Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Bierman

2 F.3d 1424 (1993)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Bierman

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
2 F.3d 1424 (1993)

Facts

In 1981, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (plaintiff) investigated the faltering Allen County Bank (ACB). FDIC issued a report cautioning ACB and its directors that the bank must acquire better-quality loans. In February 1982, FDIC and the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) entered into a memorandum of understanding with ACB, which contained requirements aimed at alleviating the situation. ACB continued to deteriorate. In September 1982, FDIC issued another report stressing poor lending practices, including poor supervision, incomplete credit information, self-dealing, and overlending. In 1983, FDIC and DFI entered into a second memorandum of understanding with ACB containing more requirements, which ACB failed to meet. Accordingly, DFI initiated liquidation proceedings. FDIC was appointed receiver, and in that capacity, sold to itself certain claims against ACB’s former directors and officers (defendants), which included John Boley and Dr. Gilbert Bierman, and later included V. Edgar (Ed) Stanley, Robert Marcuccilli, Judith Stanley, and Dan Stanley. FDIC sued the former directors and officers of ACB for breach of common-law and statutory duties that resulted in bank losses. Namely, Ed Stanley, Judith Stanley, and Marcuccilli simultaneously served as directors for other banks, and, beginning in late December 1982, they used their positions to conduct poor loan transactions on behalf of ACB, as interested directors, that a reasonably prudent banker would not have pursued. Boley had only attended one board meeting during this period, and Bierman had not attended any board meetings since October 1982. The district court found that Boley and Bierman failed to meet their duty of care to ACB by their sheer inattention and, therefore, shared responsibility for the poor loans. The district court also found that Boley and Bierman’s inattention proximately caused the subsequent losses based on Ed Stanley’s comment that if a board member objected to a loan, the other members “weren’t going to cram anything down anybody’s throat.”

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ripple, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership