Sterling Coal Co. v. UNITED AMERICAN BANK, ETC., Civ. No. 3-78-330.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 3-78-330. |
| Citation | 470 F. Supp. 964 |
| Parties | STERLING COAL COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED AMERICAN BANK IN KNOXVILLE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Harold B. Stone, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
W. F. Shumate, Jr., William G. Cockrill, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.
This is an action under Section 106 of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970, 12 U.S.C. § 1971 et seq. Specifically plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 12 U.S.C. § 1972 by placing a series of conditions upon the extension of credit to plaintiff. Defendant has moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed a brief in opposition. The record shows that as to several of plaintiff's claims there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly the Court grants defendant's motion in part. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated Section 1972(1) by conditioning the grant and extension of credit upon the requirement that the defendant supervise and control plaintiff's checking account and other corporate affairs, including veto power over purchases and payment of dividends. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated Section 1972(3) by requiring plaintiff to assume the personal liability of its two sole stockholders and requiring it to pay interest on the personal loans of one of the two stockholders. Plaintiff specifically alleges that plaintiff was forced to borrow $54,000 from a Nashville bank related to defendant, for the purpose of paying this interest.
The record demonstrates, and there is no dispute, that plaintiff obtained financing from defendant at a time at which it possessed few, if any, assets by which to secure any loans. The principal officer, whose personal liability plaintiff was forced to assume was, along with his wife, the sole stockholder of plaintiff. Section 1972 was not intended to interfere with the conduct of traditional banking practices. Clark v. United Bank of Denver National Association, 480 F.2d 235, 238 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004, 94 S.Ct. 360, 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Swerdloff v. Miami National Bank, 584 F.2d 54, 58 (5th Cir. 1978). The Act does not prohibit attempts by banks to protect their investments. These requirements, as demonstrated by this record, clearly were connected to the loans provided by the defendant. While there are many contested issues of fact in the record, they are not material to the resolution of these claims. The Court would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Bank of Pennsylvania v. Barclay Riding Academy, Inc.
...... million loan from its largest creditor, American Airlines ("American"). . Page 160 . ...United States, 480 F.2d 235, 238 (10th Cir.), cert. ... federal cases was aptly summarized in Sterling Coal Co. v. United American Bank, 470 F.Supp. 964 ......
-
Interchange State Bank v. Rinaldi
...153, 163, 459 A.2d 1163, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994, 104 S.Ct. 488, 78 L.Ed.2d 684 (1983); see also Sterling Coal Co. v. United American Bank, etc., 470 F.Supp. 964, 965 (E.D.Tenn.1979)(stating that "[t]he Act does not prohibit attempts by banks to protect their investments" but, instead, "......
-
Dannhausen v. First Nat. Bank of Sturgeon Bay
...1004, 94 S.Ct. 360, 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973), such as attempts by banks to protect their investments, Sterling Coal Company v. United American Bank, 470 F.Supp. 964, 965 (E.D.Tenn.1979). The Court is of the opinion that the extension of credit to Stagecoach Marine and Sporting Goods for the pu......
-
Tose v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.
...evidence that it had good reasons to be concerned about the loan. As the district court held in Sterling Coal Co., Inc. v. United American Bank in Knoxville, 470 F.Supp. 964, 965 (E.D.Tenn.1979), "(t) he Act does not prohibit attempts by banks to protect their investments." Our holding agre......
-
Tying and other Conditional Agreements under Section 106 of the Bank Holding Company Act: A Reconsideration
...1192 (6th Cir. 1978).4. Duryea v, 3d Northwestern National Bank, 606 F.2d 823 (8th Cir.1979).5. Sterling Coal v. United American Bank, 470 F. Supp. 964 (E.D.Tenn. 1979).6. Nesglo v, Chase Manhattan Bank, 506 F. Supp. 254 (D. P.R. 1980);562 F. Supp. 995 (D. P.R. 1983).7. Freidco Wilmington D......