FDIC v. Brown
Decision Date | 10 December 1992 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. H-91-2073. |
Citation | 812 F. Supp. 722 |
Parties | FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its separate corporate capacity, Plaintiff, v. Ronald BROWN, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
James R. Buckner, Miller & Martin, Chattanooga, TN, Kevin B. Finkel, Meredith, Donnell & Abernethy, Houston, TX, for plaintiff.
Walter B. Stuart, IV, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX, for defendants.
Defendant Isabel Brown Wilson seeks partial summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 92), and the remaining defendants seek judgment on the pleadings (Docket Entry No. 91) because the Texas business judgment rule precludes FDIC from suing defendants for acts or omissions as directors of RepublicBank-Houston (RBH) unless FDIC alleges that defendants' conduct was fraudulent or ultra vires.
All parties express familiarity with the court's April 10, 1992, memorandum opinion in Resolution Trust Corporation v. Harry Holmes, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. H-92-0753. In Holmes the court held that the standard of care imposed by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(k) did not govern defendants' liability since all of the acts and omissions of defendants alleged by the RTC occurred before the enactment of § 1821(k). Because this statute creates a substantive liability, it would be manifestly unjust to apply it retroactively to defendants. The same holding applies in this case.
Section 1821(k) also states that: "nothing in this paragraph shall impair or affect any right of the Corporation under other applicable law." The question raised by defendants' motions is what causes of action FDIC has under other applicable law. FDIC argues that the reference to "other applicable law" includes federal common law. Defendants argue that the court should adhere to its statement in Holmes that the reference in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(k) to "other applicable law" is limited to applicable state law. Since FDIC also argues that the defendant directors would be equally liable under Texas law or federal common law (FDIC's Second Supplemental Brief at 2), the court will first address the standard of care under Texas law since, if FDIC is correct, the choice of law issue may be moot.
Defendants argue that the Texas business judgment rule limits FDIC to actions for fraud or ultra vires conduct by defendants. As the court has explained at hearings in this action and in Holmes, many of the discussions of the Texas business judgment rule in the Texas cases cited by FDIC and defendants are dicta. The court also acknowledges that the nineteenth century origin of the business judgment rule, which predated the maze of federal statutes and regulations applicable to all corporations, and in particular to banks, may at first blush make the rule appear anachronistic or at least counterintuitive to some notions of director liability, especially when applied in the context of a public banking corporation. Nevertheless, the rule remains a viable part of Texas jurisprudence and has been applied in the context of a modern publicly held corporation. E.g., Gearhart Industries, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc., 741 F.2d 707, 721 (5th Cir.1984). Also, notwithstanding its age, the business judgment rule still furthers the public policy of encouraging citizens to serve as corporate directors by immunizing them from acts and omissions that in hindsight proved to be wrong, as long as the directors were not personally interested in the transaction or did not act fraudulently or contrary to their lawful authority.
As defendants point out, with the benefit of hindsight, the FDIC or a disgruntled shareholder could almost always allege one or more acts of negligence by bank directors in approving a bad loan. Had the directors obtained better or more current appraisals, more or better security for the loan, and had the bank better monitored the payment history of the loan and subsequent changes in the credit-worthiness of the borrower, almost any loan could have been made more secure, or at least the bank could have suffered a smaller loss on it. The business judgment rule protects bank directors from being guarantors on loans made by banks. Absent such a rule defendants argue that people with business acumen and some record of business success, who would normally make good directors, would decline election as directors, and these positions might be filled instead by judgment-proof neophytes. The rule also encourages directors to exercise their judgment in making loans and not to foreclose credit markets to all but blue-chip borrowers. Defendants argue that abolition of the rule could discourage banks from making loans to first-time borrowers and fledgling enterprises.1
After thoroughly analyzing the Texas business judgment rule, and requiring the parties to rebrief their arguments to eliminate citations to cases in which discussions of the rule were dicta, the court described the rule in RTC v. Holmes.
Pleadings FDIC argues that the recent opinion in FDIC v. Wheat, 970 F.2d 124 (5th Cir.1992), shows that the court's analysis in Holmes was incorrect. In Wheat the Fifth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in favor of FDIC against a director of a state chartered bank for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with his approval of an inadequately secured loan. The court approved a jury instruction that characterized the business judgment rule as a defense to negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Among other things the instruction approved by the Fifth Circuit stated:
A director or officer of a bank shall not be held liable for an honest mistake of judgment if he acted with due care, in good faith, and in furtherance of a rational business purpose.
FDIC argues that Wheat establishes that the business judgment rule does not preclude an action for negligence against disinterested directors in the present case. Wheat is distinguishable from the instant case in several respects, however. First, Sudderth, the director found liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FDIC v. Harrington
...officer and director liability does not survive FIRREA. See RTC v. Miramon, 1993 WL 35131 1993 LEXIS 1624 (E.D.La.1993); FDIC v. Brown, 812 F.Supp. 722 (S.D.Tex.1992); RTC v. Holmes, 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 18962 (S.D.Tex.1992); Barham, 794 F.Supp. 187; FDIC v. Mijalis, 1991 WL 501602 (W.D.La.......
-
FDIC v. Benson
...approved the loans. Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1051, 103 S.Ct. 1498, 75 L.Ed.2d 930 (1983); Brown, 812 F.Supp. at 726. Defendants insist that even if the complaint had alleged an ultra vires act, no claim was stated because the FDIC has failed to plead ......
-
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gibson, Civ. A. No. 92-0140-CV-W-8-6.
...rule. FDIC v. Mintz, 816 F.Supp. 1541, 1546 (S.D.Fla.1993); RTC v. Norris, 830 F.Supp. 351, 359 (S.D.Tex.1993); FDIC v. Brown, 812 F.Supp. 722, 725-26 (S.D.Tex.1992); RTC v. Hecht, 818 F.Supp. 894, 901 (D.Md.1992); FSLIC v. Shelton, 789 F.Supp. 1360, 1366-67 (M.D.La.1992); RTC v. Holmes, 19......
-
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gallagher
...federal common law. See FDIC v. Miller, 781 F.Supp. 1271 (N.D.Ill.1991); FDIC v. Barham, 794 F.Supp. 187 (W.D.La.1991); FDIC v. Brown, 812 F.Supp. 722 (S.D.Tex.1992); RTC v. Miramon, 1992 WL 373635, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18813 (E.D.La.1992); RTC v. Chapman, No. 92-3188, slip op. (C.D.Ill. O......
-
W. Marion Wilson, Trust Me, I'm a Lawyer: Restoring Faith in Fiduciaries by Dumping "due Diligence" and Tolling the Statute of Limitations for Postpetition Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Chapter 11
...(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989), aff'd, 933 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 1991). 40 See Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 887 (2d Cir. 1982). 41 FDIC v. Brown, 812 F. Supp. 722, 726 (S.D. Tex. 1992). 42 Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939). 43 See Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Toy King Distrib......
-
TO CALL A DONKEY A RACEHORSE - THE FIDUCIARY DUTY MISNOMER IN CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW.
...a general proposition violates the duty of care. See, e.g., Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985); see also F.D.I.C. v. Brown, 812 F. Supp. 722, 726 (S.D. Tex. 1992) (applying Texas law) (opining that "the Texas business judgment rule does not protect a director if he abdicated his ......