Seattle-First Nat. Bank v. FDIC
Decision Date | 15 October 1985 |
Docket Number | No. CIV 82-1385-R.,CIV 82-1385-R. |
Citation | 619 F. Supp. 1351 |
Parties | SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK, a national banking association, Plaintiff, v. The FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its corporate capacity and as receiver of Penn Square Bank, N.A.; and Deposit Insurance National Bank, a national banking association, successor to Penn Square Bank, N.A., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
George W. Dahnke, Hastie & Kirschner, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff.
Charles C. Baker, Oliver S. Howard and Sidney G. Dunagan, Gable & Gotwals, Tulsa, Okl., for defendants.
This lawsuit is one of several loan participation suits arising in the wake of the declared insolvency and receivership of Penn Square Bank, N.A. Plaintiff here, Seattle-First National Bank ("Seafirst") is suing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in FDIC's dual capacities as Receiver for Penn Square and as the Corporation in charge of deposit insurance. Seafirst complains in Count I of the Receiver's offsets against approximately $3.8 million in participated loans; in Count II it claims deposit insurance from the Corporation for $1.2 million in mistakenly wired funds; in Count III it seeks reimbursement from the Receiver of $12 million paid by Seafirst on Penn Square letters of credit; and in Count IV it claims deposit insurance on its asserted interest in approximately $1.74 million in Penn Square letters of credit issued in conjunction with participated loans. The case is before the Court on the Receiver's motion to dismiss Count I (concerning offsets), the Corporation's motion to dismiss Counts II and IV (for deposit insurance), and the Receiver's and the Plaintiff's cross motions for summary judgment on Count III (concerning the wired funds).
Prior to its insolvency, Penn Square originated and participated loans to "upstream" banks such as Seattle First. Subsequently, in the course of the receivership, the FDIC offset the balances contained in deposit accounts maintained by Penn Square's borrowers against the balances due on the borrowers' participated loans. Seafirst was issued Receiver's certificates in proportion to Seafirst's stake in the offsets. Seafirst will take its share of the remaining loan payments in "new money" paid by the borrowers to the Receiver. The mechanics of offset are elaborated in Chase-Manhattan Bank, N.A., v. FDIC, 554 F.Supp. 251, 253 (W.D.Okla.1983).
Seafirst claims that the terms of its participation agreements with Penn Square conferred "property rights" or "trust estates" in the loans and their collateral. According to this theory, the offset amounts constituted a "separate fund" augmenting the Receiver's estate, thereby qualifying for preferred receivership distributions. In considering this argument, the Court must determine both the existence and the consequence of Seafirst's asserted interests in the participated loans. The nature and extent of these interests derive from the participation agreement between Seafirst & Penn Square which was signed sometime during March, 1982. It reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc.
...(a loan participation creates a partial ownership interest in the loan account to the participant); Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. FDIC, 619 F.Supp. 1351, 1355 (W.D.Okla.1985); Deutscher v. Tennesco, Inc. (In re Southern Indus. Banking Corp.), 45 B.R. 97, 100 (Bankr.E.D. Tenn.1984) (loan parti......
-
First State Bank v. Diamond Plastics Corp., 76571
...of compliance with the terms of letters of credit have adopted the strict compliance standard. See Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 619 F.Supp. 1351, 1362 (W.D.Okla.1985) ("Most (though not all) of the circuit courts ... have held that an issuing and a confirming bank ar......
-
F.D.I.C. v. Adams
...lending limits, this determination does not provide the borrower with a defense to payment of the Notes. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. FDIC, 619 F.Supp. 1351, 1363 (W.D.Okla.1985); State ex rel. Conway v. Versluis, 58 Ariz. 368, 379, 120 P.2d 410, 415 (1941); Schneider v. Thompson, 58 F.2d 94......
-
Northern Trust Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., Civ 83-506-R.
...Square's management of the participated loans and their collateral than the agreement construed by this Court in Seattle-First Nat'l Bk v. FDIC, 619 F.Supp. 1351 (W.D.Okl.1985), which arguably created property and trust interests. Even that possibility did not preclude offset, however, and ......