose claim settlements. In response to this media attention, the FDIC has added the settlements page to its website; at the time I reviewed the agency’s new website page a few days ago, the agency had posted only a few settlement agreements and indicated that it hoped that by March 31, 2013 the page would more completely reflect all settlements.

 

The agency has now substantially updated the settlements page and added links to numerous additional settlement agreements, including links to several settlement agreements that had not previously been publicly available. Just to cite a couple of examples of the previously undisclosed settlement agreements, readers may recall that December 2012 analysis of the FDIC’s failed bank litigation, Cornerstone Research included a review of failed bank lawsuit settlements (refer here, see page 11). In its list of failed bank lawsuit settlements, Cornerstone Research identified two cases – involving Heritage Community Bank and Corn Belt Bank and Trust Company – for which the settlement amounts had not been reported.

 

In the latest update to the new settlement agreements page on its website, the FDIC has now provided copies of the settlement agreements in these two cases for which the settlement details previously had not been reported.

 

As now reflected on the FDIC’s website, the August 2012 settlement agreement in the Heritage Community Bank failed bank lawsuit, which can be found here, shows that the case settled for $3.15 million, all of which apparently was to be funded by D&O Insurance.

 

The April 2012 settlement agreement in the Corn Belt Bank and Trust Company case, which can be found here, shows that the case settled for a total payment of $700,000, $266,000 of which is to be paid by the individual defendants and the remainder of which is to be paid by the failed bank’s D&O insurer (the insurer is a party to the settlement agreement).

 

The availability of this previously unavailable settlement information is very interesting. Given the volume of new information that the agency has added to the site – the agency has added information relating to settlements in connection with 29 different failed banks in 13 different states -- I have not yet had a chance to work through it all. It is however clear that the agency’s new proactive willingness to provide settlement information will prove to be a rich source of information as the agency resolves the cases and claims that it has asserted as part of the current bank failure wave.

 

Freddie Mac Files Libor Scandal Suit Against Rate Setting Banks, British Bankers Association: In the wake of the three regulatory settlements that have arisen so far in the wake of the Libor-scandal, the government-sponsored mortgage finance company has now gotten into the act and filed its own lawsuit seeking recovery of billions of dollars of damages it alleges it sustained as a result of the manipulation of the benchmark rates. A copy of Freddie Mac’s complaint, which the agency filed on March 18, 2013 in the Eastern District of Virginia, can be found here.

 

There are a number of interesting things about this lawsuit. First of all, the only plaintiff in the case is Freddie Mac. The complaint is not asserted on behalf of its larger sibling agency, Fannie Mae, even though the body responsible for oversight of the two mortgage-finance entities had recommended that both agencies pursue claims based on an estimated more than $3 billion in Libor related damages. Undoubtedly Fannie Mae will be filing its own action shortly.

 

A second interesting thing about the lawsuit has to do with the defendants. Freddie Mac has not only  named the Libor rate-setting banks themselves, but it has also named as a defendant the British Bankers Association itself, which acted as a clearinghouse for the rate-setting banks’ borrowing information, which served as the bases for the Libor benchmarks. As Wayne State University Law School Professor Peter Henning points out in his March 20, 2013 post on the Dealbook blog (here), Freddie Mac has alleged that the organization was aware of the manipulation and did nothing too stop it. As Henning notes, “the fact that one is aware of misconduct by others, and even that their services are being used, is usually not enough to show participation in a conspiracy.” Henning adds that there may also be an issue whether or not a U.S. court even has jurisdiction over the BBA.

 

Third, in addition to an antitrust claim, Freddie Mac has raised some additional allegations against certain of the bank defendants. Unlike many of the claimants in the various Libor scandal lawsuits, Freddie Mac had direct contractual relations with several of the rate-setting banks. Freddie Mac directly purchased swaps from several of the bank. The complaint alleges that when the banks pushed down Libor, the agency received lower payments from the swaps. Freddie Mac asserts separate breach of contract actions against eight of the banks (including Bof A, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and UBS), alleging that the manipulation violated the terms of the agency’s agreements with the banks.

 

Fourth, there is the court in which Freddie Mac filed the suit. The Eastern District of Virginia is notorious as the so-called “Rocket Docket.” As noted in the March 18, 2013 memorandum from the Hunton & Williams law firm (here, registration required), the Eastern District of Virginia moves with “lightening speed,” adding that “the average time from filing a civil case to trial is approximately 11 months, with 2012 constituting the fastest trial docket in the country for the fifth straight year.” Continuances are virtually unheard of. In other words, even though Freddie Mac’s case has only just been filed, it could accelerate past the other Libor cases that have been pending elsewhere for some time – that is, if Freddie Mac can keep the case in the E.D.Va.

 

The defendants undoubtedly will try to have the case transferred to the Southern District of New York and added to the consolidated litigation pending before Judge Naomi Buchwald. Freddie Mac will undoubtedly argue that its distinct breach of contract claims, as well as its unique status as a government-sponsored entity, militate against transfer and consolidation.

 

In a field of interesting Libor-related claims, this new case will be particularly interesting to watch. It will also be interesting to see if Fannie Mae jumps into the fray as well (seems likely to me).

 

Supreme Court Declines Cert in Goldman Sachs Subprime Suit: As I have noted in numerous blog posts, the Supreme Court has shown a significant propensity in recent years to take up securities cases, a propensity that has it turn led to a series of significant High Court decisions that have had a profound impact on securities litigation. However, the Court can have also a significant impact when it chooses not to act as well as when it chooses to get involved. A recent decision to deny a petition for a writ of certiorari arguably falls into the category of cases where the Court’s failure to act has great significance.

 

As I noted in a blog post at the time (here), in September 2012, the Second Circuit handed plaintiffs in subprime and credit crisis-related securities suits a significant victory on the issue of standing in a case involving Goldman Sachs.

 

The background on the decision has to do with the fact that many of the toxic mortgage-backed securities that were a key part of the subprime mortgage meltdown were sold in multiple separate offerings based on a single shelf registration statement but separate prospectuses. Each separate offering included multiple securities at varying tranches of seniority and subordination. In the litigation following the subprime meltdown, defendants in suits bought by mortgage-backed securities investors initially had considerable success in arguing that the claimants have standing only to assert claims only with respect to the specific offerings and tranches in which the claimants themselves had invested, and lacked standing to assert class claims on behalf of investors who purchased securities in other offerings and tranches.

 

In a September 6, 2012 opinion (here), the Second Circuit ruled  -- in a case involving mortgage-backed securities issued by a unit of Goldman Sachs -- that the investor plaintiff had standing to assert claims relating not only to the specific offerings in which the plaintiff invested but also the claims of investors in other related offerings, to the extent that the securities in the other offerings were backed by mortgages originated by the same lenders that originated the mortgages backing the plaintiff’s securities. The Second Circuit also rejected the argument that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of investors in the different tranches.

 

The Second Circuit’s recognition of the plaintiffs’ standing to assert claims even related to securities that the plaintiffs’ themselves had not purchased eliminated a significant tool in the defendants’ arsenal to try to narrow the claims involved in any given case. The elimination of this tool presented the prospect that securities defendants could face significantly broader claims than they might have faced had they been able to narrow the case.

 

In other words, Goldman was not the only securities litigation defendant that was interested in seeing if the Supreme Court might take up its case and review the Second Circuit’s holding; many defendants were interested in seeing if the Supreme Court might overturn the Second Circuit’s ruling. In its papers filed with the Supreme Court, Goldman had argued that letting the Second Circuit decision stand "will effectively increase by tens of billions of dollars the potential liability that financial institutions face in this and similar class actions."

 

However, as reflected in the Supreme Court’s docket sheet for the Goldman case, on March 18, 2013, the Court denied Goldman’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court’s refusal to take up the case not only means that the Second Circuit’s opinion stands in that Circuit; it also could be argued to suggest that the Court supported the Second Circuit’s analysis, an implication that plaintiffs might try to use to suggest that the Second Circuit’s analysis should be applied even where these other circuits (for example the First and Ninth Circuits) arguably have case law recognizing the narrower standing requirements that defendants would prefer. At a minimum, the broader standing analysis that the Second Circuit recognized in the Goldman decision now unquestionably applies in the Second Circuit itself, where so many of these cases are pending.

 

The Goldman bondholders claim will now go forward. The parties to the case undoubtedly will find the $730 million settlement in the Citigroup bondholders’ case of great interest.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Possibly as a result of a barrage of recent press criticism for its nonpublic settlements, the FDIC has launched a page on its website to publish details regarding the settlements it has reached in failed bank claims. The page, which can be found here, acknowledges that it is not yet complete. Even in its incomplete state it does reflect information about at least three settlements that as far as I am aware had not previously been publicly available.

 

First, the background about the questions surrounding the FDIC’s nonpublic settlements. In a March 11, 2013 Los Angeles Times article entitled “In a Major Policy Shift, Scores of FDIC Settlements Go Unannounced” (here) critical of the agency, E. Scott Rickard noted that the FDIC has “opted to settle cases while helping banks avoid bad press, rather than trumpeting punitive actions as a deterrent to others.” The article notes the agency’s willingness to agree, in connection with claims settlements, that the details of the settlements would not be disclosed except in response to a specific inquiry. As a result, claims defendants were able to avoid having settlement details made public.

 

Indeed, there have been settlements in FDIC failed bank lawsuits that are not publicly available. In report on FDIC litigation as of December 31, 2012, Cornerstone Research noted in connection with failed bank lawsuits that have settled so far, the details of at least two of the six settled cases had not been made publicly available.  In addition, I have been advised by many participants in the failed bank claim process that there have been other settlements in which the parties resolved failed bank claims without the FDIC actually filing suit. Details regarding these pre-suit settlements have also not been publicly disclosed.

 

Perhaps as a reaction to the adverse publicity following the Los Angeles Times article, the FDIC has now added to its website a page on which it has listed at least some settlements with the apparent intention of having the page complete by the end of this month. The page (here) lists only three settlement agreements, all from the state of Florida. As far as I am aware, the details regarding these three settlements previously were not publicly available. At least one of the settlements directly involves the thee settling defendants D&O insurer. None of the three settlements listed relate to the two cases for which Cornerstone Research had been unable to obtain settlement information.

 

The first of the three settlement agreements posted on the site involves a July 2012 settlement between the FDIC as receiver for the failed BankUnited of Coral Gables, Florida and Michael Orlando. BankUnited failed in May 2009. In May 2012, the FDIC in its capacity as BankUnited’s Receiver filed an action against Orlando and others in the Northern District of California alleging fraud and other misconduct in connection with certain loan transactions. According to the settlement agreement posted on the FDIC’s website, Orlando agreed to settle the FDIC’s claim for payments totaling $1 million. The settlement agreement does not specify whether or not Orlando served as a director or officer of the bank, but certain details of the settlement suggest that he was not. The settlement agreement does not mention D&O insurance.

 

The second settlement agreement that the FDIC has posted on its website involves the failed First Priority Bank of Bradenton, Florida. First Priority, which closed in April 2008, was one of the first bank’s to fail as part of the current bank failure wave. The settlement agreement, which is dated in April 2012, states that the FDIC as First Priority’s receiver asserted claims against certain former directors and officers of First Priority in connection with certain of the bank’s loans. It does not appear that the agency actually filed a lawsuit against the individuals; rather, it appears that the settlement was negotiated without a suit being filed. In a detail that will be of interest to readers of this blog, it appears that First Priority’s D&O insurer is a party to the settlement agreement and that the insurer, despite apparently disputing whether there was coverage under its policy for the FDIC’s claim, agreed to fund the settlement in the amount of $1,750,000. The insurer apparently received a policy release for its payment, subject to certain specified reservations.

 

The third settlement agreement list on the FDIC’s website involves the failed Ocala National Bank of Ocala, Florida, which failed in January 2009. The agreement is between the FDIC in its capacity as the bank’s receiver and an entity identified only as The Willoughby Corporation. The FDIC apparently filed a lawsuit against Willoughby, which Willoughby apparently agreed to settle for its payment of $40,000. The settlement agreement does not identify the nature of the FDIC’s claims against Willoughby.

 

It isn’t clear from the FDIC’s website why all three of the matters referenced on t he website page involve failed Florida banks, nor is it clear why these three particular matters are the ones included on the site – frankly, the three seem like a rather odd assortment, and the absence of information relating to the settlements of the litigated cases seems odd. An optimistic assessment of the information would be that this page is still under construction and the obviously missing information to be added in order to complete the page.

 

Indeed, the page itself says that the “initial posting of past settlements will occur on a rolling basis as they are processed with the goal to have recent settlement agreements posted by March 31, 2013.” The page also says that “will publish the terms and conditions of all settlements as they become available and the material will be updated on a monthly basis.” It will be interesting to monitor the page as the agency updates it in the coming days, in particular to see whether the agency posts the previously unavailable information about the litigates case settlements, and to see the extent to which the agency includes information regarding pre-litigation settlements.

 

The agency’s apparently new found interest in settlement transparency could pose some challenges. The agency could face certain constraints in disclosing past settlements to the extent the parties to the settlements had reached understandings that the settlement would remain confidential. Future settlement negotiations could be complicated to the extent that parties to the negotiations want to try to make confidentiality a condition of any possible settlement. Negotiations could also be complicated as information becomes more readily available that might serve as settlement benchmarks or at least reference points. On the other hand, greater transparency will allow a more accurate assessment of what the FDIC’s claims have accomplished and could even afford some insight into the impact of the settlements on D&O insurers. Some observers may also contend that greater settlement transparency will provide deterrent effects as well.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a link to the settlement page on the FDIC’s website.

 

NERA Releases 2012 Wage and Hour Settlements Report: On March 12, 2013, NERA Economic Consulting released its 2012 report on settlements of wage and hour cases. The report, which is entitled “Trends in Wage and Hour Settlements: 2012 Update,” can be found here.

 

The report contains a number of interesting observations about wage and hour settlements. Among other things, the report notes that on average, companies paid $4.8 million to resolve wage and hour cases in 2012, up slightly from the $4.6 million observed in 2011, but lower than the overall average of $7.5 million for the 2007 to 2012 period. The median settlement value for 2012 of $1.7 million was also slightly higher than the $1.6 million median in 2011. (Although it is not expressly stated in the report, it appears that the settlement analysis is solely with respect to class action wage and hour litigation, not individual actions.)

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The pace of bank closures has slowed to a trickle. There have only been three bank failures so far in 2013 (including one this past Friday evening, involving the Covenant Bank of Chicago, Illinois). But while bank failures have dwindled, the number of failed bank lawsuit filings has surged. On February 15, 2013, the FDIC updated its website to reflect a cluster of new failed bank lawsuit filings as well as an increased number of lawsuit authorizations. With the latest lawsuit authorizations, the FDIC is now approaching an authorized level of lawsuit filings comparable to the lawsuit filing level during the S&L Crisis.

 

With the three bank closures this year, there have now been a total of 471 bank failures since January 1, 2007. The FDIC’s latest litigation update shows that  during the current wave of bank failures the agency has now filed 51 lawsuits against the former directors and officers of 50 failed banks, meaning that the FDIC has already filed lawsuits in connection with just under 11% of all bank failures. But, as reflected in the updated information on the FDIC’s website, the agency has also authorized more lawsuits. The number of authorized lawsuits has continued to increase each month, as well.

 

As of February 15, 2013, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 102 failed institutions against 836 individuals for D&O liability. This includes the 51 filed lawsuits naming 396 former directors and officers at 50 institutions. In other words, there could be as many as 52 as-yet-to-be-filed lawsuits based just on the authorizations to date. Some of these authorized lawsuits may not ultimately be filed, as pre-litigation negotiations sometimes results in settlements that avert the need for a lawsuit to be filed. But were the FDIC to file lawsuit in connection with as many as 102 failed institutions, that would mean that the FDIC would have initiated lawsuits in connection with nearly 22% of all bank failures, a percentage that would approach the 24% rate during the S&L crisis. To the extent the agency authorizes even more lawsuits in coming months, the litigation rate could meet or even exceed the S&L crisis litigation rate.

 

The updated information on the FDIC’s website includes information relating to four additional filed bank lawsuits that I had not previously tracked. With the addition of these four latest suits, the FDIC has now filed a total of seven failed bank lawsuits so far in 2013, after having filed 26 during 2012. I briefly discuss each of the four latest lawsuits below. One interesting note about these four new suits is that none of them involve failed Georgia banks. As I have previously noted on this blog (most recently here, see second item), the failed bank lawsuits had been disproportionately concentrated in Georgia. These latest filings, none of which involve Georgia banks, might suggest that this imbalance may start to level out.

 

Here is brief description of the four latest failed bank lawsuit filings.

 

First, on January 18, 2013, the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for the failed Columbia River Bank of The Dalles, Oregon filed an action in the District of Oregon against seven former officer and three former directors of the bank. The bank failed on January 22, 2010, so the FDIC filed the suit just ahead of the third year anniversary of the bank’s closure. The FDIC’s complaint (a copy of which can be found here) asserts claims against the former directors and officers for gross negligence, negligence and breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges that the defendants “took unreasonable risks with the Bank’s loan portfolio, allowed irresponsible and unsustainable rapid asset growth concentrated in high-risk and speculative” loans, “disregarded regulator warnings,” and violated the Bank’s loan policies and procedures. The defendants allegedly caused damages to the bank of no less than $39 million.

 

Interestingly, though the Columbia River Bank was not closed until January 2010, all but one of the specific loans cited in the complaint were originated in 2006 and 2007 (the one exception was originated in early 2008). As time goes by, the loan originations cited in the FDIC’s complaint start to seem more and more like ancient history.

 

Second, on January 29, 2013, the FDIC filed an action in the Middle District of Florida in its capacity as receiver for the failed Orion Bank of Naples, Florida. The FDIC’s complaint can be found here. The FDIC’s complaint seeks to recover damages of in excess of $58 million. The lineup of defendants is interesting, as the four individuals named as defendants are all former directors; none of the bank’s former officers are named as defendants.

 

The complaint, which asserts claims for gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duties, alleges that the bank “collapsed under the weight of the unsustainable growth strategy that the Defendants permitted Chief Executive Officer Jerry Williams to pursue.” Williams, the former CEO, is not named as a defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that as Williams pursued his “reckless growth strategy” he was “unrestrained” by the defendants who engaged in a “pattern of unconsidered acquiescence.” The Defendants are alleged to have approved loans “without meaningful deliberation or discussion.” The complaint alleges that the director defendants even continued to “ignore” their duties even after the bank had entered an August 25, 2008 written agreement with the federal banking authorities that was specifically concerned with the directors’ oversight responsibilities. 

 

The Orion Bank failed on November 13, 2009, which suggests that the parties may have entered some sort of a tolling agreement. The naming of only four former directors as defendants, and the absence of any officer defendants, is not explained in the complaint. One possibility is that as a result of negotiations while the tolling agreement was in place resulted in settlements on behalf of the former officers (this, I should add is sheer speculation on my part).

 

Third, on January 31, 2013, the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of the failed Security Savings Bank of Henderson, Nevada, filed an action in the District of Nevada against three former director and officers of the bank. The FDIC’s complaint (a copy of which can be found here) seeks to recover damages in excess of $13.1 million from the three defendants who allegedly “underwrote, recommended and/or voted to approve at least seven high-risk commercial real estate and acquisition and development and construction loans in violation of the Bank’s lending policies and clear principles of safety and soundness.”

 

The bank was closed and the FDIC appointed as receiver on February 27, 2009, which suggests that the parties had entered some sort of tolling agreement. The three defendants had resigned before the bank failed; two of them, the former CEO and the former Chief Credit Officer, had resigned in September 2008, and the third had resigned all the way back in December 2006. The three individual defendants have long since scattered, with two now living in Texas and a third living in Virginia. All of the specific loans mentioned in the FDIC’s complaint were originated in 2005 and 2006, which really does seem like ancient history.

 

Fourth, on February 13, 2013, the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver of the failed LaJolla Bank of LaJolla, California filed an action in the Southern District of California against two former officers of the bank and against the bank’s former board Chairman. The complaint (here) asserts claims for negligence, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty and seeks to recover damages in excess of $57 million. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the bank’s loan policy and “safe and sound lending practices” by “recommending or approving speculative commercial real estate loans despite known adverse economic conditions,” as well as recommending or approving loans to borrowers who were not creditworthy, or without requiring sufficient underwriting and without sufficient information.

 

Regulators closed the LaJolla Bank on February 19, 2010, so the FDIC filed its complaint just prior to the third anniversary of the bank’s closure. The specific loans referenced in the complaint were originated between March 2007 and March 2009.

 

Reading these four complaints in quick succession was an interesting experience. Though there are noteworthy variations between the complaints (for example, with the Orion Bank complaint, which names only director defendants), there is also a certain sameness to the complaints, as well – so much so that some of the allegations and even phraseology seem to be lifted verbatim from other complaints. It is, after all, a familiar story. The banks grew quickly during a period of rapid economic expansion and then were slow to recognize the seriousness of the downturn. In the aftermath, it appears that many of the loans extended during the go-go days had not always been made with full procedural compliance. It does beg the question whether the losses were the result of the failure to follow procedures or of the suddenness and severity of the downturn.

 

Another unmistakable impression from reading these complaints in quick succession is that as time goes by, the events on which the FDIC is going to be trying to base its current and any future lawsuits are receding further and further into the past. As noted above with respect to the Security Saving Bank complaint, the defendants are scattering. As time goes by, the FDIC’s burden is going to become increasingly archeological.

 

This Just In From Our Istanbul Bureau -- D&O Liability and Insurance in Turkey: As is the case in many countries, the use of D&O insurance is still relatively new in Turkey. However, as discussed in an interesting January 29, 2013 article by Naşe Taşdemir Önder and Pelin Baysal of the Mehmet Gün & Partners law firm entitled “Turkey: Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Insurance in View of the New Turkey Commercial Code” (here), new standards on corporate governance incorporated into the new Turkish Commercial Code are “expected” to “lead to increase in demand for D&O policies.”

 

According to the authors, the new Code introduces new requirements for “universal accounting and auditing standards and rules for increased transparency” which the authors expect will support the “operability” of “liability provisions.” According to the authors, the Code introduces a “heavier level of duty of care” for directors and officers. Among other things, the new Code provisions introduce certain specific types of liability provisions, including in particular liability for misrepresentations in documents and declaration and misrepresentations on capital subscription. The Code introduces many other new provisions, including new provisions allowing for claims by shareholders for losses incurred by the company.

 

With respect to insurance, the new Code specifies that third party liability insurance will be consider “occurrence based” unless otherwise indicated in the policy. The new Code also prohibits coverage for losses arising as a result of willful acts. The author’s very thorough examination of the new Code’s insurance-related provisions detail the many other specific insurance issues that the new Code addresses.

 

For anyone interested in the D&O liability and D&O insurance issues in Turkey, the authors’ memo is a valuable resource.

 

And Now, From Our Singapore Bureau: Regular readers of this blog may recall my post about my April 2012 visit to Singapore, which I found to be an interesting and impressive place. But Singapore’s transformation into a gleaming metropolis is relatively recent. As shown in this photo montage from Business Insider, Singapore had to become what it is today and relatively recently it was a very different place. I found these photographs, and the history they embody, to be fascinating.

 

And Finally: Kalefa Sanneh’s excellent and interesting article in the February 11 & 18 issue of The New Yorker entitled “Sprit Guide” (here), about whisky distiller Bruichladdich, contains the following sentence, written with reference to the whisky sampling  techniques of the whisky maker’s master distiller, Jim McEwan: “It’s a simple process, but consumers hoping to reproduce McEwan’s results at home will find, no doubt, that some variant of the uncertainty principle applies: the more research you conduct, the less reliable your data become.” I tip my hat to the article’s author; the sentence has its own humor, in that conducting whisky research undoubtedly involves certain limits owing to the properties of the subject matter.  But it is the sly side reference to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle that I admire.

 

Though I could never hope to write with such sophisticated humor, I can certainly admire the writing, including also the following sentence from the same article:  “The first part of the distillate, known as the foreshot, contains methanol, which can be toxic in large quantities – although the same could be said of whisky.” (Side note: In Scotland, there’s no “e” in whisky.)

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 5, 2013, in a detailed opinion exploring the nuances of a D&O policy’s extended reporting period provisions, Western District of North Carolina Judge Henry Herlong Jr.  determined that the directors of the failed Bank of Ashville of Asheville, North Carolina timely provided their D&O insurer notice of the FDIC’s lawsuit against them as the failed bank’s receiver. Practitioners in the D&O arena will want to read this opinion, a copy of which can be found here, for its examination of the interactions between the policy’s “basic” 60-day extended reporting period and its 12-month “supplemental” extended reporting period.

 

Background

The Bank of Asheville failed on January 21, 2011. As discussed here, on December 29, 2011, the FDIC as the failed bank’s receiver filed a lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina against seven former directors of the bank. On December 29, 2011, the directors provided the bank’s holding company’s D&O insurer with notice of the FDIC’s lawsuit.

 

The D&O policy provided coverage for the period November 3, 2007 through November 3, 2010. However, the policy contains a 60-day “basic” extended reporting period, allowing for the notice of claims 60 days beyond the policy’s expiration. The policy also provided for a 12-month “supplemental” extended reporting period that, by endorsement and upon payment of an extra premium charge, allows an additional 12 month reporting period. The “supplemental” extended reporting provision in the policy provided that “the supplemental Period starts when the Basic Extended Reporting Period …ends.” 

 

Through a process that the court’s opinion reviewed in detail, the bank purchased the 12-month supplemental extended reporting period prior to the expiration of the policy period. The endorsement the D&O insurer issued specified that the supplemental extended reporting period is “11-01-2010 – 11-01-2011.”

 

After the directors submitted notice of the FDIC lawsuit to the insurer, the insurer took the position that the notice was untimely. The directors filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer is required to pay defense costs and any settlements or judgments in the FDIC’s lawsuit. The directors also alleged a claim for reformation of the policy. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

 

The February 5 Opinion

In his February 5 opinion, Judge Herlong granted the directors’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the directors had timely provided notice of the FDIC lawsuit to the insurer prior to the expiration of the extended reporting period.

 

The dispute that the court considered came down to the question whether the 12-month supplemental extended reporting period ran from the end of the policy period of the policy or from the end of the policy’s 60-day basic extended reporting period.

 

After a detailed review of the communications between the various parties involved in the acquisition of the supplemental extended reporting period, the court concluded that

 

Although the Policy provided a 60-day basic Extended Reporting Period automatically, [the D&O insurer] charged the Bank the maximum permitted under the Policy, a 200 percent premium, for the 12-months of Supplemental Extended Reporting Period coverage. However [the D&O insurer] erroneously used the dates November 3, 2010 to November 3, 2011. Thus under [the D&O insurer’s] argument, the Bank paid for 12 months and received only 10 months of additional extended reporting coverage. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the starting and ending dates of the Endorsement conflict with the terms of the Policy and is ambiguous because it is subject to different interpretations regarding the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period and the 12-month Supplemental Extended Reporting Period.

 

The D&O insurer argued that all of the documents and communications, including in particular the endorsement showing a supplemental extended reporting period from November 3, 2010 to November 3, 2011, “support a finding that the intent of the parties was to eliminate the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period.”

 

Judge Herlong said that this “is an amazing argument, “ asking the question “Why would the Bank forfeit the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period when the Policy specifically provides that if the Bank purchases an extended reporting period of 12 months, the 12-month period begins when the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period ‘ends’?”

 

Judge Herlong concluded that “the evidence is clear that the Plaintiffs did not know or intend to forfeit the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period. To the contrary, the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the Plaintiffs paid for 14-months of extended reporting coverage, which includes the 60-day Basic Extended Reporting Period and the 12-month Supplemental Extended Reporting Period.” Judge Herlong granted the directors request to reform the schedule of the endorsement to allow for notice during the period January 3, 2011 to January 3, 2012, as a result of which the directors’ notice to the insurer of the FDIC’s lawsuit was timely.

 

Discussion

Although this decision is fact intensive and is a reflection of the specific policy language involved, it nevertheless represents a cautionary tale that is worth heeding. D&O policies are complex contracts with a variety of parts that interact in myriad subtle ways. My review of the sequence of events here as well as a familiarity with the way that the transaction of the kind involved here are processed suggests to me that the parties really were not fully conscious of the possible complications arising from the interaction between the basic extended reporting period and the supplemental extended reporting period.

 

Once the dispute arose, the parties tried to argue over what had been intended, when in reality there had really been no intent, as the persons involved in the transaction may not have been conscious of the potential issue in the first place; the carrier provided a quote with and issued the supplemental extended reporting period endorsement with dates that did not take the 60-day basic extended reporting period into account. The bank and its representatives accepted the quote and placed the order for the supplemental extended reporting period without objecting that the specific period that the carrier proposed to provide did not take the 60-day basic extended reporting period into account. Accordingly, faced with a fundamentally ambiguous situation (but taking into account the policy’s provision that the supplemental extended reporting period starts when the basic extended reporting period ends), the court construed the situation in the directors’ favor.

 

I think anyone who has been involved in these kinds of situations can see how this happened. The policy allowed for a 12 month reporting period extension, the bank said it wanted a 12 month extension, and the carrier issued an endorsement that extended the reporting period 12 months. Because I can see how what happened here could happen, I am reluctant to try to draw conclusions too broadly, other than to say that this case does provide a lesson for us all on the need when modifying a policy to consider all of the ways that the proposed modification will affect the policy.  On a much simpler level, the case does provide an important illustration of the ways that the policy’s various extended reporting provisions interact. I want to make clear that in stating these conclusions here, I do not mean to suggest that I am finding fault with anyone’s actions. As I said, I can see how this situation came about.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A shareholder of the holding company for a failed Virginia bank, the Bank of the Commonwealth, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia against the holding company and certain of the company’s directors and officers. The lawsuit, filed on January 22, 2013, follows after the July 2012 indictment of four of the bank’s officers, and the SEC’s January 9, 2013 filing of a civil enforcement action against three of the bank’s former officers. A copy of the shareholder’s securities class action complaint can be found here.

 

The Bank of the Commonwealth of Norfolk, Virginia failed on September 23, 2011. As discussed in a prior post (here, second item), on July 11, 2012, a grand jury returned an indictment (here) against the bank’s former Chairman and CEO, Edward Woodard, Jr.,  for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, false entry in a bank record, multiple counts of unlawful participation in a loan, multiple counts of false statement to a financial institution, and multiple counts of misapplication of bank funds. Three other former officers of the bank and two of its customers are charged with a variety of related charges. The FBI’s July 12, 2012 press release regarding the indictment can be found here.

 

As described in its January 9, 2013 press release (here), the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against Woodard, Cynthia Sabol, the bank’s CFO, and Stephen Fields, the bank’s former executive vice president. The SEC’s complaint, which can be found here, asserts claims for securities fraud against the three defendants for alleged “misrepresentations to investors by the bank’s parent company.” The SEC charged the three “for understating millions of dollars of losses and masking the true health of the bank’s loan portfolio at the height of the financial crisis.” The SEC alleges that Woodard “knew the true state” of the bank’s “rapidly deteriorating loan portfolio,” yet he “worked to hide the problems and engineer the misleading public statements.” Sabol also allegedly knew of the efforts to mask the problems yet signed the disclosures and certified the bank’s financial statements. Fields allegedly oversaw the bank’s construction loans and helped mask the problems.

 

Following just days after the SEC filed its enforcement action, a holding company investor filed a securities class action complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 22, 2013. The complaint names as defendants the holding company itself, six of its former officers and seven directors. The complaint alleges that the defendants “concealed” the holding company’s and the bank’s “true financial condition in a number of ways,” including “fraudulently underreporting the Company’s allowance for loan and lease losses (‘ALLL’) and provision for loan and lease losses … in an effort to overstate the quality and nature of the Bank’s loan portfolio.”

 

The complaint further alleges that “the truth of the Company’s true financial condition emerged through partial disclosures,” and while the company announced increases in ALLL and the provision for loan and lease losses during the class period “it fraudulently attempted to do so with a ‘soft landing’ by failed to increase ALLL and the Provision to the full extent required, and at the same time issuing false reassurances to investors.”

 

The complaint alleges that the holding company, Woodard, Sabol, and Woodard’s successor as CEO, Chris Beisel, violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. In a separate count, the complaint alleges that the remaining individual defendants are liable to the plaintiff class as Control Persons under Section 20 of the Exchange Act.

 

Among the individual defendants named in the complaint is Thomas W. Moss, Jr, a former director of the bank and presently the Norfolk City Treasure and a former speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates. A January 24, 2013 Virginian-Pilot article about the new lawsuit quotes Moss as saying that “the board is clean on this” and saying with respect to the plaintiff that “he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” adding that “the feds haven’t found a thing wrong with the board.”

 

The named plaintiff in the complaint, Robert Bogatitus, accompanied his complaint with a certification stating among other things that he had purchased a total of 2000 shares in the bank holding company four separate transactions between May and September 2011. Interestingly, all four of the purchase transactions took place after the company filed its 2010 10-K on April 15, 2011. In the 10-K, the company revealed that “[a] federal grand jury is investigating the Bank and certain of its former and current officers regarding lending and reporting practices of the Bank and the manner in which certain loans and loan renewals were considered and approved.” In addition, the plaintiff purchased half of his 2,000 shares of holding company stock on September 26, 2011 – three days after the September 23, 2011 closure of the bank. The patterns of the plaintiff’s purchases seem to undercut the suggestion that he made his purchases in reliance on representations about the bank’s loan quality and financial condition.

 

In the wake of current wave of bank failures, much of the focus (including on this blog) has been concentrated on the lawsuits that the FDIC has been filing against former directors and officers of the failed banks. But as the circumstances involving this failed bank show, the post-failure legal proceedings can and sometimes do include a host of other kinds of actions, both civil and criminal. Indeed, at least as of today, the FDIC itself has not filed an action in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank against this bank’s former directors and officers.

 

The proliferation of legal proceedings here underscores the range of exposures that bank directors and officers can face following a bank’s failure, beyond just the risk of an FDIC D&O action. These proceedings also show the diversity of demands that can be put on a failed bank’s D&O insurance program. It is of course impossible to discern from the outside whether and to what extent this bank carried D&O insurance at the time it failed, and whether or not any insurance remained in place when these various actions have commenced. But to the extent the bank had D&O insurance in place that remained in effect as these various actions have arisen, the attorneys’ fees and costs from the various actions are likely to quickly erode the remaining limits of liability.

 

If nothing else, the various proceedings also underscore the range of exposures that face bank directors and officers. For those advising banks with respect to their D&O insurance – particularly with respect to publicly traded banks – the sequence of events here represents something of a cautionary example. The proceedings that have followed this bank’s failure provide a substantial example of the kinds of risks that the program should be designed to address.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a link to the Virginian-Pilot article linked to above.

 

The Beginning of Another Epic Journey for a Familiar Company? : As reflected in detail here, on June 18, 2002, plaintiff shareholders filed a securities class action lawsuit against Tellabs and certain of its directors and officers. The case would eventually makes its way all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where in 2007 the Court would enter a landmark opinion decision defining the standards to be applied at the dismissal motion stage in a securities class action. The decision is widely viewed as a setback for securities class action plaintiff. After the Supreme Court decision, the case returned to the lower court for extensive further proceedings (including an important interlude in the Seventh Circuit). Finally in April 2011, nearly nine years after the case began, the parties settled the case for $7.375 million.

 

Whether or not the ultimate outcome was worth it after that tortuous journey, another set of plaintiffs are back at it again. As reflected in the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ January 23, 2013 press release (here), plaintiff investors filed a new securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs and certain of its directors and officers. According to the press release, the Complaint alleges that:

 

the defendants failed to disclose, among others: (1) that in the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company was changing its distribution arrangement with a customer; (2) that this change to the distribution arrangement masked that Tellabs’ business was declining substantially faster than the Company had represented to the public; (3) that the Company's North American business was slowing at a greater rate than the Company had represented to the public; and (4) that, as a result of the above, the defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

 

It is always hard to know at the outset of a securities suit where it is going to lead, but I suspect that these plaintiffs do not expect another nine year marathon and certainly are hoping that they will not have to make another foray to the Supreme Court. In any event, when the company files its inevitable motion to dismiss, it will be able to rely heavily on the principles established in a Supreme Court decision with the company’s own name on it.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Picking up where it left off at the end of the year, the FDIC has filed its first failed bank D&O lawsuit of 2013. The lawsuit, which the agency filed on January 17, 2013 in the District of New Mexico, names as defendants ten former directors and officers of the failed Charter Bank, New Mexico. The complaint, which the FDIC filed in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank, alleges claims for negligence, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, can be found here.

 

Charter Bank failed on January 22, 2010, so the FDIC filed the complaint just before the third anniversary of the bank’s closure (and just before a long holiday weekend as well.) The complaint alleges that prior to its failure the bank committed 72% of the bank’s core capital to a “highly speculative and risky” subprime lending operation in Denver, Colorado in late 2006, when the defendants “knew or should have known” there was no secondary market for subprime mortgage loans. The operation made loans that “no reasonable institution” would have made at the time, and relaxed underwriting standards to do so. Unable to sell the mortgages into the secondary market, the bank had to take the loans onto its own balance sheet, which cause the bank to suffer financial losses.

 

The lawsuit, the first that the FDIC has filed in 2013, is also the first that the agency has filed in New Mexico as part of the current failed bank litigation wave. This latest lawsuit is the 45^th that the agency has filed as during the current banking crisis, 26 of which were filed in 2012. (These figures, both overall and for 2012, include the lawsuit filed just before the holidays in the Central District of California in connection with the failed Alliance Bank of Culver City, California. The FDIC’s complaint, filed on December 21, 2012, in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank against X former directors and officer of the bank can be found here.)

 

There undoubtedly are more lawsuits to come. On January 22, 2013, the FDIC updated the page on its website on which the agency indicates the current number of lawsuits that the agency has authorized. According to the latest update, as of January 15, 2013, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 95 failed institutions against 788 individuals for D&O liability. This includes 45 filed D&O lawsuits naming 355 former directors and officers. The 45 lawsuits filed involve 44 failed institutions, so the implication is that there are lawsuits involving some 51 failed institutions yet to come – based on the number of lawsuits that have been authorized so far. Since the FDIC has increased the number of authorized lawsuits each month for several months in a row now, the likelihood seems to be that there are at least 51 more lawsuits – and possibly many more – to come in the months ahead.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the current wave of bank failure litigation has unfolded, the directors and officers of banking institutions rightly have become more concerned about the own potential liability exposures and interested in learning more about how they might be able to reduce their risks and exposures. In the following guest post, Joseph T. Lynyak III and Rodney R. Peck of the Pillsbury law firm take a look at the current litigation environment facing directors and officers of financial institutions and provide some practical steps that these officials can take to try to mitigate their risks

.

I would like to thank Joe and Rob for their willingness to publish their articcle on this site. I welcome guest posts from responsible commentators on topics of relevance to this blog. Any readers who are interested in publishing a guest post on this site are encouraged to contact me directly. Here is Joe's and Rod’s guest post.

 

 

 

In this article, we analyze the steps that officers and directors of bank and non-bank financial companies and their holding companies and affiliates can take to address personal liability for alleged breaches of duty to manage and supervise a financial company’s operations, allegations which are being made in an increasing number by federal and state regulatory agencies, including the federal banking agencies and the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

 

On December 10, 2012, a California jury returned a verdict of $169 million in a case brought by the FDIC against three former IndyMac Bancorp Inc. executives after determining that those officers were negligent in making loans to homebuilders by continuing to push for growth in loan production without proper regard for creditworthiness and market conditions. Soon thereafter, the former CEO of IndyMac Bank agreed to pay $1 million from his personal assets in addition to available insurance proceeds to settle another FDIC claim related to the failure of IndyMac Bank. In an unrelated yet problematic series of developments, the newly formed CFPB recently assessed civil money penalties against three holding companies for aggressive marketing practices in an aggregate amount exceeding $500 million.

 

Approximately 25 lawsuits were filed in 2012 by the FDIC against former officers and directors of failed institutions, up from 16 in 2011. In total, more than 40 lawsuits have been filed against officers and directors of failed institutions since 2010. Since the beginning of 2007, approximately 467 financial institutions have failed. The FDIC has indicated that it is continuing its investigation of many bank failures and additional actions can be expected. Outside directors, in addition to inside directors and senior officers, were named in 30 of the cases. (See, Cornerstone Research, “Characteristics of FDIC Lawsuits Against Directors and Officers of Failed Financial Institutions,” December 2012.)

 

These and similar administrative and civil enforcement actions brought by governmental entities have caused considerable concern among officers and directors of financial services companies. Specifically, many individuals have raised questions whether—and in what circumstances—management or members of a board of directors might be held personally liable for similar penalties or damages, and if so, what prudent actions could be taken to mitigate that risk.

 

Although these issues are complex and the risk will vary based upon differences between the corporate laws of state jurisdictions and the possible applicability of several banking and securities laws (among others), this article presents an overview and proposed approach to analyzing the risk of personal liability. It also includes a methodology to evaluate protections that might be available under current corporate governance provisions.

 

What follows is a summary of pertinent legal issues relating to the risk of personal liability, distinctions to be drawn between liability arising in the bank and non-bank context, and steps that directors and officers might take to minimize personal liability risk, as well as a methodology for taking an inventory of existing protections available to a board and management.

 

Overview and Summary—State Corporate Laws

From a traditional corporate law perspective, both officers and directors of a corporation owe a duty to the corporation to avoid self-dealing and conflicts of interest (the “duty of loyalty”) and an affirmative obligation to use reasonable efforts to properly manage and supervise the business of the company (the “duty of care”). The degree or standard by which an officer or director must comply with his or her duty of care is generally governed by the corporate law of the state in which the company is incorporated. That standard can range from an obligation to act in a reasonable manner and avoid negligent actions or decisions, to a diminished level of care that creates personal liability only in the case in which one acts in a grossly negligent fashion.

 

Because most state legislatures have considered these questions, each state’s Corporations Code has its own version of the duty of care, and in many jurisdictions the courts have further refined that standard by judicial interpretation. For example, in several states, liability for breaching the duty of care can only be actionable when a director or officer is grossly negligent, while in other states the standard of gross negligence protects only outside directors while management is held to the higher standard of mere negligence. Further, in many jurisdictions there is recognition—either by statute, case law or common law—that directors and/or officers may rely upon the so-called “business judgment rule” that protects them against personal liability provided that the officer or director took reasonable steps to come to a decision even when the decision is proven to be wrong.

 

In addition, several states have authorized limitations of liability for corporate misfeasance by permitting a corporation to adopt provisions in its articles or bylaws that further limit liability for board members or management. Importantly, in recent years, several states have adopted expanded indemnification rights for corporate stakeholders by permitting a corporation to adopt in its articles and bylaws very broad rights to indemnify officers and directors against individual damage claims brought against them in their individual capacities.

 

The lesson to be learned is that concerned officers and directors should establish a baseline to identify by what state law standard they will be measured when being judged regarding compliance with the duty of care, as well as related state law limitations regarding liability.

 

Additional Concerns for FDIC-Insured Institutions, Subsidiaries and Holding Companies

In addition to the state law standards regarding a director or officer complying with his/her duty of care, there are several other significant considerations that require attention for an officer or director of an FDIC-insured institution or a bank or savings and loan holding company.

 

First, an important U.S. Supreme Court decision, Atherton v. FDIC, confirms that there is no federal common law regarding the duty of care for a national bank or a federal savings association. Accordingly, based upon the Atherton decision (which interpreted a provision of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or the “FDI Act”, for receivership claims brought by the FDIC following a failure of a bank or thrift), the standard for national bank and federal association officers and directors generally follows state law, except that state law cannot impose a standard lower than gross negligence. Of course, for banks and bank holding companies organized under state corporate laws, the duties of care on the part of officers and directors are governed by such laws (subject to the partial preemption under the Atherton decision).

 

Second, applicable regulations for national banks and federal savings associations provide a useful alternative that permits a national bank or federal savings association to adopt for corporate governance purposes the Corporations Code of the state in which the institution is located, the Model Business Corporations Act or the Delaware General Corporations Code. This is a potentially valuable option that should be carefully considered. For example, in states in which liability for bank officers is based upon the higher standard of mere negligence, adopting the corporate law of Delaware not only lowers the standard for breach of the duty of care to gross negligence, but may also provide enhanced protection in regard to indemnification and the availability of the Delaware version of the business judgment rule.

 

However, it should be noted that Section 18(k) of the FDI Act (and thus, FDIC’s regulations) severely (and unfairly) limits indemnification rights of officers and directors of FDIC-insured institutions, their subsidiaries and their holding companies in instances in which civil money penalties and other regulatory enforcement orders are assessed against an “institution affiliated party,” which includes officers and directors of an FDIC-insured institution, its subsidiaries and any parent holding company. Even though defense costs may be paid or advanced by an institution (and commercial insurance may be purchased to pay such expenses), the proceeds of the insurance cannot be used to pay for penalties assessed.

 

Mitigation Considerations for Officers and Directors

If there is a key conclusion that can be drawn from this discussion, it should be that individuals acting as officers and directors of financial intermediaries should engage in advance planning and clearly understand the nature of their rights in regard to administrative enforcement actions that might be brought by one of the federal banking agencies or the CFPB. Importantly, when complying with his or her duty of care, an officer or director should ensure that the record reflects reasonable steps to comply with that standard.

 

In that regard, an officer or director should be provided with legal advice as to what degree of diligence and review should be incorporated into the decision-making process, as well as how that process is reflected in the records of the institution. Particularly in the case in which the business judgment rule is available, the business records of the entity should reflect that all appropriate steps were taken prior to decisions being made.

 

It should be noted, however, that a distinction should be drawn between an FDIC receivership claim and assessment of civil money penalties by the CFPB or one of the federal banking agencies. In the case of a receivership claim following a bank failure, the above-referenced duty of care for personal liability purposes (e.g., negligence, gross negligence, etc.) is most often a determinative factor. However, in the administrative context in which civil money penalties are being assessed, culpability need not be based upon the failure to comply with a duty of care, but rather, can be based upon an institution’s compliance or non-compliance with an enforcement order previously issued in which officers and directors are ordered to take specific remedial steps to achieve compliance.

 

A Methodology for Determining and Achieving Reasonable Risk Mitigation to Avoid Personal Liability

As even the casual observer can see, being an officer or director for a financial institution—whether FDIC-insured or otherwise—presents a range of challenges. Complicating the situation is the nature of legal representation of companies, in that counsel for a company is usually not deemed to be providing individual legal advice to officers or directors, and hence the use of in-house counsel or a company’s outside lawyers to provide personal advice may not be appropriate or available in all cases.

 

We suggest that several steps be considered to address the concerns discussed by this article.

 

First, as noted above, officers and board members should obtain an overview of the rules governing compliance with the duty of care applicable to the company, including how courts and agencies have interpreted those rules. Among other things, identifying process issues and evidencing development of policies and procedures is essential, as well as ensuring that business records reflect robust discussion and reasonable reliance on experts (i.e., to be able to take advantage of the business judgment rule).

 

Second, a corporate governance review should take place to determine whether corporate documents such as articles and bylaws include the most favorable indemnification rights permitted under applicable law. (In that regard, it is important to note that in most cases such protections are optional under state corporate law and must be affirmatively adopted by a company’s board of directors.)

 

Third, employment agreements and indemnification agreements should be reviewed and updated on an annual basis to maximize contractual rights for designated officers and directors.

 

Fourth, extreme care should be exercised when transactions or other matters arise in which the director or officer may be seen as having a conflict of interest. All corporate processes should be followed, including full disclosure of the nature of the conflict, approval of the matter by a majority of disinterested directors, advice of counsel, etc.

 

Fifth, directors should work with management to establish internal tracking systems on matters requiring attention (“MRA”) arising out of regulatory examinations. Repeat violations of law or failure to remediate troublesome conditions by the next examination can be seen as a lack of proper board oversight. Careful attention should be given to the regulators’ evaluation of management and appropriate action taken when poor ratings are given. However, reliance on the regulators’ evaluations of management alone may not be sufficient because it appears that regulatory evaluations of management in many cases of failed banks have not been significantly downgraded by the regulators until a year or two before the bank’s failure. (Cornerstone Research, supra.)

 

Finally, a legal review of a company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies should be conducted and benchmarked against similar institutions in similar circumstances. It should also be noted that the contractual terms of directors’ and officers’ liability policies are frequently negotiable, and can result in valuable additional liability protection.

 

Other Standards of Liability Impacting Officers and Directors of a Financial Company

Although this article focuses on corporate and banking liability standards applicable to officers and directors of a financial intermediary, other standards of care arise in particular circumstances as part of the performance of the activities of an officer or director of a financial company. For example, in several instances under the federal securities laws, a corporate officer for a registered company can be held liable in civil or SEC actions for material misstatements in offering materials unless the director has engaged in a “due diligence” review. In regard to companies and “institution affiliated parties” that are subject to Section 8 of the FDI Act, liability might be viewed as a strict liability standard if a federal banking agency views the actions of an officer or director as having engaged in a violation of a federal law, regulation, or unsafe or unsound banking practice. Similarly, the newly established CFPB may also directly access civil money penalties and other remedial measures if an officer or director has participated in the violation of a covered federal consumer protection law.

 

Please note that this article summarizes several complex liability topics and by its nature is a starting point for further inquiry by officers and directors of banks and non-banks participating in the financial services industry.

 

Joseph T. Lynyak III is a partner in the Finance practice at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. He can be reached at (213) 488-7265 or joseph.lynyak@pillsburylaw.com.

 

Rodney R. Peck is a partner in the Corporate & Securities practice at Pillsbury in San Francisco. He can be reached at (415) 983-1516 or rodney.peck@pillsburylaw.com.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the most vexing problems that can arise in the D&O claims context is when the amount of insurance available proves to be insufficient to resolve the pending claims. Although this problem can arise in many claims contexts, one particular context in which the problem can arise is in the context of claims by the FDIC as receiver of a failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers.

 

In the following guest post, John F. McCarrick takes a look at these issues in the failed bank context and proposes a solution. John is a partner in the New York offices of the law firm White and Williams LLP, and focuses his practice on director and officer liability and related insurance coverage issues. The comments in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views of White and Williams LLP or any of its clients.

 

I would like to thank John for his willingness to publish his guest post on this site. I welcome guest posts from responsible commentators on topics of relevance to this blog. Any readers who are interested in publishing a guest post on this site are encouraged to contact me directly. Here is John’s guest post. 

 

            It’s a point of increasing discussion – and heated debate – in FDIC claims against the directors and officers of failed banks: the available D&O insurance limits of liability are insufficient to meet the FDIC’s settlement expectations, Who bears responsibility for purchasing adequate bank D&O insurance limits? And who should be blamed if the available D&O insurance coverage proves to be insufficient? To make matters worse, quantifying adequate D&O insurance is akin to aiming at a moving target. D&O insurance is a wasting asset; amounts spent on defense costs and on resolving non-FDIC claims reduce – on a dollar-for-dollar basis – the limits of liability left to settle an FDIC claim made during that same policy period. Should defendant directors and officers of a failed bank be expected to contribute to settlements out of their own, now-thinner wallets. Is this a fair outcome? On a more practical level, isn’t there a better way to avoid this outcome?

 

The Scorecard to Date

Since January 1, 2007, 467 U.S. financial institutions have failed. Of this total, the FDIC thus far has sued the directors and officers of 40 failed banks, and has reported agency authorization to file an additional 49 lawsuits. According to Cornerstone Research, the failures of the 40 institutions that are the subject of FDIC-initiated D&O lawsuits had a median estimated cost to the FDIC of $134 million.   Only six of these lawsuits had settled as of December 2012.

 

One FDIC case has gone to trial. On December 7, 2012 a jury in federal court in Los Angeles awarded $169 million to the FDIC in its suit against three former officers of IndyMac. Given the absence of significant personal assets of the three former IndyMac officers to satisfy this judgment, the FDIC is seeking to intervene in pending coverage litigation in an effort to recover some or all of the remaining D&O limits from IndyMac’s 2007 and 2008 D&O insurance towers. However, even a complete win by the FDIC in the D&O coverage litigation would allow the FDIC to recover just a percentage of the awarded jury verdict.

 

            The FDIC’s track record in settlement recoveries is not significantly better. The chart below shows reported settlement amounts compared to FDIC estimated losses.

Name of Institution	FDIC Est’d Cost of Failure	Claimed Damages in Complaint	Settlement Amount
	(Millions)	(Millions)	(Millions)
Westsound Bank	$108	$15	$2
County Bank	$135	$42	TBD
Heritage Community Bank	$42	$20	Not Reported
Washington Mutual Bank	$0	TBD at Trial	$64[1]
First National Bank of Nevada	$862	$193	$40
Corn Belt Bank & Trust Co.	$100	$10	Not Reported

Source: Cornerstone Research,Characteristics of FDIC Lawsuits Against Directors and Officers of Failed Financial Institutions (December 2012)

 

 

Shortly after the above Cornerstone Research report was issued, former IndyMac CEO Michael Perry reportedly reached an agreement with the FDIC to settle the FDIC’s lawsuit against him for a payment by Perry of $1 million out of his own assets plus an additional $11 million in potential insurance funds through an assignment of Perry’s rights under his D&O policies.

 

With respect to the FDIC D&O cases still pending, the insured deposit losses paid by the FDIC in each case generally far outstrip the available D&O insurance proceeds. Moreover, because each failed bank’s D&O policies must respond to not only FDIC claims, but also other potential sources of D&O claims, including for example, shareholder and derivative claims, debtor claims brought by or on behalf of the bank holding company and claims brought by creditors of the failed bank, the FDIC is often faced with a materially-depleted insurance asset when it comes time to settle FDIC litigation against the directors and offices of a failed bank. To make matters worse (for the FDIC), the available limits of liability under D&O policies are eroded on a dollar-for-dollar basis by defense costs incurred prior to any settlement across all of these categories of claims and in defending collateral regulatory investigations. 

 

A Solution That is Not Novel

If the perceived inadequacy of D&O insurance limits is an issue of real concern for the FDIC, there is a simple solution to this problem: use the FDIC’s regulatory authority to require the purchase of D&O insurance limits in an amount proportional to the amount of risk created for the FDIC by aggregate insured deposits. This approach is by no means novel or creative: in fact, the FDIC already mandates that banks purchase fidelity bond insurance coverage.

 

By statute, the Federal Deposit Insurance Company can require insured financial institutions to maintain fidelity bonds to insure against such losses, and the FDIC has chosen to mandate that requirement. Other federal banking regulators, as well as most state regulators, also require universal fidelity coverage. For instance, the Comptroller of the Currency requires national banks to have "adequate fidelity coverage."

 

Similar mandatory purchases of fidelity bond coverage are detailed in the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). ERISA Section 412(a) requires that every fiduciary of an employee benefit plan and every person who handles funds or other property of the plan must be bonded, with limited exceptions.

 

The amount of the ERISA fidelity bond is fixed at the beginning of each plan year and cannot be less than 10 percent of the amount of the funds handled. The amount of funds handled is determined by the amount of funds handled by the person, group, or class to be covered by the bond and by their predecessor(s), if any, during the previous reporting year.[2]

 

The FDIC also presumably has the authority to specify the kinds of D&O products most directly accessible for primarily FDIC recovery purposes. The following chart shows some of the obstacles faced by the FDIC, and the D&O insurance market solutions that have developed in response to similar concerns raised by other kinds of D&O insureds.

 

Types of Available D&O Insurance

FDIC Perceived Concern	Available D&O market solution	Comments
Inadequate insurance limits	Ample D&O limits capacity through U.S., Bermuda and Lloyd’s markets	Limits could be tied to FDIC exposure for insured deposits, as a correlated percentage of those deposits
Dilution of available limits	Side-A D&O insurance	Side A limits are preserved for claims against D&Os when advancement or indemnification from the bank is unavailable due to its insolvency, and provides no coverage for the bank’s own liability
Preserved limits for potential FDIC claims	Side-A insurance potentially sitting excess of a traditional ABC D&O tower	Underlying limits would be used for defending and resolving competing D&O claims, including by shareholders and creditors, preserving limits for a more limited set of liability exposures above the standard D&O limits
Denial of coverage by underlying D&O insurers	Side A DIC insurance	DIC (Difference-in-conditions) contains, as one coverage trigger, a denial of coverage by an underlying D&O insurer

So why are these D&O market solutions available now, and why weren’t they available in the late 1980s during the last significant wave of bank failures?

 

The Changed Landscape for Bank D&O Liability -- and for D&O Insurance

The battleground over available D&O insurance for regulatory claims over failed banks bears little resemblance to that of the so-called S&L crisis of the late 1980s. Although D&O insurance had been available for 30-odd years before the wave of FDIC/RTC litigation against failed banks and S&Ls, D&O insurance was still, in the late 1980s, a relatively immature insurance product -- one that had been designed primarily for public companies and their directors and officers facing shareholder class actions and derivative litigation exposures.

 

The S&L crisis and accompanying D&O litigation brought by banking regulators arguably comprised the first systemic loss event for the financial institutions sector of the D&O insurance industry, and the industry’s arsenal of defensive weaponry -- in the form of “insured v. insured” exclusions, regulatory exclusions, aggregation of losses and multiple deductibles -- were tested, to varying outcomes, in state and federal courts throughout the United States. The experience was both difficult and instructive for D&O insurers and bank policyholders. As a result of that experience, D&O underwriters became more aware of the size and scope of potential claims involving bank insureds, and began underwriting to a fuller set of potential exposures. Buyers of D&O bank policies obtained more certainty about how the policies would respond in the event of a bank failure.

 

In the intervening years since the S&L crisis, there have been two major developments impacting bank D&O insurance. The first is that a series of lengthy competitive (or “soft”) underwriting market cycles (punctuated by short “hard” markets) has led to a material broadening of D&O policy terms across all underwriting segments, such that the typical D&O policy of today is materially broader in scope than the typical D&O policy of 1987. Expanded insuring agreements, key definitions and liberalizing endorsements, coupled with narrower exclusions and exclusion triggers, have collectively resulted in a materially broader D&O insurance contract, covering a wide range of entity and individual insureds. 

 

A related development has been an increase in the number of insurers willing to sell D&O policies. This increase in competition, coupled with broader D&O policy terms, has meant that D&O buyers could purchase materially broader coverage from a larger number of insurers, at lower prices.   D&O insurers also now offer a number of other related D&O insurance products, such as Side-A only coverage, independent director liability coverage, and investigations coverage to D&O insurance buyers.

 

The foregoing is an overly-abbreviated list of significant changes relating to D&O insurance that have had the intended effect of making D&O insurance available to buyers on materially better (and broader) terms, and at lower prices. Banks have benefitted from these insurance market developments, and D&O insurance is a routine – albeit voluntary -- purchase for large and small banks in the United States.

 

 The second significant development relating to bank D&O liability insurance since the late 1980s is that banks have materially changed the way they operate and make money. There are numerous reasons why banks have changed their business models since the late 1980s but here are a few of the most significant reasons:

 

1.      The repeal of Sections 20 and 32 the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 allowed larger banks to engage in commercial activity outside traditional bank deposit and lending activities, including investment banking, securities underwriting and insurance, and even smaller banks were forced to adapt their business models;

2.      The rise of mortgage securitizations encouraged banks to sell off their mortgage portfolios, and focus on earning money primarily through loan initiation fees; and

3.      Proprietary trading allowed banks to make money by trading for their own accounts.

 

Of course, not all banks engaged in all of these activities; however, market competition among banks is being increasingly driven by their success in business activities outside traditional bank deposit and lending activities. In the wake of the credit crisis, it is clear that these non-banking activities have the ability to generate – and indeed, have generated -- significant D&O and professional liability claims activity from shareholders, customers, creditors and non-banking regulators, posing significant competition for the very D&O insurance limits the FDIC targets as its primary source of recovery in failed bank D&O litigation.  

 

These two significant developments -- broader D&O polices sold for lower premiums and a potentially broad range of business activities carried out under a bank banner -- set the stage for a drastically different test for the next wave of bank failures.

 

That next wave of bank failures arrived beginning in 2008 courtesy of the so-called subprime crisis. Falling house prices undermined the packaged securities holding residential mortgages, leading to a near collapse in credit availability, choking off cash flow for banks and their customers.

 

Of the banks most significantly impaired by the credit crisis, some banks were acquired by larger, more stable banks – with some unfortunate results. Other banks simply failed, requiring the FDIC to compensate depositors for their insured deposits, and place the failed banks into an unduly liquidation process. Litigation inevitably followed -- not just by the FDIC, but also by shareholders of bank holding companies, bank employees whose 401(K) retirement savings were held in the bank’s now worthless stock, and bank creditors too.

 

The FDIC does not appear to have kept up with the collateral liability and D&O insurance developments impacting the financial institutions whose customer deposits the FDIC insures. But, as discussed above, there appear to be some relatively simple fixes available.

 

For example, the FDIC could require that a bank purchase a minimum level of insurance limits of Side-A D&O coverage, under the reasoning that the FDIC would not want its regulated limits of liability impaired by defense costs, settlements or judgments payable to other claimants by, for example, the insured entity or non-officer employees. Such a required purchase would not prohibit a bank or bank holding company from purchasing broader types of D&O policies including, for example, conventional D&O policies that insure the named entity for securities related claims and other non-FDIC claims.

 

It is not the ordinary preference of bank managers (or the bank’s shareholders) to allocate substantial additional monies each year to D&O insurance premiums. Moreover, bank D&O insurance rates increase across the board when – as was the case in 2007-2010 -- the entire industry sector is financially weakened. Nevertheless, it seems apparent that a scenario in which defendant directors and officers of failed banks must make personal settlement contributions to facilitate the settlement of an FDIC claim in light of impaired or otherwise inadequate D&O insurance limits proves the point that current models used in estimating and purchasing appropriate bank D&O limits are flawed, and negatively impact the FDIC’s ability to obtain a reasonable recovery for taxpayers -- while placing bank managers’ personal assets at great risk.

 

This type of solution probably would not have been feasible in the late 1980s, when fewer than 10 insurers regularly underwrote D&O insurance. Today, there are more than 60 insurers selling D&O insurance for U.S. risks, enhancing the ability of banks to secure necessary additional limits of liability from numerous well-capitalized D&O insurers. Of this number, 26 carriers also actively underwrite Side A D&O insurance, suggesting that there are numerous purchasing choices for D&O insurance in general, and Side A insurance, in particular.

 

Conclusion

Neither policyholders nor D&O insurers favor unnecessarily outsized settlements of bank D&O claims, and there is always a legitimate concern that policyholders could be waste money unnecessarily on overly large or complex D&O insurance programs. On the other hand, absent some compelling reasons -- such as fraud, self-dealing and the like – it is a questionable rationale for the FDIC to demand personal settlement contributions from directors and officers of failed banks based primarily on allegations of simple negligence and for failing to procure sufficient D&O insurance to meet the FDIC’s resolution expectations. If indeed a key driver of demands for personal contributions by the FDIC is inadequate amounts of D&O insurance, there is an easy fix to that problem.

 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I have discussed in prior posts (refer here for example), one of the recurring D&O insurance coverage issues that has arisen in connection with the FDIC’s failed bank litigation is the question whether or not the FDIC’s claims as receiver for the failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers trigger the D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion. In a terse January 4, 2013 opinion (here), Northern District of Georgia Judge Robert L. Vining, Jr. held that, owing to the “multiple roles” in which the FDIC acts in pursuing claims against the former directors and officers of a failed bank, there is “ambiguity” on the question whether the FDIC’s lawsuit triggers the insured vs. insured exclusion.

 

Background

Omni National Bank of Atlanta Georgia failed on March 27, 2009 (refer here). The FDIC was appointed as receiver for the failed bank. On March 16, 2012, the FDIC initiated a lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia against ten former directors and officers of the bank, asserting claims against the defendants for negligence and gross negligence in connection with the approval of certain loans on low-income residential properties.

 

The bank’s D&O insurer initiated a separate declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that there is no coverage under the bank’s D&O policy for the FDIC’s claims against the bank’s former directors and officers.

 

The D&O insurer filed a motion for summary judgment the declaratory judgment action, on three grounds: first: the carrier argued that because the FDIC as receiver “steps into the shoes” of the failed bank, the FDIC’s claim represents a claim “by, on behalf of, or at the behest of, the Company,” and therefore is precluded from coverage under the policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion; second, that the losses the FDIC seeks to recover do not fall within the policy’s definition of “loss,” which includes the so-called “loan loss carve-out”; and third that the policy does not in any event provide coverage for wrongful acts alleged against the former directors and officers that took place after the policy’s expiration.

 

The January 4 Opinion

In his January 4, 2013 opinion, Judge Vining denied the carrier’s motion for summary judgment with on the first two grounds, but granted summary judgment with respect to the alleged wrongful acts that took place after the policy’s expiration.

 

In rejecting the insurer’s argument that coverage is precluded by the policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion, Judge Vining said that “it is unclear whether the FDIC-R’s claims are ‘by ‘or ‘on behalf of’ the failed bank.” He added that “it is unclear what exactly is encompassed by the phrase ‘steps into the shoes.” These “ambiguities” arise, Judge Vining found, “in part because the FDIC-R differs from other receivers or conservators that might step into the shoes of a failed or insolvent bank.”

 

Judge Vining then reviewed the FDIC’s authority under FIREEA to recover losses, and the fact that in recovering losses the FDIC has authority to act on behalf of the bank’s depositors, creditors and shareholders.  Judge Vining noted that “the FDIC-R has multiple roles.” Accordingly, he concluded that “the FDIC-R has show that some ambiguity exists in the insured versus insured exclusion,” and he denied the carrier’s motion for summary judgment in reliance on the exclusion.

 

Judge Vining also rejected the carrier’s motion for summary judgment based on the argument that the financial losses the FDIC sought to recover did not constitute covered loss under the policy. Judge Vining found that “ambiguity exists in the definition of ‘loss’” because the “loan loss carve-out” does not “clearly exempt tortious claims” which is “the basis” for the FDIC’s claims in the underlying D&O liability action.

 

Discussion

Although D&O insurers have raised the insured vs. insured exclusion as a defense to coverage in connection with a number of FDIC failed bank claims, Judge Vining’s ruling in the Omni National Bank is so far as I am aware only the second ruling in connection with the current failed bank wave in which a court has made a ruling regarding the applicability of the insured v. insured exclusion to an action brought by the FDIC in its capacity as a receiver for a failed bank.

 

As discussed here, in October 2012, District of Puerto Rico Judge Gustavo Gelpi denied the D&O insurer’s motion to dismiss the coverage action the FDIC had brought against the carrier under Puerto Rico’s direct action statute. The D&O carrier involved had sought to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the D&O policy’s insured vs. insured exclusion precluded coverage for the FDIC’s claims in its capacity of the failed Westernbank against the bank’s former directors and officers. Judge Gelpi declined to dismiss the action, noting that the FDIC has authority under FIRREA to act “on behalf of depositors, account holders, and a depleted insurance fund,” and therefore that “the FDIC’s role as a regulator sufficiently distinguishes it from those whom the parties intended to prevent from bringing claims under the Exclusion.”

 

In both cases, the respective judges held that the carriers were not entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the exclusion precluded coverage. Both Judge Gelpi in the prior case and Judge Vining here determined that the Insured vs. Insured did not preclude coverage as a matter of law because the FDIC has the authority under FIRREA to act on behalf of a variety of different constituencies. The FDIC as well as individual directors and officers seeking coverage under their bank’s D&O insurance policies undoubtedly will seek to rely on these rulings in order to try to fight other carrier’s attempts to assert the Insured vs. Insured exclusion as a defense to coverage.

 

The insurers, however, will likely contend that even if the FDIC is acting on behalf of these other constituencies in bringing the suit, it is first and foremost bringing the suit in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank, as that is the basis upon which it has any right to bring the claims in the first place. The insurers will further argue that the sole basis on which the FDIC has any right to assert the claims is because, by operation of the receivership, it is acting “in the right of” the failed bank, and therefore the preclusive language of the exclusion applies, notwithstanding the fact that the FDIC may have other purposes and motivations in bringing the action.

 

The carriers will further argue that the policy’s exclusion does not require, in order for the exclusion to apply, that the action be brought “solely” or “only” “in the right of” the Organization. The insurers will argue that because the action was brought “in the right of” the Organization, the exclusion applies notwithstanding the fact that in bringing the claim the FDIC was also action on behalf of other constituencies.

 

Though these rulings unquestionably are helpful for the FDIC and the individual directors and officers, it seems likely that these issues will continue to be litigated in other cases.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of Judge Vining’s January 4 Order.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FDIC’s filing of lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks increased “markedly” during the fourth quarter of 2012 after a “lull” during the second and third quarters of the year, according to a new study from Cornerstone Research. The study, released December 18, 2012 and entitled “Characteristics of FDIC Lawsuits Against Directors and Officers of Failed Financial Institutions” can be found here. Cornerstone Research’s December 18 press release about the study can be found here.

 

As of December 7, 2012, the FDIC has filed a total of 23 lawsuits this year, compared to 18 total filed during 2010 and 2011. The FDIC filed nine lawsuits (so far) during the fourth quarter, the same as during the fist quarter, compared to two during the second quarter and three during the third quarter. The 41 lawsuits overall relate to 40 different financial institutions, meaning that so far the FDIC has filed lawsuits in connection with nine percent of the 467 financial institutions that have failed since January 1, 2007.  

 

(Since the December 7 closing date for the Cornerstone Research report, the FDIC has filed one additional lawsuit {refer here, second item} , bringing the quarter to date total to ten, the total this year to 24, and the total overall to 42. For clarity’s sake, throughout this post I have referenced the data used and analyzed in the Cornerstone Research study, rather than attempting to update it to reflect the additional lawsuit.)

 

The FDIC’s D&O lawsuits generally have targeted larger failed institutions and those with a higher estimated cost of failure, though the lawsuits the FDIC filed during he second half of 2012 have involved smaller and less costly failures. Overall the failed banks that have been targeted had median total assets of $647 million, compared to $225 million total assets for all failed banks. However, the failed banks targeted during the third and fourth quarters had median total assets of $136 million and $154 million respectively. The median estimated cost to the FDIC for the failed banks that the FDIC has targeted in D&O litigation has been $134 million, compared to a median estimated cost for all failed banks of $55 million. However, during the third and fourth quarters of 2012, the median total costs of failed banks that the FDIC has targeted in D&O litigation was $27.3 million and $58 million, respectively.

 

Most of the FDIC’s D&O lawsuits have included both officer and directors defendants. Only 11 of the 41 lawsuit the FDIC has filed have involved only officer defendants. 30 of the lawsuits have also involved director defendants, including seven of the nine lawsuits filed so far during the fourth quarter.

 

One particularly interesting observation in the report relates the failed institutions’ CAMELS ratings in the period preceding the banks’ closures. The CAMELS rating ranks the institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best score and 5 the lowest. (The CAMELS ratings are not public, but in the agency’s loss review of failed institutions includes a short history of the failed bank’s examination ratings.) The study reports that 86 percent of the institutions subject to FDIC lawsuits had composition ratings of 1 or 2 two years prior to their closure. Not until one to two years prior to failure did any of the institutions have a composite rating of 4 or 5, and 36 percent of the institutions still had a rating of 2 one year prior to closure. The report concludes that “Weak ratings were not a persistent historical problem for this group of institutions. The decline in ratings occurred near the end of their independent existence.”

 

The study also includes a helpful summary of all of the FDIC lawsuits that have settled so far, although readers should note that the recent settlement of IndyMac CEO Michael Perry (about which refer here) is not reflected on the settlement table on page 11 of the study. The Perry settlement is referenced in the text of the study.

 

The report notes that the number of lawsuits that the FDIC has filed lags the number of lawsuits that the FDIC has authorized. (The updated number of authorized lawsuits can be found on the FDIC’s website, here.) The report notes that the difference between the number of lawsuits authorized and the number filed increased during 2012. The report comments that “this backlog of authorized lawsuits, the FDIC”s recent success in the IndyMac trial, and the approaching end of the statute of limitations for making a claim against the numerous institutions that filed in 2009 and 2010 suggest that substantially more FDIC cases may be filed in upcoming months.”

 

Discussion

The Cornerstone Research report’s statement that the FDIC has initiated lawsuits in connection with nine percent of the banks that have failed since 2007 is interesting. Just to put that into perspective, during the S&L crisis, the FDIC (and other federal banking regulators) filed D&O lawsuits in connection with 24% of all failed institutions. If the FDIC were to file D&O lawsuit in connection with 24% of all failed institutions this time around, that would imply that the FDIC would ultimately file about 112 lawsuits (based on the number of banks that have failed so far since 2007).

 

 As it turns out, the final number of FDIC lawsuits might well get into that range, as the FDIC’s most recent update indicates that the agency has authorized lawsuit in connection with 89 institutions (or about 19% of the banks that have failed so far). The FDIC has increased the number of authorized lawsuits each month this year, so the authorized number of suits could quickly get reach as high as the implied 112 number of suits.

 

The study’s report that the more recently filed lawsuits involve smaller institutions than the earlier lawsuits had targeted is really not a surprise. The very largest banks that failed during the current banking crisis failed early on. For example, the two largest failures this time around, WaMu and IndyMac, both failed in 2008, and were among the first failed banks that the FDIC targeted in failed bank litigation. It may not be so much that the FDIC is targeting smaller institutions as such now, it may simply be that there are larger failures were the first to work their way through the system.

 

The analysis of the failed banks’ CAMELS ratings is also interesting. The implication of the analysis is that the banks that failed deteriorated rapidly. The failed institutions’ relatively high ratings until just prior to their closure seems consistent with the argument that many of the individual defendants are raising in their defense – that is, that the failure of their bank wasn’t the result of anybody’s fault; rather it was the outcome of problems that no one, including the FDIC itself, saw coming.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

IndyMac CEO Michael Perry has reached an agreement with the FDIC to settle the lawsuit the agency filed against him in the Central District of California in July 2011 in its capacity as receiver of the failed bank. In the settlement agreement, filed with the court on December 14, 2012,  Perry agreed to pay $1 million out of his own assets plus an additional $11 million in insurance funds. However, the insurers are not parties to the agreement; rather, the FDIC has accepted Perry’s assignment of his rights under the insurance policies, which the FDIC apparently will now seek to assert against the insurers. The parties’ stipulation of dismissal, to which their settlement agreement is attached, can be found here.

 

Perry’s settlement comes just a week after a jury entered a $168.8 million verdict in the separate case the FDIC filed against three other IndyMac officers. The agency filed the two lawsuits separately as part of an apparent strategy in the separate case against the three officers to recover under a second $80 million tower of D&O insurance. As noted here, in July 2012, Judge Gary Klausner held in a related insurance coverage action that all of the various IndyMac lawsuits relate back to the first lawsuit to be filed, and therefore only trigger a single tower of insurance. Klausner’s ruling is on appeal.

 

Just as the FDIC’s separate lawsuit against the three officers appears to be a part of an insurance-oriented strategy, the FDIC’s settlement with Perry also appears in large measure to be about the D&O insurance. (To be sure, Perry will also be paying $1 million out of his own pocket, but the remainder of the agreement pertains to the insurance issues.)

 

The settlement agreement specifies that the Insurers shall pay the $11 million insurance portion of the settlement within 30 days. However, the insurers are not parties to the agreement, and the agreement appears to fully anticipate that the insurers will not in fact fund the $11 million insurance portion. The settlement agreement includes detailed provisions for the assignment of Perry’s rights against the insurers, including his rights for alleged “breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” (Perry expressly reserves his rights to try to recover from the insurers his past and future attorneys’ fees.) The agreement specifies that Perry is not personally liable of the $11 million insurance portion of the settlement.

 

The settlement agreement recites that on July 20, 2012, certain of IndyMac’s D&O insurers (that is, insurers in the so-called first tower of insurance) filed an interpleader action in the Central District of California. As I previously noted on this blog in connection with the insurance issues in this case, IndyMac’s collapse has led to multiple lawsuits involving multiple parties, creating competition among the various claimants for the dwindling amounts of insurance available as accumulating defense expenses erode the available limits. Brian Zabcik’s December 14, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article about Perry’s settlement with the FDIC  (here) quotes Perry’s counsel as saying that “Perry decided to settle the FDIC’s lawsuit in large part because the insurance funds available to fund his defense had been exhausted by all the various lawsuits brought against former IndyMac officers and directors,"

 

Perry’s settlement agreement with the FDIC specifies that the FDIC “agrees that, in its capacity as Mr. Perry’s assignee, it shall take no position in the Interpleader Action inconsistent with Mr. Perry’s position that the Insurers are obligated to fund other settlements to which Mr. Perry is a party.” (Among the other settlements identified in Perry’s settlement agreement with the FDIC is the $5.5 million settlement in IndyMac securities class action lawsuit known as the Tripp litigation, about which refer here.)

 

In other words, it appears that the $11 million insurance portion of Perry’s settlement with the FDIC basically represents a claim check for the agency to try to redeem in the interpleader action. Because there are numerous other claimants each attempting to assert their own claims to the insurance proceeds, it will remain to be seen how much of the $11 million insurance portion of its settlement with Perry the FDIC will ultimately collect.

 

As discussed here, the FDIC filed its lawsuit against Perry, in its capacity as receiver for Indy Mac bank, in July 2011. The FDIC’s complaint against Perry alleged that he caused over $600 million in losses by having the bank purchase mortgage loans in 2007, just as the mortgage marketplace was destabilizing. The complaint alleges that Perry acted negligently when he allowed IndyMac to generate and purchase $10 billion in loans when the secondary mortgage market was becoming illiquid. When IndyMac was later unable to sell the loans, the bank transferred them to its own investment portfolio, which then caused over $600 million in losses.

 

Interestingly, in its settlement stipulation with Perry, the FDIC expressly acknowledges that the FDIC’s complaint “does not allege that Mr. Perry caused the Bank to fail or that he caused a loss to the FDIC insurance fund.” Nevertheless, on December 14, 2012, the FDIC entered – apparently with Perry’s consent – an Order of Prohibition from Further Participation (here) reciting that Perry “engaged or participated in unsafe or unsound banking practices” at IndyMac; that these practices "demonstrate [his] unfitness" to serve as a director or officer at any FDIC-insured institution; and prohibiting him from involvement in any financial institution. The Am Law Litigation Daily article quotes Perry’s counsel as saying with respect to this order, to which Perry consented, that “the FDIC extracted this condition at the eleventh hour because they could,” and that “the FDIC knew Perry was out of insurance funds, and they took advantage of the situation."

 

Yet Another FDIC Lawsuit Involving a Failed Georgia Bank: For whatever reason, the FDIC’s lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks have been disproportionately concentrated in Georgia. On December 13, 2012, the FDIC filed yet another failed lawsuit in connection with a failed Georgia bank. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint, filed in the Northern District of Georgia against three former officers and four former directors of the failed RockBridge Commercial Bank of Sandy Spring, Georgia, can be found here.

 

RockBridge was closed by regulators on December 18, 2009. The complaint asserts claims against the seven individual defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. In connection with the defendants alleged “numerous, repeated and obvious breaches and violations of the Bank’s Loan Policy and procedures, underwriting requirements, banking regulations, and prudent and sound banking practices,” as “exemplified” by 16 loans made between February 14, 2007 and November 12, 2008, which allegedly caused the bank losses of in excess of $27 million.

 

Interestingly, one of the defendants, Arnold Tillman, who has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, was sued with leave of the bankruptcy court and “nominally to the extent of insurance coverage only.” (The FDIC proceeded in the same fashion against several individual defendants in the lawsuit it filed in November 2012 in its capacity as receiver of the failed Community Bank of West Georgia, of Villa Rica, Georgia, as I discussed in a prior post, here – second item in the blog post.)

 

The FDIC’s assertion of claims for ordinary negligence against the former directors and officers of RockBridge is interesting in light of the now several district court decisions holding that under Georgia law officers cannot be held liable for claims of ordinary negligence, as was discussed in a recent guest blog post on this site (This issue is now on an interlocutory appeal to the 11^th Circuit in the Integrity Bank case.) The FDIC anticipated this argument, and specifically alleges in paragraph 58 of the complaint that the defendants are not entitled to rely on the business judgment rule and therefore liable for ordinary negligence.

 

The FDIC’s complaint against the former Rockbridge directors and officers is the 14^th that the agency has filed in connection with a failed Georgia bank and the 42^nd that the agency had filed overall, meaning that the FDIC’s D&O lawsuits involving failed Georgia banks represent one-third of all of the D&O lawsuits the agency has filed. The FDIC’s lawsuits against the failed Georgia banks represents a disproportionately high percentage of D&O suits; even though Georgia has had more bank failures than any other state, closed bank in Georgia still represent only about 18% of all bank failures. For whatever reason, the FDIC seems to be concentrating its litigation activity in Georgia. Indeed, the last four suits the agency has filed have involved failed Georgia banks.

 

Readers that follow the failed bank litigation closely will be interested to note that on December 11, 2012, the FDIC updated the page on its website that reports statistics and information on the agency’s failed bank litigation. In the latest update, the agency reports that it has authorized suits in connection with 89 failed institutions against 742 individuals for D&O liability. This includes 42 filed D&O lawsuits involving 41 institutions and naming 331 former directors and officers, inclusive of the latest suit against the former RockBridge directors and officers. The agency clearly will be filing many more lawsuits in the weeks and months ahead.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the RockBridge complaint. Scott Trubey’s December 14, 2012 Atlanta Journal Constitution article about the FDIC’s latest lawsuit can be found here.

 

More About Securities Class Action Opt-Outs: In a recent post, I noted that the incidence of securities class action opt-outs seemed to be on the increase. In the prior post, I referred specifically to the high profile institutional investors that had chosen to opt out of the Pfizer securities litigation. Now it appears that there have been significant opt outs from the Citigroup subprime-related securities class action lawsuit settlement, as well.

 

As discussed here, in late August 2012, the parties to the high-profile Citigroup subprime-related securities class action lawsuit agreed to settle the case for $590 million, subject to court approval. However, as discussed in Nate Raymond’s December 13, 2012 On the Case blog post (here), several significant institutional investors have elected to opt out of the more than half a billion dollar settlement and are pursuing their own separate actions. The article, which notes that “opt-outs have become a regular feature fixture in any big securities class action,” reports that a total of 134 investors have chosen to opt out of the Citigroup settlement, including some institutional investors that had filed separate individual actions as long as two years ago.

 

The article notes that institutional investors choose to opt out where they think they can improve their recoveries by proceeding separately from the class. The article notes that this approach is “not without its risks,” including the exposure of the opting-out party to full discovery, depositions and document discovery.” Given these concerns, the allure for institutional investors in opting out will only be there, according to one commentator quoted in the article, if “the losses are substantial enough to grab the defendants’ attention.” The rise in class action opt-outs carries risks for defendants as well, as they are unable to ensure “global peace” through the class settlement, and even run the risk of the opt-outs triggering the “blow up” provision in the class settlement agreement.

 

As I noted in my recent post about opt-outs, class action lawsuits have for many years been a favored whipping boy for conservative commentators. But for all of the ills that the class action process can sometimes involve, the prospect of a litigation process in which mass group claims are fragmented and can only be resolved in a piecemeal fashion is no improvement. Given the apparently increasing institutional investor interest in pursuing claims separate from the larger investor class, we could very quickly be getting to the point where resolution of class litigation is only one part of a multistep process, at least in the class action lawsuits where larger losses are at issue.

 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I noted in a post earlier this week, last Friday a jury in the Central District of California returned a $168.8 million verdict in the lawsuit the FDIC filed in its capacity as receiver of the failed IndyMac bank against three former officers of the bank. The verdict has occasioned a great deal of commentary. A particularly interesting review of the D&O insurance issues involved can be found in a December 11, 2012 post on Alison Frankel’s On the Case blog (here).

 

I am pleased to present below a guest post from Mary C. Gill and Austin Hall of the Officers & Directors of Distressed Financial Institutions team at the Alston & Bird law firm, in which they discuss their views regarding the verdict and the verdict’s potential relevance for other pending FDIC failed bank cases – or lack thereof.

 

 

My thanks to Mary and Austin for their willingness to publish their guest post  here. I welcome guest posts from responsible commentators on topics of relevance to this blog. Any readers who are interested in publishing a guest post on this site are encouraged to contact me directly. Here is Mary and Austin’s guest post.  

 

 

In the first trial of a case brought by the FDIC against former bank officers during this financial crisis, a California jury concluded that three former officers of a division of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (“IndyMac”) are liable under California law for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty to the FDIC. FDIC v. Van Dellen,Case No. 2:10-cv-04915-DSF-SH (C.D. Cal.)(“Van Dellen”). On December 7, 2012, the jury in Van Dellen awarded the FDIC damages of $168.8 million following sixteen days of trial.  There are important distinctions, however, between the Van Dellen case and FDIC actions brought in other jurisdictions against former bank officers and directors. In the majority of these cases, the FDIC will be required to demonstrate that the former bank officers and directors committed gross negligence, which is far more difficult to prove than simple negligence or breach of fiduciary duty.

 

 

IndyMac was among the earliest and largest of the bank failures when it was closed on July 11, 2008. The Van Dellen complaint, which was filed in June 2010, was the first action brought by the FDIC against former bank officers, none of whom were directors, during this financial crisis. The FDIC filed a separate action in July 2011 against IndyMac’s former CEO, Michael Perry, which remains pending. FDIC v. Perry, Case No. 2:11-cv-5561 (C.D. Cal.).

 

 

The trial in Van Dellen involved the President and CEO of the IndyMac Home Builder Division, and its Chief Lending Officer and the Chief Credit Officer. The complaint focused upon twenty-three loans, which the FDIC contended were approved without adequate information and in violation of bank policies. With respect to each of these twenty-three loans, the jury concluded that one or more of the former officers were negligent and breached their fiduciary duties in approving the loan.

 

 

Under the federal statute that governs claims by the FDIC, the FDIC must demonstrate that the officer or director conduct was grossly negligent, unless the applicable state law allows liability to be imposed based upon a stricter standard. Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1821(k).  In many states, officers and directors are not subject to liability for negligence, either by statute or application of the business judgment rule, which generally protects officers and directors from personal liability for ordinary negligence. Thus, for example, FDIC claims for ordinary negligence brought against former bank officers and directors in Georgia have been dismissed.  FDIC v. Skow, Case No. 1:11-cv-0111 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 27, 2012), reconsideration denied (N.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2012); FDIC v. Blackwell, Case No. 1:11-cv-03423 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 3, 2012); FDIC v. Briscoe, Case No. 1:11-cv-02303 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2012); FDIC v. Whitley, Case No. 2:12-cv-00170 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 10, 2012).  The Eleventh Circuit recently accepted an appeal in FDIC v. Skow, in which the FDIC seeks review of this issue under Georgia law. FDIC v. Skow, Case No. 1:11-cv-00111 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 19, 2012).   

 

 

The FDIC claims in Van Dellen were based upon California law, which affords directors, but arguably not officers, the protection of the business judgment rule from claims of ordinary negligence.   Prior to trial, the Van Dellen court held that the officers could not rely upon the business judgment rule under California law. This ruling was consistent with the earlier ruling in the action against IndyMac’s CEO, FDIC v. Perry.  In contrast, a 1999 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains as binding precedent, held that under California law bank directors are protected by the business judgment rule from claims of ordinary negligence.  FDIC v. Castetter, 184 F. 3d 1040 (9th Cir. 1999)

 

 

Accordingly, the Van Dellen verdict cannot be viewed as a predictor of potential results in other cases, particularly those in which officers and directors are afforded the protection of the business judgment rule and the FDIC is required to demonstrate gross negligence.  

 

 

Alston & Bird’s Distressed Financial Institutions Team represents and counsels over 200 current and former directors and officers in over 40 distressed or closed financial institutions across the country. The team offers expertise and experience regarding regulatory enforcement actions and the unique fiduciary roles of bank directors in distressed bank situations, as well as providing advice on insurance coverage for bank directors and officers. The team also represents former bank directors and officers in over 80 claims by the FDIC for civil money damages. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 7, 2012, in a comprehensive victory for the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of the failed IndyMac bank, a jury in the Central District of California entered a verdict of $168.8 million in the FDIC’s lawsuit against three former officers of the bank. As reflected in the verdict form (a copy of which can be found here), the jury found that the defendants had been negligent and had breached their fiduciary duties with respect to each of the 23 loans at issue in this phase of the FDIC’s case against the three individuals

 

At the time its July 11, 2008 closure, IndyMac had assets of about $32 billion, making its failure the fifth largest bank failure in U.S. history. But though there have been a few larger bank failures, none have been costlier to the FDIC’s deposit fund. IndyMac’s collapse has cost the fund nearly $13 billion.

 

In June 2010, the FDIC filed against a lawsuit several former officers of the bank’s homebuilder division, in what was the first D&O lawsuit the agency filed during the current bank failure wave, as discussed here. The FDIC’s lawsuit sought to recover damages from the individual defendants for “negligence and breach of fiduciary duties” and alleged “significant departures from safe and sound banking practices.” As discussed here, in July 2011, the FDIC filed a separate lawsuit against IndyMac’s former CEO, Michael Perry.

 

As discussed here, trial in the FDIC’s case against the former homebuilder division officers began on November 6, 2012. The three individual defendants in the case that went to trial are: Scott Van Dellen, the former President and CEO of IndyMac’s Homebuilders Division (HBD), who was alleged to have approved all of the loans that are the subject of the FDIC’s suit; Richard Koon, who was HBD’s Chief Lending Officer until mid-2006 and who was alleged to have approved a number of the loans at issue; Kenneth Shellem, who served as HBD’s Chief Compliance Officer until late 2006, and who is also alleged to have approved many of the loans. (The FDIC’s original complaint had named a fourth individual, William Rothman, as a defendant as well. According to pleadings filed in the case, Rothman settled with the FDIC in exchange for Rothman’s assignment to the FDIC of Rothman’s rights against IndyMac’s D&O insurers.)

 

According to news reports, the jury reached its verdict after 16 days of trial. During the trial, the defendants attempted to argue that they and the bank were victims of an unanticipated downturn in the housing market. The FDIC in turn argued that the bank officials disregarded danger signals about the housing market and continued to approve loans in order to meet production goals and obtain bonus compensation.

 

The jury verdict form reflects separate verdicts as to each of the 23 loans that were at issue in this phase of the trial of the case. With respect to each of the loans, the jury separately found that the specific defendants who were named as to each of the loans had been negligent and had breached their fiduciary duties. The jury assigned separate damages as to each of the loans as well. The separate damage awards total $168.8 million. However, each of the three defendants was held liable for differing amounts. All three of the defendants were named only with respect to 14 of the 23 loans. With respect to five of the 23 loans, only Van Dellen and Shellem were named, and as to four of the loans, Van Dellen alone was named. Thus the jury found Van Dellen liable as to all 23 of the loans, but found Shellem liable only as to 18 of the loams and found Koon liable only as to 14 of the loans.

 

The just completed trial apparently represents only the first trial phase of this matter. There apparently will be a separate trial phase that will address the FDIC’s allegations as to scores of other loans as well as allegations with respect to the bank’s loan portfolio as a whole. The FDIC apparently is seeking total damages of more than $350 million. In addition, the FDIC’s separate case against Perry, the bank’s former CEO, will continue to go forward as well.

 

Given the magnitude of the jury’s verdict, there undoubtedly will be post-trial motions and, after the conclusion of all remaining trial phases, appeals as well. One issue that likely will be subject of an appeal will be Central District of California Judge Dale Fischer’s October 2012 determination under California law that the three defendants, as former officers (but not former directors), could not rely on the business judgment rule and therefore could be held liable for mere negligence. (The potential appeal value of this issue for the defendants may be diminished somewhat due to the fact that the jury specifically found that the defendants had not only been negligent, but had also violated their fiduciary duty, suggesting that the defendants would still have been found liable even if they couldn’t be held liable for negligence).

 

While the jury verdict unquestionably represents a victory for the FDIC, the FDIC may face considerable challenges attempting to collect on the verdict. There may be little or no remaining D&O insurance out of which the FDIC might try to recover. As discussed at length here, in July 2012, Central District of California Judge Gary Klausner held in a related D&O insurance coverage case that all of the various lawsuits related to Indy Mac’s collapse (including the case that in which the jury verdict was just entered) were interrelated to the first-filed lawsuit, and thus triggered only the D&O insurance that was in force when the first suit was filed. Because all of the later-filed lawsuits related back to the first lawsuit, the later lawsuits – including the lawsuit in which the jury verdict was entered -- did not trigger a second $80 million insurance program that was in force when the later suits were filed. (The FDIC has filed an appeal of Judge Klausner’s ruling.)

 

In other words, unless Judge Klausner’s insurance coverage ruling is reversed on appeal, the only insurance available out of which the FDIC might be able to try to realize the amount of the jury verdict is whatever is left under the first tower of insurance. However, as I noted in a prior post, in pleadings that they filed in July 2012, the defendants represented to the court that defense fees incurred in all of the various IndyMac-related lawsuits, as well as settlements that had been reached in some of the suits, had exhausted or would soon exhaust the first tower of insurance.

 

Pleadings that the three individuals filed in the case state that “the FDIC specifically structured this lawsuit in order to reach the Tower 2 Policy.” Judge Klausner’s ruling in the insurance coverage case obviously upset the FDIC’s strategy in this case. The outcome of the appeal in the insurance coverage case may well determine whether or not the massive verdict the FDIC just won results in any significant monetary benefits for the agency.

 

This case was not only the first case the FDIC filed against the former directors and officers of a failed bank as part of the current bank failure wave, but it is also the first case to go to trial. Since the FDIC filed this suit back in July 2010, the agency has filed forty more cases against the directors and officers of failed banks. There undoubtedly will be more lawsuits yet to come. Many of the individual defendants named in these cases vigorously dispute the FDIC’s allegations. However, the jury verdict in the IndyMac case may communicate a sobering message about what it might mean to force a case all the way to trial. Given this verdict, it may now be even more unlikely that one of these cases would go to trial.

 

Scott Recard’s December 8, 2012 Los Angeles Times article about the jury verdict can be found here.

 

Special thanks to Thomas Long of the Nossaman law firm for sending me the jury verdict form. The Nossaman firm represented the FDIC at the IndyMac trial.

 

D&O Insurer, FDIC Settle Claims Against Former BankUnited Officials: The FDIC’s efforts to try to recover under failed banks’ D&O insurance do not always involve a lawsuit. Sometimes the FDIC asserts its claims in a demand letter that it presents to the former directors and officers of a failed bank, with a copy of the letter also send to the failed bank’s D&O insurers. Sometimes these kinds of letter demands result in a settlement without a lawsuit ever being filed. That apparently is what has happened in connection with the FDIC’s claims against former directors and officers of BankUnited, a Coral Gables, Florida bank that failed in May 2009, at least according to a December 6, 2012 article in the South Florida Business Journal.

 

As reflected here, on November 5, 2009, the FDIC, in its capacity as BankUnited’s receiver, sent a letter to fifteen former directors and officers of the bank, in which the FDIC presented its "demand for civil damages arising out of losses suffered as a result of wrongful acts and omissions committed by the named Directors and Officers." The letter, a copy of which can be found here, explains that the demand for civil damages is "based on the breach of duty, failure to supervise, negligence, and/or gross negligence of the named Directors and Officers." Though the letter is nominally addressed to the fifteen individuals, copies of the letters also were sent directly to the bank’s primary and first level excess D&O insurers.

 

In addition to the FDIC’s claims against former directors and officers of the failed bank, shareholders of the failed bank’s holding company (which is now bankrupt) filed a lawsuit against certain former bank directors and officers. The bankruptcy trustee asserted claims against the individuals as well.

 

According to the newspaper article, these various parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to bankruptcy court approval, to divide the bank’s $10 million primary D&O insurance policy four ways: $3.5 million to the class action plaintiff; $2.5 million to the FDIC; $1.65 to the bankruptcy trustee; and the balance going to pay legal defense fees and other costs. The settlement agreement also allows the FDIC to attempt to pursue a recovery from the carrier that issued the bank’s $10 million first level excess D&O insurance carrier, which has refused to pay under its policy.

 

This settlement is interesting because it reflects the tensions that can arise when multiple claims have been asserted against the former directors and officers of a failed bank. When there are multiple claims and only limited insurance, the various claimants are put in competition with each other, as they each race to try to capture as much of the insurance as they can while at the same time accumulating defense fees erodes what little insurance there may be. The division here of the $10 million primary D&O policy reflects an effort between and among the various claimants to try to work out a split of the insurance  so that each of the various sets of claimants at least gets a part of the policy proceeds. The challenge for other claimants trying to work out similar deals in other cases is to try and get a deal done before defense fees exhaust the insurance fund.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a link to the article about the BankUnited settlement.

 

Civic Duty: I will be on jury duty this week. We'll see if anybody has the guts to allow me to remain in the jury box. If I am called, it may be a few days before I am able to resume normal blogging activities.  

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Insured depositary institutions continued to improve during the third quarter of 2012, while at the same time the number and percentage of “problems institutions” declined, according to the FDIC’s latest quarterly banking profile. The quarterly report for the quarter ending September 30, 2012, which the agency released on December 4, 2012, can be found here. The FDIC’s December 4, 2012 press release about the report can be found here.

 

According to the report, reduced expenses from loan losses and rising noninterest income helped the insured institutions’ earnings reach $37.6 billion in the third quarter, the highest quarterly earnings posted since the third quarter of 2006. The FDIC’s press release quotes FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg as saying that “this was another quarter of gradual bur steady recovery for FDIC-insured institutions.”

 

The FDIC also reported a decline in the number of “problem institutions” during the quarter, from 732 at the end of the second quarter of 2012 to 694 at the end of the third quarter. (A “problem institution” is an insured depositary institution that is ranked either a “4” or a “5” on the agency’s 1-to-5 scale of risk and supervisory concern. The agency does not release the names of the banks on its “problem” list.) The quarterly decline represented the sixth consecutive quarter that the number of “problem” banks has fallen, and it is the first time in three years that there have been fewer than 700 banks on the list.

 

The number of reporting institutions declined during the quarter, from 7245 at the end of the second quarter 2012 to 7181 at the end of the third quarter. The 694 problem institutions at the end of the third quarter 2012represented 9.66% of all reporting institutions, whereas the 714 problem banks at the end of the second quarter 2012 represented 10.10% of all reporting institutions. By way of comparison, at the end of the third quarter of 2011, there were 844 problem institutions, representing 11.35% of the 7436 institutions reporting as of September 30, 2011. At year end 2010, there were 884 problem institutions, representing 11.39% of all reporting institutions at the time.

 

The assets of the “problem banks” as of the end of the third quarter 2012 stood at $262.2 billion, down from $282.2 billion as of the end of the second quarter 2012. The problem institutions as of the end of the third quarter of 2011 represented assets of $339 billion. At the end of 2009, the 702 problem institutions at that time represented assets of $402 million.

 

Twelve institutions failed during the third quarter of 2012, the smallest number of failures in a quarter since the fourth quarter of 2008, when there were also 12. There were a total of 43 bank failures in 2012 through September 30, 2012. There have been seven more bank failures since that date, brining the 2012 YTD total as of December 4, 2012 to 50. Through December 4, 2011, there had been 90 YTD bank failures. At this point it appears that there will be fewer bank failures this year than during any year since 2008, when there were 25. Since January 1, 2008, there have been a total of 457 bank failures. The high water mark for bank failures was in 2012, when there were 157 – the highest annual number of bank failures since 18 years prior.

 

Still Another Failed Bank Lawsuit in Georgia: While the bank failure wave finally seems to be winding down, the follow-on litigation is still just ramping up. With the third year anniversaries of bank failures that occurred during the period with the most bank closures approaching, the FDIC clearly seems to be ramping up its failed bank litigation. On December 3, 2012, the FDIC filed yet another lawsuit against the former directors and officers of a failed Georgia bank. The FDIC’s complaint, filed in the Northern District of Georgia in its capacity as receiver for the failed First Security National Bank (FNSB) of Norcross, Georgia, can be found here.

 

FNSB failed on December 4, 2009, so the FDIC really went down to the three year statute of limitations wire on its FNSB filing. The FDIC’s complaint names seven former directors and officers as defendants. The FDIC asserts claims for both negligence and gross negligence, citing the defendants’ “numerous, repeated, and obvious breaches and violations of the Bank’s loan policy and procedures, underwriting requirements, banking regulations and sound bank practices” as “exemplified” by 17 loans made between December 20, 2995 and February 19, 2008, for which the agency seeks damages of no “less than $7.596 million.”

 

This latest complaint is the 41^st that the FDIC has filed against the former directors and officers of a failed bank as part of the current bank failure wave. It is also the 13^th the agency has filed involving a failed Georgia bank, meaning that over 31% of all failed bank D&O lawsuits have targeted failed Georgia banks. While Georgia has had more bank failures during the current bank failure wave than any other state, its approximately 80 bank failures represents only about 17.5 percent of all bank failures, meaning that the FDIC is pursuing a disproportionally high number of lawsuits in connection with failed Georgia banks, as I noted in greater detail in a recent post (here).  

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the FSNB complaint.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Though the FDIC has filed failed bank lawsuits in a number of states during the current bank failure wave, the agency has filed a disproportionally large number of suits against former directors and officers of failed Georgia banks. On November 30, 2012, the FDIC filed yet another D&O lawsuit involving a failed Georgia bank, the twelfth the agency has filed involving a failed Georgia bank, out of 40 total lawsuits overall that it has filed.

 

On November 30, 2012, the FDIC as receiver of The Buckhead Community Bank filed a complaint in the Northern District of Georgia nine former directors and officers of the failed bank. Six of the individual defendants served only as directors, two served as both directors and officers, and one seved only as an officer. The FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

 

The individual defendants include the bank’s former Chairman, R. Charles Loudermilk, Sr. In addition to serving as the bank’s Chairman, Loudermilk was, according to the complaint, also the largest shareholder of the bank’s holding company. Loudermilk is the 85-year old founder of the rent-to-own company, Aaron’s Inc. Loudermilk was also the founder of Buckhead Community Bank as well.

 

The bank, which was located in the Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta, failed on December 4, 2009. The FDIC’s complaint asserts claims against the defendants for negligence and for gross negligence and alleges that the defendants engaged in “numerous, repeated, and obvious breaches and violations of the Bank’s Loan Policy, underwriting requirements and banking regulations, and prudent and sound banking practices” as “exemplified” by thirteen loans and loan participations the defendants approved that cause the bank damages “in excess of $21.8 million.”

 

An interesting feature of the lawsuit is that the FDIC has included allegations of ordinary negligence. This is interesting because of the recent decision in the Northern District of Georgia in the Integrity Bank case, applying Georgia law and holding that because of their protection under the business judgment rule, directors cannot be held liable of ordinary negligence. In light of that earlier decision, it would seem that the defendants in the new lawsuit have a basis on which to seek to have the negligence claims against them dismissed.

 

The FDIC, in anticipation of this argument, has alleged (at paragraph 84 of the complaint), that the individual defendants are not entitled to rely on the business judgment rule because “none of the Defendants’ actions or inactions, which are the basis of the this negligence claim, was taken in good faith, nor were Defendants reasonably well-informed in taking such actions or inactions.”

 

 It should also be noted that the FDIC is pursuing an interlocutory appeal of the court’s order in the Integrity Bank On November 19, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit granted the FDIC’s request for leave to pursue an  interlocutory appeal, so there will likely be much more to be heard on this issue in the months ahead.

 

The FDIC’s lawsuit against the former directors and officers of The Buckhead Community Bank is the 40^th failed bank lawsuit the agency has filed as part of the current bank wave. Of these 40 lawsuit, 12 (including this latest suit) have been filed against former directors and officers of failed Georgia banks, or about 30 percent of all of the failed bank D&O suits that agency has filed so far. Georgia has had more bank failures than any other state, but with about 80 failed banks out of the more than 440 failed banks total, Georgia’s bank failures represented only about 18 percent of all failed banks. For whatever reason, Georgia’s failed banks are disproportionately represented among the bank failures that have led to FDIC failed bank litigation.

 

One final note about this case is that it was filed just days before the third anniversary of the bank’s failure. Because so many banks failure in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first two quarters of 2010, it seems likely there will be many more suits just ahead. The FDIC has made it clear that further lawsuits are coming. On its website (here), the agency states that as of November 15, 2012, it has authorized suits in connection with 84 failed institutions against 700 individuals for D&O liability. This includes 40 filed D&O lawsuits naming 317 former directors and officers (these figures take this latest lawsuit into account). In other words, the agency has authorized as many as 44 additional lawsuits. For many months now, each time that the agency updates its website, the number of authorized lawsuits increases, so even more lawsuits likely lie ahead.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a November 13, 2012 press release from their defense counsel (here), the five bank officer defendants in an action the FDIC filed against them as the failed bank’s receiver have settled the case for an assignment to the agency of their rights under the bank’s D&O insurance policy.

 

The case involves the former County Bank of Merced, California, which failed on February 6, 2009, when the FDIC was appointed as its receiver. As discussed here, in January 2012, the FDIC filed an action in the Eastern District of California against five former officers of the bank, each of whom served on the bank’s Executive Loan Committee. The complaint alleges claims against them for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, in connection with 12 loans the bank made between December 2005 and June 2008 that the FDIC says caused the bank losses in excess of $42 million.

 

In August 2012, the five individuals filed their own separate lawsuit in the Eastern District of California against the bank’s D&O insurer. A copy of their complaint can be found here. The individuals contend that the carrier has wrongfully denied coverage under the policy and wrongfully refused to defend them. The individuals seek a judicial declaration that the claim against them is covered under the policy and also asserts claims for breach of contract and for bad faith.

 

From the individuals’ complaint, it appears that the carrier is denying coverage based on the insured vs. insured exclusion (about which refer here). The individuals contend that the policy’s base form had a regulatory exclusion, which had it remained in the policy would have precluded coverage for the FDIC’s action against them. The individuals allege further that the bank had purchased an endorsement to the policy that removed the regulatory exclusion from the policy. The individuals essentially contend that the point of the endorsement to remove the regulatory exclusion was to ensure that the policy provided coverage for claims brought by the FDIC, and the carrier therefore should not be able to rely on a different exclusion to try to deny coverage for an FDIC claim.

 

According to defense counsel’s press release, in their settlement with the FDIC, the five individuals assigned their claim for bad faith and breach of contract to the FDIC, while retaining their right to try recover from the D&O insurer their defense fees incurred prior to the settlement The parties also exchanged covenants not to bring any further actions against each other, and the settlement also included a covenant by the FDIC not to assert any claims against the five individuals’ property or assets. The FDIC will control and prosecute the assigned claims against the insurer at the agency’s own cost and expense. The officers maintained their right to continue their own retained claims.

 

As I have previously noted (here), questions of D&O insurance coverage may represent the real battle ground in the current wave of FDIC failed bank litigation, and as I also noted in that same post, one of the critical coverage issues of contention may be whether or not the insured vs. insured policy precludes coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the former officers and directors of the failed bank.

 

Perhaps of greater interest in this context, in the case that I discussed in the prior post to which I linked in the preceding paragraph, the former bank officials involved in the case were also able to settle the FDIC’s claim against them for their agreement to the entry of a judgment against them together with an assignment of their rights under their D&O insurance and a covenant by the FDIC not to execute the judgment against them.

 

It remains to be seen whether or not the FDIC’s willingness to resolve these cases against the former bank officers and directors on this basis will work for the agency. They will still have to succeed in establishing that the D&O insurers’ policies provide coverage for the claims (as well as fight off the carriers’ likely procedural objections to the validity of the agreed judgment and assignment). But it is in any event interesting to see that the FDIC is willing to resolve cases on this basis, at least in certain circumstances (perhaps only when particular coverage issues are involved as well).

 

There may well be legitimate arguments about the merits or demerits of these types of deals. Of course, it certainly could be argued that the D&O insurer, having denied coverage, should not be heard to object to the fact that the individuals have taken steps to protect themselves. However, the problem with these type of consent judgment/covenant not to execute type deals is that this approach can run the risk of slipping into a collusive arrangement, with the insured individual willingly agreeing to a settlement amount that has no relation to the his or her true liability exposure. Without meaning to suggest anything one way or another about this particular deal, I will say that in my prior life as an insurer-side coverage attorney, I did see deals that were questionable.

 

All of that said, however, these types of deals have undeniable attractions for the individual defendants involved, and I would expect that other defendants in other failed bank cases will undoubtedly be looking to see if they can reach settlements with the FDIC on a similar basis. Whatever the merits or demerits of these types of deals, we undoubtedly will see many more of them before the current round of failed bank litigation finally plays itself out.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for seding me a copy of the defense counsel's press release.

 

Management Liability Insurance and the Potential Liabilities of Law Firm Managers: Attorneys are well aware of their need to procure and maintain errors and omissions insurance – or what they typically think of as malpractice insurance. But while they understand their need to have insurance in the event of claims against them asserting that they erred in the delivery of client services, attorneys, or at least some of them, can be reluctant to accept their need to also maintain insurance protecting their firm’s managers against claims for wrongful acts committed in the management of their firm.

 

Attorneys resistant to the need for this type of insurance (or advisors who have to try to persuade them of the need) will want to take a look at the November 14, 2012 Wall Street Journal article entitled “Creditors Seek to Sue Dewey’s Ex-Leader” (here). The article describes a motion that the unsecured creditors of the failed Dewey & LeBouef firm have filed in the firm’s bankruptcy proceedings. The unsecured creditors seek the leave of the bankruptcy court to file an action against the firm’s former Chairman, its former executive director, and its former chief financial officer, seeking to hold the three individuals liable for alleged misconduct the unsecured creditors contend led to the firm’s demise.

 

The unsecured creditors bid to pursue claims against the former law firm managers illustrates a point I have often made when discussing management liability insurance for law firms, which is that law firm managers face the possibility of potential claims for an wide variety of potential claimants. Indeed, as I think this situation illustrates, the law firm managers at least potentially face potential claims from the same general range of claimants as does any privately held business and therefore the need for management liability insurance is the same.

 

Lawyers are of course nothing if not argumentative and I can anticipate the likely lawyer reaction (being a recovering attorney myself) to the attempt to draw these kinds of conclusion from this situation. First, some lawyers might argue that the lawsuit the unsecured creditors want to file is solely about the insurance that the law firm maintained, and in the absence of the insurance, the unsecured creditors would not be pursuing the claim. I would object to this argument on two grounds; first, it is speculative (as it requires us to make assumptions about the claimants’ motivations) and also it assumes facts not in evidence (that is, that the claimants would not be pursuing the claims in absence of the insurance).

 

But the real problem with this argument is that is presumes that prospective defendants would be better off without the insurance. That strikes me as a dicey proposition and not one that personally I would not want to have to test. Most self-interested persons faced with the prospects of angry creditors asserting millions of dollars of claims would be very grateful to have a D&O insurance policy to defend and indemnify them.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for drawing my attention to the Journal article.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Trial in the FDIC’s failed bank lawsuit against three former officers of IndyBank commenced on November 6, 2012 in the federal court in Los Angeles. According Scott Reckard’s November 9, 2012 Los Angeles Times article (here), the parties’ counsel have delivered their opening statements. The case, which was the first failed bank lawsuit the FDIC filed as part of the current bank failure wave, is also the first to go to trial.

 

As detailed here, the FDIC first filed the lawsuit against the former IndyMac officers in June 2010. The FDIC’s lawsuit seeks to recover damages from the individual defendants for "negligence and breach of fiduciary duties." The lawsuit alleges "significant departures from safe and sound banking practices."  As discussed here, in July 2011, the FDIC filed a separate lawsuit against IndyMac’s former CEO, Michael Perry.

 

There are three individual defendants in the case that is now in trial:  Scott Van Dellen, the former President and CEO of IndyMac’s Homebuilders Division (HBD), who is alleged to have approved all of the loans that are the subject of the FDIC’s suit; Richard Koon, who was HBD’s Chief Lending Officer until mid-2006 and who is alleged to have approved a number of the loans at issue; Kenneth Shellem, who served as HBD’s Chief Compliance Officer until late 2006, and who is alleged to have approved many of the loans at issue.

 

The case against the three former IndyMac officers has been very vigorously litigated; I detailed the particularly memorable hearing regarding one discovery dispute that arose in the case here. (While writing this article, I reread the article about the discovery dispute; Central District of California Judge Dale Fischer’s comments during the hearing make for very interesting reading, and I commend the article to readers looking for a little diversion.) Among other significant pretrial rulings, in October 2012, Judge Fischer also held that under California law the individuals were not entitled to rely on the business judgment rule, as discussed here.

 

And in June 2012, as discussed here, in a significant ruling in a related D&O insurance coverage case, Central District of California Judge Gary Klausner held that all of the various IndyMac lawsuits (including the one the FDIC filed against the three former IndyMac officers) were interrelated to the first filed lawsuit, and thus triggered only a single tower of D&O insurance. This holding was of particular significance both to the former IndyMac officers and to the FDIC, as the FDIC’s lawsuit was filed during the policy period of the second insurance tower. The ruling that the subsequent lawsuit are all interrelated to the first filed lawsuit means that the only insurance available for the individuals (and out of which the FDIC might recover from the insurers) is whatever is left under the first tower of insurance.

 

According to their July 2012 motion to stay the FDIC’s lawsuit against them, the three defendants represented to the court that defense fees in various IndyMac-related lawsuits as well as the costs associated with settlements that had been reached in several of the cases will deplete or threaten to deplete all of the remaining proceeds under the first tower of insurance.  (The motion asserts that defense fees in excess of $50 million and settlements totaling $29 million would deplete the $80 million insurance tower.) The defendants sought to stay the FDIC’s lawsuit against them so that they could pursue their appeal of Judge Klausner’s insurance coverage ruling. The defendants’ motion can be found here. Judge Fischer denied the defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings.

 

The upshot of the unavailability of the second tower of insurance and the apparent exhaustion of the first tower is that the three individual defendants face the prospect of that there might not be any insurance available to protect them in the event that the trial results in an award of damages against them (subject of course to the outcome of the pending appeals of Judge Klausner’s insurance coverage ruling).

 

The FDIC’s original complaint had named a fourth individual, William Rothman, as a defendant as well. According to a footnote in the motion to stay referenced above, Rothman had settled with the FDIC in exchange for Rothman’s assignment to the FDIC of Rothman’s rights under the second tower of insurance.  The separate suit against IndyMac’s former CEO, Michael Perry, remains pending.

 

In any event, it will be very interesting to see how this case proceeds. It is highly unusual for a case like this to proceed to trial, particularly where there may be limited or even no insurance out of which the FDIC may be able to recover any judgment. (Interestingly, in the defendants’ motion to stay referenced above, counsel for the defendants asserts that “the FDIC specifically structured this lawsuit in order to reach the Tower 2 Policy,” in which case Judge Klausner’s insurance coverage ruling upset a part of the FDIC’s strategy in their case against the three individual defendants.) Obviously, the outcome of the appeal in the insurance coverage case is of keen interest to the FDIC as well as to the individual defendants.

 

I am sure that there are many readers who will be following this trial closely and who may be able to monitor the case more closely than I can. I would be grateful if readers would be willing to keep me informed about the case.

 

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 1, 2012, in what is the first lawsuit the FDIC has filed as part of the current bank failure wave against a failed bank’s accountants, the FDIC, as receiver for the failed Colonial Bank, has filed an action in the Middle District of Alabama against Pricewaterhouse Coopers and Crowe Horwath. PwC served as the bank’s external auditor and Crowe provided internal audit services to the Bank. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here. (Very special thanks to Francine McKenna of the re: The Auditors blog for providing me with a copy of the FDIC’s complaint.).

 

When Colonial Bank failed in August 2009, it was the sixth largest U.S. bank failure of all time (as discussed here). In is complaint against the accountants, the FDIC alleges Colonial’s failure was triggered by the massive, multi-year fraud against the bank by the bank’s largest mortgage banking customer, Taylor Bean & Whitaker.

 

As I detailed in a prior post, here, In April 2011, Lee Farkas, Taylor Bean’s ex-Chairman, was convicted of wire fraud and securities fraud. Prior to Farkas’s conviction, two Colonial Bank employees pled guilty in connection with the Taylor Bean scheme. As reflected here, on March 2, 2011, Catherine Kissick, a former senior vice president of Colonial Bank and head of its Mortgage Warehouse Lending Division, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank, wire and securities fraud for participating in the Taylor Bean scheme. As reflected here, on March 16, 2011, Teresa Kelly, the bank’s Operations Supervisor and Collateral Analyst, pled guilty on similar charges.

 

In the criminal cases against the bank employees, the government alleged that the two bank employees caused the bank to purchase from Taylor Bean and hold $400 million in mortgage assets that had no value. The employees also allegedly engaged in fraudulent actions to cover up overdrafts of Taylor Bean at the bank. The employees are also alleged to have had the bank engage in the fictitious trades with Taylor Bean that had no value.

 

The complaint alleges that while Taylor Bean was carrying out its “increasingly brazen” fraud, PwC “repeatedly issued unqualified opinions” for Colonial’s financial statements, and Crowe “consistently overlooked serious internal control issues” – and, more the point, both failed to detect the fraud. The complaint alleges that if the firms had detected the fraud earlier, it would have prevented losses or additional losses that the bank suffered at the hands of Taylor Bean. The complaint asserts claims against the firms for professional negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation. The complaint alleges that in the absence of the firm’s wrongful acts, the Taylor Bean fraud would have been discovered by 2007 or early 2008, and “losses currently estimated to exceed $1 billion could have been avoided.”

 

The FDIC does have one problem in asserting these claims. In its role as receiver, the FDIC stands in the shoes of the failed bank, and is subject to all of the defenses that could have been asserted against the bank. As Alison Frankel discusses in her On the Case blog (here), the accounting firms are likely to raise the in pari delicto defense, “which holds that one wrongdoer can't sue another for the proceeds of their joint misconduct” The FDIC has anticipated this defense in its complaint, alleging that the two bank employees that facilitated the Taylor Bean fraud were “rogue employees” who acted our of their own self-interest and not at the direction of or to the benefit of the bank, but rather to the detriment of the bank. 

 

In the wake of the current bank failure wave, the FDIC has filed a number of lawsuits against the directors and officers of failed banks. As of my latest tally (refer here, scroll down to second item), the FDIC has filed 35 suits against failed bank directors and officers. However, until now, the FDIC has not filed any actions against the former auditors of a failed bank. The Colonial bank suit is particularly interesting because it not only names the failed bank’s former outside auditor, but it also names the accounting firm that was performing the bank’s internal audit functions. There may be more accounting malpractice actions to come; on its website, the FDIC reports that the agency has “authorized 46 other lawsuits for fidelity bond, insurance, attorney malpractice, appraiser malpractice, accounting malpractice, and RMBS claims.”

 

Readers of this blog may recall that in August 2012, certain former Colonial Bank directors and officers agreed to settle the securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against them in connection with allegations surrounding the bank’s collapse. The $10.5 million settlement was to be funded entirely by D&O insurance. The securities suit settlement is discussed here. Significantly, the settlement did not include the bank’s offering underwriters or its outside auditors. Among the individual defendants party to the securities suit settlement was Colonial’s colorful and controversial former Chairman and CEO, Bobby Lowder. In addition to Colonial, Lowder has long been associated with Auburn University. I discussed Lowder’s Auburn connection in a prior post, which can be found here.

 

As I also noted in a prior post (here), in July 2012, the FDIC as receiver for Colonial Bank, as well as the bankrupt bank holding company on its own behalf, filed an action against the bank’s bond insurer. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the losses caused by the misconduct “constitute recoverable losses under the Bonds up to the full aggregate limits of liability of the Bonds.” The complaint states that the bond insurer “has neither accepted nor denied the Plaintiffs’ claims under the Bonds.” The complaint alleges that the insurer “has failed to investigate the claims and losses in a reasonable and appropriate manner.” In September 2012, the parties jointly moved the court to revise the schedule in the case to permit them to engage in settlement discussion.  

 

Speaking of Failed Banks: Shareholders of yet another failed bank holding company have now initiated a securities class action lawsuit. On November 2, 2012, the shareholders of Tennessee Commerce Bancorp filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee against the holding company and certain of its directors and officers. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

 

Tennessee Commerce Bank failed on January 27, 2012. According to the plaintiff’s lawyers’ November 2 press release (here), the defendant directors and officers and the holding company violated the federal securities laws by “issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company's financial and business condition.”  The lawsuit asserts that “defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company had serious internal control deficiencies causing it to be unable to monitor its loan portfolio; obtain up to date and current appraisals of collateral; follow bank rules of procedures relating to the Company's allowance for loan losses; and remediate internal control deficiencies..” The lawsuit is filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares in the holding company during the period from April 18, 2008 through September 13, 2012.

 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A significant side-effect from the current bank failure wave has been the FDIC’s assertion of claims against the former directors and officers of many of the failed banks. The FDIC’s claims have in turn raised significant questions of insurance coverage under many of the failed banks’ D&O insurance policies. As discussed in a prior post (here), one of the significant coverage issues that has come up is whether or not the claims of the FDIC, which it is asserting in its capacity as receiver for the failed banks, are precluded under the Insured vs. Insured exclusion found in most D&O insurance policies. (The Insured vs. Insured Exclusion is sometimes referred to as the I v I exclusion.)

 

In what is as far as I know the first decision on this issue as part of the coverage litigation arising out the current bank failure wave, the federal court in Puerto Rico has ruled that the I v I exclusion in the D&O insurance program of the failed Westernbank of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico does not preclude coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the failed bank’s former directors and officers. A copy of the court’s October 23, 2012 decision can be found here.

 

Regulators closed Westernbank on April 30, 2010, which according to the FDIC cost the insurance fund $4.25 billion. In October 2011, certain of the former Westernbank directors and officers had sued the bank's primary D&O insurer in state court in Puerto Rico (about which refer here). The FDIC as receiver for Westernbank moved to intervene in the state court action, and on December 30, 2011, removed the state court action to the District of Puerto Rico. On January 20, 2012, the FDIC filed its amended complaint in intervention, in which it named as defendants certain additional directors and officers,  and, in reliance on Puerto Rico’s direct action statute, the D&O insurers in the bank's D&O insurance program. A copy of the FDIC's amended complaint can be found here.

 

In its complaint, the FDIC, as Westernbank’s receiver, seeks recovery of over $176 million in damages from the former bank’s directors and officers as well as their conjugal partners, based on twenty-one alleged grossly negligent commercial real estate, construction and asset-based loans approved and administered from January 28, 2004 through November 19, 2009. In its complaint in intervention in the directors and officers coverage action against the bank’s D&O insurers, the FDIC seeks a judicial declaration that its claims against the directors and officers are covered under the policies. All of the defendants moved to dismiss the respective claims against them.

 

In his October 23 opinion and order, Judge Gustavo Gelpi denied all of the motions to dismiss. His rulings with respect to the D&O insurers’ motions to dismiss the coverage actions against them appear on pages 16 and following in the October 23 opinion.

 

The D&O insurers had moved to dismiss the coverage actions that had been filed against them in reliance on the I v I exclusion in the primary insurance policy. The exclusion provides that “The Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with any Claim made against an Insured …which is brought by, or on behalf of, an Organization or any Insured Person other than an Employee of an Organization, in any respect and whether or not collusive.” The insurers argued that as receiver for the failed Westernbank, the FDIC stood in the shoes of Westernbank, which is an insured under the policy, and therefore the FDIC’s claims against the failed bank’s directors and officers were precluded from coverage under the D&O insurance policies by operation of the I v I exclusion.

 

As Judge Gelpi noted in his opinion these same issues were raised and litigated in a number of cases during the S&L crisis two decades ago. And as Judge Gelpi also notes in his opinion, these prior courts had split on the question of whether or not a D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured Exclusion precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver against a failed bank’s former directors and officers. In summarizing these cases, Judge Gelpi noted that the question of the applicability of the exclusion in this context “is ambiguous.”

 

Judge Gelpi then, “with these differences in mind,” turned to the “purposes of the exclusion, the complaint and the specific terms of the policy for guidance.” He noted that the “obvious purpose” of the exclusion is to protect against collusive law suits; however, he also noted that the exclusion itself on which the insurers sought to rely made the exclusion applicable to Insured vs. Insured claims “whether or not collusive.”

 

The question to which Judge Gelpi then turned is whether or not the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of Westernbank were “brought by, on behalf of or in the right of, and Organization or any Insured Person.” Judge Gelpi noted that the policy defines the term “Organization” as the named entity, each subsidiary and debtors in bankruptcy proceedings. After citing these provisions, Judge Gelpi summarily concluded that “Accordingly, the court finds that the FDIC’s course of conduct does not run afoul of this provision.” In reliance on prior cases that had concluded that the I v I Exclusion “does not prelude the FDIC from seeking redress from the Insurers.” 

 

By way of further elaboration, Judge Gelpi noted that the FDIC is suing “on behalf of depositors, account holders, and a depleted insurance fund,” and therefore that “the FDIC’s role as a regulator sufficiently distinguishes it from those whom the parties intended to prevent from bringing claims under the Exclusion.”

 

Discussion

Judge Gelpi’s ruling in this case is a significant victory for the individual directors and officers who hoped to be able to rely on the D&O insurance policies in order to be able to defend themselves against the FDIC’s claims against them, as well as for the FDIC, which hopes to be able to recover the losses it claims from the D&O insurance policies.

 

As the first decision on this insurance coverage issue in connection with the current bank failure wave, Judge Gelpi’s ruling will also obviously be of great interest to other failed bank directors and officers who face FDIC claims and whose D&O insurance carriers have tried to deny coverage in reliance on their respective policies’ Insured vs. Insured Exclusions. But while Judge Gelpi’s decision unquestionably will be helpful to the directors and officers in the other cases, it is far from the final word on the subject.

 

For starters, the split of authority in the cases from S&L crisis era remains. As Judge Gelpi noted, the courts have gone both ways on these issues and the carriers undoubtedly will continue to attempt to rely on the cases holding that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion does preclude coverage for claims brought by the FDIC.

 

A further reason that Judge Gelpi’s decision is unlikely to provide the final word on the subject is that other courts may not find the logic on which Judge Gelpi relied as compelling as he did. Judge Gelpi does not, for example, appear to have even considered the question of whether or not an action by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of a failed bank (and therefore in effect, “standing in the shoes of the failed bank”) is an action “in the right of” the Organization, within the language and meaning of the exclusion. Other courts may consider it important in considering the exclusion’s potential applicability to address this issue expressly, as Judge Gelpi’s opinion does not. These other courts, in more careful consideration of this issue, might also conclude that the FDIC asserting claims as a failed bank’s receiver is asserting claims “in the right of” the failed bank and therefore that the exclusion applies.

 

In support of his conclusion, Judge Gelpi also considered it important that the FDIC was not only suing in its capacity as receiver, but was also suing on behalf of “depositors, account holders, and a depleted insurance fund.” Indeed, many of the courts that had ruled during the S&L crisis era that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion did not preclude coverage for claims by the FDIC had made their decisions in reliance on the same or similar observations about the FDIC’s claims.

 

The insurers, however, will likely contend that even if the FDIC is acting on behalf of these other constituencies in bringing the suit, it is first and foremost bringing the suit in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank, as that is the basis upon which it has any right to bring the claims in the first place. The insurers will further argue that the sole basis on which the FDIC has any right to assert the claims is because, by operation of the receivership, it is acting “in the right of” the failed bank, and therefore the preclusive language of the exclusion applies, notwithstanding the fact that the FDIC may have other purposes and motivations in bringing the action. The policy’s exclusion does not require, in order for the exclusion to apply, that the action be brought “solely” or “only” “in the right of” the Organization. The insurers will argue that because the action was brought “in the right of” the Organization, the exclusion applies notwithstanding the fact that in bringing the claim the FDIC was also action on behalf of other constituencies.

 

All of which is a long way of saying that though the policyholders and the FDIC prevailed in this case, these issues are likely to continue to be litigated, and the split of cases we saw during the S&L crisis is likely to continue.

 

Very special thanks to the several readers who supplied me with copies of Judge Gulpi’s opinion.

 

Another Georgia Failed Bank Lawsuit: On October 23, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for the failed United Security Bank of Sparta, Georgia filed its latest failed bank lawsuit. The complaint, which the FDIC filed in the Northern District of Georgia, can be found here.

 

United Security bank failed on November 6, 2009. The FDIC’s lawsuit as the bank’s receiver is filed against a single defendant, Pierce Neese, the bank’s former CEO and also a bank director. The FDIC’s complaint asserts claims of Negligence and Gross Negligence against Neese in connection with 16 loans made between November 10, 2005 and March 27, 2008, which the agency alleges caused damages to the bank of over $6.373 million.

 

An unusual feature of the FDIC’s complaint, and perhaps the explanation why there is only a singe defendant is the case, is the agency’s allegation that from 2002 until March 2006, Neese “was effectively the Bank’s senior credit officer and functioned as a ‘One-Man Bank.’” Even after the bank established itself as a three-person LLC at the direction of regulators, Neese “continued to function as the Bank’s ‘one-man’ LLC until the Bank failed. According to the complaint, the bank even had print advertisements stating, “Meet Our Loan Committee, Pierce Neese.” The FDIC alleges that by dominating and usurping the loan approval process, Neese rendered the usual lending controls ineffective.

 

The FDIC’s complaint against Neese is the latest that the FDIC has recently filed as banks that failed in 2009 approach the third year anniversary of their closure (about which refer here). The complaint is also is the 35^th lawsuit that the FDIC has filed as part of the current failed bank wave and the 17^th that the agency has filed so far in 2012. The FDIC’s lawsuit against Neese is also the tenth lawsuit the FDIC has filed in connection with a failed Georgia bank. Although Georgia has had more failed banks than any other state, the percentage of all failed bank lawsuit involving failed Georgia banks is even greater than the percentage of all bank failures involving Georgia banks. For now at least, it seems as if the regulators are focusing on Georgia more than other states.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After a nearly three-month period in which the FDIC filed no new lawsuits against the former directors and officers of a failed bank, the agency has in recent days filed two new suits, both involving banks that were approaching the third anniversary of their closure. The FDIC’s latest lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Georgia on October 17, 2012, against certain former directors and officers of the failed American United Bank of Lawrenceville, Georgia, which was closed by regulators on October 23, 2009. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

 

The FDIC’s complain, which it filed in its capacity as American United’s receiver, names as defendants two former officers of American United – T. Glenn Thompson, the bank’s former CEO, and Joel C. Taylor, the bank’s former Chief Lending Officer – as well as six individual members of the bank’s board of directors. The complaint asserts claims against the individuals for negligence and for gross negligence.

 

The complaint alleges that “rather than manage the Bank’s lending function in a sound and responsible manner, the Defendants took unreasonable risks with the Bank’s loan portfolio, allowed irresponsible and unsustainable rapid asset growth concentrated in high-risk and speculative acquisition development and construction and commercial real estate loans and loan participations, disregarded regulator warnings about lending activities, violated the Bank’s loan policies and procedures, and knowingly permitted poor underwriting in contravention of the Bank’s policies and reasonable industry standards.” The FDIC alleges that these actions caused damages to the bank “in excess of $7.3 million.”

 

The FDIC’s complaint against the former American United officials is the 34^th lawsuit that the FDIC has filed as part of the current failed bank wave and the 16^th that the agency has filed so far in 2012. The FDIC filed a considerable number of complaints in the first few months of this year, filing 12 new lawsuits in the first five months of the year. But then for two months, until mid –July, the agency filed no new lawsuits, and then after filing two on July 13, filed no further lawsuits until November.

 

The apparent slowdown in the FDIC’s new lawsuit filings during the period between May and October 2012 was surprising not only because of the more rapid pace of filings in the first five months of the year, but also as 2012 progressed, the third anniversaries of the closures of an increasing number of banks has been approaching. Given that the number of bank failures ramped up as 2009 progressed, it seemed likely that the number of new lawsuits would have increased during the year, as the three-year statute of limitations for increasing numbers of failed banks approached.

 

The slowdown is surprising for another reason as well, which is that while there have been a couple of very large gaps this year (together stretching over nearly a five month period) during which only a small number of lawsuits were filed, the agency has continued each month to update its website to show that an increasingly larger number of lawsuits have been filed. As the latest update on October 9, 2012, the agency has authorized suits in connection with 80 failed institutions against 665 individuals for D&O liability. These figures are inclusive of the now 34 lawsuits involving 33 institutions and  naming 280 former directors and officers that have been filed so far – suggesting an increasingly large backlog of as yet unfiled complaints.

 

As I have previously noted on this blog, knowledgeable persons have advised me that at least part of the explanation for the apparent filing slowdown is that the FDIC and the prospective defendants (and their insurers) have in some instances been involved in negotiations. In some instances, the FDIC has requested that the indivudals agree to a tolling agreement which stays the running of the statute of limitations while the negotiations continue. These negotiations have in at least some cases permitted matters that might otherwise have resulted in litigation to be resolved without a complaint being filed. While that might well account for some of the slowdown, the increase in the numbers of authorized lawsuits does suggest that there is still a backlog of cases to be filed. It still seems likely that as the third anniversary of bank failures from late 2009 and early 2010 approaches (which period was the high water mark of the current bank failure wave) we should be seeing an upsurge in new FDIC lawsuits, especially given the extent to which the number of authorized lawsuits exceeds the number of lawsuits filed

 

The FDIC’s suit against the former American United officers is the ninth lawsuit so far involving a failed Georgia bank, meaning that lawsuits involving banks from Georgia account for more that a quarter of failed bank lawsuits so far. At one level, this is not a surprise, since there have been many more bank failures in Georgia as part of the current bank failure wave than any other state. But the over 80 Georgia banks that have failed since August 2008 represent only about 18 percent of the over 440 banks that have failed during that period, meaning that the failed Georgia banks have been targeted at a disproportionately higher rate. By way of contrast, Florida, which also has experienced a very high bank failure rate so far, has only had one failed bank lawsuit. Georgia banks were very heavily represented in the earliest part of the current bank failure wave, so it  may be that these apparent mismatches will even out over time as more suits are filed.

 

There is one other interesting feature of the new American United case, which is that the FDIC has included allegations of ordinary negligence. This is interesting because of the recent decision in the Northern District of Georgia in the Integrity Bank case, applying Georgia law and holding that because of their protection under the business judgment rule, directors cannot be held liable of ordinary negligence. More recently (as discussed here), in the FDIC’s lawsuit against former directors and officers of the failed Haven Trust bank, Northern District of Georgia Judge Steve C. Jones affirmed that Georgia’s business judgment rule is applicable to the actions of bank directors and officers. Based on that determination, Judge Jones dismissed the FDIC’s claims against the directors and officers for ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. In light of that earlier decision, it would seem that the defendants in the new American United case have a basis on which to seek to have the negligence claims against them dismissed. (The FDIC, undoubtedly anticipating this argument, included in its complaint specific allegations asserting that the defendants are not entitled to rely on the business judgment rule, at paragraph 55 and following.) 

 

Very special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the FDIC’s American United complaint.

 

Welcome to the Blogosphere: The D&O Diary is very happy to welcome D&O Discourse, a new blog from the securities litigation group of the Lane Powell law firm. The new blog, which can be found here, will, according to the firm, “discuss select securities and corporate governance litigation developments of interest to public companies and their directors and officers, D&O liability insurance carriers and brokers, plaintiffs' and defense lawyers, and economists, forensic accountants and other professionals whose practices involve securities and corporate governance litigation.” The new site looks good, and based on its early entries it will represent a welcome addition to the blogosphere. Everyone here at The D&O Diary looks forward to following the site in the future.

 

Regulatory ADD? : Francine McKenna, the author of the re: The Auditors blog, has an interesting October 18, 2012 article in Forbes Magazine entitled “Is the SEC’s Ponzi Crusade Enabling Companies to Cook the Books, Enron-Style?” (here). In the article, McKenna suggests that the SEC, eager to make up for its failure to catch Madoff, is disproportionately devoting resources to Ponzi-scheme prosecution and also to FCPA enforcement activities, to the detriment of its efforts to root out “fraudulent or misleading accounting and disclosures by public companies.” McKenna questions whether “a stretched SEC” might be “neglecting accounting fraud.” McKenna’s article looks at whether the reduced accounting fraud enforcement activity in recent years is the result of decreased fraud or a reduced emphasis on the issue from the regulatory agency.

 

In a concluding section that will be of interest to readers of this blog, McKenna’s article closes with a seven-point checklist to use to test for accounting risk at any particular company.  

 

More About Opt-Outs: I have written frequently about class-action opt-outs on this site (most recently here) In an October 18, 2012 Metropolitan Corporate Counsel article entitled “The Securities Class Action Opt-Out Plaintiffs: By the Numbers” (here), Neal Troum of the Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young law firm takes a closer look at class action opt-outs recoveries. Troum concludes that “institutional investors with significant losses on account of securities fraud may recover more as opt-out plaintiffs than class members in securities fraud actions.” He suggests that “institutional investors have their options and, with increasing frequency, they are choosing a different path.”

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An overabundance of airplane time and a shortage of Internet access (not the mention my day job’s unrelenting requirements) have kept The D&O Diary on the blogging sidelines despite a host of noteworthy events in recent days. The march of events moves ever onward, but before the sands of time envelop recent notable events altogether, we note them briefly here.

 

Alcoa Settles Bribery Suit With Alba: On October 9, 2012, Alcoa announced (here) that it had agreed to pay Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C. (better known as “Alba”) $85 million to settle the long-running RICO action that the state-owned Bahraini aluminum smelter had filed against the company in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The settlement is noteworthy in a number of respects, not the least of which the settlement’s size. The settlement is also noteworthy given the identity of the claimant, as discussed below.

 

As discussed here, in February 2008, Alba had sued Alcoa, one of its affiliates, and two individuals (one of whom was an officer of an Alcoa affiliate), alleging that the defendants had engaged in a 15-year conspiracy involving overcharging, fraud and bribery of Bahraini officials. The complaint alleges that one of the individual defendants, Victor Daladeh, funneled payments to one or more (unnamed) Bahraini officials as part of an alleged conspiracy to cause Alba to cede a portion of its equity to Alcoa, to pay Alcoa inflated prices for alumina, and to corrupt the integrity of senior Bahraini officials. Alba’s complaint sought to recover damages from the defendants based on the alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO, and for fraud.

 

The case was stayed for several years while related U.S. government investigations continued. (The government investigations are continuing.) However, in November last year, Alcoa’s lawyers persuaded the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Donetta Ambrose to lift the stay so that the defendants could file a motion to dismiss. Among other things, the defendants argued, in reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, that the court should dismiss the case because the alleged wronging on which Alba relied in support of its claim took place entirely outside the U.S. and therefore not appropriately the subject of a lawsuit in the U.S. under U.S. laws. As discussed in Victor Li’s August 1, 2012 Corporate Counsel article (here), Judge Ambrose rejected defendants’ motion, finding that Alcoa’s Pittsburgh headquarters was the “nerve center” of the alleged scheme, because the control and decision-making of the alleged conspiratorial enterprise came from Pittsburgh.  

 

According to its October 9 press release, Alcoa will pay the $85 million settlement amount in two installments, with half to be made at the time of the settlement and the other half to be paid one year later. The press release also states that Alcoa and Alba have “resumed a commercial relationship” and entered into a long-term supply agreement, “demonstrating a mutual desire to work together going forward.” The settlement does not resolve Alba’s claims against Daladeh, who according to news reports, has been arrested in October 2011 by British officials and charged with bribing officials at Alba.

 

As I have previously noted on this blog, one of phenomena associated with the recent upsurge in FCPA enforcement activity has been related growth in follow-on shareholder litigation. However, by contrast to these more common types of follow-on civil suits, this action was not brought by Alcoa’s shareholders; rather, this lawsuit was brought by the alleged victims of the corrupt activity (and indeed, the suit was initiated before there had been any separate governmental enforcement action; the government action followed after the civil suit).

 

As anti-bribery enforcement activity has increased, the prospect for follow-on civil litigation has also grown. In that regard, the size of the settlement in this case and the claimant’s relative success in bringing its claim will not go unnoticed. The likelihood is that companies that become enmeshed in bribery allegations could also face related civil litigation, and in light of this sizeable settlement, the threat of civil litigation will include not only the possibility of claims from shareholders, but also possible claims from the purported victims of the alleged corrupt activity.

 

Pfizer Settles Celebrex-Related Securities Suit for $164 Million: According to papers filed with the Court, Pfizer has settled the long-running securities suit alleging that Pharmacia (which Pfizer acquired in 2003) had misrepresented the safety of its anti-inflammatory drug, Celebrex, for $164 million. A copy of the parties’ October 5, 2012 stipulation of settlement can be found here. 

 

As discussed here, shareholders first sued Pharmacia and certain of its directors and officers in 2003, alleging that the company had released only part of a long-term clinical study the company had commissioned on the side effects of the drug. The complaint also alleged that scientists affiliated with the company had used the partial data to write an article in the Journal of t he American Medical Association, while failing to reveal that only part of the data was used. When Pharmacia later sought to the FDA’s approval to market the drug without certain warning labels, the agency declined based on questions concerning the completeness of the study results, following which the company’s share price declined.

 

This case had a long and complex procedural history. District of New Jersey Anne Thompson had initially dismissed the case on statute of limitations ground. But as discussed here, in 2009, the Third Circuit reversed the district court, and the case returned to the District Court. The settlement comes as an October 22, 2012 trial date loomed. 

 

Nate Raymond and Ransdell Pierson’s October 9, 2012 Reuters article about the settlement can be found here.

 

This settlement is noteworthy in many respects, not least of which because of its size. However, in a world of class action securities lawsuit settlements measured in the billions, even a settlement of this size does not attract as much attention as it might have at one time. Indeed, according to my research, this $164 million settlement does not even break the top 50 of all time securities lawsuit settlements. It is not even the largest securities suit settlement, having been exceeded, among others, by Bristol Myers Squibb’s $300 million securities lawsuit settlement (about which refer here).  The settlement amount alone does not take into account the defense fees incurred, which, given the case’s long and complicated procedural history, also likely were substantial (particularly given the approaching trial date). 

 

It is not an original observation, but the total economic cost of this kind of litigation is truly astonishing. 

 

Breaking Lull, FDIC Files Latest Failed Bank Lawsuit: On October 2, 2012, in the first lawsuit the FDIC has filed since July in its capacity as receiver of a failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers, the FDIC filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against six former directors and officers of the failed Benchmark Bank of Aurora, Illinois. The FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

 

Benchmark Bank failed on December 4, 2009 (about which refer here). In its complaint, the FDIC alleges that the defendants breached their duties of care by approving certain high-risk acquisition, development and construction loans. The FDIC seeks to recover losses “of at least $13.3 million” allegedly caused by the defendants gross negligence, negligence and breaches of fiduciary duties.

 

The Benchmark Bank lawsuit is the fifteenth failed bank lawsuit the FDIC has filed during 2012 and the 33^rd overall that the FDIC has filed as part of the current bank failure wave. However, it is the first the FDIC has filed since mid-July and only the third the FDIC has filed since late May. The slow filing pace is all the more surprising as comes three years after what had been the period when bank closures were ramping up in earnest. All is equal, it seems as if there would have been more lawsuits filed like this one as the three year closure anniversary approached.

 

The slowdown is all the more surprising because the lull has come even though the FDIC has continued to indicate on its website (here) on a monthly basis that the number of lawsuits the agency has authorized has increased. Indeed, in its latest update (dated October 9. 2012), the FDIC indicated that it has authorized suits in connection with 80 failed institutions against 665 individuals for D&O liability. These figures are inclusive of the 33 filed D&O lawsuits involving 32 institutions, naming 272 former directors and officers. filed so far. 

 

As the number of authorized lawsuits has continued to accumulate and as the three year closure anniversary of an increasingly large number of banks has approached, it has seemed as if we would be seeing increasing numbers of lawsuits filed. Yet in the last five months there have only been three new suits filed, and this latest complaint is the first in three months. Knowledgeable participants in this process have advised me that part of the reason for the slowdown is that in a number of instances the FDIC is engaged in negotiations to see if the matters can be resolved without litigation. But as the number of lawsuits authorized continues to increase it does seem likely that sooner or later we will be seeing an upsurge in new complaints. It just hasn’t happened yet.

 

In the meantime, it is reassuring to note that the number of new bank closures has dwindled. There have been no new bank closures so far during October 2012, after only three in September 2012 and only one in August 2012. It certainly can be hoped that now, more than four years after the depths of the financial crisis, perhaps the wave of bank closures is finally about to come to an end.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 5, 2012, in the latest in a series of decisions addressing the question whether or not corporate officers (as differentiated from corporate directors) are entitled under California law to rely on the protections of the business judgment rule, Central District of California Judge Dale Fischer held that former officers of the failed IndyMac bank cannot assert an affirmative defense based on the business judgment rule in the FDIC’s failed bank lawsuit pending against them. Judge Fischer also addressed the question whether the individual officer could assert a number of other affirmative defenses against the FDIC. A copy of Judge Fischer’s memorandum opinion can be found here.

 

Background

IndyMac Bank failed on July 11, 2008. As discussed in detail here, On July 2, 2010, in the first lawsuit against former directors and officers of a failed bank it filed as part of the current wave of bank failures, the FDIC, as receiver of IndyMac, filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California against four former officers of IndyMac’s Homebuilder Division (HBD). 

 

The lawsuit is filed against Scott Van Dellen, HBD’s former President and CEO, who is alleged to have approved all of the loans that are the subject of the FDIC’s suit; Richard Koon, who was HBD’s Chief Lending Officer until mid-2006 and who is alleged to have approved at least 40 of the loans at issue; Kenneth Shellem, who served as HBD’s Chief Compliance Officer until late 2006, and who is alleged to have approved at least 57 of the loans at issue; ;and William Rothman, who served as HBD’s Chief Lending Officer from mid-2006 and who is alleged to have approved at least 34 of the loans at issue. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages from the four individual defendants for "negligence and breach of fiduciary duties." 

 

In their answers to the FDIC’s complaint, the officer defendants asserted a number of affirmative defenses, including a defense based on their assertion that their actions were protected by the business judgment rule. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on a number of issues, including the question of whether or not the defendants were entitled to rely on the protections of the business judgment rule, as well as the defendants’ other affirmative defenses.  

 

The October 5 Ruling

Judge Fischer began her October 5 opinion with a detailed choice of law analysis. The defendants had argued, in reliance on the holding company’s Delaware incorporation, that Delaware law applied. The FDIC argued that because the bank was locating in and conducted its operations in California, California law governed. Judge Fischer found that regardless of which choice of law principles were used to determine the question, California law governed.

 

Having determined that California law applied, Judge Fischer then turned to the question of the applicability of California’s Business Judgment Rule (BJR). Judge Fischer noted that under California law, the BJR has two components, an “immunization from liability” codified in Corporations Code Section 309, and a “judicial policy of deference to the exercise of good faith business judgment in management decisions.”

 

The officer defendants conceded that the protections codified in Section 309 were not available (undoubtedly because Section 309 refers only to “directors”). So the question for Judge Fischer was whether the common law element of the BJR applies to officers.

 

After reviewing California case law and also the work of the California Law Revision Commission, Judge Fischer determined that “the Court is left with only one reasonable conclusion” – that is, that “the state’s business judgment rule does not protect officers” and therefore the individual officer defendants “may not use the business judgment rule as an affirmative defense.” Judge Fischer granted the FDIC’s motion for partial summary judgment in that respect.

 

Judge Fischer then went on and considered several of the individual defendants’ other affirmative defenses. Among other things, Judge Fischer concluded that California’s four-year statute of limitations applied to the FDIC’s claims against the four individuals for breach of fiduciary duty, rather than either FIRREA’s three-year statute of limitations or other shorter California statutes of limitation on which the individual defendants sought to rely.

 

Judge Fischer also concluded that the defendants are barred from asserting against the FDIC (as Indy Mac’s receiver) affirmative defenses for failure to mitigate, unclean hands and ratification, based on the FDIC’s pre- and post-receivership conduct, because, as Judge Fischer concluded, under California law, equitable defenses that would have been good against the Bank could not be raised against the FDIC as receiver.

 

Discussion

In several instances, individual defendants have successfully argued that their conduct is protected by the business judgment rule and accordingly, that they cannot be held liable for ordinary negligence. The most significant holding is the August 14, 2012 decision in the Northern District of Georgia in the Haven Trust case, in which Judge Steve C. Jones dismissed the claims against both the director and officer defendants, because of his determination that under Georgia law the directors’ and officers’ conduct is protected by the business judgment rule. The Haven Trust case is discussed here. Earlier in August, a judge in the Middle District of Florida, ruled in the FDIC’s failed bank lawsuit relating to the failed Florida Community Bank of Immokalee, Florida, that under Florida law directors cannot be held liable for ordinary negligence, as discussed here. The ruling in that case did not reach the question of whether or not officers can be held liable for ordinary negligence under Florida law.

 

However, as California attorney Jon Joseph wrote in his April 11, 2012 guest post on this blog (here), courts applying California law on the issue and considering whether corporate officers as well as directors can rely on the business judgment rule have split on the issue. Most recently, on June 7, 2012, Eastern District of California Judge Lawrence O’Neill held that the defendant officers cannot rely on the statutorily codified business judgment rule under California Corporations Code Section 309, because the statute by its terms refers only to officers not directors. Judge O’Neill’s ruling is discussed here (second item).

 

The significance of Judge Fischer’s ruling in the Indy Mac case is that it was, by contrast to Judge O’Neill’s June 2012 decision, not solely with relationship to provisions of Section 309, which by its terms refers only to directors (a point conceded by the defendants in the Indy Mac case). Judge Fischer went on to hold that corporate officers may not rely on the protections of the common law business judgment rule, either.

 

Although Judge Fischer’s analysis in connection with her rulings regarding the defendants’ other affirmative defenses is not early as detailed as with respect to the business judgment rule, it is nevertheless significant that she determined as a matter of California law that the defendants cannot assert against the FDIC the affirmative defenses for failure to mitigate, unclean hands and ratification. As noted below, other courts, applying the laws of other jurisdictions, have reached contrary conclusions on the question of whether or not former Bank officers and directors can assert equitable defenses against the FDIC asserting claims as receiver as a failed bank.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of Judge Fischer’s October 5 opinion.

 

Under North Carolina Law, Failed Bank’s Former Directors and Officers Can Assert Equitable Defenses Against the FDIC: An October 2, 2012 ruling, applying North Carolina law, reached a different conclusion that Judge Fischer on the question of whether or not former directors and officers of a failed bank can assert equitable defenses against the FDIC. A copy of the October 2 opinion can be found here.

 

As discussed here, the FDIC had brought an action against nine former directors and officers of the failed Cooperative Bank of Wilmington, North Carolina. As detailed in the October 2 order, Eastern District of North Carolina Judge Terrence Boyle denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

 

The FDIC had also separately moved to strike the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses for avoidable consequence/failure to mitigate damages. The defendants contend that the terms of the loss-share agreement entered between the FDIC and Cooperative’s acquiring bank did not provide the acquiring bank with incentive to lessen the loan losses, which aggravated the losses or even cause the losses in connection with some loans. The FDIC moved to strike the defense, on the ground that it had “no duty” to the defendants.

 

The defendants argued in reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1994 ruling on O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC that when the FDIC brings an action as receiver, it “steps into the shoes” of the failed bank and state common law governs questions of tort liability.

 

Judge Boyle noted that the courts are split on the question whether the “no duty” rule (on which the FDIC relied in its motion to strike) still applies after the O’Melveny decision. Citing an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion, Judge Boyle concluded that state law governs what defenses are available against the FDIC. Judge Boyle found that under basic principles of North Carolina law, a plaintiff must take reasonable steps to mitigate damages. Accordingly Judge Boyle denied the FDIC’s motion to strike, allowing the defendants to assert the equitable defenses against the FDIC.

 

Although Judge Fischer reached a different conclusion in the Indy Mac case on the ability of individual defendants to assert equitable defenses against the FDIC as receiver of a failed bank, the difference in outcome in the two cases at least arguably can be explained by the difference in the two jurisdictions’ law that was applied. The two cases did at least conclude that the question of the availability of affirmative defenses is a question of state law.

 

Judge Boyle’s opinion not only ruled that the defendants can assert the equitable defenses but also implicitly rejected the FDIC’s “no duty” argument, one of several defendants to reach this conclusion.

 

For a detailed discussion of the issues surrounding the FDIC’s “no duty” argument, please refer to August 31, 2011 guest post, here.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of Judge Boyle’s opinion.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I have previously noted (most recently here), the pace of filing of FDIC actions against directors and officers of failed banks has slowed considerably as 2012 has progressed. Indeed, there have only been two new FDIC failed bank lawsuits filed since May, and none at all since mid-July (even though the FDIC has each month continued to increase the number of authorized lawsuits, as reflected on the agency’s website, here).

 

While the FDIC has not filed any new failed bank lawsuits recently, that is not to say that the regulatory authorities have not been active. Specifically, on September 25, 2011, the SEC filed enforcement actions in the District of Nebraska against three former officers of the failed TierOne Bank of Lincoln, Nebraska, as well as against the son of one of the three officers. The SEC’s September 25, 2012 press release regarding the enforcement actions can be found here, and the SEC’s two complaints can be found here and here.

 

Banking regulators closed TierOne Bank on June 4, 2012 (refer here). The SEC alleges that prior to the closure, TierOne understated its loan losses  and misstated the value real estate the bank had repossessed. The SEC alleges that as a result of the bank’s expansion into “riskier types” of lending in Las Vegas and other high growth areas, and the resulting increase in problems loans, the Office of Thrift Supervision directed the bank to maintain higher capital ratios. The SEC alleges that in order to comply with these requirements, three TierOne officials – Gilbert Lundstrom, the bank’s Chairman and CEO; James Laphen, the bank’s President and COO; and Don Langford, the bank’s chief credit officer – disregarded information that collateral securing the bank’s loans and real estate the bank had repossessed were significantly overvalued. The SEC alleges that as a result the bank’s losses were understated by millions of dollars in multiple SEC filings.

 

The SEC further alleges that after the OTS required the bank to obtain new appraisals for the collateral and repossessed real estate, the bank disclosed more than $130 million in loan losses. The SEC alleges that had these losses been booked in the appropriate quarters, the bank would have missed the required capital ratios several quarters earlier. Following the announcement of the loan losses, its stock price dropped more than 70%

 

The SEC alleges that Lundstrom communicated inside information to his son about the bank’s intention to sell certain assets. With the benefit of this information, Lundstrom’s son was able to purchase TierOne stock and then later sell it at a profit.

 

The SEC has reached settlements with Lundstrom and with his son, and with Laphen. Lundstrom has agreed to pay a $500,921 penalty. Laphen has agreed to pay a $225,000 penalty. Lundstrom’s son has agreed to pay a $225,921 disgorgement plus a $225,921 penalty. The sole remaining defendant, Langfor, has not settled the charges and the case against him remains pending.

 

The SEC’s press release quotes SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami as saying that the bank’s understatement of its loan losses had the effect of “concealing the bank’s deterioration from shareholders and regulators alike.” The SEC’s press release also expressly acknowledges the “cooperation” of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

 

The SEC enforcement actions relating to TierOne Bank are not the first that the SEC has brought against in the wake of a bank closure as part of the current wave of bank failures. As noted here, in April 2012, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against two former officers of the publicly traded holding company of the failed Franklin Bank. In addition, as noted previously (here, scroll down), in an October 11, 2011 complaint (here), the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against four former officers of UCBH Holdings, Inc., the holding company for United Commercial Bank, which failed in November 2009.

 

The SEC action against the former TierOne officials serve as a reminder that the former directors and officers of a failed bank face significant additional litigation threats beyond just the possibility of a civil action by the FDIC in its role as receiver of the failed bank. Where, as here, the failed institution or its holding company were publicly traded, the potential liability exposures include the possibility of an SEC enforcement action or even a securities class action lawsuit. Even though the penalty amounts the SEC sought in the enforcement actions would not be covered under a D&O policy, the costs associated with defending this type of enforcement action would likely be covered (assuming that D&O insurance coverage is in fact available). These costs erode the limits of liability of any applicable insurance, reducing the amount of insurance available for any other pending claims. All of which is a reminder of the strains that post-failure litigation can put on the D&O insurance resources of a failed bank.

 

Summary Judgment Denied in Failed Bank Coverage Suit: Readers may recall that in a prior post (here), I described an action that a D&O insurer had filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking a judicial declaration that the policy the insurer had issued to the failed Michigan Heritage Bank did not provide coverage for the claims that the FDIC, as receiver for the failed bank, had filed against a former officer of the bank. The defendants in the insurer’s declaratory judgment action include both the FDIC and the former bank official that the FDIC has separately sued.

 

In its declaratory judgment action, the insurer contends that there is no coverage under its policy for the FDIC’s claim against the former bank officer, arguing that coverage is barred by the “insured vs. insured” exclusion” and that the financial loss alleged in the underling claim does not constitute loss under the policy. The insurer moved for summary judgment.

 

In a September 24, 2012 opinion and order (here), Eastern District of Michigan Judge Bernard Freidman denied without prejudice the insurer’s summary judgment motion. In opposing the summary judgment motion, the FDIC has argued that the motion was premature because the terms on which the carrier seeks to rely are ambiguous and because discovery is required to determine the meaning of the terms.

 

In denying the insurer’s motion, Judge Friedman said that “the FDIC has shown that some ambiguity exists in the insured vs. insured exemption [sic] due to the ‘security holder exception,’ the omission of a regulatory exclusion, and statements by plaintiff that regulatory suits, which might include the instant action are covered.”

 

Judge Friedman also found “the FDIC has shown that some ambiguity exists in the definition of ‘loss’ because the so-called ‘loan loss carve out’ does not clearly exemption tortious conduct.” Judge Friedman also cited the insurer’s marketing materials “which indicated that charged-off loan losses are covered not excluded.” Judge Friedman denied the summary judgment motion to permit discovery on specified issues.

 

Judge Friedman’s ruling in this case does not represent a determination on the merits. It does not represent a determination that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion does not apply to a claim by the FDIC as receiver of a failed bank against the former officials of the bank.

 

However, there may still be some significance to the fact that Judge Friedman did find “some ambiguity” in the provisions on which the insurer sought to rely to contest coverage. His determination in the regard depended in part on specific factual issues, pertaining in particular to the insurer’s marketing materials. Nevertheless, the ruling does represent to some extent a determination that the question of whether or not the Insured vs. Insured exclusion applies to an FDIC failed bank lawsuit may not be a strictly legal issue but could involve factual issues on which discovery is required. If this coverage question is a factual issue – if there is “some ambiguity” regarding the insured vs. insured exclusion -- it could complicate insurer’s efforts to rely on the exclusion in order to contest coverage for FDIC failed bank claims.

 

To be sure, there will likely be another round on the issue of the exclusion’s applicability following discovery. But having to go on to that later round at a minimum could mean that obtaining  the coverage determination might turn out to be more involved than might have initially seemed like it would be.

 

FDIC, Bank Officials Settle Failed Bank Lawsuit: According to press reports, the FDIC and certain former directors and officers of Heritage Community Bank of Glenwood, Illinois have reached a settlement of the failed bank litigation that the FDIC, as receiver for the bank, had filed against the former bank officials. Background regarding the FDIC's 2012 lawsuit can be found here. The press reports do not disclose the amount or terms of the settlement. The September 10, 2012 settlement stipulation that the parties filed with the court (a copy of which can be found here) does not disclose the terms or amount of the settlement.

 

A March 2012 memo by the Jones Day law firm  discussing the Heritage Community Bank case (among other things) can be found here.

 

FDIC Settles Failed Bank Insurance Coverage Action: A week after the parties to the Heritage Community Bank case filed their settlement stipulation, the parties tothe D&O insurance lawsuit pending in the DIstirct of Puerto Rico involving the failed Westernbank. also filed a stipulation of settlement. As discussed here (refer to the "Update" section in the body of the blog post), in January 2012, the FDIC intervened in an action that the holding company for Westernbank had filed against the bank's D&O insurance carriers. According to the parties' September 17, 2012 stipulation  (here), the FDIC and the carriers have reached a settlement. The terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the stipulation. UPDATE: A knowledgeable reader who wishes to remain anonymous advises as follow with respect to the Westerbank settlement: "That action actually hasn't settled. The parties to a parallel proceeding involving fidelity bonds issues by [two insurers] (who also are parties to the Westernbank/FDIC D&O coverage action) did apparently settle, and was confirmed by the motion to dismiss referenced in  your blog post. Very similiar parties, and they involve some of the same underlying loans that assertedly led to the failure of the bank. But the fight goes on in the D&O coverage litigation." 

 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an August 14, 2012 opinion in the FDIC’s lawsuit against former directors and officers of the failed Haven Trust bank, Northern District of Georgia Judge Steve C. Jones affirmed that Georgia’s business judgment rule is applicable to the actions of bank directors and officers. Based on that determination, Judge Jones dismissed the FDIC’s claims against the directors and officers for ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Judge Jones also ruled that the FDIC must replead its gross negligence claims against the former directors and officers to provide specific allegations as to each defendant’s alleged involvement in or responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing.

 

A copy of the August 14 opinion can be found here. An August 15, 2012 memo from the Alston & Bird law firm describing the August 14 ruling can be found here.

 

Haven Trust Bank of Duluth, Georgia was one of the first banks to fail as part of the current bank failure wave. Regulators closed the bank on December 18, 2008. As described in greater detail here, on July 14, 2001, the FDIC as receiver for the bank filed a lawsuit against 15 of the bank’s former directors and officers. The FDIC’s complaint specifically alleges improper lending practices and seeks to recover over $40 million. Among other things, the FDIC alleges that the bank suffered losses of over $7 million on improper loans to family members of two bank insiders. In its complaint, the FDIC asserts claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence.

 

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Georgia’s business judgment rule protects bank directors and officers from personal liability for ordinary negligence and from liability for breach of fiduciary duty in the absence of allegations of bad faith, fraud or abuse of discretion. The defendants also contended that the FDIC had not pled a valid claim for gross negligence.

 

In his August 14, 2012 opinion, Judge Jones granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the FDIC”s claims for negligence of for breach of fiduciary duty. He determined first that, contrary to the arguments of the FDIC, t was appropriate to consider the business judgment rule at the motion to dismiss stage. Judge Jones then went on to conclude that “when Georgia’s business judgment rule is applied to claims for ordinary negligence, Georgia courts hold that such claims are not viable.” He also specifically confirmed that the business judgment rule is applicable in the banking context. Based on these determinations, Judge Jones dismissed the FDIC’s claims for ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty (based on ordinary negligence).

 

Judge Jones denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the gross negligence count, finding that “the complaint has alleged in a collective/group manner sufficient facts for which a jury might reasonably conclude that Defendants were ‘grossly negligent’ as defined by Georgia law.” However, noting that the “factual allegations must give each defendant ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim” against them, Judge Jones ordered the FDIC to replead its gross negligence claim “to provide specific allegations as to each Defendant’s involvement or responsibility for the alleged wrongs, decisions, approvals, transactions and loans referenced in the original Complaint.”

 

Judge Jones’s rulings in the Haven Trust Bank case are consistent with his earlier rulings in the FDIC’s action against certain former directors and officers of Integrity Bank, another failed Georgia banking institution. As discussed here, in February 2012, Judge Jones ruled in the Integrity Bank case that Georgia’s business judgment rule protects the directors and officers of banks from claims for ordinary negligence and for breach of fiduciary duty based on negligence. In a footnote in this August 14 opinion in the Haven Trust case, Judge Jones expressly stated that he “adheres to and incorporates by reference into [the August 14 opinion], the Court’s prior holdings (in the context of a motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for reconsideration) on the business judgment rule” in the Integrity Bank case.

 

Coincidentally, and also on August 14, 2012, Judge Jones entered a 52-page opinion in the Integrity Bank case denying the FDIC’s motion for reconsideration of the prior ruling in that case on the applicability of the business judgment rule and certifying the entire order for interlocutory appeal. A copy of the August 14 opinion denying the FDIC’s motion for reconsideration in the Integrity Bank case can be found here.

 

These rulings in the Georgia cases are significant for a number of reasons. First and foremost, more banks have failed in Georgia during the current wave of bank failure than in any other state. The determination of the issues regarding director and officer liability under Georgia law potentially could affect the FDIC’s potential claims against the directors and officers of many other failed Georgia banks. In addition, because Georgia banks were heavily represented among the earliest failures during the bank failure wave, the FDIC’s claims against Georgia banks have moved further along than claims the FDIC later filed elsewhere.

 

The determinations in the cases that have advanced further inevitably will have an effect on the cases that were filed later – and indeed, may have an impact on whether or not the FDIC’s even files a complaint in connection with banks that failed later. Certainly, if the FDIC cannot pursue claims for ordinary negligence in Georgia (and perhaps elsewhere), that could cause the FDIC to forebear from filing suit in at least some situations. For that reason, it will be important to see whether the Eleventh Circuit elects to take up the interlocutory appeal in the Integrity Bank case. A opinion from the Eleventh Circuit would obviously not only prove determinative in existing and potential future failed bank suits in Georgia, but could prove influential in suits and potential suits elsewhere in the Eleventh Circuit, and perhaps even outside the Circuit.

 

Along those lines, and in terms of what is happening on these issues elsewhere, earlier this month a judge in the Middle District of Florida, ruled in the FDIC’s failed bank lawsuit relating to the failed Florida Community Bank of Immokalee, Florida, that under Florida law directors cannot be held liable for ordinary negligence, as discussed in a prior post, here. The ruling in that case did not reach the question of whether or not officers can be held liable for ordinary negligence under Florida law.

 

Very special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the two August 14 orders in the Haven Trust and Integrity Bank cases.

 

More About Libor Scandal-Related Litigation: In an earlier post (here), I took a closer look at the Libor scandal, including in particularly the litigation that has arisen in the wake of the scandal. Since I added that post, there have been other lawsuits filed (refer here and here). It is clear that the Libor scandal litigation will be an important part of the litigation landscape for months and years to come.

 

An August 4, 2012 Economist article entitled “Suing the Banks: Blood in the Water” (here) takes its own look at the Libor-scandal litigation. The article notes that many law firms are looking at the Libor scandal as a potentially lucrative source of business. The article states that “so far, at least 28 serious lawsuits have been filed.” All of these cases, the article notes, are “either assigned or likely to be assigned” to Southern District of New York Judge Naomi Buchwald.

 

The Economist article notes that “if there is a hesitation” it is because, notwithstanding Barclays’s massive regulatory settlements “a case will not be easy to make.” Establishing culpability “will not be straightforward.” Among other things, “no one is forced to use [Libor], and those who do often add further costs (such as a credit spread).” In addition, “it will not be easy to determine what the rate should have been” since that will require determining “what the rate should have been each trading day, minus any potential benefit.” Working this out will be “mind-wrenchingly complex for many.”

 

Just the same, as the article notes in conclusion, other legal action tied to Libor is “percolating” in Japan, Canada and Singapore, and “it would not be a shock if there were not more cases in America as well.”

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A federal court has ruled in the only FDIC failed bank lawsuit pending in Florida that directors cannot be liable for ordinary negligence under Florida law. On August 8, 2012, Middle District of Florida Judge Gregory Presnell granted the motion of the director defendants to dismiss the FDIC’s claim against them for ordinary negligence. A copy of Judge Presnell’s order can be found here.

 

As discussed here, in March 2012, the FDIC filed an action in the Middle District of Florida in the agency’s capacity as receiver of the failed Florida Community Bank of Immokalee, Florida, against the failed bank’s former CEO and six of the failed bank’s former directors. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

 

 The bank failed on January 29, 2010. In its complaint, the FDIC alleges that the bank’s collapse was caused by “grossly negligent loan underwriting and loan administration, resulting in excessive and dangerous concentrations” of commercial real estate loans and of acquisition and development loans. The FDIC seeks to recover on losses of in excess of $62 million dollars in connection with six specific loans. The FDIC asserts state law claims of negligence against the former directors and against the former CEO, as well as claims of gross negligence under FIRREA against all of the individual defendants.

 

The director defendants (except for one director who has filed for personal bankruptcy and with respect to whom the FDIC’s action as been stayed) moved to dismiss, arguing that Florida law allows recovery for bank directors only for gross negligence and therefore the claim against them for ordinary negligence should be dismissed; and also arguing that the FDIC’s allegations in the claim against them for gross negligence failed to rise to the level of gross negligence.

 

In his August 8 order, Judge Presnell granted the director defendants motion to dismiss the FDIC’s claim for ordinary negligence. He found first that Florida Statutes Section 607.830(1) imposes an ordinary standard of care on directors. However, the liability of directors is governed by Section 607.831, which provides that directors can be held liable only of one of five conditions were met. Judge Presnelll found that the only section that “conceivably “could apply is the provision requiring in order to impose liability on directors a showing that the directors’ failure constituted “conscious disregard for the best interests of the corporation or willful negligence.”

 

Judge Presnell found that the statute “conditions directorial liability on something beyond ordinary neglilgence,” and so the count in the FDIC complaint asserting a claim for ordinary negligence “must therefore be dismissed.”

 

Judge Presnell denied the directors’ motion to have the FDIC’s claim against them for gross negligence dismissed, finding that the FDIC’s allegations “are sufficient at this stage of the proceedings to state a claim for gross negligence.”

 

Even though Florida has had the second highest number of bank failures of any of the states during the current bank failure wave (trailing only Georgia), the FDIC has so far only filed this one failed bank lawsuit in Florida. There undoubtedly are other lawsuits involving other failed Florida banks yet to come. To the extent the FDIC does filed further actions in Florida and to the extent those other action involve former directors of the failed banks, the directors defendant will argue in reliance on this case that they cannot be held liable under Florida law for ordinary negligence.

 

Judge Presnell’s decision pertains only to the director defendants, and the statutes on which he relied in reaching this decision relate only to the liabilities of directors. Accordingly his decision doesn’t reach the question  whether officers (as opposed to directors) may also argue that they can only be held liable for gross negligence., or whether officers otherwise have other protections from liability for ordinary negligence.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a copy of Judge Presnell’s decision.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 13, 2012, after a lull of nearly two months during which the FDIC did not file any new failed bank lawsuits, the FDIC filed two new lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks. The FDIC also updated the number of authorized failed bank lawsuits as well.

 

The first of the two lawsuits was filed in the Northern District of Georgia against six former directors, one of whom was also an officer, of the First Piedmont Bank of Winder, Georgia, which failed on July 17, 2009. The FDIC’s complaint, which can be found here, asserts claims for negligence and for negligence in connection with “nine speculative and high risk acquisition, development and construction (ADC) transactions” that the defendants approved between October 18, 2005 and July 24, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants approved the loans “on an uninformed basis,” and “allowed irresponsible and unsustainable rapid asset growth concentrations in high-risk ADC transactions, without implementing and adhering to adequate underwriting and credit administration policies and practices.”

 

The second of the two July 13 lawsuits was filed in the District of Arizona against seven former directors and officers of the Community Bank of Arizona, of Phoenix, Arizona, which failed on August 14, 2009. Three of the seven defendants were both officers and directors of the failed bank; the remaining four were directors only. The complaint, which can be found here, asserts claims against all defendants for gross negligence and for breach of fiduciary duty and asserts claims of ordinary negligence against the officer and director defendants as well. The FDIC alleges that the defendants improperly “rubber stamping” the purchase of interests in numerous loans that had been originated at the bank’ “sister bank” – the Community Bank of Nevada, which also failed on August 14, 2009 – without the Arizona bank conducting its own underwriting of the loans and in reliance on the sister bank’s “outdated or inadequate” underwriting. The FDIC seeks to recover damages of at least $11 million.

 

In addition to the fact that both of these complaints were filed on July 13, 2012, these complaints also have in common the fact that they were both filed as the end of the three year statute of limitations period approached. In the case of the First Piedmont Bank lawsuit, the FDIC filed its complaint almost at the very end of the three year period. Given how many banks failed in the second half of 2009, there could be a host of other bank failures that in the coming months will be approaching the end of the three year period following their closure.

 

Indeed the high number of 2009 bank failures had been one of the reasons that some commentators (including me) had predicted that this would be a very active year for FDIC lawsuit filings. Indeed, through about the middle of April of this year, the FDIC had been very active. But since mid-April, the FDIC had only filed one additional lawsuit before it filed these two complaints on July 13. It is hard to tell from here whether or not the filing of these two lawsuits means the short lull is over.

 

There are further lawsuits to come at some point, that much is clear. The FDIC has updated its website to indicate that the number of authorized lawsuits has increased. As of July 17, 2012, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 68 failed institutions against 576 individuals for D&O liability. This figure is inclusive of the 32 D&O lawsuits that the agency has already filed naming 266 former directors and officers. In other words, there are as many as 36 further lawsuits in the pipeline, involving an additional 310 individuals. There are going to be a lot more lawsuits before all is said and done.

 

One interesting difference between the two July 13 lawsuits is that the Arizona lawsuit seems to have been crafted so as to avoid asserting ordinary negligence claims against the director defendants, while the Georgia lawsuit actively asserts ordinary negligence claims against the director defendants. This is interesting because of the recent decision in the Northern District of Georgia in the Integrity Bank case, applying Georgia law and holding that because of their protection under the business judgment rule, directors cannot be held liable of ordinary negligence. In light of that earlier decision, it would seem that the director defendants in the new Georgia case have a basis on which to seek to have the negligence claims against them dismissed.

 

Despite the recent lull, there have still been a total of 14 FDIC failed bank lawsuits filed this year, and 32 overall as part of the current bank failure wave. Eight of the 32 total lawsuits, or a quarter of all lawsuits, have involved failed Georgia banks, the highest number for any state, which is hardly surprising since Georgia has had the highest number of bank failures of any state. However, the 80 Georgia banks that have failed since August 2008 represent substantially less than a quarter of the approximately 440 bank failures during that same period, so the Georgia bank failures seem to be attracting litigation at an unexpectedly elevated rate, at least so far.

 

Scott Trubey's July 18, 2012 Atlanta Journal Constitution article about the new Georgia lawsuit can be found here.

 

Advisen Webinar on Securities Litigation Developments: On Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 11:00 am EDT, I will be participating in free, one-hour webinar sponsored by Advisen and entitled “Second Quarter Securities Litigation Review.” The webinar will be chaired by Advisen’s Jim Blinn and will also include Terence Healy of the Reed Smith law firm. Further information and registration instructions for the webinar can be found here. I hope all blog readers will listen in, this should be a lively webinar. There is a lot to talk about.

 

Advisen’s quarterly report on 2Q12 corporate and securities litigation can be found here.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When plaintiffs first filed their securities class action lawsuit against IndyMac Bancorp back in March 2007, the suit was one of the first of what later became a wave of subprime and credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuits. The suit itself, which has come to be known as the Tripp litigation, initially was dismissed and ultimately went through multiple rounds of dismissal motions. In March 2008, during the round of preliminary motions, and in what is the fifth largest bank failure in U.S. history, regulators closed IndyMac Bank. In August 2008, IndyMac Bancorp itself filed for bankruptcy. By the time all of these events had completely unfolded, including in particular the many rounds of dismissal motion rulings, the sole remaining defendant in the Tripp litigation was the company’s former CEO, Michael Perry.

 

According to papers filed in the Central District of California this week, Perry has now reached a settlement of the securities suit against him. As reflected in the parties’ June 26, 2012 stipulation (here), the parties have agreed to settle the case for a payment of $5.5 million. According to the stipulation, the settlement amount will be entirely funded from “insurance policies providing coverage to former officers and directors of IndyMac for the period March 1, 2007 through March 1, 2008.” The settlement is subject to court approval.

 

The litigation involving IndyMac’s former directors and officers includes not only this securities suit, but also a separate securities suit relating to IndyMac’s alleged misrepresentations regarding its exposure to Option ARM mortgages. In addition, there are two different FDIC lawsuits against former IndyMac executives. Indeed, the FDIC’s first lawsuit against former directors and officers of failed banks filed during the current wave of bank failures was filed against two former IndyMac executives (about which refer here). The FDIC also filed a separate lawsuit against Perry. The FDIC’s suit against Perry has been watched closesly as a result of the ruling in the case that Perry, as a former officer, is not entitled to rely on the business judgment rule under California law (the business judgment rule being construed by the district court as protective of directors only, not officers).

 

As noted in an accompanying post, as a result of a June 27, 2012 determination in the IndyMac insurance coverage litigation, there is insurance coverage if at all for these various lawsuits under the 2007-2008 insurance program, meaning that the various claimants in the various cases are in competition with each other for the proceeds of the 2007-2008 insurance program.  It is probably fortunate for the claimants in the Tripp litigation that the parties in the Tripp litigation were able to reach a settlement before the June 27 ruling in the insurance coverage litigation, as the competition for insurance under the 2007-2008 program could have even further complication the settlement of the Tripp litigation.

 

The stipulation provides that insurers from the 2007-2008 insurance program that will be funding this settlement may be required to seek the approval of the bankruptcy court in the IndyMac Bancorp bankruptcy proceedings in order to obtain the bankruptcy court’s approval to use the proceeds for the settlement. The stipulation adds that the parties to the settlement “expressly acknowledge and agree that all obligation of the Defendant with respect to the Settlement Amount are subject to the funding of such Settlement Amount by the Insurers,” adding that the Defendant “shall under no circumstances have an obligation to fund such amount from personnel assets.” The stipulation does provide that if the settlement amount is not paid according to the terms of the stipulation, the settlement is null and void.

 

I have in any event added the Perry settlement to my running tally of subprime and credit crisis-related case resolutions, which can be accessed here.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the perennial D&O insurance coverage questions is whether or not subsequent claims are “interrelated” with a prior claim and therefore deemed first made at the time of the prior claim. This question can be particularly critical when the subsequent claims arose during a successor policy period; the answer to the “interrelatedness” question can determine whether the claims trigger one or two insurance programs.

 

In the wave of litigation that arose in connection with the subprime meltdown and the credit crisis, many of the organizations involved were hit with multiple lawsuits filed over period of time, and thus often presenting, in connection with the determination of the availability of D&O insurance coverage, the interrelatedness question.

 

A June 27, 2012 opinion in the D&O insurance coverage litigation arising out the collapse of IndyMac bank takes a close look at these issues. A copy of the opinion can be found here. In his opinion, Central District of California Judge R. Gary Klausner concluded, based on the relevant interrelatedness language, that a variety of lawsuits that first arose during the bank’s 2008-2009 policy period were deemed first made during the policy period of the bank’s prior insurance program, and by operation of two other policy provisions were excluded from coverage under the 2008-2009 program. Because of high profile of the IndyMac case and the sweeping reach of Judge Klausner’s opinion, his ruling could prove influential in the many of the other subprime and credit crisis cases presenting interrelatedness issues.

 

Background

IndyMac failed on July 11, 2008. The bank’s closure represented the second largest bank failure during the current banking crisis, behind only the massive WaMu failure. (IndyMac has assets of about $32 billion at the time of its closure).

 

As I detailed in a prior post (here), the bank’s collapse triggered a wave of litigation. The lawsuits include a securities class action lawsuit against certain former directors and officers of the bank; lawsuits brought by the FDIC and by the SEC against the bank’s former President; and a separate FDIC lawsuit against four former officers of Indy Mac’s homebuilders division. There are a total of eleven separate lawsuits and claims pending. The first of these lawsuits was a consolidate securities class action lawsuit initiated in March 2007, which Judge Klausner refers to in his June 27 opinion as the Tripp litigation. (As noted in an accompanying post, the Tripp litigation has recently and separately settled.)

 

Prior to its collapse, IndyMac carried D&O insurance representing a total of $160 million of insurance coverage spread across two policy years, the first applying to the 2007-2008 period and the second applying to the 2008-2009 period. The insurance program in place for each of the two policy years consists of eight layers of insurance. Each layer has a $10 million limit of liability. The eight layers consist of a primary policy providing traditional ABC coverage, with three layers of excess insurance providing follow form ABC coverage, followed by four layers of Excess Side A insurance. The lineup of insurer involved changed slightly in second year.

 

In the insurance coverage litigation, the carriers in the 2008-2009 raised essentially three arguments: first, that the lawsuits and claims that arose during the 2008-2009 policy period were interrelated with the Tripp lawsuit, and therefore are deemed first made during the 2007-2008 policy period; that because the subsequent claims and lawsuits are interrelated with the Tripp lawsuit, which was noticed as a claim during the prior period, the subsequent claims and lawsuits are excluded from coverage under the 2008-2009 program under the applicable “prior notice” provision; and all of the subsequent claims are excluded from coverage under a specific exclusion endorsed onto the policies in the 2008-2009 program precluding coverage for claims related to the Tripp litigation. The former IndyMac officers and directors filed counterclaims contending that they were entitled to coverage under the 2008-2009 program. The various parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

 

The June 27 Opinion

In his June 27 opinion, Judge Klausner, applying California law, granted the insurers’ motions for summary judgment and denied the former IndyMac directors and officers cross-motions. Although his opinion is detailed, it boils down to his conclusions that each of the three sets of policy provisions at issue are unambiguous; that under each of the three sets of policy provisions, the subsequent claims are interrelated with the Tripp litigation; and by operation of the prior notice and Tripp litigation exclusions, all of the subsequent litigation is precluded from coverage under the 2008-2009 insurance program.

 

In concluding that the subsequent claims were interrelated with the Tripp litigation within meaning of the relevant language in the various policies, he noted that the policies’ definition of “interrelated wrongful act” is unambiguous and “describes a broad range of relationships between the original claim and other lawsuits that will be deemed as part of that same claim and made at the time of the first claim.”

 

The prior notice exclusion in the various policies, Judge Klausner noted, “describes a broad relationship between subsequent claims and claims that were made during prior policies such that these subsequent claims will be excluded from coverage.”

 

The Tripp litigation exclusion, Judge Klausner noted, is unambiguous and “excludes from coverage cases that have a broad range of relationships to the facts in the Tripp Litigation.”

 

Judge Klausner found that all of the subsequent claims and lawsuits “are sufficiently related to the Tripp litigation to be excluded under at least one clause of the [2008-2009] policies.”  The set of allegations that Judge Klausner found to be common among the various claims and lawsuits was the assertion that IndyMac failed to follow its underwriting standards and the resulting alleged issuance of high risk mortgages. Judge Klausner found that this commonality extended among the various suits and claims even if the specific allegations in a particular claim or suit “may fall outside the temporal scope of the Tripp litigation.”

 

Discussion

Judge Klausner’s opinion in this case is potentially significant, and not just because it means that the insurance under IndyMac’s 2008-2009 insurance program will not be available for the defense and settlement of the various subsequent claims. As I noted at the outset, many of the claims, lawsuits and disputes that have arisen in the wake of the subprime meltdown and the credit crisis present this same interrelatedness issue. Judge Klausner’s broad reading of the interrelatedness provisions, and in particular his willingness to interpret the policy provisions as not limited temporally but instead as having a broad meaning and reach, could prove influential.

 

It is important to note as an aside that Judge Klausner did not consider wording differences between the interrelatedness provisions in the “traditional” A/B/C policies and in the Side A policies in the 2008-2009 to be particularly significant (although, to be sure, he did note the differences). From an outcome determinative standpoint, the broad scope Judge Klausner gave to the interrelatedness provision could be the most significant feature. Because the interrelatedness language at issue, or substantially similar language, is found in most current D&O insurance policies, Judge Klausner’s analysis and the broad scope he gave to the policy language, could prove significant in a broad variety of other cases.

 

There is one aspect of Judge Klausner’s analysis that may limit its applicability to other disputes. That is that his ultimate conclusion that the various subsequent claims and lawsuits are precluded from coverage depended on the operation of all three of the policy provisions on which the insurers’ relied. It may be argues that it not enough for Judge Klausner to reach his conclusion that there is no coverage under the second tower that the subsequent claims were interrelated with the Tripp litigation; his conclusion that the subsequent claims were precluded from coverage also depended on the operation of the prior notice exclusion and the Tripp litigation exclusion arguably may distinguish this case from other interrelatedness disputes that may arise.

 

The practical effect of Judge Klausner’s decision is that there is insurance coverage, if at all, for the various subsequent claims under the 2007-2008 program. Although the 2007-2008 program represents a total of $80 million in insurance, the program has been eroded by over five years of attorneys’ fees in the Tripp litigation, as well as by the settlement of the Tripp litigation. The claimants in the various subsequent claims will now be in competition with each other for the remaining proceeds, while at the same time any amounts remaining will be further eroded by additional attorneys’ fees. The finite and dwindling amount of insurance and the sheer number of claims and claimants could make it challenging to resolve the claims and suits, at least to the extent insurance funds are to be involved. This observation is relevant to all claimants but it is probably worth noting that it is also applicable to the FDIC in connection with the two lawsuits the agency has filed in its role as IndyMac’s receiver against former officers of the bank.

 

A June 27, 2012 memo from the Wiley Rein law firm discussing Judge Klausner’s opinion can be found here.

 

I would like to thank the several loyal readers who sent me copies of this opinion. I appreciate everyone’s willingness to make sure that I am aware of significant developments so that I can pass them along to my readers.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a May 31, 2012 study of the FDIC failed bank litigation that contains a number of interesting observations and projections, NERA Economic Consulting projects at the current filing rate, the FDIC’s failed bank litigation ultimately could total 86 lawsuits, or much as 20% of all banks that have failed as part of the current round of bank failures. The study, which is entitled “Trends in FDIC Professional Liability Litigation,” can be found here.

 

The NERA study is based on its analysis of all failed bank lawsuits through the end of the first quarter of 2012, at which time there were 27 lawsuits involving 26 failed banks. (Through May 30, 2012, there have been a total of 30 lawsuits involving 29 institutions.)

 

Based on lawsuit filing patterns through March 31, 2012, NERA projects that ultimately the FDIC will file 86 lawsuits in total, representing about 20% of all bank failures. Through the end of the first quarter, the FDIC had authorized lawsuit against 54 institutions, suggesting that the FDIC had authorized about 60% of the number of lawsuits that NERA projects the FDIC will file. (After the end of 1Q12, the FDIC increased the number of authorized lawsuits; through May 15, 2012, the FDIC had authorized lawsuits involving 63 failed institutions, or about 73% of the number of lawsuits that NERA projects ultimately will be filed.)

 

The 20% filing rate that NERA projects is slightly less than the 24% filing rate following the S&L crisis. However, despite this lower projected filing rate, NERA projects that the FDIC’s aggregate recoveries could approach recoveries during the S&L crisis. The recoveries following the S&L crisis totaled $1.3 billion, or $2.3 billion in inflation adjusted terms, while NERA projects aggregate recoveries from the current round of bank failure litigation of about $1.9 billion.

 

The NERA report notes that the banks failures that produced the largest losses to the deposit insurance fund are more likely to be the subject of litigation. Bank failures that caused losses to the deposit insurance fund of greater than $200 million have filing rates of 62%, while bank failures that produced losses to the deposit insurance fund of under $50 million have a filing rate of only about 3% For bank failures that produced deposit insurance fund losses of between $50 million and $200 million, the filing rate has been about 19%.

 

The lower filing rate with respect to banks whose failure caused deposit insurance fund losses under $50 million could impact the number of future filings, Since the third quarter of 2010, the average deposit insurance fund losses per failed institution has dropped significantly, and for many of the banks that have failed most recently, the losses were below $50 million, suggesting a much lower likelihood that many of the most recent bank failures ultimately will involve litigation.

 

On the other hand, NERA’s analysis suggests that litigation involving some of the largest bank failures to date has yet to be filed, especially when the aggregate losses claimed in lawsuits already filed is compared to the FDIC’s projection of aggregate losses involved in all authorized lawsuits. NERA reckons claims involving some of the largest failed losses may be about to be filed. In terms of losses to the deposit insurance fund, the four largest bank failures that have not yet seen litigation are BankUnited ($5.8 billion in deposit insurance fund losses); Colonial Bank ($4.2 billion); Amtrust Bank ($2,5 billion); and United Commercial ($2.5 billion).

 

Comparing the bank failures by state to the lawsuits filed so far by state, the NERA report suggests that there have been relatively high litigation levels in Illinois, Nevada, North Carolina, and Puerto Rico, while filings in California and Florida are fewer than the number of bank failures in those states would suggest. In Minnesota, Missouri and Arizona, there have not yet been any lawsuits filed even though those states are among the top ten in terms of bank failures. However, the study notes based on the date of bank failures in those states that litigation involving failed banks in those states is not projected until after the end of the first quarter of 2012.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The number of bank failures has been winding down for a while now, but at same time the FDIC’s failed bank litigation has been ramping up. Through April 20, 2012, the FDIC has filed a total of 29 lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks, involving 28 different institutions. In a May 4, 2012 BankDirector.com post (here), Cornerstone Research takes a detailed look at the failed bank litigation so far. Cornerstone Research’s related May 2012 paper entitled “Characteristics of FDIC Lawsuits Against Directors and Officers of Failed Financial Institutions” can be found here.

 

According to the paper, during 2012 the FDIC has been “intensifying its litigation activity associated with failed financial institutions.” So far, the FDIC has filed 11 lawsuits in 2012, compared with 16 during all of 2011. The 2012 filing activity is on pace for a total of 35 lawsuits this year.

 

Currently, about 6 percent of financial institutions that have failed since 2007 have been the subject of FDIC lawsuits. (That compares to about 24 percent of all institutions that failed during the S&L crisis.). According to the Cornerstone Research paper, the lawsuits filed during the current bank failure wave have targeted the larger institutions and those with a higher estimated cost of failure.

 

The median size of the 28 institutions targeted so far was approximately four times as large as the median size of all failed institutions and six times as large as the median size of currently active institutions. The 28 targeted institutions had median total assets of $973 million, compared with median total assets of approximately $241 for all failed institutions. The 28 institutions had a median estimated cost to the FDIC of $222 million at the time of seizure, compared to the median cost of failure of $59 million for all failed financial institutions. The median cost of failure for financial institutions that have been targeted in 2012 lawsuits was $355 million, compared with $158 million for institutions sued from 2007 through 2011.

 

The states with the largest numbers of bank failures during the period 2007 through April 2012 were Georgia, Florida, Illinois and California. With the exception of Florida, the percentage of FDIC lawsuits targeting failed institutions is slightly higher than the percentage of failed institutions in those states. Despite the large number of failed institutions in the state, there has only been one failed bank lawsuit filed in Florida so far.

 

The 29 lawsuits filed so far have targeted a total of 239 former directors and officers. Outside directors were named as defendants in 20 of the 29 lawsuits. The remaining lawsuits targeted only inside directors and officers. Three cases have also included insurance companies as named defendants, and one case included a law firm defendant. Three cases have included directors or officers’ spouses as named defendants.

 

Losses on Commercial Real Estate and Acquisitions, Development and Construction loans were the most common bases for alleged damages. 17 of the complaints identified CRE loans as the basis for claimed damages and 15 of the complaints identified ADC loans.

 

The most recent lawsuits have been filed just prior to the expiration of the three-year statutes of limitations. During 2012, the median time between an institution’s failure and the filing of an FDIC lawsuit was 2.97 years, compared with 2.26 years for the lawsuits filed during the period 2007 through 2011. Among the 11 lawsuits filed so far in 2012, five involved lawsuits that failed in 2010, five involve lawsuits that failed in 2008, and one involved a bank that failed in 2008.

 

The FDIC has indicated on its website that through April 25, 2012, the agency has authorized lawsuits involving 493 individuals at 58 institutions. As these figures are inclusive of the lawsuits already filed, the authorization figures imply a pipeline of as many as 30 additional lawsuits -- which were they to be filed would represent another 7 percent of all failed banks. That is, the filed and authorized lawsuits together could involve as much as 13 percent of all failed institutions. These figures of course represent only the lawsuits authorized to date; the FDIC has been increasing the number of authorizations monthly over the course of the past several months.

 

The FDIC’s latest authorization figures on its website did not specify an aggregate damages figure that the authorized lawsuits represent, but the figure the agency used (for a lesser number of lawsuits) in January 2012 was $7.7 billion, which compares to the aggregate damages claimed so far of $2.4 billion – which suggests that the authorized lawsuits may include some very significant additional claimed damages.

 

The Cornerstone Research report notes that a number of the large and costly bank failures during 2008 (and 2009) have not yet been the subject of an FDIC lawsuit. The report notes that the directors and officers of these institutions may be involved in negotiations with the FDIC. Whether these additional large bank failures will become the subject of future FDIC lawsuits “will depend on the outcome of such negotiations, statute of limitations restrictions, and tolling agreements that may be agreed upon during such negotiations.”

 

Only three of the FDIC’s failed bank lawsuits have settled so far, as discussed on page 13 of the Cornerstone Research report. These settlements include the WaMu settlement (about which refer here) and the First National Bank of Nevada settlement (about which refer here).

 

On a final note, the Cornerstone Research report projects that given the current pace of bank failures this year, we are on track for about 69 bank failures in 2012, compared to 92 in 2011 and 157 in 2010. With the addition of another failed bank this past Friday evening, there have been a total of 23 bank failures so far this year.

 

CalSTRS Takes on Wal-Mart Over FCPA Issues: As I have previously noted on this blog, a frequent accompaniment of an investigation of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation is a follow-on civil lawsuit, in which investors alleged either that the company’s management failed to properly supervise the company’s operations or that the company issued misleading statements about its internal controls or financial condition.

 

Given the relative frequency of this type of litigation, it was hardly surprising that Wal-Mart’s recent announcements of FCPA-related concerns involving its Mexican operations attracted litigation. Just the same, as Alison Frankel points out in a May 4, 2012 article on her On the Case blog (here), the filing of a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, as nominal defendant, and 27 of its current and former directors and officers, by the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) represents a significant and noteworthy development.

 

In its May 3, 2012 complaint, which can be found here, CalSTRS alleges, among other things, that “prolonged failure to address detailed and credible allegations of criminal activity undertaken with the tacit or express consent of current and former senior corporate officials, and the complicity of the Company’s highest level executives in shutting down any investigation into those allegations, is causing and will continue to cause the Company substantial harm.”

 

As Frankel comments, when an “800-pound gorilla” like CalSTRS gets involved in this type of follow-on civil litigation, things have definitely become “serious.” The CalSTRS lawsuit will also set up a potential conflict between the actions previously filed in Arkansas in connection the Wal-Mart’s FCPA revelations and the CalSTRS action, which was filed in Delaware.

 

From my perspective, the CalSTRS lawsuit not only reinforces the view that follow-on civil litigation is an almost invariable accompaniment of FCPA-related investigations, but the involvement of CalSTRS itself highlights that FCPA-related exposures are a matter of serious shareholder concern. Taken collectively, the risk of an FCPA investigation as well of the related follow-on civil litigation are increasingly important liability exposures for companies and their directors and officers. 

 

Judge Wants to Know About Lehman Executives Wealth Before Approving D&O Settlement: Last August when it was first announced that the parties to the shareholder suit arising out of the collapse of Lehman Brothers had agreed to settle the case for $90 million – the amount of the remaining limits of the company’s D&O insurance program – I knew there could be trouble, especially since the settlement did not contemplate any contribution from the individual defendants themselves.

 

I was not the only one that anticipated possible problems. The plaintiffs lawyers themselves foresaw there could be trouble, as well. Aware of a possible “hue and cry” about the Lehman executives “getting off the hook without paying any money,” the plaintiffs tried to head off controversy by hiring John S. Martin, Jr., a retired federal judge, in order to determine whether the executives had a combined net worth of $100 million. Judge Martin prepared a report in which he concluded that “I am satisfied that the Liquid Worth of the Officer Defendants taken together, is substantially less than $100 million.”

 

The parties submitted their proposed settlement – including Judge Martin’s report -- to Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Kaplan. In a May 3, 2012 opinion that opens with a quotation from noted legal scholar Kenny Rogers, Judge Kaplan concluded that the information in Martin’s report was not sufficient to permit him to determine whether or not he should approve the settlement. Judge Kaplan’s opinion evinces full awareness of the fact that if the parties had failed to reach their agreement to settle the case for the remaining D&O insurance program limits, the amount of insurance remaining would rapidly have diminished, leaving the shareholders with perhaps an even smaller recovery.

 

Judge Kaplan’s concern has to do with the nature of the inquiry Judge Martin was asked to address. Specifically, Judge Kaplan was concerned with the fact that Judge Martin looked only at whether or not the defendants’ liquid net worth is less than $100 million. Judge Martin’s answer, Judge Kaplan said, “is not informative as is necessary and appropriate for this Court to consider” all of the requisite factors for class action settlement approval. In the end, Judge Kaplan called for the in camera production of all the information that had been submitted to Judge Martin, so that Judge Kaplan could consider all information (presumably including information about assets the defendants may have held that is not “liquid”) in order to determine how the settlement compared to possible available alternatives by assessing the extent to which the defendants could withstand a judgment in excess of the remaining amount of insurance.

 

Everything about this situation is highly unusual, starting with the fact that the case involved is perhaps the highest profile civil lawsuit arising out of the financial crisis and that the collapse of Lehman Brothers may have been the most critical development during the crisis. The fact that the case settled as it did may not have been all that unusual, as parties often reach compromises based on dwindling amounts of insurance. However, the plaintiffs, anticipating trouble, took extraordinary steps to try to substantiate the settlement, by hiring Judge Martin to assess the individual defendants’ net worth. By the same token, Judge Kaplan’s further consideration of the individual defendants’ collective net worth arguably is even more unprecedented.

 

The defendants have until May 10, 2012 to submit the information they had provided to Judge Martin to Judge Kaplan for in camera review.

 

Susan Beck’s May 4, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article about Judge Kaplan’s decision can be found here.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Among the important questions that will need to be answered in connection with the current wave of failed bank litigation is the question of extent to which the non-director officers will be able to defend themselves in reliance on the business judgment rule.

 

 

In the following guest post, Jonathan Joseph (pictured to the left) takes a look at the extent to officers may defend themselves in reliance on the business judgment rule in cases to which California law applies. These questions go to the heart of the

officers’ potential liabilities and the legal standards that will be applied to address those questions.

 

 

Jonathan Joseph is a member of the California State Bar and has focused for over 33 years on regulatory, corporate, securities and transactional matters for banks and bank holding companies and officers and directors of distressed and failed institutions.  He currently serves as the Co-Vice Chair and Secretary of the Financial Institutions Committee of the Business Law Section of the California State Bar (2008 – present). He is the founder and managing partner of Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation in San Francisco, CA. Mr. Joseph is also a member of the Washington D.C. Bar and the State Bar of New York. He may be contacted at Jon@josephandcohen.com. A substantially similar version of this article was initially published in Issue No. 1 2012 of the Business Law News of the California State Bar. The original article on which this revised version is based was originally written before the initial decisio in FDIC v Perry was reported (about which decision, refer here).

 

 

Many thanks to Jon for his willingness to publish his article here. I welcome guest posts from responsible commentators on topics relevant to this blog. Any readers who are interested in publishing a guest post on this site are encouraged to contact me directly. Jon's article follows. Footnotes appear below following the article text.

 

 

 

 

The exact nature of the duties and liabilities of corporate officers who are not directors is a subject that has received little attention from courts and commentators. [1]  Many cases which relate to the duties and liabilities of corporate fiduciaries explore whether negligence and breach of care claims are protected by the business judgment rule and the courts that have spoken have done so mostly in terms of its application to decisions or judgments of corporate directors. [2] While the standard of liability for non-director officers remains relatively unexplored, there is widespread consensus among the courts on the policy justifications for the deferential treatment of directors under the business judgment rule.[3]

 

 

Recently, two Federal banking agencies have brought civil damage actions in California against corporate officers of failed federally-insured depository institutions in which they assert that the widely recognized deference accorded by courts to decisions by directors does not apply to corporate officers. These cases seek damages for the alleged negligence of non-director officers as well as officers who were also directors for huge losses suffered when regulators closed the institutions based largely on pre-closure decisions made in good faith that didn’t turn out well. Three of these cases, which are all triangulating on the same issues, are discussed below. [4] 

 

 

While none of these cases has proceeded to trial, rulings at the motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings stage in two of these matters, all within the Central District of California, have emerged with contradictory results -- including one ruling in August to the effect that the business judgment rule doesn’t apply to non-director officers. This is troubling to some California practitioners as the great weight of authority by courts and commentators has favored application of the business judgment rule to officers acting in their capacity as officers within the scope of their delegated authority.[5] 

 

 

In most states, including California, Delaware and New York, despite the case law being sparse, there has been little dispute that the business judgment rule or BJR applies equally to corporate officers and directors. Consequently, these pending Central District cases are worthy of focus since any final rulings upholding the position asserted by the Federal banking agencies could have far flung effects. If the BJR is ultimately held not to protect good faith decisions by officers of California based banks, that holding would extend to officers of any California corporation.

 

 

These cases touch upon significant underlying themes being widely debated in American society today (e.g., Occupy Wall Street) as to who should be held responsible for the tremendous costs of bailing out the largest American banks in 2008, why more executives and directors of such institutions haven’t been held accountable and whether corporate executives and directors could have anticipated the acute global financial meltdown in 2008 and thereafter.[6]

 

 

 

The Standard of Conduct and Business Judgment Rule

 

 

The general standard of conduct applicable directors and officers of California corporations in the performance of their functions as they relate to matters in which they are disinterested is a corporate governance principle widely recognized throughout the United States. The standard is well summarized by the American Law Institute’s Principles of Corporate Governance [7]:

 

 

“A director or officer has a duty to the corporation to perform the director’s or officer’s functions in good faith, in a manner that he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation, and with the care that an ordinary prudent person would reasonably be expected to exercise in a like position and under similar circumstances.”

 

 

In California, as elsewhere, when it is applicable, the business judgment rule.[8] precludes judicial second-guessing of decisions made by corporate fiduciaries in good faith or where the decision can be attributed to any rationale business purpose.[9]  The rule is procedural and process oriented. It sets up a presumption that decisions are based on sound business judgment and the “presumption can only be rebutted by a factual showing of fraud, bad-faith or gross-overreaching" [10]  based on a widespread “judicial policy of deference to the business judgment of corporate directors in the exercise of their broad discretion in making corporate decisions." [11] The relevant consideration is whether the process employed was either rational or employed in a good faith effort to advance corporate interests even if a judge or jury considering the matter after the fact, believes a decision to have been “substantively wrong, or degrees of wrong extending through stupid to egregious." [12]

 

 

Two Federal Banking Agencies Seek Damages for Breach of the Duty of Care

 

 

Since the global financial crisis began in 2008, four hundred twelve banks have been closed across the United States through December 15, 2011 including thirty-eight banks in California. [13] As of December 8, 2011, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 41 failed institutions against 373 individuals for director and officer liability with damage claims of at least $7.6 billion. [14]  Credit unions also failed during this period, although the actual number of failures is lower. {15]  Federal banking regulators are required to investigate insured depository institution failures and bring lawsuits to recover damages. Enforcement authority under Federal law was strengthened in 1989 after Congress concluded that a large number of saving and loan failures during the 1980’s were due to outright fraud and other egregious conduct. [16]

 

 

Thus, it isn’t surprising that the banking agencies have instituted damage suits in connection with some of the most recent failures and more will undoubtedly be authorized in the coming months. [17] As stated above, both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), in Van Dellen and Perry, and the National Credit Union Administration (‘NCUA”), in Siravo, have asserted that corporate officers in California are not protected by the business judgment rule. [18] Their basic argument is that section 309 of the Corporations Code applies on its face to directors, not officers and that there is no common law business judgment rule in California case law that applies to limit the liability of officers.

 

 

The Aftermath of the Failure of IndyMac Bank

 

 

Van Dellen and Perry involve two different actions by the FDIC as receiver arising out of the failure of IndyMac Bank, FSB in 2008. On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, Pasadena, CA was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC was named Conservator. With about $32 billion in assets when it was closed, the failure is the second largest since 2008 and the FDIC has estimated that the loss was $8 billion. Van Dellen was filed in July 2010 against former officers of the homebuilder division of IndyMac Bank alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence in approving loans made by the division. 

 

 

The FDIC’s other companion IndyMac case is more recent. It was filed against former Chairman of the Board and CEO Michael Perry in July 2011 seeking $600 million in damages, alleging in a single count that Perry, solely in his capacity as an officer (i.e., CEO), had been negligent. [19]  The complaint in Perry is noteworthy for several reasons including that i) the allegations artfully bypass his actions as a director, ii) the complaint is comprised of a single claim for ordinary negligence, and iii) no outside directors were named. The latter is presumably due to the FDIC’s conclusion that the BJR would immunize the outside directors’ conduct. [20]  Alternatively, it is possible that the outside directors settled or are negotiating to settle the FDIC’s claims against them.

 

 

In addition to anticipating the weakness of claims for ordinary negligence against the bank’s directors when it filed the Perry action solely against Michael Perry, the FDIC may also have concluded that it couldn’t support gross negligence theories against directors (including Perry). In Siravo, the NCUA had originally named the former outside directors of WesCorp and alleged they had been negligent, but lost this argument on a motion to dismiss based on the courts assessment that the BJR was applicable. On August 1, 2011, after earlier allowing the FDIC to amend its complaint several times, Judge George Wu issued his Siravo Order in which he dismissed all claims against the directors on business judgment rule grounds – without leave to amend. [21].

 

 

The Failure of WesCorp Federal Credit Union - NCUA v. Siravo

 

 

Siravo involves losses arising out of the failure of Western Corporate Federal Credit Union (“WesCorp”), which was the largest corporate credit union in the United States when it was placed into conservatorship by the NCUA on March 19, 2009. On October 1, 2010, the NCUA placed WesCorp into involuntary liquidation. WesCorp was originally seized after the NCUA concluded that its liquidity was imperiled by $6.8 billion in anticipated losses stemming from investments in private-label mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). The NCUA originally brought suit against former officers and directors of WesCorp alleging they breached their duty of due care and were grossly negligent when they approved investments in MBS. Due to Judge Wu’s decision to dismiss the NCUA claims against WesCorp’s outside directors, the only remaining defendants in Siravo, as of the date this article went to print, were five officers.

 

 

The Siravo Order was issued pursuant to a motion to dismiss brought by the officer and director defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The standard for such a motion required the court to 1) construe the NCUA’s complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and 2) accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. [22]  The court was not required to accept as true “legal conclusions merely because they were cast in the form of factual allegations." [23] and the complaint against the defendants will not be upheld if it “tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'" [24] Rather, the court concluded that to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege facts that, if accepted as true, are sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” and to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." [25]

 

 

The director defendants in Siravo argued that the facts as pled in the amended complaint made clear that they had operated far above the standard of culpability necessary for a claim to survive application of the business judgment rule. The director defendants further argued that the complaint failed to focus, as required, on the “process” in which they made their decisions, but rather attacked simply the content and results of their decision.

 

 

In considering director defendants’ motion to dismiss, Judge Wu held that the plaintiff would effectively have to plead “fraud, breach of trust, conflict of interest, bad faith, oppression, corruption, complete abdication of responsibility, willful ignorance or gross overreaching” in order to overcome the business judgment rule as applied to the directors. [26]  In the final analysis, Judge Wu concluded that the directors “may have made choices – or not made choices – with which the NCUA disagrees, but that does not mean they failed in their responsibilities so severely that they lose the protection of the business judgment rule." [27]

 

 

The director defendants also argued that the business judgment rule extends to officer defendants such as a WesCorp executive who had been the Chief Investment Officer. The NCUA argued that a 1989 California decision, Gaillard v. Natomas Co. [28]  held that only directors are protected in California by the business judgment rule. In denying the motion to dismiss the officer defendants from the breach of duty claim, the court focused on the plain language of section 309 of the Corporations Code (which is applicable only to directors) and refused to recognize the common law application of the BJR to an officer in California. The Judge noted that some California decisions had included officers within the scope of the BJR’s protection, but found nevertheless that Gaillard v Natomashad considered the issue and concluded that the WesCorp officer defendants did not enjoy the rules protection. The court may have been swayed by an inference that executives had received increased compensation as a result of a shift in WesCorp’s investment emphasis which increased the compensation paid to top executives. [29]

 

 

Judge Fischer Rules that the BJR May Be Raised by Corporate Officers

 

 

Just one month after Judge Wu’s ruling in Siravo, Judge Dale S. Fischer issued the Van Dellen Order which also considered the issue of whether the common law business judgment rule extends to good faith conduct by corporate officers in California. The procedural posture in Van Dellen was slightly different than in Siravo. In Van Dellen the officer defendants had filed an Answer raising affirmative defenses. The FDIC moved for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(c) as to some of the affirmative defenses including the business judgment rule. However, because a motion for judgment on the pleadings is functionally identical to a motion to dismiss, the applicable standard is essentially the same as for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. [30]  Judge Fischer rejected the reasoning employed by Judge Wu and reached the opposite conclusion. The Judge distinguished Gaillard v. Natomas and held that as a matter of law the FDIC had failed to demonstrate that the business judgment rule is inapplicable to officers in Californa. [31]

 

 

The Van Dellen officer defendants had argued that the common law component of the BJR applies even if Section 309 does not apply to officers and that Gaillard v. Natomas was a duty of loyalty case inapplicable to whether the BJR is a defense to breach of care claims. Presumably, the Judge was aware of Professor Melvin Eisenberg’s criticism of Gaillardin his 1995 study for the California Law Revision Commission [32]  since her ruling closely tracked the Eisenberg Law Revision Commission Analysis. She held that “California has recognized that ‘[t]he common law business judgment rule has two components’ and ‘[o]nly the first component is embodied in Corporations Code section 309’… most California cases discussing § 309 involve directors and not officers, … the common law component of the business judgment rule may apply to officers even if § 309 does not." [33]

 

 

Motion to Dismiss Ruling in FDIC v. Perry Could Be Tie Breaker

 

 

The Perry case is also being considered in the Central District of California before Judge Otis Wright. Perry has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The motion was considered on November 7, 2011 following briefing by the FDIC and Perry. Perry’s motion points the court to the Van Dellen Order and notes that the FDIC’s position that section 309 applies to directors only is beside the point since the second, uncodified component of the BJR, applies to directors and to officers. [34]

 

 

Perry also attacked the FDIC’s reliance on Gaillard. Perry pointed out that Gaillard related to golden parachutes provided to a corporation’s officers and involved self-dealing. Perry argues that Gaillard correctly held that the BJR was inapplicable because the officers therein had a personal interest in golden parachutes, but the second aspect of the court’s holding was incorrect because the officers were not entitled to the protection of the BJR only because they had engaged in self-dealing. [35] Perry does not involve any self-dealing or duty of loyalty allegations.

 

 

The officer defendants in Siravo intend to raise the Van Dellen Order at a hearing in early 2012. It is possible, therefore, that Judge Wu might modify his prior BJR ruling as it relates to officers. In Perry, the courtis expected to rule on Perry’s motion to dismiss in the next few months. While the issue may seem narrow, the implications in California could be far-reaching if the FDIC’s position prevails. The FDIC argues that good reasons exist as to why the BJR should not apply to corporate officers. In contrast to outside directors, they state that because officers receive higher absolute pay levels, they stand to reap substantial rewards for serving and taking risks and for this reason, the FDIC reasons they should face greater risks. [36]  Perry’s reply is that FDIC’s assertion that policy reasons support limiting the BJR protection only to directors is entirely off base. Perry asserts that not a single state has implemented such a policy. [37]

 

 

The BJR represents sound public policy that, as a general rule, should continue to be applied by the courts as a presumption that good faith judgments by officers and directors of California corporations can only be rebutted by a factual showing of fraud, bad faith or gross overreaching. To employ a different rule as advocated by the banking agencies – one that permits judging the content of decisions by corporate fiduciaries with the benefit of hindsight – would, in the long run, be injurious to shareholder interests. [38]  Such a holding would tend to chill the ability of corporate executives, including bankers, to take legitimate and reasonable business risks that could benefit their corporations and shareholders.

 

 

Professor Melvin Eisenberg has noted that the BJR is premised on the idea that business judgments are necessarily made on the basis of incomplete information and in the face of obvious risks, so that typically a range of decisions is reasonable. Fact finders are ill-equipped to distinguish between bad decisions and proper decisions that turn out badly based on 20-20 hindsight. If courts too often erroneously treat decisions that turned out badly as bad decisions, and unfairly hold directors and officers liable for such decisions, corporate decision makers might tend to be unduly risk-averse. The business judgment rule protects directors and officers from such unfair liability and encourages risk taking. [39]

 

 

The Van Dellen Order, dated September 27, 2011, and the Siravo Order, dated August 1, 2011, both considered the business judgment rule as it relates to tort claims against corporate officers under California law and reached conflicting results. The Perry cased involves the same issue. A motion to dismiss the single claim for negligence in Perry was heard on November 7, 2011. No ruling had been delivered as of early December 2011. The ruling, when issued by the Perry court, could be viewed as a tie-breaker. Alternatively, since the issue presents an unsettled question of an important legal principle in California, if the Court in FDIC v. Perry follows the Siravo result (i.e., ruling against Perry), it could pave the way for an appeal by Perry to the Ninth Circuit.

 

 

These decisions and future rulings in other FDIC civil damage actions against bank executive officers that have also been brought by the FDIC recently in California and appeals of District Court decisions could shape California law as it applies to officers of California corporations and federally-insured depository institutions headquartered in California for years. Consequently, California business leaders and corporate practitioners should follow these cases closely. 

 

 

Given the justifications and importance of the business-judgment rule and the uncertainty of its status and formulation in California, particularly as it applies to officers of corporations in the exercise of judgment when making business decisions, it may be desirable to codify the rule legislatively unless the Ninth Circuit or the California Supreme Court act first and find that the business judgment rule applies to officers.

 

 

Postscript

 

 

On December 13, 2011, the District Court in Perry denied Michael Perry’s motion to dismiss, holding that the business judgment rule does not apply to officers under California law. The Court’s order was based on the Judge’s conclusion that no authority exists for the proposition that the common law BJR applies to officers and he further inferred that when the legislature adopted section 309 it must have meant to eliminate the common law business judgment rule. His finding is surprising because the legislative history doesn’t explicitly state the legislature intended to override the common law business judgment rule when it enacted section 309 in 1977.   Consequently, the Court’s reasoning isn’t particularly persuasive.

 

 

In an amended order issued on February 21, 2012, Judge Otis Wright approved Perry’s request for an immediate interlocutory appeal of his order. Judge Wright found that his order involved “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for differences of opinion” and that the immediate appeal “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”

 

 

This author’s view is that the Ninth Circuit should overrule the District Court’s decision in Perry. This can be accomplished by holding that Gaillard v. Natomas was misapplied by the District Court since Gaillard is only applicable to cases involving breach of the duty of loyalty. The Appellate Court should also correct the District Court’s unfounded conclusion regarding the legislative intent underlying section 309 by finding that in 1977 when section 309 was enacted the common law business judgment rule as applied to officers was not eliminated. Consequently, the BJR would continue as a valid defense for officers of California corporations and federally chartered institutions headquartered in the State.   Common sense and public policy call out for such a result.

 

*End*

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FDIC Files First Failed Bank Lawsuit in Florida: Even though Florida has had the second highest number of bank failures of any of the states during the current bank failure wave (trailing only Georgia), the FDIC had not filed any failed bank lawsuit in Florida—until now. On March 13, 2012, the FDIC filed an action in the Middle District of Florida in the agency’s capacity as receiver of the failed Florida Community Bank of Immokalee, Florida, against the failed bank’s former CEO and six of the failed bank’s former directors. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

 

The bank failed on January 29, 2010. In its complaint, the FDIC alleges that the bank’s collapse was caused by “grossly negligent loan underwriting and loan administration, resulting in excessive and dangerous concentrations” of commercial real estate loans and of acquisition and development loans. The FDIC seeks to recover on losses of in excess of $62 million dollars in connection with six specific loans. The FDIC asserts state law claims of negligence against the former directors and against the former CEO, as well as claims of gross negligence under FIRREA against all of the individual defendants.

 

The FDIC’s lawsuit in the Florida Community Bank case is the 26^th that the FDIC has filed in connection with the current bank failure wave. It is also the eighth that the FDIC has filed so far in 2012. Though the FDIC has now filed 26 lawsuits, according to the FDIC’s website and as of February 14, 2012, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 49 failed institutions against 427 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $7.8 billion. Thus, there are at least 23 additional lawsuits approved and in the pipeline. And it seems like that when the FDIC next updates the authorized lawsuit figures on its website, there will be yet other lawsuits authorized. As I have previously discussed, it seems likely that we will see many of these forthcoming lawsuits during 2012.

 

CIT Group Subprime-Related Suit Settles for $75 Million: In the latest of the subprime and credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuits to settle, on March 13, 2012, the parties to the CIT Group subprime suit filed with the court a stipulation of settlement reflecting that the case had been settled for $75 million. A copy of the parties’ settlement stipulation can be found here.

 

As reflected here, the plaintiffs first filed suit against CIT Group and certain of its directors and officers in July 2008. The plaintiffs alleged that CIT's public financial statements failed to account for tens of millions of dollars in loans to Silver State Helicopter, which loans were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off. The plaintiffs also alleged that the company had misrepresented the performance of its subprime home lending and student loan portfolios.

 

In November 2009, CIT Group itself filed for bankruptcy and the company was dismissed out of the lawsuit. As discussed here (scroll down), on June 10, 2010, Southern District of New York Judge Barbara Jones denied the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss. Following the dismissal motion ruling, the parties entered mediation that ultimately resulted in the settlement. The settlement is subject to court approval. (CIT Group rather conspicuously emerged from bankruptcy after only six weeks.)

 

The CIT Group settlement is noteworthy if for no other reason than that it came about in 2012. Even though there are many subprime and credit crisis-related securities cases pending, including many that have already passed the motion to dismiss stage, the pace of settlement of these cases seems to have slowed to a crawl (indeed, in its recently released annual study of securities class action lawsuit settlements, refer here, Cornerstone Research specifically noted the slow settlement pace of the credit crisis suits as one reason why both the number and aggregate monetary value of securities suit settlements was down significantly in 2011).

 

Readers of this blog may be interested to know whether or to what extent D&O insurance contributed toward the CIT Group settlement. The settlement stipulation is nonspecific, but it does suggest that insurance is playing a role in the settlement of this case. For example, in describing the settlement amount, the stipulation provides that within a specified time of the court’s preliminary approval of the settlement, the defendants or CIT shall pay or “cause their insurers” to pay into escrow the $75 million settlement amount. In his March 14, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article about the settlement (here), Victor Li reports that “all 13 current and former CIT executives named as defendants were indemnified by CIT and covered by D&O insurance.”

 

I have in any event added the CIT Group settlement to my running tally of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit settlements, which can be accessed here.

 

SEC Files Enforcement Action against Three Former Thornburg Mortgage Executives: In the latest civil subprime and credit crisis-related enforcement action, the SEC on March 13, 2012 filed a civil enforcement action in the District of New Mexico against three former executives of Thornburg Mortgage, including the company’s former CEO, Larry Goldstone. Prior to its 2008 collapse, Thornburg was the second largest mortgage originator in the United States. The SEC’s complaint can be found here. The SEC’s March 13, 2012 press release about the case can be found here.

 

The SEC alleges that the three defendants schemed to fraudulently overstate the company’s income by more than $400 million and falsely record a profit rather than an actual loss for the fourth quarter in its 2007 annual report. The complaint alleges that in the days before the company filed its 2007 10-K, the company was facing a severe liquidity crisis due to the company’s receipt of numerous margin calls totaling more than $300 million. The complaint alleges that the defendants withheld information about the margin calls from investors and even from the company’s own auditors. However, two hours after the 10-K filing, the company received additional margin calls that it was unable to meet. The company was forced to disclose these developments and soon thereafter the company disclosed that it would be filing an amended annual report. By the time the company filed its amended 10-K, its share price had collapsed. The company never recovered and ultimately filed for bankruptcy.

 

The March 13, 2012 statement of two of the individual defendants regarding the SEC’s enforcement action can be found here.

 

Neither the SEC’s press release nor complaint explains why the complaint is only being filed now, more than four years after many of the events described in the complaint. The SEC has faced some criticism for allegedly failing to act aggressively enough in the wake of the global financial crisis. Perhaps in recognition of these criticisms, the SEC itself emphasizes in its press release that with the Thornburg Mortgage enforcement action SEC has now filed financial crisis related enforcement actions against 98 individuals and entities.

 

The press release also links to a page on the SEC’s website, entitled “SEC Enforcement Actions: Addressing Misconduct That Led to or Arose from the Financial Crisis.” The website page makes for interesting reading, but it is hard to shake the impression that it is a relatively short list of items, in light of the magnitude of the financial crisis and in light of the over 230 subprime and credit crisis related securities class action lawsuits that investors have filed. Given the long lag between the events involved and the filing of the Thornburg Mortgage enforcement action, it may be that there are more cases that are still in the pipeline, perhaps many, relating to the financial crisis.

 

Thornburg Mortgage and certain of its directors and officers were also the subject of a separate investor lawsuit, although as discussed in detail here, the first of the investor lawsuits was filed in August 2007, well before the events described in the SEC’s enforcement action. As discussed here, in January 2010, District of New Mexico James Browning granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss large parts of the investors’ lawsuit, although parts of the case survived, and perhaps critically, the investors’ claims against Goldstone, the former CEO, largely survived. In February 2012, the parties to the investor suit advised the court that the plaintifs had reached a settlement with 13 individual defendants, including Goldstone. The parties hope to file their settlement documents with the court in April.

 

As Alison Frankel lnotes in her March 14, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article about the settlement (here), once again the SEC "once again lags the private bar." .(Hat top to Frankel for the link to the letter in which the parties to the securities suit advised the court of the settlement.)

 

A March 13, 2012 Huffington Post article discussing the SEC’s Thornburg Mortgage enforcement action can be found here.

 

Securities Suit Against U.S.-Listed Chinese Company Survives Dismissal Motion: In a recent post (here), I raised the question of how far the plaintiffs are really going to be able to go in the wave of securities class action lawsuits that have been filed against U.S.-listed Chinese companies. While it still remains to be seen how far these cases ultimately will go, at least one of these cases filed in 2011 has survived the initial dismissal motion.

 

As discussed here, in April 2011, the plaintiffs first filed their action in the Central District of California against ZST Digital Networks and certain of its directors and officers. The plaintiffs alleged the in 2008, the company reported to the SEC revenues of over $50 million and over $100 million in 2009, but reported to the Chinese governmental agency the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) revenues of only a very small fraction of those amounts. The company’s 2010 10-K acknowledged the discrepancy between the figures and stated that the company’s reports to the SAIC were not in compliance with applicable regulations.

 

The defendants moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the complaint failed to meet threshold pleading requirements. Among other things, the defendants argued that there was no particularized allegation that it was the SEC filings and not the SAIC filings that were untrue.

 

In a February 14, 2012 order (here) Judge Gary Allen Feess granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In responding to the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs have insufficiently pled which of the company’s filings were untrue, Judge Feess noted that the two filed reports “differ by a factor of over two thousand,” and the $6 million profit reported in the SEC filing contrasts particularly sharply with the loss reported in China. The Court said the defendants’ preferred explanation “merely dances around the issue” without explaining how the company came to report such widely different figures.

 

The court’s rejection of the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ had insufficiently alleged which of the two filings was untrue stands in contrast to the November 2011 conclusion that a different Central District of California Judge reached in the China Century Dragon Media case (about which refer here). In that prior ruling, the court found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged, in connection with an alleged discrepancy in regulatory filings, that the SEC filings were untrue. The court in that prior case had allowed the plaintiffs leave to replead, however.

 

Judge Feess did dismiss certain other aspects of the plaintiffs’ case without prejudice. But his ruling that the discrepancy between the SEC filings and the SAIC filings was sufficient to overcome the initial pleading hurdles could be relevant in a number of the other pending cases involving U.S.-listed Chinese companies. Whether or not the plaintiffs ultimately succeed with many of these cases remains to be seen. But getting over the initial pleading threshold is an important first step.

 

A March 13, 2012 case study of the opinion in the ZST Digital Networks case written by Stephen Brodsky of the Bernstein LItowitz firm can be found here (registration required).

 

Four Say-on-Pay Lawsuits Are Dismissed in Quick Succession: In a recent post (here), I reported on comments from some observers that investors unhappy with companies’ responses to negative say-on-pay votes will likely continue to pursue say-on-pay related litigation in 2012. But any investor (or their counsel) considering filing a say-on-pay related lawsuit will want to take a look at David Bario’s March 12, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article (here) reporting that in quick succession, motions to dismiss recently have been granted in four of the pending say-on–pay lawsuits. (The original article listed only three, but an update at the bottom of the article adds the fourth case to the list.)

 

According to the article, dismissal motions have been granted just in the last two weeks in the say-on-pay lawsuits that were filed against the boards of Intersil Corporation; Umpqua Holding Corporation; Jacobs Engineering; and BioMed Realty Trust. As far as I know, only one of the say-on-pay lawsuits has survived the initial dismissal motion; as noted here, the say-on-pay suit involving Cincinnati Bell did survive the dismissal motion. However, there have been other cases that have been dismissed. Given that there were only ten total suits filed out of the approximately 41 companies that sustained negative say-on-pay votes, the track record for these case does not look great, and could not be encouraging for any prospective plaintiff that might consider filing a similar action in connection with any company that sustains a negative say-on-pay vote during the 2012 proxy season.

 

Speakers’ Corner: On Tuesday March 27, 2012, I will be participating as a panelist at the C5 Forum on D&O Liability Insurance in London. I will be speaking about the latest U.S. legal developments affecting the D&O exposure of non-U.S. companies. Information about the conference, including registration information, can be found here. If you are attending the conference in London, I hope you will take the time to introduce yourself, particularly if we have not previously met.

 

A Video for St. Patrick’s Day: You will definitely want to round up your mates to watch this St. Patrick’s Day video featuring Gareth Longrass and his faithful dog Roy. Roy is a legend is Gloucestershire. Cheers, everyone.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Though the current bank failure wave has been rolling for several years now and though there have been over 425 bank closures during that period, the much anticipated FDIC failed bank litigation has been slower to gain momentum – that is, perhaps, at least until now. Through the end of 2011, the FDIC had filed 18 lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks. But now with the latest FDIC lawsuits, described below, the FDIC has already filed seven so far in 2012, three of which just in the last nine business days. There is a definite sense that the pace of litigation activity is picking up.

 

The latest FDIC failed bank lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois and relates to the failed Broadway Bank of Chicago, Illinois. Broadway Bank failed on April 23, 2010. The FDIC’s compliant, which can be found here, alleges that at the time of failure that bank had assets of 1.06 billion and that the bank’s failure cost the insurance fund $391.4 million. According to news reports, the failed bank is the former family bank of a former Illinois state treasurer.

 

The FDIC’s lawsuit, filed in its capacity as the failed bank’s receiver, seeks to recover over $104 million in losses the bank allegedly suffered on commercial real estate loans. The complaint names nine individuals as defendants, seven director defendants and two officer defendants. The complaint asserts claims against the nine defendants for gross negligence; breach of the fiduciary duty of care; and negligence.

 

The complaint alleges that the defendants “recklessly implemented a strategy of rapidly growing Broadway’s assets by approving high-risk loans without regard for appropriate underwriting and credit administration practices, the Bank’s written loan policies, federal regulations and warnings from the Bank’s regulators.” With regard to the regulators’ warnings, the complaint alleges that the Director Defendants approved “two of the worst Loss Loans” on June 24, 2008 after a meeting earlier the same day with the Bank’s regulators in which the regulators “specifically warned the Director Defendants about the risks that these types of loans posed to the Bank.” That same day regulators had discussed with the Director Defendants the need to “enter a Memorandum of Understanding” that would “impose restrictions on the Bank to stop this type of high risk lending.”

 

One of the director defendants, James McMahon, who served on the bank’s board from 2003 to December 22, 2008 issues a press release about the FDIC’s complaint, in which McMahon notes that the bank had been founded “by an immigrant who left Greece in 1962 to find a better life in America,” and had become a “vital force in the financial life of the community.” The bank had been “unable to withstand the greatest market decline since the Great Depression and, along with over 400 other community banks” had been “forced to close their doors.” With respect to the lawsuit, McMahon states “with the advantage of 20-20 hindsight, the FDIC now blames Broadway’s former officers and directors for not anticipating the same unprecedented market forces that also surprised central bankers, national banks, economists, major Wall Street firms and the regulators themselves.” McMahon concludes by noting that the allegations in the complaint are “utterly without merit and I expect to be fully vindicated by the Court.”

 

With this lawsuit, the FDIC has now filed 25 lawsuits against the former directors and officers as part of the current wave of bank failures. The Broadway bank lawsuit is the fifth that the FDIC has filed so far in Illinois, the most of any state except Georgia, where the FDIC has filed six suits. There clearly are more cases in the pipeline, as the FDIC has stated on its website that, as of February 14, 2012, the agency has authorized suits in connection with 49 failed institutions against 427 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $7.8 billion.

 

Thus the 25 lawsuits filed so far represent only about half of the lawsuits that had been authorized as of the middle of February, and the 205 individuals named in those 25 lawsuits represent less than half of the individuals against whom lawsuits have been authorized. The number of authorizations undoubtedly will continue to climb in the months ahead, as will the number of lawsuits.

 

With this latest suit, the FDIC has now filed three new lawsuits in just the last nine business days. These three cases include the February 24, 2012 lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Georgia involving two former officers of the failed Community Bank and Trust of Cornelia, Georgia (about which refer here, scroll down) as well as the March 2, 2012 lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Georgia against 12 former directors and officer of the failed Freedom Bank of Commerce, Georgia (about which refer here, scroll down). There is a definite sense that the pace of the FDIC’s litigation activity has picked up. Though this latest lawsuit was filed well in advance of the three-year statute of limitations, the two prior suits were much closer to the cut-off, and with the three-year deadline date looming for the failed bank class of 2009 – the largest year for failed banks – it seems likely there will be increasing numbers of suits ahead.

 

Very special thanks to John M. George, Jr. of the Katten & Temple law firm for sending me a copy of the Broadway bank complaint and for sending me James McMahon’s press release. The Katten & Temple law firm represents Mr. McMahon.

 

Corruption Investigation Follow-On Civil Suits Reach Canada: The occurrence of follow-on civil actions being filed in the wake of corruption and bribery investigations is a phenomenon I have noted frequently on this blog. It now appears this type of follow on civil suit has now reached Canada.

 

As discussed here, the share price of SNC-Lavalin Group recently declined sharply after the company announced an internal investigation of the accounting for certain payments in connection with a company project in Libya . As reflected in their March 1, 2012 press release (here), plaintiffs’ lawyers have now initiated a securities class action lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court against the Company and certain of its directors and officers.

 

The plaintiffs’ complaint, which can be found here, alleges that the company violated its continuing disclosure obligation by misrepresenting the company’s internal controls and accounting. Among other things the complaint alleges that an anonymous letter the company’s senior management alleged that for years shell companies had been used to funnel money from SNC-Lavalin to members of the Libya’s Gadhafi family. 

 

The phenomenon of follow on civil litigation has been a factor in the U.S. for years. As anticorruption efforts spread elsewhere, the likelihood is not only that more companies will face scrutiny from government officials, but they may also face civil litigation as well. At a minimum this case shows how Canada’s litigation environment is continuing to evolve, and its litigation landscape is becoming both more extensive and more complex.

 

Special thanks for a loyal reader for alerting me to this case.

                                                                    

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FDIC’s latest Quarterly Banking Profile for the period ending December 31, 2011, released February 28, 2012 (here), reflects a generally improving banking landscape and a continuing reduction in the number of problem institutions. But though the industry is showing improvement, the number of problem banks, though down from immediately prior periods, still remains elevated compared to historical levels.

 

According to the report, as of year- end 2011, there were 813 problem institutions, compared to 844 as of the end of the third quarter and 884 as of year-end 2010. (A “problem” institution is a bank to which the FDIC has rated as either a “4” or a “5” on the agency’s 1-to-5 scale of ascending order of supervisory concern.) The quarterly decline in the number of problem institutions represents about a 3.6% drop, and the decline during calendar year 2011 represents about an 8% drop. According to the FDIC, the 4Q11 decline in the number of problem institutions represents the third consecutive quarterly decline.

 

The total assets of problem institutions also declined during the fourth quarter of 2011, from $339 billion at September 30, 2011 to $319.4 billion at year-end 2011. The $319.4 billion 2011 year-end total represents a substantial decline from the $390 billion at the end of 2010 and the $402 billion at the end of 2009.

 

Though the number of problem institutions began to decline during 2011, the number of problem banks remains at elevated levels compared to historical standards. At recently as year-end 2007, there were only 76 problem institutions listed. Even at the end of 2008 during the height of the global financial crisis, there were only 252 problem financial institutions. In other words, though the number of problem financial institutions is declining, that does not necessarily mean the current banking crisis has passed.

 

It should also be noted that the declining number of problem institutions does not necessarily mean that the number is declining because of improvement among problem institutions. It could just be that some of the problem banks no longer exist. For starters, the number of reporting institutions overall has been declining for several years. At year end 2011, there were 7,357 reporting institutions, down from 7,658 at the end of 2010 and 8,305 at the end of 2009. The overall decline is mostly due to mergers and failures. These same factors likely also account for much of the decline in the number of problem institutions.

 

It is impossible to know how much of the decline in the number of problem institutions is due to improvement and how much is due to these other factors. The good news is that the number of bank failures is definitely down. So far, YTD 2012, there have been only 11 bank failures, compared to 23 at this same point last year. The declining rate of failures seems like a positive sign. But again, as noted above, when there are over 800 problem institutions and when banks are continuing to fail, it is hard to conclude that we are entirely out of the woods on the current wave of bank failures and problem banks.

 

At the same time, much of the news In the FDIC’s latest Quarterly Banking Profile is positive. The overall picture for the industry is one of recovery, with growing net income, declining loan loss provisions, and declines in noncurrent loan balances. There is a concern that revenues appear to have slipped, but overall the picture for the banking industry is positive. With these positive signs, the hope is that the improving conditions will allow even the problem institutions to benefit and recover.

 

Another Failed Bank Lawsuit: As the number of failed banks and problem institutions continues to decline, the number of FDIC failed bank lawsuits is ramping up. On February 24, 2012, the FDIC filed its latest lawsuit. This one was filed in the Northern District of Georgia against two former a former director and officer and a former director of the failed Community Bank & Trust of Cornelia, Georgia. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

 

Community Bank & Trust failed on January 29, 2010. In its complaint, the FDIC seeks to recover in excess of $11 million in losses allegedly caused by the two defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence and gross negligence related to the bank’s home loan program between January 6, 2006 and December 2, 2009. The complaint alleges that the bank’s senior head of retail lending violated his legal duties in approving loans in violation of the bank’s loan policies. The bank’s CEO is alleged to have breached his duties in failing to supervise the loan officer and in failing to take corrective measures.

 

The suit is the 23^rd that the FDIC has filed as part of the current wave of bank failures. According to its website, as of February 14, 2012, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 49 failed institutions against 427 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $7.8 billion. This includes the now 23 filed D&O lawsuits naming 184 former directors and officers. In light of the differences between the number of authorized suits and the number filed to day, there clearly are many suits yet to come – and the number of suits authorized has also been increasing monthly. The banking industry may be slowly improving but the litigation levels are just now starting to ramp up.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a copy of the complaint.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Even as the number of bank failures now appears to be winding down, the FDIC’s failed bank litigation filings seem to just be ramping up. With now 21 lawsuits filed as part of the current wave of bank failures, it may be possible to try to make some generalizations about the lawsuits so far. In a February 1, 2012 post on BankDirector.com entitled “Characteristics of FDIC Lawsuits against Directors & Officers of Failed Financial Institutions” (here), Cornerstone Research takes a look at the FDIC’s failed bank lawsuits to date and finds, among other things,  that the suits so far have involved larger institutions within the same geographic concentrations as the bank failures themselves.  As discussed below, Cornerstone Research’s various findings may have important implications for the lawsuit filings that are yet to come.

 

The Cornerstone Research study reports that the FDIC has filed lawsuits so far in connection with only about 4.7% of financial institutions failures since January 1, 2007. Two suits were filed in 2010, 16 in 2011, and three so far in 2012. The study also reports that on average the FDIC has waited about 2.2 years after the date of an institution’s failure to file a lawsuit.

 

The lawsuits so far have “tended to target larger failed institutions,” with the 20 institutions so far involved in the 21 lawsuits to date having had median total assets of $882 million, compared with median total assets of $241 million for all failed financial institutions. The 20 institutions have had a median estimated cost to the FDIC of $179 million, compared with the medial estimated costs of $60 million for all failed banks.

 

The geographic mix of lawsuits has paralleled the location of failed institutions, with the largest concentrations of both bank failures and lawsuits in Georgia, Illinois and California. The one exception, the report notes, is Florida, which has been the location of 14 percent of all failures since 2007, but where no FDIC failed bank lawsuits have been filed yet.

 

The 21 lawsuits so far have involved 178 former directors and officers. In six of the cases, only inside directors and officers have been named as defendants, but in the remaining 15 cases, outside directors were also named as defendants. Three of the suits have also named D&O insurers as defendants (about which refer, for example, here); and at least one suit has included the failed bank’s outside law firm as a defendant (refer here). Three cases have involved the spouses of former directors and officers (refer, for example, here).

 

The aggregate damages sought in the 21 complaints are $1.98 billion. The average and median damages sought is $104 million and $40 million, respectively. Losses on commercial real estate loans and on acquisition, development and construction loans are the most common bases of alleged damages. As the report notes about the sources of alleged damages, “despite the widespread problems in residential lending and residential real estate markets, fewer lawsuits focused on those types of lending.”

 

The report notes that three of the FDIC’s cases have settled so far: the WaMu case (about which refer here); the First National Bank of Nevada case (about which refer here); and the Corn Belt Bank & Trust Company case (the settlement details of which have not yet been publicly disclosed).

 

Discussion

Obviously there is a long way to go in the current bank failure litigation wave. The 4.7% percent of bank failures that have involved litigation so far compares to the rate during the S&L crisis, when the FDIC filed lawsuits against directors and officers of the failed institutions in about 24% of all bank failures. Indeed, though the FDIC has filed only 21 lawsuits so far, involving 20 institutions and 178 former directors and officers and aggregate claimed damages of $1.98 billion, , the FDIC’s website states that as of January 18, 2012, the FDIC has authorized lawsuits in connection with 44 failed institutions against 391 institutions, claiming damages of at least $7.7 billion.

 

Perhaps even more significantly, the FDIC has increased these authorization numbers each month for the past several months – and the number of failed institutions has also continued to increase, as well. In other words, just the suits authorized so far implies quite a number of lawsuits yet to come, and likelihood of increased numbers of future authorization suggests an even greater number of suits ahead. The FDIC may or may not wind up filings suits in connection with 24% of the failed institutions this time around as it did during the S&L crisis, but we still could be in for a substantial amount of future litigation.

 

The substantial gap between the $7.7 billion of claimed damages in the cases the FDIC has authorized to date, and the aggregate of $1.98 billion of claimed damages in the cases the FDIC has filed so far, suggests that the suits that have been authorized but not yet filed involve larger failed  institutions.

 

The Cornerstone Research report’s analysis supports this suggestion that there may be a backlog of as yet unfiled cases involving larger institutions, and not just because the report’s findings in general suggest that the FDIC has at least so far largely concentrated its litigation activities on larger institutions. As the report notes, though the FDIC has targeted two of the largest failed institutions (WaMu and IndyMac), “many of the other large or costly failures …have not yet been the target of FDIC lawsuits.” In light of the fact that many of the most costly failures occurred in 2008 and 2009 and given statute of limitations restrictions, “these would seem to be the most likely candidates for FDIC lawsuits in the near future. “

 

Taking this analysis and looking back at the costliest 2009 bank failures to assess the possible targets, some possible litigation examples might include Colonial Bank (August 2009 failure, $25 billion asset bank, $2.8 billion to the insurance fund); Guaranty Bank (August 2009 failure, $13 billion asset bank, $3 billion loss to the insurance fund); and Bank United (May 2009 failure, $12.8 billion asset bank, $4.9 billion loss to the insurance fund). Of course, whether or not there may be litigation involving these institutions remains to be seen, as would the merits of any litigation that might arise.

 

The report’s note that there has as yet been no litigation involving a failed bank located in Florida is an interesting insight. Given that over 60 institutions have failed in Florida since 2007, it seems likely that there future lawsuit filings might involve failed Florida banks.

 

One concluding note in the Cornerstone Research report that is worth emphasizing is that a number of potential lawsuits have been resolved without litigation through mediation or negotiation, often involving the failed bank’s D&O carriers. There are no publicly available statistics on these out of court resolutions and their overall impact is hard to assess. Though the impact is not quantifiable, these types of resolutions may be an important part of the FDIC’s post-failure salvage operations.

 

In any event, it does seem probable that the current wave of bank failure litigation not only has a long way to run but will also continue to grow in the near term. We can only hope that Cornerstone Research will continue to update and publish their analysis as the process unfolds.

 

Many thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a link to the Cornerstone Research report.

 

Carlyle Group Drops Bid to Require Investors to Arbitrate Claims: In a prior post (here), I commented on the unusual effort of the Carlyle Group in connection with its upcoming IPO to require investors to arbitrate rather than to litigate claims. As Victor Li discusses in a February 3, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article (here), Carlyle Group has announced that in response to pressure from the SEC and others, the company has dropped its efforts in required arbitration. As Li notes, Carlyle Group’s efforts had been sharply criticized by several U.S. senators and numerous others, and also ran contrary to long-standing SEC prohibitions against approval of arbitration provisions.

 

Notwithstanding Carlyle Group’s withdrawal of its arbitration proposal, the issue may yet come to a head in the weeks ahead, in light of the efforts of investors at Gannett and Pfizer to have included in their companies’ 2012 proxy ballots shareholder proposals to required investor claims to be litigated. The question of the propriety of a corporate provision requiring the arbitration of shareholder claims may yet be aired at the SEC.

 

The Week Ahead: This week I will be attending the PLUS D&O Symposium at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in New York City. On Wednesday, February 8, 2012, I will be moderating a panel entitled “Financial Institutions Underwriting: Is it Safe to Come Out Yet?” Joining me on the panel are my good friends Jennifer Fahey of AON; Tim Braun of AXIS; Steven Goldman of ACE: and Dan Gamble of Alterra.

 

I know many of the readers of this blog will also be attending the Symposium. I hope readers will feel free to greet me, particularly those whom I have not previously met.

 

I know that many attending this larger conference, particularly first time attendees, can find the crowded sessions and events a little intimidating. Some may even find that despite – or ironically because of – the crowds, it is hard to meet people. I can’t provide any sure fire way to overcome these challenges and to succeed in making many new professional contacts. But one loyal reader did send me a link to an article that may be useful to at least some conference attendees trying to work their way into the mix.

 

The January 25, 2012 article is from the Harvard Business Review blog, and it is entitled “The Introvert’s Guide to Networking,” which can be found here. There are a number of useful items in this short article, but the best piece is the author’s observation that she “stopped being afraid to be the one to reach out.” This observation is particularly useful in connection with the PLUS D&O Symposium.

 

My observations after many years in this industry are, first, that there are many people around who have trouble dealing the large crowds at industry events, so you are not alone, and, second, most people are as interested in meeting you as you are in meeting them, and so the best approach is just to go up to someone you don’t know and introduce yourself. Also, don’t be afraid to ask others to introduce you to people you would like to meet. The great thing is that we have a very friendly, sociable industry and most people are happy to be introduced.

 

I look forward to seeing everyone in New York.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recent sharply-worded accusations that the FDIC had failed to preserve documents attracted quite a bit of media attention. For example, a January 27, 2012 Wall Street Journal article reported the charges of counsel for two former IndyMac bank executives, repeating counsel’s remarks accusing the agency of a “stunning display of incompetence” for failing to preserve documents. Counsel made these statements in a filing in an action the FDIC had filed against fhe individuals in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank.

 

The Journal article also quoted the individual defendants’ counsel’s statement that “the breadth and depth of the government’s document-retention failures are staggering, and violations of this magnitude rarely occur,” and that “it is a stunning display of incompetence from an agency that is supposed to be an expert at seizing and managing banks.”

 

Based on these accusations, two of the inidividual defendants  sought sanctions against the government for willful spoliation of evidence, dismissal of the relevant counts of the lawsuit and an adverse instruction to the jury based on the government’s failure to preserve evidence.

 

The defense counsel’s provocative language may have succeeded in getting his accusations published in the Wall Street Journal. However, the language proved less successful when the matter came before Central District of California Judge Dale Fischer in a hearing on January 30, 2012. As reflected in a transcript of the hearing, Judge Fischer had quite a lot to say about counsel’s approach, including in particular, counsel’s use of language.

 

Judge Fischer started her remarks with a comment about counsel’s pleading tactics and then went on from there:

 

THE COURT: Now, there were a number of declarations attached to the reply that apparently were not filed immediately after they were signed. Why was that?

 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, we waited to file them with our reply.

 

THE COURT: And you seriously thought that was the appropriate approach?

 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, I did, your honor.

 

THE COURT: Well, for future reference, it wasn’t. Don’t hold back evidence that relates to your motion until after the opposing party files its opposition and then just stick it to them at the end. So I’m not sure why you thought that was appropriate, but now you know.

 

Along those lines: I also want to tell you, I don’t know why lawyers do this, and there’s a lot of them in the room so take heed, all of you, language like failures are staggering, violations of this magnitude rarely occur, stunning display of incompetence, bitter irony, breathtaking dereliction of duty are not only unpersuasive, they’re somewhat annoying. I don’t have time for rhetoric. I’m really, really busy. Why anyone would want this job, I don’t know…

 

But in any event, it’s just – I don’t know whether you stay up nights trying to think of clever phrases, but trust me, no judge that I’ve ever spoken to has ever said, Boy, can that guy turn a phrase. They only say, Boy, why didn’t he get to the point. So, please, in future pleadings, remember that.

 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, your Honor.

 

THE COURT: In addition to that, I’ve been around awhile both in practice and on the bench, so I suspect I’ve seen a few more cases than you, and really, it’s not all that staggering and it’s not all that great a magnitude, so when your experience and mine differ, it just takes all of the punch out of those comments.

 

To make matters even worse, Counsel, your statement that the government failed to make any effort to preserve the documents is simply false. And your statements in your papers so often go beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy that I have to say your papers had very little persuasive value. In fact, as I was trying to check some of the references you made to deposition testimony, I looked at it three or four times because I thought I must be searching for the wrong page because the pages you were citing to had oftentimes no relationship to the proposition you were citing them for. You started off extremely poorly as I started reading the papers, and I had little confidence in anything you had to say as I went through them.

 

Judge Fischer denied the defendants’ motion.

 

Readers of this blog may also be interested to read the discussion in the hearing transcript, beginning at page 27, about the role that the D&O insurance program in the ongoing case. From reading the transcript, it appears that the individual defendants contend that there a second $80 million insurance tower is relevant to this claim, although defense costs are being funded out of a first $80 million tower. The lawyers present at the hearing disagreed about the exact amount, but it appears that defense expenses to date in all of the various IndyMac-related lawsuits have totaled $35 million or $45 million. There were various references in the transcript to the lack of responses from the carrier. (The make-up of the two insurance towers and a prior coverage dispute involving IndyMac’s D&O insurance are discussed here.)

 

Also, and though it is difficult to discern from the bare face of the transcript, it appears that the reason that the FDIC wants to take this case to trial is to substantiate damages in excess of the applicable policy limits, in an apparent attempt to impose a judgment in excess of the limits on the D&O insurer(s).

 

As Judge Fischer commented at the outset of the discussion about the D&O Insurance, the case “seems to be insurance-company driven.” Which corroborates a point I have made before on this blog, that the D&O insurance may be the real battleground in the FDIC’s failed bank litigation.

 

This case, which was filed in July 2010, was the first that the FDIC filed against former officers of a failed bank as part of the current bank failure wave, as discussed at greater length here. It is also one of two FDIC actions against former IndyMac officials. The agency separately filed an action against the failed bank’s former CEO, as discussed here.

 

Judge Fischer’s aside that she doesn’t know why anyone would want to be a federal judge, triggered as it was by her frustration with the  matter before her, was remarkably like my own reaction as I read through the transcript. As I read along, my own decision years ago to walk away from the active practice of law seemed more and more like a really smart move.

 

Reading about the tone and temper of the parties’ pleadings in this case reminded me of the lyrics from the Crosby, Stills & Nash song “You Don’t Have to Cry,” which I often sing to myself when I hear about litigators bashing each other: “You are living a reality I left years ago, it quite nearly killed me/In the long run, it will make you cry, make you crazy and old before your time.”

 

What Do You Make, He Asked?: If you have not seen this video about teachers, drop everything and watch it right now. Thank you.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 29, 2011, in what appears to have been the final year-end step as the FDIC ramped up its failed bank litigation activity during 2011, the FDIC filed a civil lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina in is capacity as receiver of The Bank of Ashville, of Ashville, North Carolina, against seven former directors and officers of the bank. Though this lawsuit is only the latest in a series of failed bank actions the agency has filed, there are some interesting aspects to the case, as discussed below.

 

The Bank of Ashville was closed on January 21, 2011, and the FDIC was appointed receiver (about which refer here). The FDIC’s complaint in the recently filed action alleges that during the period June 26, 2007 through December 24, 2009, the defendants, “enticed by the ‘bubble’ in the real estate sector of the Bank’s lending markets,” caused the bank to pursue a growth strategy concentrated in “higher risk, speculative commercial real estate loans.” This focus resulted in rapid growth during the period.

 

The complaint alleges that that the defendants’ all but one of who lacked previous banking experience were “ill-equipped to manage the risks associated with the nature and extent of the Bank’s growth,” and that they increased the Bank’s risks by “implementing policies and procedures void of the most basic lending controls and neglecting to adequately supervise inexperienced and under qualified lending personnel.” The complaint further alleges that the defendants’ “failures to establish and to adhere to sound policies and procedures resulted in the approval of poorly underwritten and structured real estate dependent loans.”  The complaint also alleges that the defendants ignored regulatory and audit warnings.

 

As the problems in the real estate market began to emerge in 2008 and 2009, the defendants allegedly “took actions that masked the Bank’s mounting problems,” including approving additional loans or advances to borrowers on nonperforming loans.

 

The complaint asserts claims against the defendants for negligence, gross negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty, and seeks to recover $6.8 million in losses that the bank suffered on thirty commercial real estate and business loans.

 

At one level, there is nothing particularly striking about the allegations in the complaint. The amount of the alleged losses in the grand scheme of things is relatively modest, at least by comparison to those alleged in connection with other failed banks.  There are no particularly egregious facts alleged, such as self-dealing or even person enrichment. There are no provocative aspects of the complaint, like the inclusion of the failed bank’s D&O carrier as a co-defendant (as was the case here), or the inclusion of the bank’s outside lawyer as a defendant (as was the case here).

 

On the other hand, it could be that the lower level temperature of the case it itself noteworthy. It is possible that the FDIC’s willingness to initiate a lawsuit even in these circumstances suggests a certain level of aggressiveness on the FDIC’s part. This suggestion is further reinforced by the fact that the FDIC has brought this action relatively quickly after the bank’s failure, at least by comparison to other situations where the FDIC has pursued litigation. In most of its other lawsuits so far, the FDIC has only filed its lawsuit after the lapse of two years or more from the date of the failed bank’s closure. The modest amount of the damages sought together with the relatively accelerated filing date makes me wonder whether or not there is a context for the lawsuit filing.

 

The litigation activity of the FDIC as receiver is essentially a salvage operation. The FDIC is trying to reduce, or at least offset, the failed banks’ losses. The salvage operation often consists of an effort to capture the proceeds of the failed bank’s D&O policy. (Indeed, even the FDIC’s lawsuit against three former officers of Washington Mutual, the largest bank failure in U.S. history, turned out to be largely about the D&O insurance, as discussed here.) More than one of the FDIC’s lawsuits has looked like negotiation with the D&O carriers pursued by other means (consider this prior case involving the First National Bank of Nevada, here).

 

All of which makes me wonder whether this latest lawsuit, particularly given its timing and the quantum of damages sought, might be directed at  the failed bank’s D&O carrier. I do not mean to suggest that I am questioning the merits of the FDIC’s lawsuit, as I have no basis one way or the other to assess the merits. I am simply saying that the motivations for the lawsuit’s filing could have a lot to do with the failed bank’s D&O insurance – as in, the FDIC felt it needed to make a little noise to get the D&O carrier’s attention.

 

In any event, this latest filing represents the FDIC’s 16^th lawsuit of 2011, brining the total number of failed bank lawsuits the FDIC has filed during the current bank failure wave to 18, involving 17 different institutions. Based on the number of lawsuit authorized (as disclosed on the FDIC’s website) there clearly will be many more lawsuits to come during the New Year.

 

Goal Kick, For Real: In what has to be one of the most insane soccer goals ever, in a January 4, 2012 match, Everton goalie Tim Howard (a U.S. national who was the goalie for the U.S team at the 2010 World Cup) scored a wind-blown goal on a field-length kick. Sadly it was not enough for his team as Bolton would go on to beat Everton, 2-1.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The well-publicized settlement this past week of the FDIC’s lawsuit against three former officers of the failed WuMu bank was widely reported as having a value of $64.7 million. A closer look at the parties’ December 15, 2011 settlement agreement reveals some interesting details about the settlement, including the specifics of how the FDIC came up with the reported $64.7 million figure for the settlement. The settlement documents also raise some interesting questions.

 

Washington Mutual Bank failed on September 25, 2008, in the largest bank failure in U.S. history. As discussed here, in March 2011, the FDIC as receiver for the failed bank filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against WaMu’s former CEO, Kerry Killinger, its former President and COO, Stephen Rotella, and its chief of home lending, David Schneider. The FDIC’s complaint also names Killinger’s wife, Linda Killinger, and Rotella’s wife, Esther. The three former officers were alleged to have caused the bank’s demise through the aggressive residential lending strategy the bank pursued. The claims against the officials’ wives were based on claims that the spouses had arranged to transfer ownership of residential properties in order to evade creditors.

 

There was other litigation filed in connection with the events surrounding WaMu’s collapse, including a securities class action lawsuit separately filed against certain former directors and officers of WuMu; the bank’s offering underwriters; and its auditors. As discussed here, in July 2011, the securities class action lawsuit settled for $208.5 million, of which $105 million was to be paid on behalf of the former directors and officers. The entire $105 million amount was to be funded by the bank’s D&O insurance.

 

Although there were advance reports that the FDIC’s lawsuit against the former WaMu executives had settled, the FDIC did not formally announce the settlement until December 15, 2011. The FDIC’s press release announcing the settlement can be found here. The FDIC also released a detailed summary of the settlement, which can be found here.

 

As explained in the FDIC’s press release and in the accompanying summary, and as detailed in the parties’ settlement agreement, the $64.7 million settlement consisted of several components. The actual cash component of the settlement totaled only $40 million, of which $39.575 million is to be paid on the individual defendants’ behalf by the bank’s D&O insurers. The various insurers in the D&O insurance program that is contributing to the settlement are identified on page 2 of the settlement agreement, as well as in Exhibit A to the settlement agreement. In addition to the cash amount to be paid by the D&O insurers, a total of $425,000 in cash is to be paid by the three former officers ($275,000 from Killinger; $100,000 from Rotella; and $50,000 from Schneider). 

 

The remaining $24.7 million nominal value of the settlements consists of the transfer to the FDIC of certain claims the three individuals have filed in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings of WaMu’s corporate parent holding company. The amount and type of these claims varies among the three individuals, but basically the claims consist of various types of retirement, severance or bonus compensation to which the three individuals claim they are entitled.

 

In addition to the $64.7 million settlement of the FDIC’s action against the three former officers and two of their wives, the FDIC’s December 15 press release also mentions a separate $125 million settlement agreement. Though the information the FDIC provided about the $64.7 million settlement is quite detailed, the FDIC’s press release provides few details regarding this separate $125 million settlement. The press release says only that when the $64.7 million settlement is “combined with the $125 million settlement that the FDIC will receive under the settlement agreement with WMI [the bankrupt holding company] to release its claims against 12 former WaMu directors and other officers, this settlement will result in payments and turn over of claims totaling $189.7 million.”

 

There are a number of interesting things about the settlement and the settlement documents.

 

First, the settlement against the three executive officers may have a nominal face value of $64.7 million, but the actual value could prove to be substantially less. The individuals’ claims in the bankruptcy proceeding are among the many claims asserted by unsecured creditors and are also subject to whatever defenses the bankrupt estate may have. The ultimate value the FDIC actually receives from the assignment of these claims might be nowhere near the face values claimed in the various settlement documents.

 

Second, the D&O insurers’ $39.575 million contribution to the settlement could use a little more elaboration. The D&O insurance program described in the settlement agreement consists of $100 million, arranged in six layers. One might assume that the insurers’ $39.575 million contribution to this settlement represents all or substantially all of the proceeds remaining in the insurance program, owing to the erosion of the limits through the accumulation of defense costs. That is probably what happened, But what is hard to figure is how this insurance and the insurers’ $39.575 million settlement contribution fits in with the other settlements described above, particularly the securities class action settlement and the separate $125 million settlement mentioned in the FDIC’s press release.

 

As noted above, D&O insurers are to contribute $105 million to the securities class action lawsuit settlement. If this amount seems hard to square with the $100 million insurance program described in the FDIC’s settlement agreement with the three executives, it is probably because the D&O insurance contribution to the securities class action settlement was a drawn from a separate tower of insurance. Indeed, stipulation of settlement relating to D&O portion of the securities class action lawsuit describes a very different insurance program than the one the FDIC describes in the more recent settlement. The class action settlement documents describe a $250 million insurance program (not a $100 million program), consisting of a different line up of carriers than listed in the FDIC settlement documents. Although it is hard to tell from the much less detailed description of the insurance tower in the FDIC’s settlement documents, it looks as if the FDIC settlement is to be funded out of a separate tower of insurance, perhaps relating to a separate policy year.

 

If it is hard to square the details of the FDIC settlement and the securities class action settlement, the separate $125 million settlement is a real puzzle. The FDIC’s press release does not explain the source of funds for the $125 million settlement. Indeed, it is hard to tell from the FDIC’s press release exactly what is going on with the $125 million settlement. The FDIC’s press release describes it as a “settlement agreement with WMI to release its claims against 12 WaMu directors and other officers.” This sentence is confusingly written, but it seems to suggest that the settlement is between the bankrupt holding company and the FDIC, and the $125 million is to be paid (by whom?) in order to secure from the FDIC a release of the FDIC’s claims against the bank’s former directors and officers.

 

From the comments about the $125 million settlement in the press, I am making the guess that the bankrupt estate agreed to pay the amount on the theory that if the FDIC sued the various other directors and officers, these directors and officers would be entitled to indemnification. The estate agreed to pay the $125 million, in exchange for the FDIC’s release of its claims, without the FDIC having to actually go through the necessity of actually filing a lawsuit against the other directors and officers.

 

Whatever else may be said about the $64.7 million settlement, it is undeniable that the three executives were called upon to contribute to the settlement out of their own assets, both in the form of cash contributions and in the form of the surrender of rights the individuals themselves undoubtedly considered to be valuable. I emphasize this because one of the questions I have repeatedly asked during the current banking crisis is whether the FDIC will seek to recover from the personal assets of directors and officers of failed banks. The FDIC’s settlement with the three executive officers shows that the FDIC may indeed seek to recover from the personal assets of individuals. One might speculate that the FDIC’s actions may have something to do with the fact that the WaMu collapse was the largest bank failure in U.S. history. It is hard to know the extent to which that aspect of this settlement is relevant to what approach the FDIC might take in connection with its other failed bank lawsuits.

 

While the individual executives did indeed contribute toward the settlement out of their own assets, the settlement has been criticized, mostly on the theory that the individuals did not contribute enough. For example, in her December 17, 2011 column in the New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson referred to the $64.7 million settlement as representing only a “pittance” and as “small potatoes.” She gripped that much of the cash value is to be funded by D&O insurance.

 

For myself, I am unprepared to judge the settlement. I would need to know more about the amounts remaining under the insurance policies. I would also need to understand more about the interaction between the amount of the FDIC’s recovery from the three executives; the three individuals’ rights of indemnification from the bankrupt estate; and the $125 million settlement. (Morgenson suggests that any additional recoveries from the individuals, if indemnified by the estate, would simply reduce the $125 million settlement.)

 

The reality is that if the FDIC had pressed for greater recovery or a larger settlement, it is possible that all the FDIC would have accomplished would have been further erosion of the remaining D&O insurance limits through the accumulation of additional defense expenses. The end result likely would have been an even smaller recovery. The $64.7 million settlement may not satisfy Morgenson and others, but it may have been the best available.

 

I will say that one particular criticism of Morgenson’s is misplaced. She disparages the settlement as a “wrist slap” and “yet another example of the minimalist punishment meted out to major players in the credit boom and bust.” Morgenson’s criticism fundamentally misperceives the nature of the FDIC’s action against the WaMu executives.

 

The FDIC’s action, in its role as WaMu’s receiver, was never intended as a means to administer punishment. Receivership actions are simply salvage operations, intended to try to reduce (or rather, offset) the failed bank’s losses. Whether punishment is to be sought is the business of other agencies and regulators – the Department of Justice, the OCC and the SEC. (Indeed, in the FDIC has referred cases to the DoJ and the SEC where the circumstances surrounding a bank’s failure appear to warrant, as apparently was the case with the failed United Commercial Bank, about which refer here [scroll down]). Whether or not these agencies’ inaction in connection with WaMu’s failure may fairly be criticized, it is not a fair criticism here that the FDIC acting as WaMu’s receiver was insufficiently punitive. The administration of punishment is simply not the FDIC-R’s role.

 

The FDIC as receiver for the failed WaMu bank sought only to maximize its recovery of dollars, and that I strongly suspect that the settlement they reached with the three executives offered the best opportunity for the agency to maximize its dollar recovery.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a link to the FDIC’s settlement agreement.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Whether the process is just winding down for the year or the process is actually winding down for good, the bank closure rate has recently fallen off dramatically. The FDIC has not taken over any banks for three weeks straight, with no bank closure at all so far during the month of December. And there were only five bank closures in November, after eleven in October.

 

With 90 bank failures so far in 2011, the total number of failed banks since January 1, 2008 stands at 412. The monthly high water mark during that four year period occured in July 2009, when the FDIC took control of 24 banks. More recently, the monthly numbers of bank failures has been well below the monthly high. But even if the rate of bank failures has more recently been down from those higher levels, the overall 2011 bank failure levels remain well above 2008 levels, when only 25 banks failed.

 

More than half of the bank failures so far this year have been concentrated in just four states, Georgia (which has had 23) and Florida (12), Illinois (9) and Colorado (6). The number of 2011 closures Colorado is a little bit unexpected, as during the preceding three years between 2008 and 2010, the state had a total of only three bank failures. The other three states, by contrast, have pretty much led the way throughout the current bank failure wave. Since 2008, Georgia has had a total of 74 bank failures; Florida has had 57; and Illinois has had 43. Bank closures in those three states, plus California (38) represent more than half (209) of the 412 bank failures between January 1, 2008 and today.

 

The number of lawsuits that the FDIC has filed so far against the former directors and officers of failed banks as part of the current bank failure wave currently stands at 17 (about which refer here, scroll down). The FDIC has maintained its very deliberate pace in initiating new lawsuits. However, this past week the agency did update the page on its website on which it discloses the number of lawsuits that has been authorized.

 

According to the FDIC’s site, as of December 8, 2011, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 41 failed institutions against 373 individuals for D&O liability for damage claims of at least $7.6 billion. These figures representing the authorized lawsuits contrast starkly with number of lawsuits that the agency has actually filed: So far, the agency has filed only 17 lawsuits against 135 former directors and officers of 16 failed financial institutions. Given the discrepancy between the number of suits authorized and the number of suits filed, there clearly are many more suits in the pipeline, with even more lawsuits likely to be authorized in the months ahead.

 

The FDIC’s website also mentions that that two of the 17 lawsuits it has filed so far already have settled. One of the two settlements occurred in the lawsuit the FDIC filed in connection with the failed First National Bank of Nevada. As discussed here, the FDIC and the defendants in that case settled for a stipulated judgment, the individual defendants’ assignment to the FDIC of their rights under the bank’s D&O insurance policy, a release of claims and the FDIC’s covenant not to execute the judgment against the individuals. The other of the other of the two settlements was entered in the lawsuits the FDIC had filed on connection with the failed Corn Belt Bank and Trust. In May 2011, the parties advised the court that they had settled the case, but the court file does not reflect the details of the settlement.

 

Though only two settlements have been announced, there are stories circulating that the FDIC has settled the lawsuit that the agency filed against three former directors and officers of failed Washington Mutual bank and their wives. Indeed, in an October 27, 2011 order in the case (here), Western District of Washington Marsha Pechman stayed all pending deadlines in the case, after noting that the parties had advised the court that the case had settled. (She gave the parties 60 days to complete their settlement and to file their settlement papers with the court.)

 

The amount of the purported WaMu settlement has not yet been disclosed, but there are a number of relevant data points that may suggest the likely settlement range. The recently announced $208.5 million settlement of the WaMu securities class action lawsuit included a $105 million settlement contribution on behalf of the individual director and officer defendants, to be funded entirely by D&O insurance.

 

In the settlement papers filed in connection with the WaMu securities class action settlement, it was disclosed that the $105 million in insurance proceeds were to be drawn from a D&O insurance tower (including both traditional and Excess Side A insurance) of $250 million. The $105 million contribution toward the WaMu securities class action settlement materially reduced the amount of insurance remaining in the tower, and it is likely the defense costs in the various actions pending against the former WaMu officers and directors further depleted the amount of insurance remaining.

 

The amount of the any settlement in the WaMu FDIC lawsuit remains to be seen and it also remains to be seen whether and to what extent the individuals might contribute toward the settlement out of their own assets. But the amount of insurance remaining is at this point likely to be under $100 million, so in the absence of any significant contribution from the individuals the amount of any cash settlement in the WaMu case is likely to be below $100 million. Given that the collapse of Washington Mutual was the largest bank failure in U.S. history, it will be interesting to see the amount of any settlement that ultimately does emerge.

 

The American Civil War Viewed from Other Shores: As detailed in Amanda Foreman’s massive book A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War, many individual Britons were so taken up with the apparently romantic appeal of the Confederacy that they enlisted in the Confederate Army. Many were convinced that the South would win its independence, and one Englishman was so certain that he converted “his entire savings into Confederate currency, while it was still cheap to buy.”

 

The British sympathies for the Southern Cause had many sources, but one of the most important was economic, as a significant part of the British mill industry was dependent on the import of cotton from the Southern States. But despite this obvious financial pull toward the Confederacy, the British Government remained officially neutral, in part because the government did not want to be drawn into the war, on either side. As the war progressed and the appalling numbers of casualties began to accumulate, a vocal peace party began to form in England, in the interests of stopping the carnage. Most of the supporters of this position believed (without any particular evidence) that the Confederacy would have to abandon slavery anyway, after the war ended.

 

It took two developments, both of which were agonizingly long in coming, for British sentiment to begin running in favor of the North and of the Union. The first was Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which allowed Northern supporters to contend that the purpose of the war was to end slavery. The real problem the supporters of the North faced was that for the first two years of the war, the North looked incapable of winning. Finally, after the tide finally turned at Gettysburg, the increasing likelihood of a Northern victory allowed the British political elites to begin to envision the possibility of a re-united country after the war concluded.

 

What Foreman does particularly well in this interesting and detailed book is to tell the tale of the battle for the hearts and minds of the British people while the actual war went forward back in the States. The British government’s official position may have been one of neutrality but it seems as if no one in Britain was personally neutral. After the surrender at Appomattox and shock of Lincoln’s assassination, the Britons rediscovered their natural affinities for their American cousins, and the groundwork was laid for a relationship that has ever since been described as “special.”

 

I heartily recommend this book, which the New York Times selected as one of the Ten Best Books of 2011.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a November 30, 2011 order (here), Central District of California Judge R. Gary Klausner has denied the motion of the FDIC as receiver of the failed IndyMac Bank to intervene in a declaratory judgment action involving IndyMac’s D&O insurance. The FDIC sought to intervene because of its interest in recovering under the policies in connection with two lawsuits it filed as IndyMac’s receiver against former IndyMac directors and officers. Judge Klausner’s denial of the FDIC’s intervention motion may be relevant in other failed bank coverage disputes where the FDIC is interested in preserving D&O insurance policy proceeds for its claims in competition with claims of claimants to the policy proceeds.

 

Background

IndyMac failed on July 11, 2008. The bank’s closure represented the second largest bank failure during the current banking crisis, behind only the massive WaMu failure. (IndyMac has assets of about $32 billion at the time of its closure).

 

As I detailed in a prior post (here), the bank’s collapse triggered a wave of litigation. The lawsuits include a securities class action lawsuit against certain former directors and officers of the bank; lawsuits brought by the FDIC and by the SEC against the bank’s former President; and a separate FDIC lawsuit against four former officers of Indy Mac’s homebuilders division. There are a total of twelve separate lawsuits pending. The underlying actions allege various improprieties, mostly centering around mortgage backed securities.

 

Prior to its collapse, IndyMac carried D&O insurance representing a total of $160 million of insurance coverage spread across two policy years. The insurance program in place for each of the two policy years consists of eight layers of insurance. Each layer has a $10 million limit of liability. The eight layers consist of a primary policy providing traditional ABC coverage, with three layers of excess insurance providing follow form ABC coverage, followed by four layers of Excess Side A insurance. The lineup of insurer involved changed slightly in second year.

 

As I also noted in a prior post (here), in early 2011, a unit of IndyMac had filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish coverage under the various policies in connection with claims that had been filed against the unit. In an August 2011 order, discussed in the prior blog post, Central District of California Judge R. Gary Klausner granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as premature.

 

Separately, in March 2011, the four Side A carriers in the second of the two insurance towers filed their own separate declaratory judgment proceedings, against certain former IndyMac directors and officers, seeking to establish that terms in their policies preclude coverage for the various lawsuits. The directors and officers counterclaimed and also added as counter-defendants the four traditional ABC carriers in the second tower.

 

In October 2011, the FDIC, which in its capacity as IndyMac’s receiver has initiated two lawsuits against certain former IndyMac directors and officers of IndyMac, moved to intervene in the separate coverage action that the Side A carriers had initiated. The FDIC had moved to intervene on alternative grounds under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- as of right; and alternatively under permissive intervention. The FDIC argued that because it is a plaintiff in the two underlying actions, it has an interest in seeing that the coverage dispute is resolved so that it can recover any eventual judgment in those actions out of the insurance proceeds.

 

The November 30 Ruling

In his November 30 opinion, Judge Klausner denied the FDIC’s motion to intervene. Judge Klausner held that the FDIC had not established its entitlement to intervene as of right because it “has not obtained a judgment against the Insured Defendants and may never do so,” and so presently it has at most “the hope of an eventual judgment.” Accordingly, he held, the FDIC has “no legally protected interest” in the coverage dispute.” He added that even if it had a legally protected interest, that interest is not related to the subject matter of the coverage lawsuit. Because the FDIC’s lawsuit against the former directors and officers and the separate insurance coverage action “involve different legal issues,” they are “not related for purposes of mandatory intervention.”

 

Judge Klausner held that FDIC’s alternative motion for permissive intervention also fails because the FDIC’s action against the former directors and officers, on the one hand, and the separate insurance coverage dispute, on the other hand,  do “not present common questions of law or fact.” He added that because the FDIC has not yet obtained a judgment against the Insured Defendants it “does not have an interest that it needs to protect” and its claims “are not yet ripe for adjudication” and therefore it does “not have standing as a permissive intervenor.”

 

Discussion

The FDIC’s interest in preserving its ability to collect the proceeds of a failed bank’s D&O insurance is not limited to this case. In connection with a host of other failed banks, the FDIC’s interest in the D&O insurance policy proceeds is in competition with the interests of a variety of other claimants, including in particular shareholders of the holding companies of the failed banks.  The various parties will be in a race to try to see who gets there first, and if they can get there before the insurance is substantially or entirely depleted by defense expenses. The FDIC’s interest in taking part in coverage litigation makes perfect sense.

 

But so too does Judge Klausner’s ruling here. It appears that until the FDIC has reduced its claims to a judgment it may have difficulty presenting its purported claims to the D&O insurance policy proceeds in a coverage action. The question of whether or not there is coverage under a D&O policy for a given claim scenario is different from the question whether or not the FDIC has any entitlement to the policy proceeds.

 

Special thanks to my friends at Bates Carey Nicolaides LLP for providing me with a copy of Judge Klausner’s opinion. Bates Carey represents one of the insurers in the pending coverage action.

 

ABA Journal Top 100  Blawgs: The D&O Diary is proud to have been selected as one of ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 for 2011, the Journal‘s fifth annual list of the best blogs about lawyers and the law. This year’s Top 100 designees were selected from over 1,300 nominees. It is a particular honor to be selected along with the other five business law designees, which include some of the best blogs on the Internet: Professor Jay Brown’s Race to the Bottom Blog; Broc Romanek’s The CorporateCounsel.net blog; Professor Stephen Bainbridge’s ProfessorBainbridge.com; the Truth on the Market blog, which is maintained by a number of academics; and Francis Pileggi’s Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation blog .

 

Between now and December 31, 2011, you can vote for your favorite among the top six business law blogs, by clicking on the ABA Journal Blawg 100 badge in the right hand column. Everyone here at The D&O Diary would appreciate your support. Thanks to the readers who make this blog possible and worthwhile.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 25, 2011, the FDIC filed its latest failed bank lawsuit, in connection with events surrounding the July 2009 failure of Mutual Bank of Harvey, IL. The FDIC’s complaint, which was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, names as defendants eight former directors and two former officers of the bank. But in addition, the complaint also names as defendants the bank’s outside General Counsel, who was also a director of the bank, and well as the General Counsel’s law firm. There are a number of other interesting things about this complaint as well.

 

The FDIC’s complaint alleges that Mutual Bank’s failure has cost the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund an estimated $775 million in losses. In its lawsuit, the FDIC seeks to recover over $115 million in losses the bank suffered on twelve commercial real estate loans, $10.5 million in unlawful dividend payments and $1.09 million in wasted corporate assets.

 

The complaint asserts claims against the director defendants and the officer defendants for gross negligence, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleges that the directors and the officers approved high-risk loans to uncreditworthy borrowers. The complaint also asserts the directors failure to supervise the bank’s lending activities, approval of unlawful dividend payment and corporate waste.

 

The complaint also asserts claims against James Regas and his law firm, Regas Frezadas & Dallas, for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting the director and officer defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawyer and his firm are allege to have facilitated the unlawful payment of dividends; failed to counsel and prevent the bank’s board from making grossly imprudent loans; ignoring federal lending regulations; and facilitating bank transactions to entities in which one of the attorney defendants held an interest, despite the conflict of interest.

 

Interestingly, the roster of director defendants does not include Pethinaidu Velchamy, the bank’s former Chairman, or Parameswari Velchamy, the former Chairman’s wife, who was also a director of the bank. The complaint alleges that the two have each filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, and that “despite” their respective “culpability for the events described,” the stay in bankruptcy “precludes” naming them as a defendant “unless the stay is modified or lifted.”

 

Among other things, the Complaint alleges (in paragraph 34) that the former Chairman has filed a lawsuit against the bank’s former auditors, in which the Chairman supposedly alleges that “the Bank’s balance sheet contained hundreds of millions of dollars in loans that had been funded on the basis of substandard, if not reckless underwriting and … were not identified for corrective action because of critical failure in the Bank’s internal credit risk review function.”

 

Though the former Chairman and his wife are not named as defendants in the lawsuit, their son and daughter, both of whom served as members of the board of directors, were named as defendants.

 

These family connections are particularly interesting in relation to the FDIC’s waste allegations. Among other things, the FDIC alleges that board facilitated the payment of $250,000 in bank funds for the wedding of the Chairman’s daughter; authorized $495,000 in “bonuses” to pay the criminal defense costs of the bank President’s wife, who had been indicted for Medicaid fraud; and approving the use of $300,000 in bank funds to hold a board meeting in Monte Carlo.

 

Regas, the lawyer defendant, and his law firm, are alleged to have been aware that loans referenced in the complaint were “grossly deficient” but that despite the awareness of the “imprudence, and in some cases, unlawful nature of these transactions,” the lawyer and his firm failed to protect the bank from foreseeable injury inherent in these transactions. The law firm is alleged to have received over $3 million in fees between January 2007 and April 2009.

 

Regas is also alleged to have participated in a 2006 land loan transaction involving undeveloped real estate. The $28.5 million loan was originated by another bank for which Regas also served as director. The individual that sold the land to the borrower is described in the complaint as Regas’s “close friend and business colleague.” After the other bank made the loan, Regas allegedly arranged for Mutual Bank to acquire a $24.5 million participation in the loan. Regas allegedly steered the loan through the Mutual Bank approval process and did not abstain from voting to approve the loan. Regas is alleged to have abandoned his fiduciary duty to Mutual Bank in favor of the other bank and his friend. The loss to the bank from the loan is alleged to be approximately $24.5 million.

 

This latest complaint is the 16^th lawsuit that the FDIC has filed in connection with the current wave of bank failures, but so far as I am aware, it is the first in which the FDIC has named a failed bank’s outside lawyer and law firm as defendants. During the last round of bank failures in the S&L crisis, the FDIC pursued an aggressive litigation approach and often included failed bank’s lawyers or law firms as defendant. In many of those cases, as here, the lawyer defendants had served on the failed bank’s board and were alleged to have engaged in conflicts of interest. That prior history and the presence of those types of allegations here suggests that we are not about to see a comprehensive campaign against the outside law firms of failed banks. The firms or their lawyers are relatively unlikely to get drawn into the type of failed bank litigation if the firm did not have an attorney on the failed bank’s board or did not otherwise allegedly engage in conflicts of interest.

 

Out of the 16 failed bank lawsuits the FDIC has filed so far, this is the fourth involving an Illinois Bank (there have also been four lawsuits so far involving failed banks in California and Georgia, respectively). Like many of the lawsuit filed so far, this one was not filed until more than two years had elapsed since the bank’s closure. Given the fact that the bank closures did not really peak until late 2009 and early 2010, and allowing for that two year plus lag time, we could start to see increasing numbers of additional FDIC failed bank lawsuits in the months ahead.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the Mutual Bank complaint.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Turns out that while some of us were wondering when the lawsuits arising out of the current bank wave would really start to accumulate, the FDIC itself was busy filing lawsuits -- they just didn’t tell anybody about it, at least not until now. Specifically, the FDIC filed three more lawsuits in August than had previously come to light. At a minimum, these lawsuits suggest the FDIC has been more active in pursuing its litigation strategy than may have been perceived. The suits also suggest that the FDIC’s declarations about its planned litigation strategy are very much in earnest.

 

The three newly publicized lawsuits, each of which were filed by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of a failed bank, are as follows:

 

First, on August 8, 2011, the FDIC filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan against a single former loan officer at Michigan Heritage Bank, of Farmington Hills, Michigan, which failed on April 24, 2009 (about which refer here). A copy of the complaint in this lawsuit can be found here. The complaint alleges that the individual, whom the complaint alleges had been CEO of a different Michigan bank that failed in 2002, caused the bank to incur losses in excess of $8.2 million. The complaint, which asserts claims of negligence, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, alleges among other things that the lending officer “failed to conduct due diligence and analysis prior to originating and recommending approval of 11 commercial loans that resulted in losses” and “failed to adequately inform [the Bank’s] board of directors and senior management of deficiencies with respect to those loans.”

 

Second, on August 9, 2011, ,the FDIC filed a lawsuit in the District of Kansas against six former officers and directors of the Columbian Bank and Trust Company, of Topeka, Kansas, which failed on August 22, 2009 (about which refer here). The FDIC’s complaint in this lawsuit can be found here. The FDIC seeks to recover losses of at least $52 million the bank allegedly suffered because the defendants allegedly “negligently, grossly negligently, and in breach of their fiduciary duties originated and/or approved poorly underwritten large commercial and commercial real estate loans … and failed to properly supervise the Bank’s lending function.” The FDIC also alleges that the defendants (one of whom owned or controlled the bank’s holding company) “failed to heed the warnings of bank supervisory authorities.”

 

Third, on August 10, 2011, the FDIC filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina against nine former directors and officers of the Cooperative Bank, of Wilmington, North Carolina, which failed on June 19, 2009 (about which refer here). The FDIC’s complaint in this action can be found here. The complaint alleges that defendants “failed to manage the inherent risks associated with their aggressive growth strategy” and “permitted a lax loan approval process.” The complaint further alleges that through out the period 2005 through the bank’s failure, state and federal regulators “repeatedly warned” the bank’s management and board “about the risks associated with its high concentrations in speculative loans and weaknesses in lending functions,” yet the bank’s board “permitted and approved” the bank’s continued lending practices. The FDIC alleges that the defendants’ negligence, gross negligence and reckless conduct “ultimately led to the bank’s failure.”

 

There are a number of interesting things about these three new lawsuits, beyond the fact that they were filed on three successive days in August. For one thing, all three involved banks that failed more than two years before the complaints were filed. The timing of the filings relative to the earlier closures says something about the FDIC’s internal timetable for working up potential lawsuits. Another thing about these lawsuits are that the involve banks in states that have not been particularly hard hit during the current bank failure. By and large the bank failures have involved banks in just a few states, particularly Georgia, Illinois, California and Florida. Hard to know for sure what it signifies, but it is interesting that none of these suits involve banks from those hard hit states.

 

Another interesting thing about these suits is that all three involve relatively small banks. The Michigan Heritage bank lawsuit  involves a single mid-level lending officer and relatively modest losses on a relatively small number of loans. The implication seems to be that the FDIC intends to be very thorough and that there are not going to be cases that are too small to bother with. This is a salvage operation, pure and simple, and the FDIC is going to recover everything it can, no matter how small.

 

In any event, when these three additional lawsuits are taken into account, the total number of lawsuits that the FDIC has filed against former directors and officers of failed banks as part of the current bank failure wave is now up to fourteen, five of which were filed in August, and half of which were filed since June 30, 2011. The fact that these suits were filed in August and are just coming to light now suggests the possibility that there could be other FDIC lawsuits that have been filed but that have not yet surfaced.

 

Whether or not there are other filed but not yet publicized suits out there, it is clear there are many more lawsuits to come. On its website, the FDIC has said that as of September 13, 2011, the agency has approved lawsuits involving suits in connection with 32 failed institutions against 294 individuals with damage claims of at least $7.2 billion. The FDIC’s fourteen lawsuits to date involve only 103 directors and officers. The implication is that there are at least 18 more lawsuits yet to be filed – and that is only taking into account the lawsuits that have been approved as of September 13, 2011. There undoubtedly will be many lawsuits approved in the months ahead, with additional filings to follow after that.

 

Given the two year lag time between failure date and filing date that these three lawsuits described above demonstrate, and given the fact that the pace of bank failures only really accelerated during late 2009 and early 2010, it seems likely that the failed bank filings will not only continue well into at least 2012, but that over the next few months the pace of failed bank lawsuits could really take off. 

 

Indeed, one of the clear implications of the FDIC’s lawsuit filings during August of this year is that the agency’s declared litigation strategy is for real. The FDIC clearly does intend to pursue the active litigation strategy it has laid out on its website. And in light of these latest filings, the FDIC’s litigation approach clearly will not be limited just to the largest banks, but could well involve many smaller failures as well.

 

To be sure, the FDIC’s approach does not necessarily require an actual lawsuit in every case. Early on in connection with many of the bank failures, the FDIC has submitted notices of claim to the failed banks’ former directors and officers and to the failed bank’s D&O insurance carriers. In many cases, the FDIC may attempt to try to negotiate a settlement with the former directors and officers and the D&O carriers, without the actual filing of a civil action.

 

Reliable sources advise me that that is in fact exactly what happened in connection with one large failed bank in Florida. Apparently, the FDIC was able to negotiate a settlement in connection with the failed bank without actually filing a lawsuit against the failed bank’s former directors and officers. To the extent the FDIC pursues this approach in other cases and succeeds in negotiating settlements, there could ultimately be fewer complaints. In view of the fact that this approach would avert the erosion of the D&O insurance limits of liability by the payment of defense expenses, this approach could actually result in improved recoveries.

 

But though there may be cases where actual lawsuit filings are averted, the likelier scenario in many cases is that there will be an FDIC lawsuit. With the revelation of the FDIC’s August lawsuit filings, and the suggestion that the FDIC is now actively pursuing its litigation strategy, it is clear that the game is on. For months to come, one of the predominant stories on the directors and officers’ liability scene will be the FDIC’s pursuit of growing numbers of failed bank lawsuits against the former directors and offices of the failed institutions

.

One final note. The FDIC’s website makes it clear that its litigation strategy is not limited just to suits against former directors and officers. The site says that the agency has “also has authorized 20 fidelity bond, attorney malpractice, and appraiser malpractice lawsuits. In addition, 175 residential malpractice and mortgage fraud lawsuits are pending, consisting of lawsuits filed and inherited.”

 

Active Self-Defense: As discussed in prior posts (refer for example here), the individuals dragged into the failed bank lawsuits will rely on a number of theories in order to try to defend themselves. Former Indy Mac Chairman and CEO Michael Perry is taking a different approach. He has launched a website called “Not Too Big to Fail” (here) on which he is attempting to defend himself against charges the FDIC has asserted against him and other former IndyMac executives.

 

As discussed here, in July 2011, the FDIC filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California against Perry. The FDIC alleges that Perry acted negligently when he allowed IndyMac to generate and purchase $10 billion in loans when the secondary mortgage market was becoming illiquid. When IndyMac was later unable to sell the loans, the bank transferred them to its own investment portfolio, which then caused over $600 million in losses. Perry has also been named as a defendant in other lawsuits arising out of IndyMac’s July 2008 failure.

 

On his website, Perry asserts that “not one of the lawsuits against me has merit.” He says that “I and the management team and directors of IndyMac Bank made prudent and appropriate business decisions based on the facts available to us at the time and always with the primary goal being to keep IndyMac bank safe and sound.”

 

The name of the site is taken from Perry’s complaint that IndyMac did not receive government bailout funds that were made available to other banks. He asserts that this occurred because IndyMac was “not too big to fail.”

 

Though Perry’s website represents a rather impressive display of self-justification, it seems unlikely that his Internet-based public relations campaign will accomplish much. I suppose though for someone in Perry’s position there is some satisfaction involved with telling off the regulators, even if it is unlikely to change the outcome of any of the claims against him. The one thing that is clear is that Perry is both unrepentant and defiant.

 

Well, Maybe Next Year: For those who missed the allusion in the title of this blog post, the reference was to the lyrics of the song “Send in the Clowns,” from Stephen Sondheim’s Broadway musical A Little Night Music. The lyrics include these lines: “Sorry my dear/ But where are the clowns?/Quick, send in the clowns/Don’t Bother, they’re here.”  

 

Although many have sung this tune, it is has perhaps become most closely associated with Judy Collins. There are actually a surprising number of verions on You Tube of Judy Collings singing this song. Here's an audio only version:

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent negotiated resolution of an FDIC failed bank lawsuit suggests disputes over D&O insurance coverage may represent the real frontline in the failed bank litigation wars. The compromise was reached in the lawsuit the FDIC only recently filed in the District of Arizona involving the failed First National Bank of Nevada. As discussed below, the FDIC and the bank officer defendants have reached a settlement agreement that includes a stipulated judgment, assignment of insurance rights, release of claims against the individual defendants, and a covenant not to execute the judgment against the individual defendants.

 

First National Bank of Nevada failed on July 25, 2008 (as discussed here). First National Bank of Arizona was one of FNB Nevada’s sister banks until the two banks merged less than 30 days prior to FNB Nevada’s failure. As discussed here (scroll down), on August 23, 2011, the FDIC filed an action in the District of Arizona against Gary Dorris, who was CEO and Vice Chairman of the banks’ holding company as well as of both FNB Nevada and FNB Arizona, and Phillip Lamb, who was EVP of the banks’ holding company as well as of both FNB Nevada and FNB Arizona. The FDIC’s complaint alleged mismanagement and gross negligence at FNB Arizona that allegedly left FNB Arizona holding millions of dollars of bad loans.

 

On September 2, 2011, just days after the FDIC filed its complaint against the two individuals, the FDIC and the two defendants filed a joint motion for entry of judgment. A copy of the joint motion for entry of judgment can be found here. Though they had filed an answer denying liability, the defendants nevertheless consented to the entry of judgments “for purposes of compromising disputed claims.” Pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, the two individuals each consented to the entry against each of them of separate judgments in the amount of $20 million (plus post-judgment interest).

 

As part of the parties’ settlement agreement, upon the entry of the judgment the defendants will assign to the FDIC all of their rights and claims against the D&O insurer. The FDIC for its part agreed not to take any action to enforce the judgment against the individuals, except with respect to the individuals’ rights under the D&O policy. The joint motion alleged that the bank’s D&O insurer has “denied coverage, refused to defend, to advance defense costs, to indemnify, or to consider settlement of the claims brought against the defendants.”

 

Assuming for the sake of discussion that the court enters the consent judgment in the form the parties have requested, the FDIC’s obvious next move is to file a lawsuit against the bank’s D&O insurer, seeking to recover the amount of the judgments from the D&O insurer. The joint motion does identify the D&O insurer, but it does not specify the face amount of the D&O insurance policy, nor does it specify the basis on which the D&O insurer has denied coverage.

 

The fact that the consent judgment was submitted within days after the initial complaint was filed does seem to suggest that the lawsuit filing was itself part of a coordinated plan anticipating the consent judgments, as a way to shift the FDIC’s focus from the individuals themselves to the D&O insurer, the recovery of whose policy proceeds appears to have been the FDIC’s objective all along.

 

The problem with this approach is that it has not been established that the individuals in fact breached any duties or that they should be or could be held liable on the merits. Of course, the individuals would contend that when the D&O insurer failed to provide them with a defense, they were left on their own to take whatever steps they could to protect themselves from liability and to avert the accumulation of further defense expense. The FDIC, as the individuals’ successor in interest under the policy, now undoubtedly will argue that having disclaimed coverage and having declined to participate in the individuals’ defense, the carrier should not be heard to object to the basis on which the individuals compromised the lawsuit.

 

But merely because the FDIC will succeed to the individuals’ rights under the policy does not establish that there is coverage under the policy or that the D&O insurer has any liability for the amounts of the consent judgment. If it comes to that, the D&O insurer will undoubtedly attack the judgment on many bases. The D&O insurer will also likely maintain its assertion that there is no coverage under the policy for the claims against the individuals as well as for the judgment.

 

Given that this bank closed in mid-2008, which was very early in the current wave of bank failures, it is relatively unlikely that the operative policy had a regulatory exclusion (as those had only just started making their return to the D&O insurance marketplace at or about that time). The likelier possibility is that the coverage denial is based on some policy process issue, such as timely notice, claims made date, or the like.

 

As I previously noted, it could be argued that the D&O insurer, having denied coverage, should not be heard to object to the fact that the individuals have taken steps to protect themselves. However, the problem with these type of consent judgment/covenant not to execute type deals is that this approach can run the risk of slipping into a collusive arrangement, with the insured individual willingly agreeing to a settlement amount that has no relation to the his or her true liability exposure. In my prior life as an insurance company coverage attorney, I saw more than one deal that could only be described as abusive, and I have one particular deal   in mind that qualified as grotesque bad faith (it was so awful no court would touch it and it died a very ignominious death).

 

Whatever the merits or demerits of these types of deals, we undoubtedly will see many more of them before the current round of failed bank litigation finally plays itself out. FNB Nevada failed in the earliest days of this wave of failed banks, and the FDIC is just now getting around to pursuing claims and insurance coverage related to its closure. Many hundreds of banks have failed in the interim and over the coming months and years, the FDIC will be pursuing claims and insurance coverage in connection with many of those subsequent bank failures. In many of these cases, as apparently was the case here, the FDIC’s ultimate objective will be the recovery of D&O insurance proceeds.

 

As a result, there may well be many more occasions where, as here, individuals, in order to extricate from an FDIC lawsuit, similarly agree to a consent judgment and an assignment their rights to their D&O insurance policy in exchange for a covenant not to execute the judgment against them and their assets.

 

The larger message here is that as the FDIC ramps up its claims and lawsuits against the former directors and officers of failed banks, one of the consequences will be a rash of coverage lawsuits involving the failed institutions’ D&O insurance policies. All I can say is that it seems like old times to me. I expect that all across the country there are coverage attorneys getting their files from 20 years ago out of storage. 

 

As I said at the outset, D&O insurance coverage suits may represent the real frontlines of the failed bank litigation wars. (It is no coincidence that the lawsuit filed at the same time as the suit against the FNB Arizona defendants, the one filed against former directors and officers of Silverton bank, described here, apparently also is really a dispute about D&O insurance coverage; indeed in that case, the FDIC took the extraordinary step of naming the D&O insurers as defendants in the liability lawsuit.)

 

 In any event, it is clear that coverage lawsuits involving failed bank D&O policies will be one of predominant features of the D&O insurance scene for the next several years to come.

 

News coverage regarding the bank executives’ settlement with the FDIC can be found here. Special thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a copy of the parties’ joint motion for entry of judgment.

 

Court Rejects Failed Bank Directors and Officers Bid to Dismiss Claims Against Them: Meanwhile, in a case in the Northern District of Illinois involving the former directors and officers of the failed Heritage Community bank, the court has rejected the individual defendants’ motions to have the claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against them dismissed, except to the extend the negligence claims are duplicative of the fiduciary duty claims.

 

As discussed here, in November 2010, the FDIC filed a lawsuit against certain former directors and officers of Heritage. The defendants moved to dismiss the FDIC’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty allegations, arguing that the alleged misconduct that on which the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims are based are protected by the business judgment rule; that the FDIC had failed to sufficiently state claims for gross negligence, negligence or breach of fiduciary duty; and that the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims were duplicative.

 

In a September 1, 2011 order (here), Northern District of Illinois Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer denied the defendants’ motions, except that she granted the motions to the extent the negligence claims were duplicative of the fiduciary duty claims. In rejecting the defendants’ attempt to rely on the business judgment rule, she found that because these arguments represented affirmative defenses and held that the “appropriate mechanism for consideration” of the affirmative defenses is “a motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment.”

 

Judge Pallmeyer also found that the FDIC’s allegations “are sufficient to meet the liberal notice pleading requirements and to set for the duty, breach, causation and damage elements of claims for gross negligence, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.”

 

For those involved in defending former directors and officers in FDIC litigation (and these individuals’ D&O insurers), Judge Pallmeyer’s ruling may be concerning. One of their principal defenses for individuals caught up in FDIC failed bank litigation will be that under FIRREA, they can only be held liable for gross negligence (refer here for an excellent discussion of these issues). This argument is most compelling with respect to outside directors, as  a judge in the Central District of California recently recognized in dismissing NCUA claims that had been brought against outside directors of the failed WesCorp credit union (as discussed at greater length here). Although Judge Pallmeyer did dismiss the negligence claims to the extent they were duplicative of the fiduciary duty claims, she did not reach the question whether or not under FIRREA the individuals can be held liable only for gross negligence.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for forwarding the Heritage bank ruling to me.

 

Annual Law Firm Survey of D&O Insurance Coverage Issues: On September 7, 2011, my good friends at the Troutman Sanders law firm issued their annual survey of coverage decisions involving D&O and professional liability insurance policies, which can be found here. The survey is very comprehensive and has the added virtue of being indexed by topic, which makes the survey a particularly useful resource for those involved with D&O insurance claims to keep at hand.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an opinion that provides an interesting glimpse of a complex D&O insurance program, on August 24, 2011, Central District of California Judge R. Gary Klausner granted the motions to dismiss of the insurance company defendants in an action that had been brought by a subsidiary of IndyMac bank, which was trying to establish its rights to coverage under the failed bank’s D&O insurance policies. A copy of the August 24 opinion can be found here.

 

IndyMac failed on July 11, 2008. The bank’s closure represented the second largest bank failure during the current banking crisis, behind only the massive WaMu failure. (IndyMac has assets of about $32 billion at the time of its closure).

 

As I detailed in a prior post (here), the bank’s collapse triggered a wave of litigation.  The lawsuits include a securities class action lawsuit against certain former directors and officers of the bank; lawsuits brought by the  FDIC and by the SEC against the bank’s former President; and a separate FDIC lawsuit against four former officers of Indy Mac’s homebuilders division.  According to Judge Klausner’s August 24 opinion, there are a total of twelve separate lawsuits pending (referred to in the opinion as the “underlying actions”). Judge Klausner describes the litigation generally as alleging “various improprieties, mostly centering around mortgage backed securities.”

 

IndyMac MBS was a subsidiary of IndyMac Bank, and is now wholly owned by the IndyMac federal receivership. IndyMac MBS is a defendant in a number of the lawsuits that have been filed in the wake of the bank’s collapse. Earlier this year, IndyMac MBS filed an action seeking a judicial declaration of coverage on its behalf under the bank’s D&O insurance policies.

 

The insurance policies at issue represent a total of $160 million of insurance coverage spread across two policy years. (Judge Klausner’s opinion does not explain why two policy year’s policies are potentially implicated, rather than only one.) The coverage in the 2007-2008 policy year, providing coverage during the year from March 1, 2007 to March 1, 2008, consists of eight layers of insurance. Each layer has a $10 million limit of liability. The eight layers consist of a primary policy providing traditional ABC coverage, with three layers of excess insurance providing follow form ABC coverage, followed by four layers of Excess Side A insurance.

 

The coverage for the policy year March 1, 2008 to March 1, 2009 is arranged similarly, except that the lineup of insurer involved changed slightly in the 2008-2009 program. Judge Klausner’s opinion names all of the carriers involved and their respective roles in the two programs.

 

In its declaratory judgment action, IndyMac MBS sought to have the court determine that each of the underlying actions is covered under one or the other of the two insurance coverage towers. Moreover, because the two programs are each subject to a “priority of payments” provision giving the individual defendants in the underlying actions priority to coverage under the policies, IndyMac MBS sought to have the court make a determination of coverage for the individual defendants in the underlying actions, so as to allow the court to ascertain whether IndyMac MBS  may be eligible to receive coverage under the policies. The defendant insurance companies moved to dismiss.

 

In his August 24 order, Judge Klausner granted the insurance companies’ motions to dismiss, holding that IndyMac MBS’s request for declaratory relief is “too remote to constitute a case or controversy” because any insurance coverage that may ultimately be owed “can only be determined after the underlying actions involving the Individual Defendants have been concluded.” Accordingly, IndyMac MBS “does not yet have an adequate injury that would make this case justiciable.”

 

In addition, Judge Klausner found with respect to the excess layers of insurance had not even been triggered because the underlying insurance has not yet been exhausted, and whether the excess layers “will ever be triggered in the underlying action is too speculative to give rise to a valid request for standing in the current case.” Indeed, even under the primary policy, IndyMac’s alleged injury is “too speculative” as IndyMac MBS has not yet met the $2.5 million deductible.

 

Finally, Judge Klausner separately granted the Excess Side A insurers’ motion to dismiss. Because the insurance coverage under the Excess Side A policies is only available, if at all, for the benefit of the individual defendants, IndyMac “lacks standing to request declaratory relief” because it “cannot adequately allege that it has a legal interest” in the Excess Side A policies, given that the Excess Side A policies “provide coverage only for the Individual Insured Defendants.”

 

Discussion

There is nothing surprising about the outcome of this ruling. It clearly is too early for the court or anyone else to try to sort out who is going to be entitled to what under the various policies. Nevertheless, it certainly is understandable that IndyMac MBS would want to know how much insurance it is going to have as it faces the various lawsuits in which it is involved.

 

This is a classic situation of too many claims, too many defendants and possibly not enough insurance. Even though IndyMac carried annual limits of liability of $80 million (and I note as an aside, there is nothing that says that both of the two $80 million towers of insurance will actually be available; it is entirely possible that all claims will relate back to the date of the initial filing of the first claim, in which case only a single $80 million tower would actually be available to pay the various insured persons’ losses), that may prove to be an insufficient amount to pay the defense fees and to pay settlements and judgments in order to resolve all of the various underlying actions.

 

The larger concern for IndyMac MBS is that owing to the priority of payments provision in the traditional ABC policies, and owing to the limitation of coverage in the Excess Side A policies to the individuals only, it is entirely possible that payment of the individual insureds’ defense expenses and settlement amounts will entirely exhaust all insurance. The Excess Side A insurance of course is not available at all for IndyMac MBS. IndyMac’s declaratory judgment action seems like an attempt to try to do something before all of the insurance is gone.

 

Of course, I am assuming for the sake of argument that there actually is coverage available under these policies for the benefit of the individual insured persons. Whether or to what extent there are policy terms and conditions that preclude coverage in whole or in part for the individual insureds is another question. That is of course one of the questions that IndyMac MBS wanted answered in the declaratory judgment action, because knowing the answer to the question of how much insurance is available to the individuals is a necessary predicate to knowing the answer to how much insurance might be available to IndyMac MBS.

 

The structure of IndyMac’s insurance was somewhat unusual, as it is not common for companies to carry equal amounts of traditional ABC insurance and of Excess Side A insurance, or to carry $40 million of Excess Side A, as IndyMac did here. However, from the perspective of the individuals, the unusually large amount of Excess Side A insurance that the bank carried is turning out to be a good thing from there perspective, as it is looking like they are going to need it, and it is only going to be available to them and for their benefit, without having to share with other entities.

 

Anyway, while I don’t think the outcome of this decision is particularly surprising, it is still an interesting situation. The circumstances provide insight into the ways that the various parts of a D&O insurance program operate, particularly the priority of payments provision and the Excess Side A insurance structure.

 

One final observation has to do with the fact that a lot of insureds, like IndyMac MBS, become frustrated when they are unable to find out with clarity at the outset of a claim how much insurance is going to be available. The problem is, as this case demonstrates, until the underlying litigation has played itself out, it is not possible to know how all of the various rights and interests under the policy are going to be addressed. When this type of frustration arises in the course of a claim, the insured persons often translate their frustration into anger at the carriers involved. But as this case also shows, even taking as active a step as suing the carriers to try to force a determination of coverage cannot eliminate the unavoidable constraint that requires the underlying claim to be resolved (or at least sufficiently advanced) before coverage can finally be determined.

 

I do wonder sometimes whether it is a sad commentary that I find all of this interesting.

 

Special thanks to a dedicated reader for sending me a copy of the IndyMac order.

 

Las Vegas Sands Credit Crisis-Related Securities Suit Survives Dismissal Motion: Like a lot of companies during the economic turmoil in late 2008, the Las Vegas Sands Corp. experienced serious liquidity problems that put it in breach of various covenants it has with its lenders. These disruptions affected the company’s ability to proceed with expansion plans in Las Vegas and Macao. As these events unfolded the company’s share price lost much of its value.

 

As I discussed in an earlier post, somewhat belatedly, in May 2010, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit in the District of Nevada, alleging that the company and certain of its directors and officers had made misleading statements about the company, its development plans, its liquidity and its financial condition. The defendants moved to dismiss.

 

In an August 24, 2011 order (here), District of Nevada Judge Kent Dawson denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He concluded that the plaintiffs “have adequately pled facts asserting that investors were misled by statements that liquidity was not an issue and that development was steadily progressing.” He also concluded that the plaintiffs have “adequately pled that Defendants knew that the statements they were making were false.”  He also found that the allegations in the complaint “show a series of public statements on material issues that were inconsistent with what was known internally.” He did conclude that certain forward-looking statements were not actionable, because they came within the safe harbor for forward looking statements.

 

I have added the Las Vegas Sands case to my running tally of credit crisis-related dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here.

 

Here’s A Real Shocker: Merger Objection Lawsuits Are Worthless: If the hurricane blew away your Saturday newspapers, you may not have seen the August 27, 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why Merger Lawsuits Don’t Pay” (here). According to the article, “legal experts” warn prospective claimants with respect to merger objection lawsuits that “the chances that you will succeed in stopping a deal or receiving a payday are minimal.”

 

The article reports data from Advisen that in 2010, there were 353 merger objection lawsuits, which represents a 58% increase from 2009. There have already been 352 merger objection lawsuits so far this year. The number of these lawsuits keeps increasing even though these suits “rarely result in a tangible award,” and the best outcomes are usually limited to “a delay in the merger or slightly improved disclosures about the deal’s terms.”

 

The answer to the question about why these cases are filed if they produce so little is that they make money for the lawyers. As the article puts it, “in many cases the biggest beneficiaries are the law firms,” which collect fees “from roughly $400,000 for typical cases to several million for bigger cases.” The article quotes a statement from Delaware Chancellor J. Travis Laster that the specific merger objection case before him was “a bunch of movement for nothing.”

 

Yes, it’s a great country, isn’t it?

 

Video Tribute: As a parting salute to Irene as she heads north and back out to sea, here's a video tribute -- The Scorpions "Rock You Like A Hurricane." (sorry about the commercial at the beginning, it is short).

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 22, 2011, when the FDIC filed a lawsuit related to the collapse of Silverton Bank, which is Georgia’s largest failed bank, the named defendants included not only bank officers that the regulators allege are responsible for the bank’s failure, but also the bank’s former outside directors and even the bank’s D&O insurers. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint, which was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, can be found here. Scott Trubey’s August 22, 2011 Atlanta Journal Constitution article about the lawsuit can be found here.

 

In addition, and as discussed further below, on August 23, 2011, the FDIC separate filed an action in the District of Arizona against certain directors and officers of the failed First National Bank of Nevada.

 

When Silverton failed on May 1, 2009, it had assets of over $4 billion. Prior to its collapse, Silverton had done business as a “banker’s bank” and had been chartered to do serve the needs of community financial institutions, by providing correspondent and clearinghouse services. The bank eventually expanded into residential and commercial real estate acquisition and development loans, which it accomplished through “participations” in which the Bank shared funding and risk with other banks.

 

The FDIC’s complaint alleged that its case represents “a text book example of officer and directors of a financial institution being asleep at the wheel and robotically voting for approval of transactions without exercising any business judgment in doing go.” The complaint, which seeks recovery of damages of $71 million, asserts claims against the individual defendants for negligence, gross negligence, breaches of fiduciary duty and waste.

 

The individual defendants named in the lawsuit include not only the bank’s former President and CEO and two other former bank officers, but also 14 additional former outside board members. In naming the outside directors, the FDIC stressed that what makes this case “so unique and troubling” is that the bank’s board was not composed of “ordinary businessmen” but, rather, in view of the bank’s business as a banker’s bank, of individuals who were all CEOs or presidents of other community banks. These outside board members “by virtue of their elevated positions within their own banks, were more skillful and possessed superior attributes in relation to fulfilling their duties” than “others who may serve in this capacity.

 

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants allowed the bank to pursue a strategy of rapid expansion, particularly with respect to commercial real estate lending, just as the economy started to head south, and allowed the bank to continue to pursue this strategy even after the signs of economic problems began to mount. The complaint alleges that the bank’s “aggressive banking plan” was accompanied by weaknesses in loan underwriting, credit administration and a complete disregard of a declining economy, which “led to the failure of the Bank.”

 

The complaint also alleged that the individual defendants “directed the Bank on a course of expansive and extravagant spending on unnecessary items for the Bank after the economy began to decline.” The individual defendants are alleged to have “authorized the purchase of two new aircrafts, a new airplane hanger to house three large and expensive airplanes, and a large and lavish new office building.”

 

In addition to naming the former officials of the failed bank as defendants, the complaint somewhat unconventionally also names as defendants the bank’s two D&O insurers.

 

At the time the bank failed, it carried a total of $10 million of D&O insurance, arranged in two layers consisting of a primary layer of $5 million and an additional $5 million layer excess of the primary. The complaint relates that when the binder for the relevant primary policy was issued on March 3, 2009 (that is, less than two months before the bank failed), the binder listed ten endorsements, including an endorsement containing the so-called regulatory exclusion (for background about the regulatory exclusion, refer here). However, when the primary carrier issued the policy on April 1, 2009, only seven of the ten endorsements that had been listed on the binder were included on the D&O policy. Among the endorsements that were listed on the binder that were not included on the issued policy was the endorsement with the regulatory exclusion.

 

On the afternoon of May 1, 2009 (that is, the day Silverton was closed), a representative of the primary carrier sent an email message that he “had noticed that the Regulatory Endorsement was on the Binder but left off the policy in error,” and attached to the email an endorsement with the Regulatory Endorsement dated May 1, 2009 but with an effective date of March 9, 2009. The complaint characterizes this as a “last minute attempt to unilaterally change the terms of the Policy.” The complaint further alleges that policy issuance terminated the binder.

 

The FDIC’s complaint seeks a judicial declaration that the regulatory exclusion is not a part of the primary or excess policy, and that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion, on which the carriers also purport to rely to deny coverage, does not preclude coverage for the claim. (Refer here for a discussion of the issues surrounding the applicability of the Insured vs. Insured exclusion in connection with a claim involving the FDIC as receiver.)

 

Discussion

The FDIC’s lawsuit against the former Silverton directors and officers is not the first lawsuit filed as part of the current round of bank failures in which the FDIC has included outside directors as defendants. For example, the lawsuit the FDIC recently filed in connection with the collapse of Haven Trust included the failed bank’s former outside directors as defendants, as discussed here.  The FDIC seems to have particularly targeted the outside directors of this failed bank, owing to the unusual circumstance that former directors were all themselves also senior executives of other banking institutions. The FDIC clearly intends to try to bootstrap this fact in order to argue that these specific directors should be held to a higher standard of care. (My recent post on issues surrounding questions of bank director liability can be found here.)

 

Upon reflection of the unique circumstances by which these directors came to be on the Silverton board, it occurs to me that the FDIC may have certain additional motivations in pursuing claims against the former outside directors of the bank. The parrticular circumstance I have in mind is the fact that each of these outside directors of Silverton was also an officer of another banking institution. To the extent these individuals were serving on the Silverton board at the direction of the sponsoring institution, these individuals potentially could have coverge for claims in connection with their Silverton board service under the outside director liability provisions of their sponsoring bank's D&O insurance policies. I am expressing no views on whether or to what extent such coverage actually would be available, nor could I without further information about their sponsoring banks' D&O insurance policies and about the circustances by which they came to be on the Silverton board. My purpose in noting the observations here is simply to suggest this possible additional motivation that the FDIC might have in pursuing claims against these particular outside directors. In any event, the outside director liability coverage, if any, under the sponsoring company's D&O insurance may be limited to outside director service on nonprofit boards.

 

The FDIC’s inclusion of the D&O insurers as parties defendant in the liability lawsuit is unorthodox to say the least. One the one hand, as the complaint recites, the D&O insurers have denied liability for the FDIC’s claim, which might set the predicate for a more conventional (and separate) declaratory judgment action against the carrier. From reading the complaint, it seems that the primary carrier’s belated attempt to correct the omission of the regulatory exclusion from primary policy may explain the FDIC’s more aggressive approach here.

 

Whatever else may be said about the FDIC’s inclusion of the insurers as defendants in this lawsuit, the alleged facts provide a veritable parable about the importance of making sure that the issued policy matches the terms of the binder. It will be interested to see how the Court addresses what allegedly appears to be a policy issuance error, as the insurance arrangement to which the parties had agreed unquestionably was intended at the time of contract formation to include a regulatory exclusion.  For that matter, it will be interested to see whether the Court permits the coverage action to remain joined with the underlying liability action, and whether or not the Court will permit the two related actions to go forward at the same time.

 

FDIC Also Files Lawsuit Against Former Officials of First National Bank of Arizona: In addition to its new lawsuit against the Silverton officials, the FDIC also filed a separate lawsuit in August 23, 2011 in the District of Arizona  against two former directors and officers of First National Bank of Arizona,  which had been one of the sister banks of First National Bank of  Nevada until they merged shortly before FNB Nevada failed. FNB Nevada was among the first banks to fail as part of the current round of bank falures when it failed on July 25, 2008. A copy of the FDIC's complaint in the case can be found here.  

 

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and gross negligence against the former officers, asserting that they cause the bank to sustain "losses from the unsustainable business model they promoted for FNB Arizona's loan portfolio -- a model that depended on real estate values rising indefinitely and low defaule rate." The complaint alleges that "when the real estate market collapsed and default rates skyrocketed, FNB Arizona was left holding millions of dollars of bad loans it could not sell." The FDIC alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct, the FDIC has sustained losses in excess of $193 million.

 

 

The Current FDIC Failed Bank Lawsuit Count: These complaints represent the tenth and eleventh that the FDIC has filed against former directors and officers of a failed bank as part of the current round of bank failures. The Silverton lawsuit represents the third so far in Georgia. There undoubtedly will be more lawsuits to come, as the FDIC has indicated on its website that as of August 4, 2011, it has authorized suits in connection with 30 failed institutions against 266 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $6.8 billion. With the Silverton Bank and FNB Nevada lawsuits, the FDIC has now filed suits in connection with eleven failed institutions against 77 individuals. Even just taking account of the lawsuits that have already been authorized, there are many more suits to come, and undoubtedly even more lawsuits will be authorized.

 

But with the back to back arrival of these two lawsuits in the space of two days, both involving banks the failed early on the the bank failure wave, there is a sense that the long lagtime associated with the FDIC's lawsuit filings may be over. For what it is worth, both of these new complaints both involve the same lawfirm on behalf of the FDIC, the Mullin Hoard & Brown law firm of Amarillo, Texas.

 

It is probably worth noting that the FDIC’s lawsuit is not the first to be filed against the former directors and officers of Silverton. As reflected here, the bank’s defunct parent company earlier this year filed suit against the bank’s former CEO and its former accountant and accounting firm, seeking about $65 million in damages.

 

Special thanks to the several readers who sent me copies of the Silverton complaint and related links. Special thanks also to the loyal reader who sent me a copy of the FNB Nevada lawsuit as well.

 

Number of Problem Banks Declines: According to the FDIC’s latest Quarterly Banking Profile, released on August 23, 2011 (refer here), the number of problem institutions during the second quarter of 2011 declined to 865, from 888 at the end of the first quarter of 2011. This reduction represents the first quarterly decline in the number of problem institutions in 19 quarters. (The FDIC identifies banks as problem institutions as those that are graded a 4 or a 5 on a 1-to-5 scale as a result of “financial, operational, or managerial weaknesses that threat their continued financial viability.” The FDIC does not release the names of the individual problem institutions.)

 

While the quarterly decline in the number of problem institutions is good news, the latest quarterly figure still represents a significant number and percentage of all banks. The 865 problem institutions represents about 11.5% of the 7513 of all reporting institutions. This is slightly lower than the 11.7% of all banks that were rated as problem institutions at the end of the first quarter.

 

With the continued weakness in the sector, the number of failed and troubled banks will continue to remain a concern for some time to come.

 

The FDIC’s August 23, 2011 press release regarding the latest Quarterly Banking Profile can be found here.

               

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a settlement that apparently will be funded entirely by D&O insurance, the plaintiffs and 23 former executives of the failed Colonial Bank of Montgomery, Alabama have agreed to the settle the class action securities lawsuit that investors filed in connection with the bank’s 2009 collapse,  for $10.5 million. The settlement does not resolve the plaintiffs’ claims against the offering underwriter defendants nor does the settlement include the bank’s former auditor. The settlement is subject to court approval. A copy of the parties’ August 12, 2011 stipulation of settlement can be found here. The plaintiff’s August 12, 2011 motion for settlement approval can be found here.

 

When Colonial Bank failed in August 2009, it was the sixth largest U.S. bank failure of all time (as discussed here). The bank, which had assets of $26 billion, was brought down in part due to its involvement in the mortgage securities fraud scheme involving mortgage originator Taylor Bean, as discussed in a recent post. The bank’s holding company filed for bankruptcy shortly after the bank’s closure.

 

As discussed here, the plaintiffs had actually filed their securities lawsuit in February 2009, prior to the bank’s demise. The plaintiffs initially alleged that the defendants failed to disclose that "Colonial would be required to raise additional outside capital of $300 million before it could receive the $550 million in TARP funding." The complaint further alleges that Colonial "belatedly disclosed" this requirement, its share price plunged. The plaintiffs’ 334-page consolidated amended complaint (here) contains significantly broader allegations and contends that the defendants engaged in a broad, multipart fraudulent scheme that led to the bank’s collapse.

 

Given the bank’s size prior to its failure, and the high-profile nature of the allegations, including the bank’s association with the Taylor Bean fraud, the relatively modest $10.5 million settlement may seem low, especially by comparison to the string of nine-figure securities class action lawsuit settlements that recently have been announced (refer for example here). However, the dollar figure may also be reflective of the particularly challenging circumstances claimants may face when trying to pursue claims against the former officials of a defunct organization.

 

Without a solvent entity to fund claims settlements, the claimants may be left to try to salvage what they can from the remaining D&O insurance, which represents at best a declining fund that will only become smaller the longer the case continues and the more vigorously the parties contest the case, as defense expenses erode the limit of liability. The vulnerability of the insurance funds to claims cost erosion is a particular problem in a situation like this, where there are multiple proceedings and multiple parties.

 

Indeed, in their memorandum in support of their request for preliminary court approval of the settlement, the plaintiffs argue that the settlement represents n “outstanding result” given that they were facing a “significant risk of no or a much smaller recovery after protracted litigation.” The motion papers attribute this risk to the holding company’s bankruptcy and to “the limited resources of the primary Director and Officer defendants and the limited insurance policy proceed available.”

 

With respect to Colonial’s insurance, the plaintiff’s motion papers report that the bank had “a total of $35 million in liability insurance,” which were in the form of “wasting insurance policies.” At the time of the mediation “less that $32 million in funds remained available to satisfy all claims,” including not only the securities class action lawsuit but also a separate shareholder derivative suit filed on behalf of the company and the “claims of the FDIC-Receiver” as well as other matters.

 

In any event, this settlement is to be entirely funded by D&O insurance. Paragraph 6 of the settlement stipulation says that the Settling Defendants’ Insurance Carriers “shall pay the sum of $10,500,000 in cash into the Escrow Account.” (The carriers involved are identified in the definitions section, on page 13 of the stipulation.) The absence of any contribution to the settlement from the individual defendants is explained in the motion papers, which report that “during the mediation process, the plaintiffs acquired certain confidential financial information from certain selling Defendants that reflected an inability to contribute in any meaningful way to the settlement.”

 

Though this settlement may appear relatively modest, it may be worth noting that the settlement does not include the offering underwriter defendants or the bank’s former auditor, against whom the case will continue. Whether the plaintiffs ultimately will be able improve their overall recovery with settlements with these other defendants remains to be seen, but there is at least that possibility.

 

This settlement certainly reduces the insurance funds out of which the FDIC might have hoped to extract a recovery by pursuing claims against the bank’s former directors and officers. The reduction of the amount of insurance does underscore one problem the FDIC may face in pursuing claims against former directors and officers of some failed banks, which is that the FDIC may be a competition – or even in a race – with shareholder plaintiffs to try to capture remaining D&O insurance policy proceeds, before they are eroded by defense expense. That said, it does seem like an attempt was made as part of this settlement to preserve some remaining portions of the bank’s D&O insurance in order for them to defend or resolve the FDIC’s claims.

 

I have in any event added the Colonial Bank settlement to my running tally of subprime and credit crisis-related case resolutions, which can be accessed here.

 

Among the individual defendants party to this settlement is Colonial’s colorful and controversial former Chairman and CEO, Bobby Lowder. In addition to Colonial, Lowder has long been associated with Auburn University. I discussed Lowder’s Auburn connection in a prior post, which can be found here.

 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the wake of the current round of bank failures, the FDIC has filed a number of lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks, and has indicated that it intends to file more. Among the issues this litigation raises is the question of when the former directors of a failed bank can be held liable. As discussed in an August 10, 2011 memo from the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips law firm (here), a recent decision a case in the Central District of California involving a failed credit union may provide some insight into this question.

 

First, some background. Section 11(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act provides that directors and officers of failed institutions can be held liable “for gross negligence.” in an action brought by the FDIC in its role as receiver.  As explained in the FDIC’s online materials about professional liability claims, case law interpreting this statute has established that “state law, not federal common law provides the liability standard for directors and officers, and that section 11(k) provided a gross negligence floor for the FDIC claims in states with insulating statutes.” (State insulating statutes allow corporations to amend their bylaws to limit the civil liability of the corporations’ directors.) As a result, even in states with insulating statutes, directors cannot protect themselves from FDIC claims based on gross negligence. 

 

The recent decision in the Central District of California involved a case brought by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) against 16 former directors and officers of Western Corporate Federal Credit Union (WesCorp). As discussed at greater length here, the NCUA alleged that the defendants had allowed WesCorp to purchase vast amounts of securities backed by Option ARM mortgages without appropriate analysis of the creditworthiness of the underlying securities or appropriate regard for the limits on concentrations in the company’ s portfolio.

 

In an August 1, 2011 order (here), Central District of California Judge George Wu granted the director defendants’ motion to dismiss the NCUA’s most recently amended complaint, for reasons discussed in the court’s July 7, 2011 minute order (here). In the July 7 minute order, Judge Wu noted that “the business judgment rule protects the director defendants,” adding that the director defendants “may have made choices—or not made choices – with which the NCUA disagrees, but that does not mean they failed in their responsibilities so severely that they lose the protection of the business judgment rule.”

 

Judge Wu drew a distinction between the officer defendants (whose dismissal motion he denied) and the director defendants, observing that “the question in assessing the director defendants’ liability vis a vis the Option ARMs and concentration levels is what the director defendants knew at the time that should have dictated to them that they do something more or different from all that they did do.” He concluded that the NCUA has “failed to present sufficient allegations in this regard, so as to fit within the exceptions to the business judgment rule.”

 

The law firm memo linked above observes that the holding in the WesCorp case is “equally applicable to actions brought by the FDIC against former directors of a failed bank.” In that regard, it is worth noting that the FDIC itself has said, in its online materials describing its approach to professional liability claims, that it is the FDIC’s “long-standing internal policy” of pursuing claims against outside directors only where “the facts show that the culpable conduct rises to the level of gross negligence or worse.” In other words, the FDIC itself has said that it is not its policy to pursue claims against directors based on mere negligence.  The law firm memo suggests, by reference to the WesCorp case, that conduct within the protection of the business judgment rule by definition is not grossly negligent, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for director liability.

 

In the law firm memo, the author notes that the misconduct that the FDIC has alleged in many of the cases it has filed as part of the current wave of bank failures arise in the context of the collapse of the residential real estate market and against the background of the global economic crisis. In light of those circumstances, the FDIC’s allegations may be susceptible to the argument that it is “attempting to substitute its after-the –fact judgment for that of the board made in real time.” The business judgment rule exists to “prevent a court from second guessing honest, if inept, business decisions.”

 

Directors’ protections under the business judgment rule may, however, be overcome where, for example, there is evidence that the directors’ “improper motives or undue influence, conflict of interest” or where the directors failed to be “fully informed before making decisions.”

 

The possibility of being drawn into an FDIC lawsuit is a recurring source of anxiety for outside directors of failed or troubled banks. Indeed, the FDIC has filed a number of these suits and clearly intends to file more. But directors concerned about the possibility of this type of litigation can be reassured, first, that it is the FDIC’s own policy only to pursue claims against outside directors where it believes there is evidence of gross negligence, and, second, that as a result of the protections of the business judgment rule, the directors cannot be held liable for actions that merely prove to have been mistaken or even inept. Judge Wu’s ruling in the Wescorp provides directors reassurance that defendant directors may even be able to get the claims against them dismissed -- even if claims against the officer defendants are not -- where the allegations presented are insufficient to meet these requirements.

 

The law firm memo concludes with a number of lessons for current bank directors from the current environment and from the FDIC’s allegations in the cases that it has filed so far. Among other things, the memo’s author notes the following: that board membership is a serious responsibility for which the individual directors must be willing to devote “substantial amounts of time” in order to perform their duties in accordance with the FDIC’s expectations;  that board members are “charged with holding management’s feet to the fire in addressing strategic challenges and operational problems”; that directors must act independently and must not “turn a blind eye to unsafe or unsound practices; and that directors “must be very sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the many distinctive traits of the litigation that surrounded the S&L crisis in the late 80s and early 90s was the plethora of lawsuits  between the FDIC (and other federal banking regulators), on the one hand,  and the failed banks’ insurers, on the other hand,  over the interpretation of the banks’ management liability insurance policies. Among the questions surrounding the current bank failure wave has been whether or not we will see a similar round of insurance coverage litigation. If a lawsuit filed last week in the Middle District of Alabama is any indication, the anticipated insurance coverage litigation may be on its way.

 

The coverage lawsuit arises out of the massive failure of Colonial Bancorp, which closed its doors on August 14, 2009. The bank’s holding company filed for bankruptcy on August 25, 2009. Among the factors contributing to Colonial’s failure was the criminal conspiracy relating to the failed mortgage lender, Taylor Bean & Whitaker. In April 2011, Lee Farkas, Taylor Bean’s ex-Chairman, was convicted of wire fraud and securities fraud.

 

Prior to Farkas’s conviction, two Colonial Bank employees pled guilty in connection with the Taylor Bean scheme. As reflected here, on March 2, 2011, Catherine Kissick, a former senior vice president of Colonial Bank and head of its Mortgage Warehouse Lending Division, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank, wire and securities fraud for participating in the Taylor Bean scheme. As reflected here, on March 16, 2011, Teresa Kelly, the bank’s Operations Supervisor and Collateral Analyst, pled guilty on similar charges.

 

The two bank employees allegedly caused the bank to purchase from Taylor Bean and hold $400 million in mortgage assets that had no value. The employees also allegedly engaged in fraudulent actions to cover up overdrafts of Taylor Bean at the bank. The employees are also alleged to have had the bank engage in the fictitious trades with Taylor Bean that had no value.

 

At the time of the bank’s failure, the bank carried three financial institution bonds. At or about the time that Colonial failed, the bank submitted notices of claim under the financial institutions bonds in connection with the activities and actions that ultimately were the topic of the criminal guilty pleas of the bank employees.

 

In a complaint filed on July 29 in the Southern District of Alabama (a copy of which can be found here), the FDIC as receiver for Colonial Bank, as well as the bankrupt bank holding company on its own behalf, filed an action against the bank’s bond insurer. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the losses caused by the misconduct “constitute recoverable losses under the Bonds up to the full aggregate limits of liability of the Bonds.” 

 

The complaint states that the bond insurer “has neither accepted nor denied the Plaintiffs’ claims under the Bonds.” The complaint alleges  that the insurer “has failed to investigate the claims and losses in a reasonable and appropriate manner.” After cataloging the back and forth between the FDIC and the insurer on their respective efforts to enter a confidentiality agreement, the complaint alleges that the insurer “has declined to enter into any of the proposed confidentiality agreements or offer appropriate confidentiality agreements of its own,” and “hence” the FDIC is unable to produce the confidential information that the insurer has requested. The complaint asserts a single claim for breach of contract.

 

Interestingly, the complaint does not specify whether or not the FDIC or the bankrupt holding company is entitled to recover under the bonds, but rather says that the amount of any recovery under the bonds is to be deposited in a bankruptcy court escrow account, where the issue of entitlement to the proceeds will be determined.

 

There are a number of arguably unusual features of this dispute. First, it is filed in connection with the failed bank’s financial institutions bonds, rather than in connection with the failed bank’s D&O insurance policy. To be sure, given the circumstances surrounding the bank employees’ guilty pleas, the implication of the bonds is hardly surprising. But the typical bank closure during the current round of bank failures will not implicate the failed bank’s financial institution bonds. The relevant insurance issues will more likely arise, if at all, under the failed bank’s D&O policy.

 

Another interesting thing about this dispute is that the parties are in coverage litigation even though the carrier has not even denied coverage. It looks as if the parties’ so-far unsuccessful attempts to hammer out a confidentiality agreement have gotten a little bit out of hand. It is mercifully uncommon for parties in similar circumstances to be unable to come up with a mutually acceptable confidentiality agreement. It may be that once the parties in this circumstance can finally manage to come up with a confidentiality agreement that this whole dispute will resolve itself without the need for further litigation (whether or not there was ever really any need for litigation in the first place.)

 

But the fact that the FDIC has not hesitated to file this suit in the first place certainly does evince a willingness to use the court to pursue its claims, as receiver, in connection with failed banks’ insurance policies. And while this case may not on its face present any significant coverage issues of more general significance, the likelihood is that as the FDIC presses claims for insurance recovery, that some of these claims will find their way into court with significant implications for questions of coverage under the applicable policies.

 

As I have said before, so many aspects of the current bank failure wave provide a feeling of déjà vu for those of us who lived through the S&L crisis. If the feeling is not necessarily one of nostalgia, it at least has a certain familiarity. Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not there will be any where near the amount of coverage litigation this time around. It just looks to me from this recent lawsuit that just like last time, the FDIC is not messing around, and it is not going to hesitate to use the courts to pursue claims against failed banks’ insurers.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 14, 2011, the FDIC filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia against 15 former directors and officers of Haven Trust Bank of Duluth, Georgia. This suit is the ninth the FDIC has filed as part of the current bank failure wave and the second that the FDIC has filed in Georgia. A copy of the FDIC's complaint can be found here. Scott Trubey’s July 14, 2011 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article describing the lawsuit can be found here.  

 

Haven Trust was one of the earliest bank closures of the current wave when it failed on December 18, 2008. The bank’s failure has already been the subject of extensive litigation. In late December 2008, the bank’s investors filed a securities class action lawsuit against the former directors and officers of the bank. But as discussed here, on January 14, 2011, Northern District of Georgia Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the securities suit.

 

The FDIC’s suit filing against the Haven Trust officials may come as little surprise; indeed, as discussed here, the FDIC had previously sought to intervene in the investors’ securities suit. Among other considerations the FDIC cited as part of its bid to intervene was the FDIC’s own intention to assert claims against the individual defendants and the FDIC’s concomitant “interest” in the bank’s D&O insurance. On December 29, 2010, Judge Pannell denied the FDIC’s motion to intervene, as discussed here. He specifically rejected the argument that the FDIC has a “legally protectable interest” in the D&O insurance, as a mere prospective claimant.

 

In its lawsuit, the FDIC accuses the former directors and officers of gross negligence and alleges that they breached other duties. The complaint specifically alleges improper lending practices and seeks to recover over $40 million. Among other things, the FDIC alleges that the bank suffered losses of over $7 million on improper loans to family members of two bank insiders.

 

While this lawsuit is only the second that the FDIC has filed against former directors and officers of a failed Georgia bank as part of the current round of bank failures, there undoubtedly will be many more to come. Georgia, with 65 bank failures since mid-2008, has had more bank failures than any other state during that period. The prior FDIC lawsuit involving a Georgia bank failure was the lawsuit filed in January 2011 against former directors and officers of Integrity Bank, about which refer here. 

 

Though the FDIC has so far filed only nine lawsuits against failed bank officials, many more lawsuits will be coming. According to the professional liability lawsuit page on the FDIC’s website (which can be found here), the FDIC had as of July 7, 2011 authorized lawsuits against 248 individuals at 28 failed institutions. Even with the Haven Trust lawsuit, the FDIC has sued only 68 individuals in connection with nine failed institutions. Many more suits have been authorized, and it seems likely that even as the suits already authorized are filed, even more with be authorized in the months ahead.

 

Haven Trust was one of the first banks to fail back in late 2008, and the FDIC is just getting around to filling suit now. Since Haven Trust failed, well over 300 other banks have failed, and further bank failures seem likely. Given the lag time on the Haven Trust lawsuit, the FDIC lawsuits could continue to accumulate for at least another three years or more.

 

A Final Observation: The online registration form for Google+ provides the following choices for the registrant’s gender on a drop-down menu: “Male,” “Female,” and “Other.”

 

“Other”?

 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

In the eighth lawsuit that the FDIC has filed so far as part of the current round of bank failures, on July 6, 2011, the FDIC filed suit in the Central District of California against former IndyMac CEO, Michael Perry. The FDIC’s complaint can be found here.  

IndyMac failed nearly three years ago, on July 11, 2008, as discussed here. The FDIC’s complaint against Perry alleges that he caused over $600 million in losses by causing the bank to purchase mortgage loans in 2007, just as the mortgage marketplace was destabilizing. The complaint alleges that Perry acted negligently when he allowed IndyMac to generate and purchase $10 billion in loans when the secondary mortgage market was becoming illiquid. When IndyMac was later unable to sell the loans, the bank transferred them to its own investment portfolio, which then caused over $600 million in losses.

 

The news articles report that the Complaint alleges the “instead of enforcing credit standards, Perry chose to roll the dice in an aggressive gamble to increase market share while sacrificing credit standards.”

 

Even though its complaint against Perry is only the eighth so far during the current banking crisis, the lawsuit is the second that the FDIC has filed against former IndyMac executives. As discussed at length here, the first lawsuit the FDIC filed during the current round was filed in July 2010 against four former officers of IndyMac’s Homebuilder Division.

 

The FDIC’s concentration on IndyMac likely has something to do with the fact that the bank’s closure represented the second largest bank failure as part of the current banking crisis, following only the massive WaMu failure. (IndyMac has assets of about $32 billion at the time of its closure). IndyMac was also one of the earliest banks to fail – it was just the fifth bank to fail during 2008, while there have been well over 300 bank failures since then. So the FDIC’s post-mortem processes may be further along on IndyMac than with respect to the many other bank failures that have followed.

 

The FDIC’s lawsuit is far from the first legal imbroglio in which Perry has become involved. As discussed here, on February 11, 2011, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Perry and two other former IndyMac officers, accusing them of “misleading investors about the mortgage lender’s deteriorating financial condition.”

 

Perry is also one of the defendants named in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit first brought in the Central District of California in 2007 by IndyMac shareholders. The shareholder suit has a long and involved history, as discussed here. On March 29, 2010, Central District of California Judge George Wu denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ sixth amended complaint, while at the same time certifying the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Judge Wu’s order can be found here.

 

In any event, a list of the eight lawsuits that the FDIC has filed can be found on the FDIC’s website, here. As noted on the same page, as of July 7, 2011, the FDIC “has authorized suits in connection with 28 failed institutions against 248 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $6.8 billion.” Since the eight lawsuits filed so far involve only seven institutions and only 53 former directors and officers, there clearly are many more lawsuits (perhaps as many as 21 or more) the FDIC is preparing to file. In all likelihood, even further lawsuits will be approved in the future as well. All of which means that we could be heading into a period of very significant failed bank litigation.

 

Readers who scan the FDIC’s website closely will undoubtedly notice that one of the eight lawsuits has already settled. The settled case  is the lawsuit the agency filed in March 2011 in connection with Corn Belt Bank and Trust Company (about which here). As reflected in the FDIC’s May 10, 2011 motion (here), the parties settled the case. However, the court records do not reveal any of the details of the settlement.

 

The Name Game:  As far as I am aware, Michael Perry, the former Indy Mac CEO, is not related to Michael Dean Perry, who played football in the NFL, for the Cleveland Browns among others, during the 80s and 90s. According to Wikipedia (here), Michael Dean Perry had a McDonald’s hamburger sandwich named after him – the “MDP,” which was only served in Cleveland-area McDonald’s while Perry played for the Browns. As far as I am aware, the former IndyMac CEO did not have a sandwich named after him.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the ways in which the current wave of bank failures is different from the failures during the S&L crisis is that this time around, by comparison to that prior period, a number of the bank closures have been accompanied by shareholder lawsuits brought  against the former directors and officers of the failed institutions. Some of these shareholder suits have survived dismissal motions, as was the case, for example, with the lawsuit involving Corus Bankshares, the recent settlement of which is discussed below.

 

But there have also been a number of these failed bank shareholder suits that have not survived the preliminary motions, as was the case with the shareholder suit involving UCBH Holdings, as also described below. To be sure, the court’s grant of the UCBH defendants’ motion to dismiss is without prejudice. But in view of the nature of the factual allegations involved, the dismissal motion ruling is noteworthy. In particular the court’s consideration of the FDIC’s regulatory actions regarding the bank are particularly interesting.

 

UCBH was the holding company of United Commercial Bank of San Francisco. The FDIC took control of United Commercial Bank on November 6, 2009 (refer here). Shareholders filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California against eight officer defendants and six director defendants, as discussed at greater length here. Their complaint originally named UCBH  as well, but following UCBH’s November 25, 2009 bankruptcy filing, the claims against UCBH itself were stayed.

 

The plaintiffs allege that during the class period  the defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning UCBH’s allowances and provisions for loan loss and falsely represented that the company’s financial reporting controls were effective. The complaint further alleges that on May 8, 2009, the company’s auditor, KPMG, met with the FDIC and state banking authorities to discuss the deterioration in asset quality and overall deterioration of UCBH’s financial condition.

 

On May 13, 2009, KPMG alerted UCBH’s audit committee that illegal acts may have occurred relating to the overvaluation of impaired and real estate owned loans. The audit committee investigated. On September 8, 2009, the company announced that as a result of the investigation UCBH was required to restate its financial statements and that UCBH had reached a consent agreement with FDIC relating to a cease and desist order concerning alleged improprieties. UCBH’s  stock value fell and the bank ultimately was closed.

 

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. In a May 17, 2011 order (here), Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, on the grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter.

 

In concluding that the plaintiffs allegations were insufficient to create a strong inference scienter, Judge While found that the plaintiffs allegations based on UCBH’s statements about the efforts of “senior management” to monitor and evaluate the bank’s loan portfolio did “not contain sufficiently particularized allegations to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.” Similarly, Judge Whit found that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the senior officers were motivated to conceal UCBH’s financial condition in order to obtain TARP funds also failed to allege that the these defendants had information about the bank’s financial condition that was withheld or falsely reported.

 

The more interesting part of Judge White’s scienter analysis concerned the plaintiffs’ efforts to rely on the FDIC’s actions and findings. In particular the plaintiffs sought to rely on the findings in the FDIC’s “material loss review” (MLR) that “senior executives” engaged in deliberate misconduct to conceal the Bank’s deteriorating financial condition by delaying risk downgrades and minimizing the bank’s loan loss allowance. Judge White observed that these allegations do not support a strong inference of fraud “as to any one Defendant,” since the MLR does not name “any particular individual as responsible for the alleged misconduct.”

 

The plaintiffs also sought to rely on the FDIC’s report of examination in April 2009 and KPMG’s May 2009 report to the company’s audit committee to establish scienter, but Judge White found that the allegations do not establish when the defendants became aware of the alleged misconduct and which defendants became aware.

 

Finally Judge White rejected plaintiffs attempt to rely on the “core operations inference” to satisfy the scienter pleading requirement, essentially arguing that the matters alleged to be misrepresented were so essential  to the bank’s core operations as to establish that the defendants had access to the disputed information. Judge White rejected this suggestion, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that the loan loss allowances and provisions were part of the bank’s “core operations.”

 

Judge White’s ruling in the defendants’ favor on the dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiffs were given leave to replead. It may be that the plaintiffs will overcome the pleading deficiencies in their amended complaint – indeed, in many respects Judge White’s opinion provides a roadmap for repeading.

 

Nevertheless it is striking that the dismissal motion was denied in a case where the company’s own auditor reported that illegal acts may have occurred and where company’s own audit committee investigation preceded a restatement and an entry into a cease and desist order, and where the FDIC itself concluded that the “senior executives” engaged in deliberate misconduct to conceal the bank’s deteriorating financial condition. Judge White’s analysis represents  a very demanding application of the PSLRA’s specificity requirement. In particular, his unwillingness to accept the FDIC’s conclusions of misconduct involving “senior executives” as sufficient allegations against any one individual defendant is a very exacting application of the standard -- although certainly justified, from the defendants’ perspective.

 

It of course remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will be able to cure the deficiencies on repleading.. But it is noteworthy that the UCBH is only one of several shareholder suits filed against directors and officers of failed banks that have faced difficulties overcoming the initial pleading hurdles. Motions to dismiss have been granted in a number of these cases, including for example the cases relating to Downey Financial (refer here), Fremont General (here) and Bank United (here -- without prejudice).  But as noted below, a number of survived the dismissal motions as well.

 

I have in any event added the UCBH ruling to my running tally of credit crisis dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here.

 

Corus Bankshares: Among the failed bank securities class action lawsuit is the one filed against the former directors and officers of Corus Bankshares, the parent company of Corus Bank, which closed on September 11, 2009 (about which refer here). As discussed here, in April 2010, Northern District of Illinois Judge Elaine Bucklo denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss (The opinion that stands in interesting contrast to Judge White’s opinion in the UCBH case.)

 

On May 17, 2011, the parties to the Corus Bankshares case filed a stipulation of settlement (here) indicating that the case has been settled for $10 million, all which is to be paid for by company’s D&O insurance. I have added the Corus settlement to my list of credit crisis securities lawsuit settlements, which can be accessed here.

 

As a result of its relatively modest size, the Corus settlement may not seem particularly noteworthy, which may be a fair assessment. What strikes me about the Corus settlements is that it represents something that still seems to be surprisingly rare, which is a settlement of credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuit.

 

Even though there were well over 230 credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuits filed, there still have only been 20 settlements of the credit crisis securities suits. To be sure, a fair number of these cases were dismissed, but a substantial number (like the Corus case) were not dismissed. Even though many of these cases are now several years old only a very small number have settled so far – indeed the Corus settlement is only the third such settlement this year.

 

It seems to me that there is a substantial backlog of these as-yet unresolved cases, many of which are moving – apparently very slowly -- toward settlement. Eventually these cases will settle in substantial numbers. Though many of the settlements will, like the Corus settlement, be relatively modest, some will not be so modest and in the aggregate the total settlements will likely represent a very large figure. Even though a large chunk of these settlements may not be insured, a big chunk will be insured. The collective cost to D&O insurers could represent an impressive total. Reasonable minds may question whether or not insurers are now fully reserved for this eventuality.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FDIC’s pursuit of litigation against directors and officers of banks that have failed as part of the current round of bank failures has been moving forward, albeit at a deliberate pace. The agency’s litigation efforts advanced a couple of steps in recent days, as the agency filed an additional lawsuit and publicly announced that even more are coming.

 

The FDIC filed its latest lawsuit on May 5, 2011 in the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit was filed against certain former directors and offices of Wheatland Bank of Napierville, Illinois, of which the FDIC took control on April 23, 2010 (about which refer here). The actual lawsuit in which the FDIC filed its complaint had begun as a shareholders’ derivative lawsuit in Cook County (Illinois) Circuit Court. The FDIC had removed the lawsuit to federal court (refer here) and on May 5, 2011, the federal court granted the FDIC’s motion to intervene as a party plaintiff and to filed its amended complaint.

 

In its complaint (a copy of which can be found here), the FDIC seeks to recover at least $22 million that the bank allegedly sustained in connection with commercial real estate loans (CRE). The complaint asserts claims for gross negligence, negligence, breach of the fiduciary duty of care, breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and failure to supervise. The 6 individual defendants include four directors (two of whom who were also officers of the bank and two of whom were nonofficer directors who served on the loan committee), as well as the bank’s chief lending officer and its chief financial officer.  

 

The complaint alleges that:

 

Defendants recklessly implemented an unsustainable business model pursuing rapid asset growth concentrated in high-risk CRE loans without having adequate loan underwriting and credit administration practices to manage the risk. To make matters worse, the Bank routinely violated whatever loan policies it had in place and approved loans that had little chance of repayment. The Bank also made loans to favored shareholders and borrowers on terms that were preferential and abusive and then, after default, failed to pursue the borrowers and guarantors on these loans. Regulatory warnings about the Bank’s reckless lending practices were repeatedly ignored by Defendants. The out-of-control lending continued until the Bank was closed after only three years of operation.

 

With the filing of the Wheatland Bank complaint, the FDIC has now filed a total of seven lawsuits against former directors and officers of banks that have failed as part of the current round of bank failures. My running list of the FDIC’s lawsuits can be accessed here.

 

Interestingly, three of the seven have been filed against banks that had operated in Illinois. At one level, this not a surprise as Illinois has been of the leading states in terms of the number of failed banks. But there have been more in Georgia (which has only one lawsuit), and the over 360 bank failures since January 1, 2008 have involved banks in many different states. It isn’t clear if there is a reason why the litigation seems to be advancing in Illinois, as opposed to anywhere else.

 

While the FDIC has now filed a total of seven lawsuits against the former directors and officers of failed banks, it seems clear that there are more to come. On May 11, 2011, the FDIC updated its professional liability lawsuit page on its website to reflect that the FDIC has authorized suits against 208 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $3.86 billion. (The latest update increased the number to 208 from last month’s figure of 187.) Since the seven lawsuits the agency has filed includes only 52 individual lawsuits, there clear implication is that there are many more lawsuits yet to come against the remaining 156 defendants.

 

The FDIC’s website also discloses that the FDIC also has authorized 13 fidelity bond, attorney malpractice, and appraiser malpractice lawsuits. In addition, 135 residential malpractice and mortgage fraud lawsuits are pending, consisting of lawsuits filed and inherited.

 

The number of directors and officers against whom the FDIC has authorized litigation has increased every month since the FDIC first began publishing the data in September 2010. The aggregate figure has increased much more quickly than the total number of individuals against whom lawsuits have actually been filed. The clear implication is that the FDIC is being very deliberate in preparing its claims. The suggestion is that the lawsuits will continue to come in slowly – and that the process of filing the lawsuits may go on for quite a while yet.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As recently as this past Monday, commentators were grumbling that the FDIC is moving too slowly in pursue claims against former directors and officers of failed banks. The FDIC has responded in dramatic fashion with a March 16, 2011 lawsuit filing in the Western District of Washington against three former Washington Mutual executives, as well as two of the executives’ wives.

 

According to news reports (here), the lawsuit seeks damages of as much as $900 million. The media stories also suggest that there is an agreement by WaMu’s outside directors to pay $125 million to settle claims by the FDIC is pending approval. A copy of the FDIC’s recent complaint against the WaMu executives and their wives can be found here.

 

WaMu’s September 2008 failure (about which refer here), represents by far the largest bank failure in U.S. history. The events surrounding its failure have already been the subject of extensive litigation, not the least of which is a pending securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of WaMu’s shareholders, which, as noted here, survived a renewed motion to dismiss after the lead plaintiffs amended their complaint.

 

The FDIC filed its recent lawsuit in its capacity as WaMu’s receiver. The lawsuit names as defendants WaMu’s former CEO, Kerry Killinger, its former President and COO, Stephen Rotella, and its chief of home lending, David Schneider. In a rather unusual twist that shows just how aggressively the FDIC may be prepared to get in pursuing these claims, the complaint also names Killinger’s wife, Linda Killinger, and Rotella’s wife, Esther as explained below.

 

The complaint asserts claims against the three executives for Gross Negligence, Ordinary Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

 

The complaint alleges that the three defendants caused the bank to take "extreme and historically unprecedented risks with WaMu’s held-for-investment loan portfolio." The three allegedly focused on short term gains, to the disregard of the bank’s long term safety and soundness. The executives, lead by Killinger, allegedly developed an executed a strategy to make billions of dollars of risky residential mortgages, increasing the risk profile of the bank’s held for investment mortgage portfolio.

 

The bank’s business strategy dictated a lending approach for which few lenders were turned away. The bank also layered multiple levels of risk with particularly risk loan products such as option ARM mortgages, the riskiness of which was further compounded by allowing stated income lending and other questionable lending practices.

 

The complaint alleges further that these executives continued to pursue their aggressive growth strategy even at a point when housing prices "were unsustainably high" and while relying upon an aging infrastructure that was inadequate to keep up with the enormous loan volume. The complaint alleges that the three executives knew the strategy was risky, knew the process weaknesses, and even knew there was a housing price bubble. Yet, the complaint alleges, the three executives marginalized the company’s risk management department.

 

As a result, when the bubble collapsed, the bank "was in an extremely vulnerable position" and, as a result of the three executives "gross mismanagement" the bank suffered losses of "billions of dollars."

 

The complaint also includes fraudulent conveyance claims against Killinger and his wife Linda, and against Rotella and his wife Esther.

 

The complaint alleges that in August 2008, Killinger and his wife transferred two residential properties to qualified personal residence trusts and appointed themselves as trustees. The complaint alleges that these transfers were made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud Killinger’s future creditors.

 

The complaint contains similar allegations against Rotella and his wife with respect to an April 2008 residential real estate transfer and a September 2008 transfer from Rotella to his wife of $1 million.

 

In statements to the Wall Street Journal, here, Killinger and Rotella said the FDIC’s allegations are "baseless" and "lack credibility" and that the lawsuit is "unworthy of the government." I recommend that readers take a few minutes and read these two individuals' statements. Whatever may be the merits of this and similar cases brought by the FDIC, it is very clear from these statements that there will be a personal price to pay for the individuals involved. The personal pain these men are feeling is palpable, and there will be more of this kind of pain for other former bank officials as more of these kinds of lawsuits are filed.

 

With the filing of this complaint, the FDIC has unmistakably demonstrated that it will pursue claims against former directors and officer of failed banks when it chooses to do so. Indeed, the claims against the two executives’ wives clearly show that the FDIC will proceed aggressively.

 

Given that WaMu represented the largest bank failure in U.S. history, it may come as no surprise that the FDIC is pursuing these kinds of claims. What has been surprising to some, and what occasioned the criticism I mentioned in my opening paragraph, is how deliberate the FDIC has been in choosing to pursue claims. WaMu failed nearly two and one half years ago. If the FDIC were to act with similar deliberation in pursing other claims, it could well be some time before we know for sure how extensive the FDIC’s litigation activity ultimately will be in pursing claims as part of the current bank failure.

 

It is, however, quite clear that the FDIC will be pursuing more of these types of claims. The FDIC recently updated the Professional Liability Lawsuits page on its website (here) to show that the FDIC’s board has approved lawsuits against 158 individual directors and officers of failed banks. Since the six lawsuits the FDIC has filed to date only amount to about 40 individual defendants in total, there are many more lawsuits to come, just based on the actions that have been approved so far.

 

One particularly interesting detail about the news surrounding the FDIC’s recent lawsuit is the report that WaMu’s outside directors have agreed to pay $125 million to settle claims. It is interesting that the outside directors agreed to pay this amount without the intervening step of a lawsuit against them. One question that immediately occurs to me is whether and to what extent this $125 million payment is to be funded by D&O insurance.

 

WaMu’s D&O insurance program was undoubtedly already under pressure due to the significant presence of other claims already pending against its former directors and officers. One possibility that occurs to me is that the bank may have carried a significant layer of Side A DIC protection, which may well have been triggered by the bank holding company’s bankruptcy. Because of the bankruptcy, all of the claims represent potential Side A losses, suggesting that the bank’s Excess Side A/DIC program could well have been called in to contribute. All these are details that those of us on the outside can only wonder about; however, comments from knowledgeable persons who are closer to the situation are always welcome.

 

Whatever may be the case, it is clear that D&O insurance may be playing a role of some kind in all of this. At least Stephen Rotella thinks so. In his statement to the Wall Street Journal to which I linked above, he speculated that the lawsuit itself "may be a way for the FDIC to collect a payout from insurers who provided officers and directors liability coverage for the time they worked at WaMu."

 

As noted, with this lawsuit, the total number of lawsuits the FDIC has filed as part of the current wave of failed bank litigation is now up to six. A list of the six lawsuits can be found here.

 

A March 17, 2011 Bloomberg article about the FDIC’s lawsuit can be found here. A March 17, 2011 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article about the suit can be found here.

　

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the fifth FDIC lawsuit against former directors and officers of failed banks as part of the current bank wave, on March 1, 2011, the FDIC as receiver for the failed Corn Belt Bank and Trust Company filed suit in the Central District of Illinois federal court against four former officer and directors of the bank, seeking to recover losses of at least $10.4 million.. A copy of the FDIC’s latest complaint can be found here.

 

According to the Complaint, examiners began criticizing the bank’s lending practices as early as 2003. The Complaint alleged that between 2003 and 2008 the bank "failed to address recurring criticisms by examiners regarding imprudent lending practices," and April 2, 2007, the bank entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with examiners. In November 2008, after the bank failed to comply with the MOU, the FDIC issued a cease and desist order. The bank ultimately failed on February 13, 2009.

 

The lawsuit itself is failed against the four members of the bank’s loan committee. These four individuals include the bank’s CEO, its chief lending officer and two outside directors. The complaint alleges that the four defendants "failed to adequately inform themselves of the relevant risks and acted recklessly in approving one or more of five high-risk commercial loans."

 

The five loans, all of which were made between 2005 and 2007 and all of which related to the long-haul trucking business, allegedly were "improperly underwritten and extended 100 percent financing to out of state, start-up businesses, and were primarily secured by rapidly depreciating semi-tractors." The complaint further alleges that the CEO and Chief Loan officer unilaterally funded the fifth of the five loans after the loan committee tabled its approval, and they failed to unsure that the loans were properly administered.

 

The complaint alleges that the defendants’ alleged conduct was "particularly egregious" because they approved one or more of the five loans "after Bank examiners repeatedly warned the Bank that it suffered from weak loan administration, and that it was facing risks posed by out of area lending, high loan-to-value ("LTV") loans, and excessive exposure to loan concentrations within its loan portfolio." All five of the loans at issue allegedly shared these characteristics.

 

The complaint alleges gross negligence under FIRREA and negligence under Illinois law against the four individuals for approving the loans. The complaint also specifically alleges gross negligence under FIRREA and negligence under Illinois law against the former CEO and the former chief lending officer in connection with the approval of the fifth of the five loans. Finally, the complaint alleges gross negligence under FIRREA and negligence under Illinois law against the former CEO and former chief lending officer for failing to properly administer the loans and for failing to protect the bank’s security interest in the collateral.

 

The FDIC’s complaint against the four former Corn Belt officials is just the fifth complaint filed so far as part of the current bank wave, and first since the FDIC filed two complaint’s the same day in January 2011. It is the second of the five to be filed against officials of a failed bank that had been based in Illinois. The complaint is interesting because it not only names the two bank officers as defendants, but it also names two outside directors who had served on the bank’s loan committee, as well.

 

Like the four prior lawsuits the FDIC filed as part of the current wave of bank failures, this lawsuit was filed over a year after the institution itself failed. Although the FDIC’s motivations can only be inferred, it appears that what may have provoked this suit is what the FDIC attempted to describe as the defendant’s "particularly egregious" conduct of having approved these particularly loans in the fact of examiners’ warning about loans sharing the characteristics of the five loans at issue.

 

In the Professional Liability Litigation page on the FDIC’s website (here), the FDIC has said, as of its last update, that it has approved lawsuits against a total of 130 individuals. The four previous lawsuits that had been filed named a total of 35 individuals as defendants. With the addition of the four individuals named as defendants on the Corn Belt lawsuit, a total of 39 individuals have now been named as defendants, suggesting that lawsuits to be filed against 91 additional individuals remain pending. Of court, the total number of individuals against who lawsuits have been authorized is likely to continue to grow as well.

 

My table of the lawsuits the FDIC has filed against former directors and officers of failed banks as part of the current failed bank wave can be accessed here.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for alerting me to the Corn Belt lawsuit.

　

　

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today’s global economy, business increasingly is conducted cross-jurisdictionally. Company officials and their advisors increasingly must grapple with liability issues arising under the laws of multiple jurisdictions. These liability issues in turn can present complex indemnification and insurance questions. Simply identifying the operative legal considerations can present a significant challenge.

 

A newly updated legal resource may afford valuable information for those struggling with these issues. Information about the new volume, entitled Directors’ Liability and Indemnification: A Global Guide, Second Edition, can be accessed here. This new edition was edited by UK Insurance maven, Ed Smerdon of the Sedgwick Detert law firm.

 

The book’s separate chapters describe the essential legal principles in 38 different countries. This latest edition includes new chapters on China, the Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, among others. Each chapter has been written by a leading law firm in the relevant jurisdiction. For example, the chapter on the United States was written by Dan Bailey and Darius Kandawalla of the Bailey Cavalieri law firm.

 

Each chapter provides a country-specific overview of the legal principles governing directors’ duties and obligations. The text also contains a description of the claims environment in each country, including the relevant considerations regarding criminal and regulatory liability. The information also includes the principles governing the availability of indemnification and insurance in each country, as well.

 

The information for each country is presented succinctly and provides more of an introduction to the critical legal considerations than it does a comprehensive dissertation. This volume will be most useful to those looking for a quick impression of the legal environment. For those looking for a deeper understanding, this volume at least provides some starting points.

 

It seems likely that legal challenges arising from the cross-jurisdictional conduct of business will only increase in the months and years ahead. This volume will likely prove a valuable resource for insurance advisors and others called upon to counsel companies in connection with the associated liability exposures and related insurance considerations. We can only hope that this book’s editors and authors will continue to update and expand this volume in the years ahead.

 

Many thanks to Ed Smerdon for providing me with an opportunity to review an advance copy of the book.

 

D&O Insurance Implications of Dodd-Frank: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 introduced sweeping reforms to every aspect of the country’s financial system. In addition, many of the Act’s provisions – including in particular its new whistleblower bounty sections -- seem likely to lead to increased SEC enforcement activity. The enforcement activity could in turn lead to follow on civil litigation.

 

The Act’s potential enforcement and litigation implications also carry important D&O insurance implications. These considerations and implications are reviewed in detail in a February 2011 article entitled "Dodd-Frank, SEC Enforcement Activity, Whistleblowers and D&O Insurance" (here) by my friend Priya Cherian Huskins and her colleague Carolyn Polikoff of the Woodruff Sawyer firm. Among other things, the authors discuss particular problems that may arise in connection with the Dodd-Frank’s executive compensation clawback provisions, as well as D&O insurance concerns arising from the new whistleblower provisions. The article concludes with a list of eight D&O insurance recommendations.

 

My thanks to Priya for reaching out to me to include a link to the article on this site.

 

Failed Bank Litigation Resources: Most readers who are following the events surrounding the current failed bank litigation wave likely are already familiar with the FDIC’s Failed Bank List, which is updated every Friday evening to reflect the latest banks of which the FDIC has taken control.

 

Another page on the FDIC website of which readers may want to be aware is the FDIC’s Professional Liability Lawsuits page. I have previously linked to this page in prior blog posts, but the FDIC has been updating the page and it now has a number of additional useful features.

 

First, for some time now, the FDIC has been updating the page to reflect the latest number of former directors and officers of failed banks against whom civil actions have been authorized. The page has recently been updated to show that the FDIC has now authorized civil actions against 130 directors and officers. More importantly, it is clear that the FDIC will be regularly updating this page with new information as additional actions are authorized.

 

In addition, in the new feature that readers may find most useful, the FDIC has now provided specific details regarding each of the four civil actions it has filed so far against former directors and officers of failed banks. From the way the information is presented (at the bottom of the page), it appears that the FDIC intends to update this information as additional actions are filed. Accordingly, this page could prove to be a valuable resource over time as the number of FDIC actions grows.

 

I intend to continue to track -- and link to --the FDIC litigation on my own as it is filed, as reflected here. At least for now, the FDIC itself also seems to be committed to tracking and providing this information as well. Many readers may find the FDIC’s page to be a highly credible and (we can hope) timely resource on these issues. I will continue to provide links to the lawsuits.

 

And speaking of failed banks, the FDIC did take control of four additional banks this past Friday night, as is reflected on the agency’s Failed Bank List. These four new closures bring the 2011 year to date number of failed banks to 18.

 

The 18 bank failures have been spread across 12 different states, though the largest number of closures this year has been in Georgia (4), which has led the way with the largest number of bank failures since the current wave began. The 18 failures so far in 2011 bring the total number of failed banks since January 1, 2008 to 340.

 

It is interesting to note that the pace of bank closure so far this year is running slightly ahead of the pace in 2010, when the FDIC closed more banks than it had in a single year since 1992. The FDIC did not close its 18^th bank in 2010 until February 19.

 

Living in America: On Friday, the determination of peaceful demonstrators in Egypt resulted in the historic overthrow of their oppressive government, but the lead story in Saturday’s Cleveland Plain Dealer was that the Cleveland Cavaliers’ ended their 26-game losing streak on Friday night. The Cavs’ first victory since December also apparently merited a headline in larger type as well.

 

As a letter to the editor in Sunday's edition put it, "Your newspaper failed to explain why all those Egyptians were so excited about the Cavs game."  

 

Web Animation Video Phenomenon Even Reaches the Insurance Industry: I know that many of you were as interested as I was in the February 11, 2011 Wall Street Journal article about the increasing numbers of customized computer-generated animated videos, which anyone can make on web sites such as Xtranormal.

 

One sure sign of how widespread this new phenomenon has become is the animated Xtranormal video now circulating that takes a light-hearted look at the perennial conversation about business between brokers and underwriters. For those of you who have not already seen it, here is the "I Need New Business" video. (The views, attitudes and opinions expressed in the video do not necessarily reflect those of The D&O Diary or its author.)

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As detailed in the accompanying blog post, all signs are that the FDIC will be filing increasing numbers of civil actions against former officials of banks that have been closed as part of the current round of bank failures. With this possibility in mind, it seems like it is time for The D&O Diary to initiate yet another of its litigation tracking lists.

 

A list reflecting the civil lawsuits that the FDIC has filed in its capacity as receiver against former officials of failed banks can be found here.

 

 

 

I will be updating this list periodically as I become of aware of additional civil lawsuits that the FDIC has filed. This list is a community resource for readers of this blog, and I hope that readers will help maintain the value of this resource for the community by advising me of any new lawsuits that have been filed and of any omission from the list. As I update the list, I will indicate at the top of this blog post the last date on which the list was most recently updated.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 14, 2011, in a ruling that could have implications for other failed bank investors’ securities class action lawsuits, Northern District of Georgia Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the securities suit that had been brought by investors in the failed Haven Trust Bank of Duluth, Georgia. A copy of Judge Pannell’s order can be found here.

 

This case may be familiar to readers as I recently wrote about the FDIC’s failed bid to intervene in this case. As discussed here, Judge Pannell denied the FDIC’s motion to intervene.

 

Banking regulators closed Haven Truston December 12, 2008. As detailed here, on December 31, 2009, investors who purchased shares in the bank’s holding company filed suit in the Northern District of Georgia alleging that the company’s former officials had misled investors in connection with the share offering, in violation of federal and state securities laws.

 

In his January 14 order, Judge Pannell granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged violations of either the state or federal securities laws. With respect to the plaintiffs’ federal securities laws allegations, Judge Pannell held that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter or loss causation.

 

In holding that the scienter allegations were insufficient, Judge Pannell said that "the amended complaint’s reliance on the defendants’ positions as directors and officers, their attendance at meetings, and access to internal documents and reports is insufficient to allege a strong inference of scienter." He also found that the defendants’ alleged motivation to maintain a dividend stream was also insufficient to allege scienter.

 

Finally, with respect to the plaintiffs’ allegations that there had been "excessively risky" loans to one of the defendant’s children "may be relevant to a shareholder derivative claim for corporate mismanagement" but were not relevant to determining scienter.

 

With respect to loss causation, the plaintiff’s allege that the FDIC announcement that it was taking over the bank caused the loss in value of the plaintiffs’ stock. Judge Pannell said that "this allegation does not establish that the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused the plaintiffs’ loss, but instead establishes that the loss was caused by the FDIC’s decision to close the Bank due to the effect of the subprime mortgage and financial crises on the Bank’s loan portfolio."

 

After quoting with approval from a Second Circuit decision holding that "when the plaintiff’s loss coincides with a marketwide phenomenon.. . the prospect that the plaintiff’s loss was caused by fraud decreases," Judge Pannell concluded by stating that "in this case, the plaintiffs have not offered any facts distinguishing between losses caused by the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and the intervening events that wreaked havoc with the banking industry as a whole."

 

Discussion

Judge Pannell’s decision is interesting in an of itself, as it shows at a minimum in that investors in the many pending failed bank-related shareholder lawsuits will face difficult hurdles in surviving the initial pleading hurdles.

 

To be sure, it hardly comes as news that plaintiffs will be challenged in satisfying the scienter requirements under the federal securities laws, which is equally true in the failed bank investor suits as it is in securities class action cases in general.

 

On the other hand, Judge Pannell’s rulings with respect to loss causation may be particularly noteworthy, and may be particularly encouraging to defendants in the other failed bank-related securities cases. The plaintiffs in those other cases, like the plaintiffs in the Haven Trust case, may also face significant challenges showing that their alleged investment losses were caused by the alleged misrepresentations rather than the "intervening events that wreaked havoc with the banking industry as a whole."

 

Most defendants will be able to argue, as did the defendants in the Haven Trust case, that the plaintiffs’ investment lost value when the FDIC took over the now failed bank. Defendants in those cases will undoubtedly attempt to argue that since the investors’ loss "coincided with marketwide phenomena" the plaintiffs’ burden of pleading loss causation increases.

 

Many of the failed bank cases are just getting started and it may be some time before many of these cases have worked their way to the motion to dismiss stage. But Judge Pannell’s ruling in the Haven Trust case suggests that many of these cases could face uphill battle.

 

The defendants in these cases may still face separate claims brought by the FDIC as receiver, as may yet be the case for the defendants in the Haven Trust case (after all, the FDIC did seek to intervene in the securities case, in part based on the FDIC’s stated intent to assert its own claims against the defendants). But even if there are separate FDIC claims, at least the defendants are not facing a multi-front war.

　

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the dismissal motion ruling in the Haven Trust case.

　

More About Georgia Banks: At the same time as the lawsuit involving banks that failed some time ago are working their way through the system, other trouble banks in Georgia are continuing to fail. Just this past Friday night, regulators closed yet another bank in Georgia. Though this is the first bank to fail in Georgia in 2011, the bank is the 52^nd bank to fail in Georgia since January 1, 2008, the highest number of any state.

 

Highly reliable rumors also suggest that the FDIC is getting ready to initiate civil litigation, in its capacity as receiver of failed banks, against directors and officers of one or more failed Georgia banks, possibly as early as this week. Stay tuned.

　

More About China: Regular readers may recall prior posts (refer for example here), where I have written about increasing amounts of securities class action litigation involving Chinese-domiciled companies. Questions concerning Chinese companies listed in the U.S. are continuing to emerge, particularly with respect to Chinese companies that establish their U.S. listing by way of merger with a dormant publicly traded shell.

 

On January 13, 2011, Bloomberg Businessweek published another article raising questions about Chinese companies financial reporting. The article, entitled "Worthless Stock from China" (here), raises questions about a number of Chinese companies and their reporting practices. The article makes for interesting (albeit disturbing) reading.

　

　

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The year-end vacation days are over, the holiday decorations have been taken down, and last year’s wall calendars have been replaced. We are now into the Narnia season (at least here in Cleveland), where it is always winter but never Christmas. The New Year has entered with a bang, and that means more than just inexplicable piles of dead birds. It also means there are lots of newsworthy developments to report. Here’s the latest:

 

FDIC Increases Number of Authorized Lawsuits: Earlier this week, the FDIC updated the Professional Liability Lawsuits page on its website to reflect that the number of lawsuits that it has authorized has been increased. The FDIC has now authorized lawsuits against 109 directors and officers of failed financial institutions, up from 82 as of the end of November 2010. The website also reports that the claims against these individuals represent claimed damages of $2.5 billion.

 

The web page includes a monthly table at the end, showing how the number of individuals against whom lawsuits are authorized has increased since the end of the third quarter. The page also reports that the FDIC has authorized four fidelity bond and attorney malpractice lawsuits.

 

The page reflects a number of interesting details regarding the FDIC’s approach to litigation and litigation history. Among other things, the page reports that the investigation preceding the decision whether or not to bring a lawsuit is usually completed "within 18 months," which explains in part why there have been relatively few FDIC lawsuits against directors and officers of failed banks so far (only two lawsuits against 15 individuals).

 

The page also includes some general information about the legal theories on which the FDIC can seek to recover, the applicable statute of limitations, and the FDIC’s prior history of D&O litigation during the S&L crisis.

 

Many thanks to the several loyal readers who sent me links to the New York Times Dealbook blog’s January 5, 2010 post about the updated FDIC web page.

 

2011’s First Filed Securities Suit Continues 2010 Trend: As far as I can tell, 2011’s first filed securities class action lawsuit is the lawsuit filed on January 3, 2011 in the Eastern District of New York against Tongxin International, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers. The plaintiffs’ lawyers corrected press release describing the suit can be found here and a copy of the complaint can be found here.

 

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled investors with respect to its financial reports. The plaintiffs allege that the company initially withheld its financial statements, and then was forced to withdraw previously reported results as unreliable. The company later sued its former CEO and CFO for wrongfully transferring the Company’s funds.

 

As I noted in my analysis of 2010 securities class action lawsuits, one of last year’s noteworthy securities suit filing trends was the significant number of lawsuits involving Chinese companies. From a practical perspective (if not strictly as a formal matter), the new Tongxin lawsuit appears to represent a continuation of that filing trend.

 

Tongxin itself is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. However, it was formed as subsidiary of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that was formed to acquire an automotive manufacturing company in China. In April 2008, the SPAC acquired Hunan Enterprise Co., Ltd, a Chinese automotive supplier, and the SPAC merged into Tongxin. Tonxin’s operating company, and the events referenced in the complaint, all are or took place in China.

 

The litigation trend of new securities lawsuits involving Chinese companies seems to have carried over into the New Year.

 

Record Number of FCPA Enforcement Actions in 2010: According to the Gibson Dunn law firm’s January 3, 2010 memorandum entitled "2010 Year-End Update" (here), 2010 was a record setting year for FCPA enforcement activity. The memo reports that both the SEC’s and DoJ’s 2010 enforcement actions – which were essentially double the prior year’s record levels – "dwarfed the tally from any prior year in the statute’s 33-year history."

 

According to data reflected in the memo, during 2010 there were 48 DoJ FCPA enforcement actions (compared to 26 in 2009) and 26 SEC FCPA enforcement actions (compared to 14 in 2009). The memo also reports that "nearly every FCPA enforcement action from the past 12 months can be traced to multi-defendant, if not industry-wide investigation that involved numerous companies or persons engaged in coordinate or parallel schemes."

 

FCPA-related settlements in 2010 also were at record setting levels. According to a January 5, 2010 post on The FCPA Blog (here), eight of the top ten FCPA settlements of all time were reached in 2010. As it happens, eight of the top ten FCPA settlements involve non-U.S. companies as well.

 

As I have observed numerous times on this blog, FCPA enforcement activity increasingly is accompanied by follow-on civil litigation, a phenomenon that the Gibson Dunn memo notes "saw a marked increase in activity amongst the plaintiffs’ bar." The memo goes on to observe that "hardly an FCPA investigation or resolution was announced during the past year that was not followed in swift succession by a press release from any number of plaintiffs’ firms from any number of plaintiffs’ law firms that have creased a cottage industry for private FCPA enforcement."

 

Despite the absence of a private right of action under the FCPA, plaintiffs continue to "shoehorn" FCPA-related claims under a wide variety of theories, including securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, torts and breach of contract. The law firm memo sets out a long list of various cases that plaintiffs have pursued or are pursuing on FCPA-related allegations.

 

As I previously detailed (refer here), FCPA-related claims represent a growing area of D&O exposure, with important D&O insurance coverage implications.

　

Are Bylaw Forum Selection Clauses Unenforceable?: Many corporate litigants prefer the friendly confines of the Delaware Court system. It is not just that many companies are organized in Delaware and its courts are viewed as business friendly, but also the judges who serve on the Court of Chancery are viewed as both highly skilled and as experienced on complex business litigation issues.

 

Earlier this year, in the Revlon Shareholders’ Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery suggested that corporations organized under Delaware law are "free" to adopt "charter provisions selecting an exclusive forum or inter-entity disputes." In the wake of this suggestion, many lawyers began to recommend that their client companies adopt charter provisions designating the Delaware Court of Chancery as the preferred forum.

 

However, on January 3, 2011, Northern District of California Judge Richard Seeborg held, in a case of first impression, that a forum selection clause in Oracle’s bylaws was not enforceable, at least in the absence of shareholder approval. Significantly, Judge Seeborg did not reach issues of Delaware law; his ruling of unenforceability was reached as a matter of federal common law. A copy of Judge Seeborg’s opinion can be found here.

 

As might be expected, plaintiffs’ lawyers have welcomed Judge Seeborg’s ruling – refer for example to David Bario’s January 5, 2011 Am Law Litigation Daily article, here, quoting the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case as saying that

 

The insertion of these forum selection clauses in bylaws, rather than by amending a company's charter with shareholder approval, has been increasing….I think this decision will help to pull the cover off the practice. It shows that passing a bylaw on normal company business is one thing, but when you're going to pass a bylaw that limits shareholders' rights, that's something much different, and I think that's at the core of the decision.

 

Others have been more critical of the decision. Rebecca Beyer’s January 5, 2010 Daily Journal article (here, registration required) about the decision quotes Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Grundfest as saying that "the distinction as to shareholders who hold shares prior to the bylaw amendment and after the bylaw amendment makes no sense….Every bylaw amendment has to bind all shareholders or it can't work."

 

Grundfest said when people buy shares in a company they agree to allow directors to amend bylaws. "If shareholders don't like the unilateral amendment, the shareholders can - by shareholder vote - overrule the board," he said. Grundfest also said that there likely will be further litigation on this issue, and that the issue could eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Time Out for A Couple of Technology Questions: What do you do when your Blackberry isn’t working? And why does the march of technological "progress" involve so many different kinds of fruit? (Special thanks to a loyal reader for a link to the video.)　

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FDIC as receiver of the failed Haven Trust Bank may not intervene in a securities lawsuit brought by the aggrieved investors of the Bank’s holding company, according to Northern District of Georgia Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.’s December 29, 2010 order in the case. Judge Pannell’s ruling, a copy of which can be found here, could have important implications for other failed bank investor cases in which the FDIC has or may seek to intervene.

 

Background

Banking regulators closed Haven Trust, located in Duluth, Ga., on December 12, 2008. As detailed here, on December 31, 2009, investors who purchased shares in the bank’s holding company filed suit in the Northern District of Georgia alleging that the company’s former officials had misled investors in connection with the share offering, in violation of federal and state securities laws. The individual defendants had served as directors both of the holding company and of the operating bank.

 

On October 4, 2010, the FDIC as the failed bank’s receiver moved to intervene in the investor action. As detailed at greater length here, the FDIC alleged that the investor action was essentially just a "derivative lawsuit in disguise," and, under FIRREA, as receiver, the FDIC succeeded to all of the bank’s rights, including its rights to control actions brought on the company’s behalf.

 

The FDIC also asserted that it had an "interest" in the case sufficient to support intervention because of its interests in preserving the D&O insurance policy for potential recoveries in connection with future claims the FDIC as receiver might assert against the former directors and officers of the bank.

 

The December 29 Ruling

In his December 29 ruling, Judge Pannell rejected both of the bases on which the FDIC had sought to intervene.

 

First, Judge Pannell rejected the FDIC’s argument that the investors’ claims were essentially just derivative claims over which the FDIC had priority rights under FIREEA. Judge Pannell said

 

These claims are not derivative claims against the Bank but are instead direct claims against the defendants …. While the FDIC controls derivative claims against the Bank’s former officers, it does not control claims against the holding company’s officers …. In this case, the plaintiffs assert their claims not as stockholders of the failed Bank, but instead as shareholders of the holding company.

 

Second Judge Pannell rejected the FDIC’s argument that it was entitled to intervene because of its prospective interest in the Company’s D&O insurance policy. Judge Pannell found that the FDIC does not have a "legally protectable interest" because the FDIC "has no rights with respect to this insurance policy except as a potential claimant against certain of the policy’s insured parties," and the FDIC’s "potential future rights" are "insufficient to establish that the FDIC has an interest in this case that justifies intervention as of right."

 

Finally, Judge Pannell denied the FDIC’s request for "permissive intervention" because the FDIC’s intervention "would needlessly delay the current proceedings while the FDIC investigates to determine whether it has any legitimate claims against the defendants."

 

Discussion

As NERA Economic Consulting noted in its August 2010 study of failed bank litigation (here), private investor securities suits were "not a notable feature of the S&L crisis," because few of the institutions that failed during that era had conducted securities offerings. By contrast, private litigation against directors and officers of failed banks during the current wave have been "widespread." As a result, the FDIC is in a position of competing with investor claimants for dwindling D&O insurance policy proceeds, as the Haven Trust case demonstrates.

 

As I discussed in my prior post about the FDIC’s bid to intervene in the Haven Trust case, the claimants who may be competing with the FDIC for the D&O insurance policy proceeds include not only aggrieved investors, but in instances where the bank holding company is in bankruptcy, may also include the bankruptcy trustee.

 

In both of these kinds of cases, the claims against the individual defendants will be direct claims aimed against them in their capacities as directors and officers of the holding company. At least according to the logic of Judge Pannell’s decisions in the Haven Trust case, the FDIC’s rights as receiver may not be sufficient to allow the FDIC to control or otherwise take priority over these direct claims targeted at the holding company level.

 

The essential problem at the heart of all of these kinds of disputes is that the parties left aggrieved in the wake of a bank failure are set against one another in a scramble for the D&O insurance (or whatever might be left of it after defense expenses have eroded the limits). Meanwhile, the former directors and officers are put squarely in the crossfire, with heightened exposure to multiple conflicting claims. Whatever else might be the merits of Judge Pannell’s holding, the practical effect of his ruling is to exacerbate all of these forces.

 

From the FDIC’s perspective, Judge Pannell’s ruling, if followed by other courts, could put the FDIC in a quite a dilemma. On the one hand, the FDIC has been proceeding quite deliberately as part of its process of investigating bank failures and deciding whether to bring claims. (Indeed, even though 322 banks have failed since January 1, 2008, the FDIC has filed only two lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks).

 

On the other hand, however, if by proceeding deliberately the FDIC is to be disadvantaged in the scramble for D&O insurance policy proceeds, and if the FDIC is unable to intervene in and stay investor and trustee actions against former bank officials, it may find itself compelled to move more quickly to file suit, simply to try to preserve a part of the dwindling policy proceeds before the other claimants get there.

 

Whether or not the FDIC will now accelerate its investigative and litigious processes remains to be seen. But at a minimum, Judge Pannell’s ruling suggests that the FDIC does not have priority rights over the direct claims of bank holding company investors, which is a principle that could prove important in the numerous other failed bank-related proceedings.

 

Special thanks to the several loyal readers who sent me a copy of Judge Pannell’s ruling.

 

Editorial Note: In my January 3, 2011 post, I mentioned that I would be publishing a list of the top ten D&O stories of 2010 today (January 4, 2011). However, because of the several time sensitive developments (including the above), I will postpone the publication of the top ten list until later in the week. Sorry for any confusion.

　

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FDIC has authorized more than 50 lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks, according to an October 8, 2010 Bloomberg article. But merely because the lawsuits have been authorized does not necessarily mean we will see 50 lawsuits, as it appears that the FDIC approval was calculated in part to encourage pre-litigation settlements.

 

Since January 1, 2008, the FDIC has taken control of 294 banking institutions, as detailed here. The FDIC has been a very active litigant seeking to assert its rights of priority over other litigants’ claims against the directors and officers of failed banks, but the FDIC itself has filed only one lawsuit against the senior officials at a failed bank.

 

Though the FDIC has to date pursued relatively little litigation itself, it has asserted claims against individuals at failed banks. These claims have come in the form of demand letters nominally addressed to the individuals but also with copies to the failed institution’s D&O insurers.

 

For example, as discussed here, the FDIC filed a November 24, 2009 motion in the BankUnited Holding Company bankruptcy proceeding asserting its rights of priority to assert claims against Company’s bank unit’s directors and officer. Attached to the motion was a copy of a November 5, 2009 letter the FDIC’s attorneys sent to former directors and officers of BankUnited, in which the FDIC presented a demand for civil damages and losses. Copies of the letter were sent to the company’s primary and first level excess D&O insurers.

 

With its recent litigation authorization, the FDIC may now proceed to file more lawsuits against directors and officers of failed banks. However, the authorization (and surrounding publicity) may have been calculated to try to avoid litigation and encourage pre-litigation settlement in connection with some of the claims the FDIC has previously asserted in the form of demand letters like the one in BankUnited.

 

Along those lines, the Bloomberg article quotes an FDIC spokesman as saying that "the goal is to reach as many settlements as possible," adding further that "it’s both in our interest and theirs to try and settle this matter before it gets into court and we get into expensive litigation." Thus, it appears that the authorization and surrounding publicity is designed in part to encourage settlements before available funds have been reduced by defense expenses.

 

The article cites the FDIC’s estimate that the 50 authorized lawsuits would represent an effort to try to recoup more than $1 billion in losses. By way of comparison, and according to the NERA’ August 2010 report on failed bank litigation (about which refer here), during the S&L crisis, the FDIC recovered about $1.3 billion in D&O claims.

 

In terms of the number of lawsuits filed, the 50 currently authorized lawsuits would represent about 17% of the 294 banks that have failed since January 1, 2008. During the S&L crisis, the FDIC filed lawsuits in connection with about 24% of the 1.813 failed financial institutions -- meaning roughly 435 lawsuits. Because the institutions failing during the current banking crisis are larger than the institutions that failed during the S&L crisis, the potential litigation recoveries in connection with many of the current failed institutions are proportionately larger.

 

Even though the FDIC want to try to settle cases if it can, it seems probable that it soon will be filing lawsuits, perhaps many of them in the days ahead. The Bloomberg article quotes the FDIC’s spokesman as saying that "we’re ready to go," adding that "we could walk into court tomorrow and file the lawsuits."

 

As a loyal reader said, commenting on the reports of the FDIC’s litigation authorization, "Game on." Indeed.

 

UPDATE: In picking up this story, various news sources have clarified that the FDIC did not authorize 50 lawsuits but rather authorized lawsuits against 50 individuals. Refer for example here. At least one knowledgeable source I consulted confirmed that what the FDIC authorzied was not 50 separate lawsuits, but rather lawsuits against 50 indiviudals. The expectation then is that there might be 5 to 10 lawsuits, which is quite a bit different than 50 lawsuits. Hard to see how the FDIC plans to get to $1 billion in recoveries from that level of litigation activity.

 

Special thanks to the several readers who sent me copies of the Bloomberg article.

 

Morgan Keegan Funds ’33 Act Subprime-Related Claims Survive Dismissal: In a September 30, 2010 order (here), Middle District of Tennessee Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the ’34 Act claims but denied the motions to dismiss the ’33 Act claims in the Regions Morgan Keegan Open-End Mutual Fund securities class action litigation.

 

Plaintiffs are investors in three Morgan Keegan select mutual funds. The defendants are the funds themselves, their corporately affiliated asset manager, related corporate entities, as well as their corporate parent. The defendants include individual officers and directors of the funds and related entities.

 

The plaintiffs’ allegation is basically that the funds invested in CDOs and other illiquid subprime mortgage-backed investments in excess of stated restrictions on the funds’ investments. The plaintiffs contend that their investment losses are not the result of normal market factors, but rather are due to the funds investment in lower-priority tranches of asset-backed securities. When the market for the instruments began to decline in 2007, the funds found themselves holding assets that quickly declined in value and which they could not readily sell because of the limited market for such investments. Two of the funds declined in value over 70 percent, the third declined over 20 percent.

 

In reviewing the motions to dismiss, Judge Mays noted that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint "exceeds four hundred pages, comprising 766 paragraphs and six appendices." This extraordinary length may in the end have weighed against the plaintiffs. Judge Mays observed that "when it is possible to ask legitimately, after reading a four-hundred page Complaint, who is being sued for what on a particular count, Plaintiffs have not met the PSLRA’s pleading standards," adding that "it is not for the Court or for Defendants to ask who is ‘relevant’ to a particular count. It is the plaintiffs’ duty to state clearly against whom they seek damages." Judge Mays found that dismissal of the ’34 Act claims on this basis alone is sufficient.

 

Judge Mays went on, assuming for the sake of analysis that the plaintiffs claims had been pled with sufficient particularity, to hold that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled scienter. In attempting to establish scienter, the plaintiffs had relied on the "group pleading" doctrine. Judge Mays assumed for purposes of his opinion that group pleading had survived the PSLRA, but nevertheless concluded that "plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the inference of scienter is at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent."

 

But while Judge Mays granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ ’34 Act claims, he denied the defendants motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ ’33 Act claims, finding that the plaintiffs had adequately identified the allegedly misleading statements in order to state a claim.

 

I have added the Morgan Keegan ruling to my running tally of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here.

 

Indian Summer: Wikipedia’s various supposed explanations for the origins of the phrase "Indian Summer" seem equally implausible and lack the ring of truth. Whatever the origin of the expression, the weather to which it refers is a delight and a balm in our weary world. In a few short weeks, the winds will howl and the snows will blow. But for now, a beneficent sun shines in an azure sky arching over the changing leaves' brilliant colors. It is enough to make your heart glad.

 

 

 

Horseshoe Lake, Shaker Heights, Ohio, October 9, 2010

　

　

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With one lone exception, the FDIC has not yet itself pursued litigation against the directors and officers of a failed financial institution. However, the FDIC has already made it clear that it intends to assert its rights under FIRREA as the receiver of failed banks to take control of shareholders’ derivative lawsuits.

 

More recently, and perhaps more aggressively, the FDIC is now attempting to intervene in two direct shareholder actions where failed institutions’ aggrieved investors are asserting their own claims, rather than derivatively asserting those of the failed institution. These more recent moves may represent efforts not just to assert but to extend the FDIC’s litigation preclusion rights. The FDIC’s actions are interesting in and of themselves, but also for what the FDIC has claimed in asserting its rights.

 

The FDIC’s most recent move in this direction is its October 4, 2010 motion to intervene in the Haven Trust Bancorp securities class action litigation pending in the Northern District of Georgia. A copy of the FDIC’s memorandum in support of its motion to intervene can be found here. Haven Trust Bancorp was the parent corporation for Haven Trust Bank, a Duluth, Georgia failed bank of which the FDIC took control on December 12, 2008.

 

The FDIC has previously moved to intervene in the negligent misrepresentation lawsuit that individual investors had filed in Fulton County (Georgia) State Court against certain former directors and officers of Georgian Bancorp. A copy of the FDIC’s September 23, 2010 motion to intervene, and accompanying motion to remove the case to federal court upon grant of the intervention, can be found here. Georgian Bancorp was the corporate parent of Georgian Bank, of which the FDIC took control on September 25, 2010. My prior post about the Georgian Bancorp case can be found here.

 

Both of these lawsuits are direct, not derivative, actions. In each case the plaintiffs seek to recover damages in the form of their own lost investment interests. In asserting that it nevertheless has the right to intervene, the FDIC raises a number of interesting arguments.

 

First, in both cases, the FDIC asserts that both cases are basically just derivative lawsuits in disguise. Thus, for example, in the Haven Trust case, the FDIC asserts that "although Plaintiffs have attempted to frame their allegations of wrongdoing and damages in terms of securities fraud and misrepresentations …Plaintiffs’ alleged losses clearly emanate from the fact that the Bank, as sole asset of the Holding Company, became worthless upon the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for the Bank." In the Georgian case, the FDIC asserts that the plaintiffs’ claim is "in substance a derivative claim." The FDIC asserts, the shareholders’ claims are, in effect, "double derivative" claims.

 

Second, the FDIC asserts that as receiver of the respective banks, under 12 U.S.C. Section 1821 it has succeeded to "all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the insured depository institution, and of any stockholder … of such institution with respect to the institution and the assets of the institution." In reliance on this provision, the FDIC asserts as an initial matter that it has priority rights to assert the claims presented in the respective plaintiffs’ complaints, because they are essentially derivative complaints.

 

The FDIC’s further argument in reliance on this statutory provision is with reference to the respective institutions’ D&O insurance policies. Thus, for example, the FDIC asserts in the Georgian case that among the assets with respect to which it assumed priority upon being appointed receiver was Georgian’s D&O insurance policy, which "provides limited and finite monies for claims covered by the Policy and may be the only source of recovery against the Defendants in this or any subsequent lawsuit."

 

The FDIC points out further that the D&O policy is a "wasting asset" that would be reduced by defending the plaintiffs’ claims. The FDIC has the right to intervene, it therefore asserts, because "its ability to recover in a subsequent lawsuit will be affected by any judgment in this action or protracted litigation."

 

The FDIC is even more explicit about the possibility of its pursuing claims in its intervention motion in the Haven Trust case. There the FDIC explicitly stated that its investigation includes examination of the "acts and/or omissions of the Bank’s former officers and directors in connection with their management of the Bank’s affairs." The FDIC states that after completing its investigation it will determine "whether claims should be brought against any individual or entity," noting that "several of the defendants in this case, as former officers and/or directors of the Bank, are potential targets."

 

There are a number of concerns with the grounds on which the FDIC is moving to intervene. First, the FDIC completely disregards the investors’ own legal right to assert their own claims for their own alleged financial injuries. Second, and perhaps more to the point, the investors are asserting their claims as shareholders of the parent holding companies of the failed banks, not of the failed banks themselves. The FDIC’s priority rights extend to its rights as receiver of the failed bank. Whether the FDIC can assert rights on behalf of the parent holding company of the failed bank is a potentially contentious proposition.

 

Section 1821 (d)(2)(A)(i), on which the FDIC relies to assert its priority rights, refers to the rights, titles, etc., of the "insured depositary institution, and of any shareholder …of such institution." However, the plaintiffs’ in this shareholder suits are not asserting rights as shareholders of the institution, but of the parent holding company. The FDIC may or may not be able to persuade a court to make the leap from its rights as receiver of the failed bank to the rights of the shareholders of the bank’s parent company, but the argument seems to strain the language of the provision.

 

Finally, the FDIC may indeed be interested in preserving the D&O policies, but there is nothing about Section 1821 that gives the FDIC priority to the proceeds of the policy, in preference to other prospective claimants. The insurance proceeds are not a cash fund like an investment account: rather, the proceeds are available only for payment of certain kinds of loss arising from claims. The policy itself may be an asset of the estate, but the proceeds are available only pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy, only for payment of claims, and the rights of the insureds and the claimants to the proceeds of the policy are determined by the policy’s own terms.

 

Whatever else may be said about the FDIC’s actions in moving to intervene in these case, they do show both that the FDIC is actively considering pursuing its own lawsuits, and that it is will to move aggressively to preserve its own recovery prospects in the event it subsequently decides to pursue lawsuits. The pretty clear message is that the FDIC does intend to pursue lawsuits, too.

 

As if the prospect of competing lawsuits from both investors and regulators were not daunting enough for directors and officers of failed institutions (and their insurers), a lawsuit recently filed in South Carolina suggests yet another type of prospective claimant that may be asserting claims against failed banks’ directors and officers.

 

On September 29, 2010, the trustee for the estate of Beach First National Bankshares filed a lawsuit in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina against certain directors and officers of the bankrupt company. A copy of the complaint can be found here. The company’s wholly owned subsidiary, First National Bank of Myrtle Beach, was closed on April 9, 2010 The Trustee’s complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

 

While the Trustee may have seized the initiative in this case, there would seem to be the possibility that the FDIC might yet seek to intervene in the Trustee’s case just as it did in the cases described above. Disappointed shareholders might also seek to assert their own claims for harm to their own investment interests, particularly since the First National holding company is a publicly traded company.

 

The possibility of claims asserted by these various prospective and active claimants underscores how one of the consequences of a bank failure may be a scramble for the proceeds of the insurance policy. The FDIC may well contend that under FIRREA it has certain priorities but other claimants are also highly motivated to circumvent the FDIC’s asserted rights.

 

Of course in the end the FDIC may establish its priority. But in the meantime, the scramble for the D&O insurance could become quite a circus. And in the center ring could be the directors and officers of the failed institutions – and their insurers – against whom the competing claimants will assert their claims. The likelihood for further D&O litigation involving failed banks’ directors and officers seems high.

 

One final thought about the FDIC's interventions in the two case discussed above -- there have been a fair number of shareholder class actions brought by investors in failed financial institutions. It will be interesting to see how far the FDIC goes with thie intervention tactic and whether it will seek to intervene in other cases involving larger financial institutions. Perhaps its initiatives in the two Georgia lawsuits are test cases that will determine whether it will seek to intervene elsewhere.

 

Many thanks to a loyal reader for providing copies of the various pleadings to which I linked above.

 

A copy of an October 3, 2010 Myrtle Beach Sun News article about the Beach First Trustee’s lawsuit can be found here. (Full disclosure, I was interviewed in connection with the article.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent months, I have documented on this blog the rising tide of failed banks as well as the ensuing failed bank related litigation. An August 16, 2010 report by Paul Hinton of NERA Economic Consulting entitled "Failed Bank Litigation" (here) takes a comprehensive view of the economics and causes of recent bank failures, compares the recent bank failure wave to the S&L crisis, and analyses the implications for litigation against the directors and offices of the failed institutions. The report contains a wide variety of different kind of information that readers will find interesting and useful.

 

Bank Failures to Date

The report begins with an analysis of the causes of the bank failures to date. The report notes that the earliest failures in the current wave derived from "losses in residential real estate and their structured finance businesses," but more recently the bank failures have been "characterized by smaller institutions that are more specialized in financing local businesses, commercial mortgages and real-estate development."

 

The report specifically notes that banks that went on to fail were held worse performing loans in each loan category than banks overall. These banks were also "less well prepared to deal with expected losses," since their allowance for loan losses at the beginning of the credit crisis were "not correspondingly higher," but instead were "lower than for all other banks."

 

Possible Future Bank Failures

Looking ahead, though the economy has improved and banks overall are showing signs of recover, the number of problem banks continues to rise and loan performance has yet to turn around. Many community banks may be burdened as a result of their issuance of trust preferred securities, the holders of which have priority rights in the event of bank failure, which could deter prospective investors. A wider concern for community banks is "the risk posed by continuing financial distress in commercial real estate markets," an issue I explored at length in a prior report here.

 

The report notes that one group of banks particularly at risk are "community banks with high [construction and development, or C&D] loan concentrations and the smallest allowances for loan losses compared to their level of non-performing loans." Another high-risk group of institutions are banks that are "under-provisioned and that have relatively high levels of non-performing loans."

 

Comparison to the S&L Crisis

Though the number of failed banks so far in the current wave is lower than the number that failed during the S&L crisis, "the losses incurred in 2009 are larger than all but one year of losses during the S&L crisis (expressed in 2010 dollars)," because the average size of banking institutions and savings institutions has increased since the time of the S&L Crisis. The average per failed bank loss in the current crisis ($303 million) is more than three times larger in 2010 dollars than for banks in the S&L crisis and were attributable to banks that were about two and a half times as big.

 

The factors contributing to bank failures in the current failed bank wave appear similar to the factors the FDIC identified as having caused bank failures during the S&L crisis. That is, economic conditions were "secondary to poor management and other internal problems."

 

Many readers will find the reports analyses of the banking regulators’ S&L crisis-related litigation track record particularly interesting. Among other things, the report documents (in Figure 14) that the FDIC pursued D&O claims with respect to about one-quarter of failed institutions. The report also shows (in Figure 15) that the FDIC’s peak recoveries lagged peak bank failures by about three years, which may be suggestive of the likely recovery track for the current bank failures.

 

Of particular interest is the detail (in Figure 16) regarding the FDIC’s professional liability claims recoveries during the period 1990-1995 (when most, but not all, of the FDIC’s S&L Crisis-related recoveries took place.). The chart shows that overall, excluding recoveries related to Drexel Burnham and excluding further criminal restitutions, the FDIC recovered $3.2 billion, $1.3 billion of which was from D&O claims, $1.15 billion of which was from accounting claims, and $500 million of which was from attorney malpractice claims. Another $300 million was from fidelity bond claims.

 

Failed Bank Litigation

The report details the FDIC’s special litigation authority under FIREEA (about which refer here), while noting that the FDIC’s special standing may not entirely preclude the claims of private litigants. Though the FDIC has to date filed only one action against former directors and officers of failed banks, all signs are that the FDIC is readying itself to bring more claims, as the report details.

 

Among other things, the report notes that many of the failed and troubled banks in the current wave are publicly traded, by comparison to the S&L crisis, when almost none of the failed institutions are publicly traded. As a result, there is much more investor related litigation this time around than there was during the prior crisis.

 

The report notes that of the roughly 240 credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuits, there were 45 against depository institutions (after excluding auction-rate securities cases). Eleven were filed against failed banks. Of the 20 banks that failed prior to 2010 and that produced the largest losses. 13 were publicly traded, of which eight have been sued in securities class action lawsuits as of the end of 2009.

 

The report notes that the private litigants will compete with the FDIC for D&O insurance, and while the FDIC is generally first in line to recover assets, private litigants may be able to recover against insurance assets even when the FDIC is not (for example, where the D&O policy has a regulatory exclusion that would preclude coverage for the FDIC’s claim but not for the investors’ claims).

 

Though there is already extensive litigation and more seems likely to come, all claimants, including even the FDIC, will face a basic causation problem; as the report concludes, "distinguishing the effects of underwriting practices from the effects of a deteriorating economy will be one of the important elements of this litigation." These cases "will require careful case-by-case economic analysis."

 

Conclusion

Overall, this report is useful and informative. Readers will undoubtedly find the report’s distillation of important background information and analysis in a single source to be particularly helpful.

 

Many D&O insurance professionals in particular will find this report to be helpful, particularly those involved with either the placement of D&O insurance for banking institutions or those involved in claims arising under those policies. Underwriters and brokers will find the report’s analysis of the causes of bank failures and the likely causes of future failures informative. Those involved in claims and claims administration will find the aggregate date from the S&L crisis claims particularly useful.

 

Special thanks to the report’s author, Paul Hinton, for providing me with a copy of the report. I would also like to thank Paul for his numerous citations to this blog in his report.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Though we are in the midst of the dog days of summer (at least in the northern hemisphere), the federal courts, at least, have been busy. In the last several days alone, several courts have issued dismissal motion rulings in lawsuits arising out of the subprime meltdown and the credit crisis.

 

As noted below, several of these decisions involve failed or troubled banks, and therefore may be of particular interest in relation to the many banks have failed in recent months or that are continuing to struggle now. Though investor plaintiffs in other cases involving failed or troubled banks have sometimes struggled to survive the initial pleading stages, in the cases discussed below, the plaintiffs managed to survive the dismissal motions, at least in part.

 

PFF Bancorp: In an August 9, 2010 opinion (here), Central District of California Judge Andrew Guilford denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss in the securities class action lawsuit against two former directors and officers of PFF Bancorp, the corporate parent for PFF Bank & Trust, which failed on November 21, 2008.

 

As reflected here, in January 2009, shareholders of the holding company filed a securities lawsuit alleging that the company’s President and CEO and its CFO contending that they concealed the Bank’s unsafe lending practices and made misleading statements about the bank’s loan loss reserves and capital levels.

 

In his August 9 order, Judge Guilford found that while the plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants made misleading statements about the banks’ "cautious" and "conservative" lending practices were insufficient to state a claim, the plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants had falsely characterized the bank’s loan loss reserves as "adequate" were sufficient to state a claim.

 

Judge Guilford also found that plaintiffs had adequately alleged scienter, finding that plaintiffs’ allegations "permit the inference that Defendants knew PFF’s loan practices were risky and that PFF had inadequate loan loss reserves, yet told investors that the loan loss reserves were adequate."

 

Interestingly, Judge Guilford found plaintiffs’ scienter allegations to be adequate despite the defendants’ contention that they had actually purchased PFF shares at the supposedly inflated prices. Judge Guilford declined, at the motion to dismiss state, to take judicial notice of the SEC forms on which defendants sought to rely in order to establish their share purchases.

 

Popular, Inc. (Securities Claim): In an August 2, 2010 order (here), District of Puerto Rico Judge Gustavo Gelpí granted in part and denied in part the defendants motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against Popular, Inc., certain of its directors and officers, its auditor and its offering underwriters.

 

The plaintiffs’ complaint focused on the company’s accounting for a deferred tax asset. In the three years preceding the beginning of the class period (which went from January 24, 2009 to February 2009), the company had recorded tax loss carry forwards that totaled over $1 billion, largely as a result of the company’s U.S. subprime and other lending operations. The benefit of these deferred tax assets could only be realized if the company experienced sufficient U.S.-based gains within 20 years.

 

To offset the possibility the company might not fully realize the value of the deferred tax assets, accounting rules required reporting companies to take a valuation allowance, but the company recorded no material valuation allowance of this asset until late 2008. The company ultimately recorded an allowance for the full value of the asset. Following the announcement of this action, the company’s share price fell substantially.

 

The plaintiffs allege that the increasing, multiyear U.S.-based operating losses prevented it from anticipating sufficient taxable income to realize the full value of the deferred tax asset prior to the expiration of the 20-year period, yet failed to take a valuation reserve because doing so would have lowered the bank’s risk-based capital ratio below regulatory requirements. The financial picture the company’s treatment of the asset portrayed allowed the company to raise over $300 million in a May 2008 offering.

 

The Court found that the plaintiffs allegations adequately alleged material misrepresentations, given that "Popular’s three-year cumulative loss position, combined with the Company’s significant downsizing of its U.S. mainland operations and the worsening market conditions, constituted strong evidence that at the beginning of the class period it was more likely than not that the Company would not be able to realize the benefit of its [deferred tax asset] in full."

 

The Court also concluded that the complaint adequately alleged scienter, concluding that the defendants’ decision "not to take an earlier valuation allowance was ‘highly unreasonable’ and an ‘extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care’ to the extend that the danger was either know to the defendants or so obvious that they must have been aware of it."

 

The Court also concluded that the ’33 Act allegations against the officer defendants were also sufficient. However, because the Court found that the amended complaint in which the plaintiffs added as defendants the outside directors, the company’s auditor and its offering underwriters had been filed more than a year after there were sufficient "storm warnings" to put the plaintiffs on inquiry notice, the ’33 Act claims against those defendants were untimely and were therefore dismissed.

 

Popular, Inc. (Derivative Suit): In an August 11, 2010 opinion (here), applying Puerto Rico law, in the shareholders’ derivative lawsuit filed against Popular, Inc, as nominal defendant, certain of its directors and officers, and its outside auditor, Judge Jay Garcia-Gregory denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The allegations in the derivative suit largely mirror those alleged in the securities class action lawsuit.

 

The officer and director defendants had moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff had not presented a demand to the company’s board to pursue the lawsuit. The plaintiff argued that demand was futile, and the Court agreed. The Court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations and of the requirements of SFAS 109 "provide ‘reason to doubt’ the legality of declining to record a valuation allowance until 2009" and therefore "demand is excused" because the presumption that the board took a valid business judgment had been rebutted by the alleged lack of "legal fidelity."

 

The Court did, however, dismiss the plaintiff’s gross mismanagement claim as duplicative of the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Court also found that the plaintiff had not adequately alleged corporate waste. Finally, the Court found that the plaintiff’s claim against the company’s auditor should also be dismissed, on the grounds that the plaintiff had not made a demand on the company’s board to pursue the claim and had not established demand futility.

 

Discussion

Plaintiffs have had some difficult surviving initial dismissal motions in many of the securities class action lawsuits that have been filed against the directors and officers of banks that have failed during the current failed bank wave. For example, the securities class action lawsuit arising out the failure of Downey Financial Corp. (whose operating bank failed the same day as PFF Bank & Trust) was dismissed with prejudice.

 

Similarly, the motion to dismiss in the Fremont General case was also ultimately dismissed with prejudice. Similarly, the motion to dismiss was granted in the BankUnited securities case, albeit without prejudice.

 

More recently, however, the motion to dismiss was denied in the securities class action lawsuit arising out of the failure of Corus Bankshares. With the above decisions, it seems as if the plaintiffs in these cases have managed to overcome the initial pleading hurdle at least in several cases now.

　

To be sure, the reasoning the Popular case is based on circumstances that may be unique to that case. The allegations in the PFF Bancorp case, however, arguably are more typical. But while the PFF Bancorp case survived the dismissal motions, it remains to be seen whether the case will survive additional proceedings in the case, if defendants are able to establish that the purchased company shares at the allegedly inflated prices.

 

Ultimately, the fundamental question about the failed banks is whether the FDIC will lower the litigation boom on directors and officers of the failed banks. So far, the FDIC’s litigation activity has been limited to a single lawsuit it filed against officers of a subsidiary of IndyMac (about which refer here). Whether and to what extent the FDIC will pursue other claims will be revealed in the weeks and months ahead.

 

In any event, I have added these decisions to my running tally of subprime and credit crisis-related dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here.

 

Very special thanks to the loyal readers who provided me with copies of these decisions.

　

Another Banking Institution Dismissal Motion Ruling: Though the financial institution involved has neither failed nor is seriously troubled, it should be noted here at least briefly that in an August 10, 2010 order (here), Southern District of Ohio Judge Sandra Beckwith denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against Fifth Third Bancorp and certain of its directors by former shareholders of First Charter, which Fifth Third acquired in a deal announced in August 2007.

 

As discussed here, the former First Charter shareholders alleged that in connection with the merger, Fifth Third and certain of its directors and officers had materially misrepresented Fifth Third’s exposure to poorly performing residential real estate markets, and had not fully represented how seriously its mortgage portfolio was deteriorating.

 

Judge Beckwith’s detailed and painstaking August 10 opinion denied the motion to dismiss as to the claims of certain classes of First Charter shareholders, but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims and claimants.

 

Another Credit-Crisis Related Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Ruling: In an August 13, 2010 order (here), District of Maryland Judge Catherine Blake denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against Constellation Energy.

 

As discussed here, Constellation Energy was one of the many nonfinancial companies that suffered credit crisis related financial reverses in late 2008 and early 2009 and attracted securities litigation arising out the companies’ financial woes.

 

In September 2008, Constellation shareholders and subordinated debenture holders filed a securities class action lawsuit against the company, certain of its directors and officers and offering underwriters. Their complaint asserts claims under Section 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the ’33 Act and under Section 10(b) of the ’34 Act.

 

Essentially, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had misrepresented the additional collateral the company would have to post in connection with its merchant energy business in the event of a company credit downgrade. (As the company itself later disclosed, the collateral requirements for a one-notch credit downgrade were less than had been disclosed; the collateral requirements for a two or three notch downgrade were significantly greater than disclosed.)

 

The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants had not sufficiently disclosed the company’s exposure to Lehman Brothers. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ misrepresented the company’s future earnings, business outlook, risk management and internal controls.

 

In fall 2008, after the company suffered a several notch ratings downgrade and after Lehman collapsed, the company’s share price fell and investors’ sued. The company ultimately sold a substantial portion of its assets.

 

In her August 13 order, Judge Blake found that the plaintiffs’ ’33 Act allegations regarding the company’s downgrade collateral obligations were sufficient to state a claim. Interestingly, Judge Blake reached her conclusion even though the company’s debenture prices dropped only slightly immediately after the disclosure of the company’s revised collateral obligation and in fact rose thereafter for several weeks. These facts "ultimately may counsel against materiality" but are "not dispositive at this stage of the litigation.

 

Judge Blake found that the plaintiffs’ remaining ’33 Act allegations were insufficient to state a claim.

 

As for plaintiffs ’34 Act allegations, Judge Blake found that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter in connection with the downgrade collateral obligations. She noted that "without additional factual allegations that the defendants were somehow aware that the downgrade collateral requirements were miscalculated …neither Constellation nor its officers can be presumed to have known of a faulty computer calculation."

 

Judge Blake also found that the plaintiffs’ remaining ’34 Act allegations were inadequate.

 

I have also added the Fifth Third and Constellation Energy rulings to my running tally of credit crisis lawsuit dismissal motion rulings, which again can be accessed here.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the Constellation Energy decision.

　

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Though 268 banks have failed since January 1, 2008, there has been relatively little litigation related to the failed banks, as least so far. For example, the FDIC only recently filed its first action against former directors and officers of a failed bank (as discussed here). There have also been relatively few suits brought by private investors as well, though that could change. The failed bank lawsuits do continue accumulate, however, including an investor lawsuit recently filed in state court in Georgia that both has some interesting features and that may present some interesting potential D&O insurance coverage issues.

 

The case in question was initiated on July 22, 2010 in Fulton County (Georgia) State Court by three investors in Georgian Bankcorporation. The company operated Georgian Bank in Atlanta, which was taken over by regulators on September 25, 2009. The defendants are two of the company’s former directors and officers, one of whom was the company’s Chairman and CEO for several years, and the other of whom was the successor Chairman and CEO. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

 

All three of the plaintiffs were investors in the bank holding company. Two of the three plaintiffs served as company directors until 2003. All of the parties are residents of Georgia.

 

The complaint seeks damages for negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants negligently misrepresented the negative effects of the economic slowdown was having on the bank; negligently failed to timely and fully report to plaintiffs various adverse regulatory actions taken against the bank and related regulatory findings; and negligently failed to inform plaintiffs that a key depositor was withdrawing its more than $200 million in deposits.

 

The complaint is emphatic that it is asserting claims only for negligent misrepresentation. Paragraph 11 of the complaint states that the plaintiffs "exclude and disclaim" any allegations under the federal and state securities laws; common law fraud; intentional, reckless or knowing misconduct; breach of fiduciary duty or mismanagement. In addition, in paragraph 12 the complaint emphasizes that the claims of it asserts are direct, on behalf of plaintiffs, and not derivative, on behalf of the company.

 

There are a number of interesting things about this complaint, beyond just the fact that it represents an example of a recent bank failure that resulted in a D&O lawsuit.

 

First, the complaint’s insistence that the plaintiffs are "disclaiming" a number of kinds of allegations suggests the narrow line the plaintiffs are trying to walk. Their disavowal of all securities law claims seemingly is calculated to try to avoid the initial pleading hurdles and defenses to which securities claims are vulnerable, as well as to avoid any possible federal question jurisdiction that might facilitate the case’s removal to federal court.

 

The other claims plaintiffs disavow, particularly the fraud and intentional misconduct allegations, may reflect a desire to avoid the conduct exclusions typically found in D&O insurance policies.

 

The plaintiffs’ insistence that they are asserting only direct not derivative claims is clearly an effort to fend off the FDIC, which might otherwise (and who knows, may yet) intervene to assert its rights as receiver under FIRREA to control litigation asserted in the right of the failed bank itself. (For more about the FDIC’s rights under FIRREA, refer here). The plaintiffs’ wariness about the FDIC’s interest in the lawsuit is apparently well founded, because, as I discussed in a prior post, the FDIC has sent letters to former officials at the failed bank detailed potential claims the FDIC may assert against them.

 

The complaint also raises a number of potential D&O insurance coverage issues.

 

The first has to do with the fact that two of the plaintiffs are former directors of the company. The typical D&O insurance policy has an "insured vs. insured" exclusion precluding coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. The two former directors would be insureds under most D&O policies, and so all else equal, their claim would involve an insured vs. insured claim. The exclusion potentially might preclude coverage for this claim.

 

However, the typical insured vs. insured exclusion also usually has multiple exceptions that carve back coverage for certain kinds of claims (derivative action, for example). In recent years, among the coverage carve backs found in many D&O policies is a carve back for claims brought by former directors and officers more than four year (sometimes three years) after they left their position. This new lawsuit presents an interesting example of a case where the inclusion of this coverage carve back could be crucial to preserving coverage.

 

A second interesting thing about this case from an insurance standpoint relates to the plaintiffs’ insistence that they are asserting only claims for negligent misrepresentation. The reason this is interesting is though the plaintiffs are asserting harm to their investment interests, they are not asserting claims base on the securities laws. Rather they are quite deliberately asserting claims solely under the common law.

 

The reason this is interesting is in connection with the definition of the term "securities claim" found in the typical public company D&O insurance policy. Many policy forms do not include within the definition claims asserted under common law, and so carriers are often requested to amend the definition of the term to include common law claims. Some carriers resist this change, arguing either that the change is unnecessary or that claimants will not assert claims on that basis.

 

The deliberately narrowed way the plaintiffs have framed their claims in this case both illustrates why the inclusion of common law claims in the definition of "securities claims" is appropriate and provides and example of a case in which the change could be critical.

 

The deliberately narrow way the plaintiffs framed their complaint also underscores the challenges claimants may face in trying to assert claims against former directors and officers of failed banks. Between worries that the FDIC will sweep in and try to take over the claim and concerns that D&O insurance coverage issues could eliminate possible insurance recoveries, prospective claimants face some formidable obstacles. Indeed these considerations may be among the reasons why there has been relatively little D&O litigation (so far) as a result of the current round of bank failures.

 

A July 27, 2010 Atlanta Journal Constitution article about the lawsuit can be found here.

 

Special thanks to Henry Turner, counsel for plaintiffs in the case, for providing a copy of the complaint.

　

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 2, 2010, in what is as far as I am aware the first suit by the FDIC against former directors and officers of a failed bank as part of the current wave of bank failures, the FDIC as receiver of IndyMac filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California against four former officers of IndyMac’s Homebuilder Division (HBD). 

 

Very special thanks to Peter Christensen of the Appraiser Law blog for providing links to the complaint.

 

The FDIC took control of IndyMac on July 11, 2008. At the time, the outstanding balance on HBD’s portfolio of homebuilder loans was nearly $900 million. The FDIC alleges in its complaint that IndyMac’s losses "are estimated to exceed $500 million."

 

The lawsuit is filed against Scott Van Dellen, HBD’s former President and CEO, who is alleged to have approved all of the loans that are the subject of the FDIC’s suit; Richard Koon, who was HBD’s Chief Lending Officer until mid-2006 and who is alleged to have approved at least 40 of the loans at issue; Kenneth Shellem, who served as HBD’s Chief Compliance Officer until late 2006, and who is alleged to have approved at least 57 of the loans at issue; ;and William Rothman, who served as HBD’s Chief Lending Officer from mid-2006 and who is alleged to have approved at least 34 of the loans at issue.

 

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages from the four individual defendants for "negligence and breach of fiduciary duties." The lawsuit alleges "two significant departures from safe and sound banking practices."

 

First, the complaint alleges that HBD’s management "repeatedly disregarded HBD’s credit policies and approved loans to borrowers who were not creditworthy and/or for projects that provided insufficient collateral." The complaint further alleges that HBD’s compensation plans encouraged HBD’s management to "push for growth in loan production volume with little regard for credit quality."

 

Second, HBD’s management is alleged to have "continued to follow a strategy for growth at the tail-end of the longest appreciating real estate market in over four decades," despite management’s alleged "awareness that a significant downturn in the market was imminent and despite warnings from IndyMac’s upper management about the likelihood of a market decline." HBD’s management allegedly "unwisely continued operations in homebuilder lending in deteriorating markets even after becoming aware of the market decline.

 

The FDIC’s complaint, which sprawls to some 309 pa