From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Chemical Bank v. Security National Bank
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
20 F.3d 375 (1994)
Osborne Computer Corporation (Osborne) required financing for its business. It was already borrowing money from Security Pacific National Bank (Security Pacific) (defendant). In January 1983, Security Pacific loaned Osborne $15 million and perfected a security interest by filing a UCC-1 financing statement later that month. In April 1983, Security Pacific and two other banks joined in an agreement to provide $25 million in credit to Osborne. 60 percent of the funds would be provided by Security Pacific, and the remainder by Chemical Bank (Chemical) and National Westminster Bank USA (Westminster) (plaintiffs). The agreement between the banks indicated that Security Pacific would be the agent for the three banks. The contract included a clause that the agent would not be responsible to the other banks “except for their own gross negligence or willful misconduct.” After the April 1983 agreement, no new financing statement was ever filed. Accordingly, when Osborne filed for bankruptcy in September 1983, Security Pacific was a secured creditor because of its January 1983 filing. It received full payment on its loan and did turn over 40 percent of that payment to Chemical and Westminster, pursuant to the agreement between them. However, Chemical and Westminster were unsecured creditors, and they believed they should have received full repayment. Chemical and Westminster then filed suit against Security Pacific, arguing that but for Security Pacific’s negligent failure to file a new financing statement, they would have been secured. Security Pacific argued that such a claim was waived by the contract, which limited its exposure to gross negligence or willful misconduct. The trial court granted Chemical and Westminster summary judgment on their negligence claim against Security Pacific but also granted Security Pacific summary judgment on the claim alleging breach of a fiduciary duty. Both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Noonan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.