FDIC Appeal Victory: Igler & Pearlman Exonerate Florida Bank
TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Jan. 23, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — In a significant victory for a Florida community bank, the FDIC’s Supervision Appeals Review Committee (SARC) has overturned a finding by the Atlanta Regional Office that the bank violated Regulation O, which governs loans to insiders. The SARC determined that the Regional Office’s conclusion was incorrect and that the bank’s Chairman of the Board was not serving as an executive officer.
The case revolved around the bank’s Chairman, who, despite the board annually adopting a resolution excluding him from the executive officer classification, was deemed as such by examiners due to his service on the Board’s Loan and Investment Committees. However, Igler & Pearlman, the law firm representing the bank, successfully argued that the FDIC relied on incorrect interpretations of previous guidance, Florida law, and the plain language of Regulation O.
“We are grateful that the SARC approached our client’s appeal with an open mind and was willing to correct FDIC examiners when they attempted to overreach,” said Richard Pearlman, lead lawyer on the appeal. “We are pleased to have helped our client achieve the right result. When confronted with incorrect or improper exam findings, banks should consider using the FDIC’s internal appeals process. This decision shows that it can work in their favor.”
The SARC’s full decision can be found [here](https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/appeals-of-material-supervisory-determination/appeals/sarc202301.pdf).
Igler & Pearlman is a reputable law firm that specializes in representing banks, thrifts, and credit unions in regulatory matters. They have extensive experience dealing with various regulatory entities, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Banks, the National Credit Union Administration, and state regulatory agencies.
This victory highlights the importance of challenging incorrect or improper findings by regulatory authorities. Banks have the right to appeal and seek a fair resolution, as demonstrated by Igler & Pearlman’s success in this case.
—
The Importance of Correct Interpretation: Regulation O and the Florida Bank Case
Regulation O, which falls under the purview of the FDIC, imposes restrictions on loans made by banks to executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders. It aims to prevent potential conflicts of interest and ensure fair treatment within a bank’s lending practices.
In the case of the Florida community bank, the FDIC’s Atlanta Regional Office had initially concluded that the Chairman of the Board was serving as an executive officer, thereby violating Regulation O. The determining factor was his involvement in the Board’s Loan and Investment Committees.
However, Igler & Pearlman successfully argued that the FDIC’s conclusions were based on incorrect interpretations. They emphasized that the board had explicitly adopted a resolution each year excluding the Chairman from the executive officer classification. Additionally, they highlighted that neither the language of Regulation O nor Florida law supported the FDIC’s stance. The SARC ultimately agreed with these arguments and exonerated the Florida bank.
This case serves as a reminder that careful interpretation of regulations is crucial. It underscores the importance of legal expertise in navigating regulatory issues and ensuring fair treatment for banks and financial institutions.
—
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is the FDIC’s Supervision Appeals Review Committee (SARC)?
The FDIC’s Supervision Appeals Review Committee (SARC) is an internal appeals process provided by the FDIC for banks to challenge the correctness of examination findings or material supervisory determinations. Banks can seek a fair resolution through the SARC, especially when they believe that incorrect or improper findings have been made.
2. How can banks benefit from the FDIC’s internal appeals process?
The FDIC’s internal appeals process, as exemplified by the Florida community bank’s victory in this case, can work in favor of banks. It provides an opportunity to challenge incorrect or improper examination findings, ensuring fairness and accuracy in regulatory decisions. Banks should consider utilizing this appeals process when confronted with such issues.
3. What is the significance of Igler & Pearlman’s victory in this FDIC appeal case?
Igler & Pearlman’s victory in this FDIC appeal case highlights the importance of legal expertise in regulatory matters. The successful challenge to the FDIC’s flawed conclusions regarding the Chairman of the Board being an executive officer showcases the positive outcomes that can be achieved through skilled legal representation. This case serves as a precedent for banks facing similar situations, affirming their right to appeal and seek fair resolutions.
—
For more information about Igler & Pearlman and their legal services for banks, thrifts, and credit unions, please visit [visbanking.com](https://visbanking.com/). If you are interested in their pricing options, you can find more details [here](https://visbanking.com/pricing/). To request a demo of their services, kindly visit [this page](https://visbanking.com/request-demo/).
—
References:
– Igler and Pearlman, PA. (SOURCE) PRNewswire. Retrieved from [PRNewswire](https://www.prnewswire.com/).
– FDIC. (2023, January). FDIC Supervision Appeals Review Committee–Decisions–2023. Retrieved from [FDIC](https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/appeals-of-material-supervisory-determination/appeals/sarc202301.pdf).
0 Comments