The Issue The ultimate issue to be determined in this matter is whether the application filed by Boulevard Bank to establish a branch at Islamorada, Florida, should be approved or denied. The Applicant contends that all of the requirements set out at Section 658.26, Florida Statutes, and Rule 3C-13, Florida Administrative Code, have been met, and that the application should be approved. The Protestant contends that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the proposed branch.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant, Boulevard Bank, is a full-service, commercial banking institution licensed by the Florida Department of Banking and Finance. Its principal offices are located in Key West, Monroe County, Florida. Boulevard Bank has filed an application with the Department of Banking and Finance to establish a branch banking facility at Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida. Boulevard Bank has acquired property for the facility. The property is located on "Old State Road" and is bounded on the north by Matecumbie Street and on the south by Jerome Street. Boulevard Bank has obtained zoning variances that would allow it to construct a branch banking facility on the property. The primary service area of the proposed branch banking facility would be from Mile Marker 87, northeast of the proposed facility, to Channel 5, southwest of the facility. This area is approximately 15 miles long. In keeping with the geography of the Florida Keys, the service area is quite narrow, approximately 0.3 miles at the widest. The service area is characterized by mixed residential and commercial uses. There are approximately 3,000 full-time residents within the service area. There are many people who live in the area on a part-time basis. During the winter months, the population increases dramatically. There are more than 90 stable businesses located within the service area. There are currently two banking institutions located within the service area of the proposed Boulevard Bank branch. The main office of The Islamorada Bank and a branch of the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of the Florida Keys are located within close proximity to the location of the proposed branch. The Islamorada Bank is the only full-service, commercial banking institution in the service area. The public convenience and necessity would be served by the opening of an additional full-service banking facility within the service area in that the public would be the beneficiary of the favorable impacts of competition. The Applicant proposes to provide a full range of banking services at the proposed branch. Applicant proposes to stay open at hours and on days that The Islamorada Bank remains closed. Competition can have a favorable impact upon interest that is paid to the bank's depositors and interest rates that are charged by the bank on loans. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the opening of the proposed branch would in any way damage the fiscal integrity of banking facilities already located within the service area. While the public convenience and necessity would be served by the increased number of facilities and by competition, it does not appear that there has been a dramatic increase in the need for banking services within the service area in recent years. The main office of The Islamorada Bank has not experienced an increase in deposits since 1979. It does not appear that existing banking facilities within the service area are providing inadequate service to residential and business customers. The Applicant is proposing to invest $470,000 in fixed assets, including the cost of land, building, and furniture and equipment to support the proposed branch. The building, which has not yet been constructed, would have dimensions of approximately 30 by 50 feet. The facility would include drive-in banking windows and an automatic teller machine. The Applicant has sufficient capital accounts to support the proposed branch. The Applicant's percentage of capital to total assets exceeds 7.5 percent. The ratio was 7.8 percent on December 31, 1981, and 8.6 percent on June 30, 1982. The operation of the proposed branch would pose no threat to depositors, creditors, or shareholders of the Applicant. Even if the branch operated without a single depositor, the losses to Applicant would not be such as to pose a risk to the integrity of the Applicant, nor to substantially reduce the stockholders' dividends. It is extremely unlikely that the branch would operate without any depositors, and it appears that there is a favorable prospect that the branch would be profitable. The Applicant has sufficient earnings and prospects for earnings to support the expenses of the proposed branch. The Applicant's net profits to assets ratio exceeded 0.5 percent during the past calendar year. For 1981, the Applicant's net profit to total assets ratio was 2.5 percent prior to the payment of federal income taxes, and 1.5 percent after taxes were paid. The Applicant's loans to deposits ratio was 63 percent on December 31, 1981. The Applicant appears to have sufficient management depth to operate the proposed branch without affecting its present services. Applicant proposes to assign Rudy D. Aud as chief operations officer. Mr. Aud is a vice president of the Applicant. He assisted in the establishment of the Applicant's Big Pine Key branch and has operated that facility. The name of the proposed branch would be "Islamorada Branch of Boulevard Bank, Islamorada, Florida." The name would reasonably identify the facility as a branch of the Applicant. The proposed name would not confuse the public either as to the nature of the facility or in relation to other banking facilities. The files of the Department of Banking and Finance, including the Department's confidential file, establish that the Applicant has operated in substantial compliance with applicable laws governing its operations. ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert T. Feldman, Esquire 417 Eaton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Gustave W. Larson, Esquire 9999 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 307, Shoreview Bldg. Miami Shores, Florida 33138 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DIVISION OF BANKING IN RE: BOULEVARD BANK--Application for authority to establish a branch CASE NO. 82-2623 at Mile Marker 81.4, U.S. Highway 1, Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida. / FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND FINAL ORDER Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted in this matter on November 5, 1982, before G. Steven Pfeiffer, with the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida. The purpose of the hearing was to receive evidence concerning the application of Boulevard Bank for authority to open a branch at mile marker 81.4, U.S. Highway 1, Islamorada, Florida. At the hearing, the following appearances were entered: Robert T. Felman, Key West, appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Boulevard Bank; Gustave Larson, Miami Shores, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Protestant, the Islamorada Bank; Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Tallahassee, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Florida Department of Banking and Finance. No exceptions were filed in this case. Having fully considered the facts and information contained in the record relating to the application of Boulevard Bank for authority to open a branch office at mile marker 81.4, U.S. Highway 1, Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida, The Comptroller of the State of Florida, as Head of the Department of Banking and Finance, hereby renders the following FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND FINAL ORDER in the above-styled cause.
Findings Of Fact The Department rules on the Proposed Findings of Facts submitted by the parties as follows: APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Applicant's proposed finding as to the net profit to asset ratio is accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to the adjusted capital to asset ratio is accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to the boundaries of the PSA are accepted. Applicant's proposed findings as to the population estimates of the PSA and the communities located within the PSA are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Department's findings adopted herein. Applicant's proposed finding as to net migration into Pinellas County and the age distribution characteristics of Pinellas County are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Department's findings adopted herein. Applicant's proposed finding that the Bank of Indian Rocks is the only full service bank with its main office operating in the PSA is accepted. Applicant's proposed finding that the Bank of Indian Rocks experienced a 23.3 percent rate of growth for loans and a relatively modest rate of growth for deposits during the last reporting year is accepted. Applicant's proposed findings as to the nature of the proposed branch site are accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to the banks servicing the PSA is accepted to the extent that said banks have branch offices located in the PSA, but is rejected to the extent that said finding excludes other banks which may service customers in the PSA. Applicant's proposed finding that the PSA community is heavily dominated in terms of bank operations by the Bank of Indian Rocks is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantive evidence in the record. The record indicates that based on a telephone sample survey of 399 persons, 49 percent of the households in the PSA have their primary checking account at the Bank of Indian Rocks. The Applicant's proposed finding does not necessarily follow from the survey. Applicant's proposed finding as to the percentage of people located in the PSA that have a primary checking account in the PSA and bank with the Bank of Indian Rocks is rejected for the reasons previously stated in paragraph 10. Applicant's proposed finding as to the need for an additional full service bank based on the statistical data presented is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed finding as to the savings and loan associations serving the PSA is accepted to the extent that said savings and loan associations have offices located in the PSA, but is rejected to the extent that said finding excludes other savings and loan association offices which may serve customers in the PSA. Applicant's proposed findings as to the nature of the primary service area is accepted, with the exception of the finding as to the amount of land available for future development which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Applicant's proposed findings that the Applicant's economic capacity will be enhanced by the branch; that the Applicant can support the proposed branch and statements with regard thereto, are rejected as constituting conclusions of law and legal argument, rather than findings of fact. Applicant's proposed findings as to the range of services that will be offered at the proposed branch are accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to the need for additional banking facilities and the convenience of the proposed bank are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Applicant's proposed findings as to the substantial experience of the bank staff, and significant assets are accepted; however, Applicant's proposed findings to the capability of the bank to support the branch facilities is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed findings as to the Applicant's return on assets on 1977, 19978 and year to date are accepted. Applicant's proposed findings as to the liquid assets as a percent of total liabilities; condition of assets; classified assets and loan loss ratio are accepted. Applicant's proposed findings as to increased earnings, increased average balances and reduced chargeoffs are accepted. Applicant's proposed finding that there has been no cash operating loss of the Applicant is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Applicant's other statements with regard thereto are rejected as constituting legal argument rather than findings of facts. Applicant's proposed finding that the review of the branch by management of the Applicant and the Atlantic Bancorporation is significant is accepted; however, Applicant's proposed finding as to the judgment of the management as to the success of the proposed branch constitutes a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed finding that there was no insider transaction involved in the purchase of the land is rejected as being irrelevant and immaterial. Applicant's proposed finding that there was no showing that the lease transaction constitutes an insider transaction is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Applicant's proposed finding that the lease sum represents approximately a 12 percent return on assets is accepted; however, the Applicant's proposed finding that the lease arrangement was not controverted as being unfair or unreasonable is rejected as being irrelevant and immaterial. Applicant's proposed finding that the depth of management is sufficient to operate the branch is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed findings as to the number of years of experience of various officers of the bank is accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to whether the name of the proposed branch was confusing is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed finding that the Applicant does not have more than four pending branch applications is accepted. Applicant's proposed findings that there was no evidence presented which would indicate that the bank was not in compliance with federal and state regulations and statements of bank offices thereto are accepted. PROTESTANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Protestant's proposed findings in Section 1 are accepted, with the exception of the last sentence which is rejected as being a conclusory statement not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 2 are accepted. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 3 are accepted, with the exception that the record reflects that the proposed site is located in the vicinity of the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Indian Rocks Road and Walsingham, and does not specify the number of fees west of the intersection. Protestant's proposed findings as to the PSA's boundaries as delineated by the Applicant in Section 4 are accepted. The second and third sentences in Section 4 are rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The first sentence in the second paragraph of Section 4 is accepted. The second sentence in the second paragraph of Section 4 is rejected as constituting legal argument rather than a finding of fact. The remaining proposed findings in Section 4 relating to the boundaries of the PSA of the First Bank of Treasure Island are irrelevant for the reason that said PSA is not necessarily applicable to subsequent applications. Protestant's proposed finding in Section 4 as to the population of the PSA is accepted and the proposed findings relating to the population of First Bank of Treasure Island's PSA is rejected as being irrelevant. Protestant's proposed finding in Section 4 as to the residential nature of the PSA is accepted. Protestant's proposed finding as to the limited nature of commercial activity is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The record reflects that although commercial activity in the PSA is in the form of small retail, professional, and service type establishments, these establishments are numerous in number. Protestant's proposed finding as to the considerable greenbelt lands which cannot be used for development is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The record reflects that there are greenbelt areas which cannot be used for development, but does not reflect that the amount of these lands is considerable. Protestant's proposed findings in the first and second sentences in Section 5 are accepted. The third sentence in Section 5 is accepted to the extent that traffic coming from west to east cannot enter the proposed site directly. The remaining findings in the first paragraph of Section 5 are accepted, with the exception of the last phrase of the last sentence which is rejected as speculation and not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Protestant's proposed finding in the second paragraph of Section 5 as to the number of Applicant's existing customers in the PSA is accepted, however, the remaining findings in that paragraph are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Protestant's proposed finding in the last paragraph of Section 5 is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed finding in the first paragraph of Section 6 are accepted to the extent that said finding represents the number of offices of financial institutions serving the PSA and not the number of financial institutions. Protestant's proposed finding in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that the Applicant offers automatic transfer from savings to checking and not that they contend this service is unique. Protestant's proposed finding in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6 is accepted with the exception that the record does not support the finding that the Bank of Indian Rocks offers automatic transfer accounts. The finding in the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as being irrelevant. Protestant's proposed finding in the third paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that some of the questions asked in the Burke survey may have been based on the assumption that automatic transfer accounts were not presently offered in the PSA, however, the entire survey was not based on that assumption. Protestant's proposed finding in the fourth paragraph of Section 6 is accepted. Protestant's proposed finding in the fifth paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, said finding is based on hearsay evidence which is uncorroborated. Protestant's proposed finding in the sixth paragraph as to the number of businesses that the Applicant listed in its application which were not in its PSA is accepted, however, the remaining finding in that paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Protestant's proposed finding in the last paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed finding as to the provisions of Rule 3C- 13.041(2)(a), F.A.C. in the first paragraph of Section 7 are accepted. Protestant's proposed finding as to the Applicant's capital to asset ratio in the second paragraph of Section 7 is accepted. Protestant's remaining finding in that paragraph is rejected as constituting legal argument and opinion, rather than a finding of fact. Protestant's proposed findings in the first paragraph of Section 7 are accepted. Protestant's proposed finding in the fourth paragraph of Section 7 is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that Mr. Maurer stated that the Applicant probably would not be able to add to capital through earnings based on the projected losses of the unopened branches. Protestant's proposed findings as to the projected deposits of the Applicant's branches in the fifth paragraph of Section 7 are accepted, however, Protestant's proposed finding as to the need for additional capital is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, opinion and legal argument. The remaining findings in that paragraph and the first sentence of the sixth paragraph are rejected as being legal argument rather than findings of facts based on competent substantial evidence in the record. The finding in the second sentence of the sixth paragraph is accepted. Protestant's proposed finding in the seventh paragraph of Section 7 that the applicant does not have sufficient personnel to staff and manage its new branches is accepted. Protestant's proposed finding that no manager for the proposed branch has been selected is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Although there appears to be conflicting testimony as to this fact, the application contained in the record states that James Arntz had been selected as the branch manager, in addition to testimony on direct examination that Mr. Arntz had been selected as the branch manager and the record supports said finding. Protestant's proposed finding as to the managerial capacity of the Applicant and its impact on the adequacy of capital to asset ratio is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed findings contained in the first two sentences of the eighth paragraph of Section 7 are accepted. Protestant's proposed finding contained in the last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed finding in the last paragraph of Section 7 is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed finding in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 8 is accepted. The remaining findings in that paragraph are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Protestant's proposed finding in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 8 is accepted, and the remaining finding in that paragraph is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 9 are accepted. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 10 are accepted. Protestant's proposed findings in the first two paragraphs and the first, second and fourth sentence of the third paragraph of Section 11 are accepted. The proposed findings in the third and fifth sentences of the third paragraph are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Protestant's proposed findings in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Section 11 are accepted, the remaining sentence in that paragraph is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 12 are accepted, with the exception that (1) 9 percent represents an average cost of time deposits and to a minimum and (2) the proposed finding in the last sentence constitutes a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed findings in the first two paragraphs of Section 13 are accepted. The remaining findings of the last paragraph are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Protestant's proposed findings in the first paragraph of Section 14 are accepted, with the exception that the record reflects that the purchase price of the proposed site was $240,000 and not $200,000. Protestant's proposed findings in the first two sentences of the second paragraph of Section 14 are rejected as being irrelevant. The proposed findings in the third sentence is accepted. The proposed findings in the remaining sentences of that paragraph are rejected as constituting legal argument and conclusions of law. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 15 as to the provisions of Rule 3C-13.041(3) are accepted. The remaining proposed findings are rejected as being irrelevant. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 16 as to the provisions of rule 3c-13.041(2)(c) are accepted. The proposed finding in the second sentence of that section is accepted. The proposed finding in the third sentence is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record for the reasons stated above in paragraph 53 of this Order. The proposed finding in the last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 1, 3, 4 through 10, 12 through 19,22 and 23 are accepted. The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 2 are accepted with the exception of the third sentence which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in record for the reasons stated above in paragraph 53 of this Order. The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 11 are accepted, with the exception of the figure for the projected deposits for the first year based on 2.2 persons per household which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that this figure is $2,487,000 and not $2,700,000. The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 20 are accepted, with the exception of the number of deposit and loan customers residing in the PSA which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The record reflects that there was conflicting testimony as to the number of existing deposit customers, however, the hearing officer found the number to be 140, and 65 loan customers. The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 21 are accepted, with the exception of the amount of square feet of the building to house the proposed branch, which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Although the application contained in the record stated that the building would contain 3,640 square feet (including the drive-in canopy), the hearing officer found that the building would contain 2,000 square feet. PROTESTANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT AND FINDINGS OF FACT OF HEARING OFFICER The Protestant's exception contained in Section 1, with regard to the Hearing Officer's ruling's on the proposed findings, is accepted to the extent that the better practice would be for the Hearing Officer to specify which proposed findings are rejected as not supported by the evidence, which are irrelevant and which constitute conclusions of law. However, it has been recognized that the hearing officer is not required to make explicit rulings on subordinate. commulative, immaterial or unnecessary proposed facts. Forrester v. Career Service Commission, 361 So.2d 220 (1st DCA Fla. 1978). Notwithstanding, the Department has expressly ruled on each proposed finding and stated the reasons therefore. Protestant's exception contained in Section 2 is rejected for the reason that some of the proposed findings contained in Protestant's Proposed Findings of Fact were not based on competent substantial evidence, were irrelevant or constituted conclusions of law, as more fully set forth above in paragraphs 31 through 70. Therefore, it would be improper for either the Hearing Officer or the Department to adopt each and every proposed finding contained in Protestant's Proposed Findings of Fact as requested in the exception. Protestant's exception contained in Section 3 is rejected for the reason that the Hearing Officer's finding that the proposed branch manager is James Arntz is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The testimony contained in pages 497 and 498 of the transcript, cited by Protestant in its exception, refers to the Applicant's application for a branch office in northeast St. Petersburg. Although there was conflicting testimony as to this fact (see TR-465 and TR-540), the application contained in the record also identified James Arntz as the proposed branch manager. As such, there was competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding. Protestant's exception contained in Section 4 is accepted for the reason that the Hearing Officer found that the "the greater weight of the evidence indicates that average number of persons per household in Pinellas County is 2.2". As such, Applicant's revised figures based on 2.2 percent per household are accepted which indicate that the proposed branch will not show a profit until the fourth year. The Department's findings of fact have modified the Hearing Officer's findings accordingly. Protestant's exception contained in Section 5 is rejected for the reason that the Hearing Officer's finding is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The testimony contained on pages 511 and 512 of the transcript, which is cited by the Protestant, merely states that the Applicant probably would not be able to add to capital through earnings based on the assumption of the projected losses of the Applicant's new branches. As such, the Hearing Officer's finding is accurate. Protestant's exception contained in Section 6 is accepted for the reason that the record reflects that the Applicant's president stated that the branch will probably have Saturday banking hours, but that the exact hours had not been determined. The Department's Findings of Facts have modified the Hearing Officer's findings accordingly. Protestant's exception contained in Section 7 is rejected for the reason that the Hearing Officer's finding is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. On pages 328 and 329 of the transcript, the witness for the Applicant testified that there was a stacking lane which functionally is in front of the site for traffic hearing west. Protestant's exception contained in Section 8 is rejected for the reasons that the Hearing Officer's finding based on the study was limited and for a limited purpose, and the questions asked in the survey and the procedure appear reasonable. In addition, the Hearing Officer's and Department's reliance on the study is minimal, if at all. Protestant's exception contained in Section 9 is rejected for the reason that the adverse impact of the establishment of a branch on other banks is irrelevant, because it is not a consideration under the statutory and regulatory criteria applicable to branch bank applications. Protestant's exceptions contained in Sections 10 and 19, 21 and 23 are rejected for the reasons that the requested findings are conclusions of law which are not properly included in the Hearing Officer's report pursuant to Section 120.60(3), Florida Statutes. Protestant's exception contained in Section 20 is rejected for the reason that the requested finding as to an appraisal of land and improvements is irrelevant where, as in this case, there is no insider transaction involved in the purchase of the land. Protestant's exception contained in Section 22 is rejected for the reason that the revisions referred to by the Protestant were updated figures based on data unavailable at the time of the application and figures relating to the lease arrangement. Although at the time of the application, the Applicant intended to purchase the proposed site, it later decided to lease the proposed site. The Department does not view this as a material change in the application and fails to see how the Protestant was prejudiced by this change. As to the updated figures, in McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA), the court stated that the hearing officer may freely consider relevant evidence of changing economic conditions and other current circumstances external to the application. It should also be noted that the revisions referred to by the Protestant were testified to at the hearing in June, thus giving the Protestant a month's notice to make any changes necessary in the preparation of its case which was later presented at the continuation of the hearing in July. Protestant's exception contained in Section 24 is rejected for the reason that the requested findings are not material to the statutory and regulatory criteria applicable to branch applications.
Findings Of Fact Caribank, N.A. ("Caribank"), was acquired by J. J. Gonzalez Gorrondona, Jr. ("Gorrondona Jr.") and George Childs, Jr. ("Childs") in May, 1977, and Dania Bank was acquired by these individuals through a tender offer in April, 1978. Caribank Corporation, the Applicant herein, is a bank holding company that now owns more than 99 percent of the stock of Caribank. Gorrondona Jr. owns 90 percent of Caribank Corporation and Childs owns 10 percent. Caribank Corporation was originally named Banconac Shares, Inc. when it was established in November, 1977. Its name was changed to Caribank Corporation on June 5, 1979. Banconac is a name used by many subsidiaries of the Banco National de Descuento ("BND"), a Venezuelan private commercial bank, a majority of the stock of which was formerly owned by Gorrondona Jr. and his father, J. J. Gonzalez Gorrondona, Sr. ("Gorrondona Sr."). It is derived from the name Banco National de Descuento and is used in Venezuela to signify business owned by the BND directly or indirectly. The use of the name Banconac in the Applicant's former name was not explained by the Applicant although Gorrondona Jr.'s testimony established that BND funds were not used to purchase Caribank. Gorrondona Jr. owns approximately 90 percent of Dania Bank and Childs owns approximately 10 percent of the Dania Bank, a state chartered bank. Approximately .3 percent is owned by shareholders who did not surrender their shares. Martin L. Wyneken ("Wyneken") is President and chief executive officer of both the Dania Bank in Broward County and of the Caribank in Coral Gables, Dade County. Childs is Chairman of the Board of the Dania Bank and Caribank, and President, Treasurer and a Director of Caribank Corporation. Policies of Caribank and Dania Bank are established through frequent conferences between Childs and Wyneken. Wyneken has a very close working relationship with Childs. Gorrondona, Jr. has the power to remove Wyneken and Childs. Childs comes to Florida about three times per month to confer with Wyneken. In these above-mentioned discussions, Childs is the spokesman for the "capital." Owning 90 percent of the stock of the Dania Bank provides Gorrondona, Jr. with authority concerning the management and policies of the bank. Directors of the Dania Bank are selected by the shareholders. Gorrondona, Jr. and Childs have not taken any dividends as shareholders of Dania Bank or Caribank, despite the substantial earnings of these banks. Dania Bank and Caribank centralize their operations as much as possible with two separate corporations. Dania Bank and Caribank trade employees back and forth and bill each other through an elaborate accounting system. Thad R. Chamberlain, a director of Caribank Corporation, is executive director of the Banco Suramericano de Desarollo, a Panamanian bank in which Gorrondona, Jr. owns a controlling interest. This is an application pursuant to the Florida Banking Code, Section 658.28, Florida Statutes, for permission to acquire control of Dania Bank by Caribank Corporation. This change in control is sought in order to facilitate a merger of Caribank and Dania Bank. The merger is desired to facilitate the expansion of branch banking, the development of an international department and the development of subsidiaries in such areas as leasing, mortgage financing, and small business investment (S.B.I.C.). The combined capital of Caribank, of approximately $4 million, and the Dania Bank, of $16 million, is expected to facilitate the establishment of subsidiaries. Dania and Caribank are, according to their Chief Executive Officer, Wyneken, "aggressive" banks and there exists a policy of increasing total assets from $265 million at the end of June, 1982, to $500 million by the end of 1985; there is also an aggressive program for subsidiaries. The merged bank plans to spend more on advertising in Dade County. Caribank at its present size cannot justify an increase in advertising expenditures. If this application is approved and a merger subsequently occurs, management expects that there will be benefit on the deposit side since assertedly better use will be able to be made of the money deposited. The Caribank/Dania Bank management has an ambitious program of branch banking. Gorrondona, Jr. and Childs have asked that Dania and Caribank branch into the counties as quickly as possible. Management would like to concentrate branching efforts in Dade County, but their capital at Caribank is so much smaller that it must rely on the Dania Bank for all kinds of assistance. Denial of this application and the failure to merge would restrict expansion in Dade County. The Caribank/Dania Bank management hope that the merged bank will become a large chain bank. The Chief Executive Officer of the two banks testified that to become a large chain bank "[W]e need every bit of help we can get, and that is why we need this consolidation." According to Childs, merger is expected to allow a "substantial increase in the capital base of all the subsidiaries which we have established or intend in the future to establish." A merger is expected to follow immediately upon the granting of the application. If the application were approved and for some reason the merger did not occur, Applicant would seek to change the name of the Dania Bank to Caribank to get the maximum effect out of their advertising dollars. It is further expected that if the application for change in control is granted, the two banks could file a consolidated tax return with an annual tax saving of approximately $64,000. From the above findings, it can reasonably be inferred that this application is made to facilitate a program of rapid expansion and establishment of subsidiaries, and if the application is granted, it can be expected that rapid expansion and development of subsidiaries will be more likely to occur. George Childs, Jr., started Banac Management, Inc. ("Banac") for Gorrondona, Jr. seven and a half years ago and was president of the corporation at the time of the intervention of the BND (discussed below). Banca is a BND subsidiary located in New York City. At the time of the intervention it was acting as a representative of the BND and its subsidiaries to obtain credit lines. Prior to the intervention, Gorrondona, Jr. was involved in the affairs of Banac. He visited Banac in New York six to seven times per year. He was a member of the Banac Board of Directors from 1975 to 1979. The BND was founded in 1954 by Dr. Jose Joaquin Gonzalez Gorrondona, Sr., who is the father of Gonzalez Gorrondona, Jr., the ninety percent (90 percent) owner of the Petitioner, Caribank Corporation, and the subject bank, The Dania Bank. Dr. Gonzalez Gorrondona, Sr. does not now, nor has he ever had any interest in, nor involvement with, Caribank Corporation, The Dania Bank or Caribank, N.A. Since its beginning, the BND had a steady growth until, at the time of the intervention of the bank by the government on December 7, 1978, it was the largest privately owned (nongovernmental) bank in Venezuela with the largest amount of private deposits, 6.3 billion Bolivars (1 Bolivar equals about 0.25 in U.S currency). Gorrondona, Jr. began working at the bank in 1958, worked throughout his early years, and continued to work full-time for the bank after receiving his doctoral degree in economics from the Catholic University in Venezuela with a doctoral thesis in economic planning. During his education, Gorrondona, Jr. studied such subjects as Monetary Theory, History of Financial Institutions, Operation of Financial Institutions, and Public Finance. His interest in economics began early in his life because Dr. Gonzalez Gorrondona, Sr. was the founder of the School of Economics in Venezuela, having been the founder of the Venezuelan Economic Council and the representative of Venezuela at the Bretton Woods meeting in 1943 at which the International Monetary Fund was founded. After graduation, Gorrondona, Jr. continued to study, taking courses in management such as Management by Objective, Computer Science, Systems Analysis, and other courses which would enable him to perform as a manager of a financial institution. Gorrondona, Jr. worked in many phases of the management of the bank, until in 1974, he became president in charge, which means that he was the chief executive officer in the absence of his father. He never drew a salary. By the time of the BND intervention, the stock interest of Gorrondona, Jr. was worth between $350 and $700 million dollars. As an outcome of the intervention, Gorrondona, Jr. lost between $150 and $200 million dollars in the worth of the BND stock which was owned by him. By the time of the intervention, the BND had grown to a bank which included approximately 60 branches, primarily in urban areas of Venezuela. The BND also owned several profitable subsidiaries, including Crenca, a financial society which was able to engage in financial transactions forbidden for commercial banks; Credimatico, which was the owner of a Master Charge franchise in Venezuela which had a market share of twenty-five percent of the credit card sales in the country; Arrendarca, a leasing and factoring company; and Almacendadora Caracas, a bonded warehouse company owning bonded warehouses in several cities in Venezuela. The BND also owned Servimatico, which dealt mainly with consumer credit and financed appliance and other small consumer purchases. Each of these subsidiaries was profitable to the bank and assisted the bank in paying dividends which had been declared each year, since 1973. Beginning prior to 1977, the BND was required to send its minutes of Board meetings to the Superintendent of Banks because there had been detected, as a result of special inspection, a tendency toward concentration of credit. In 1978, BND was the only bank required to send minutes of Board meetings to the Superintendent. At a majority of the meetings of the Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela ("CBV") during the last six months of 1978, there was an agenda item entitled "BND." During this time, employees of the Superintendent and the CBV were at the BND carrying out studies to see in what way or ways the BND's financial soundness could be improved. In August of 1978, the Superintendent of Banks wrote to the Minister of Finance about the situation of the BND. The letter notes that credits of Bs. 2,553.8 million were concentrated in 130 companies, that directors of these companies were in turn, directors of the bank, that there was a disproportion between the amount of these credits and the net worth of the borrower, that renewals were made even after delay in payment and that the credits were extended without analysis of the balance sheet. In September, 1973, the BND was prohibited from distributing dividends by the Superintendent of Banks because it would have adversely affected the liquidity of the BND. In November of 1978, the BND asked the Venezuelan Government for special financial aid in the amount of Bs. 600 million. The BND proposed that it be made the subject of a "private intervention" during the period of time such advance was outstanding. On December 6, 1978, the CBV excluded the BND from the Clearing House effective December 7, 1978, by vote of its Board. The CBV, the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is a public institution of the Republic of Venezuela, but is considered independent. Eight members of its Board of Directors and its President are appointed by the government. Six members are appointed on recommendation of the private sector. The CBV, through its credit functions, provides credit assistance to banks and credit institutions in Venezuela. Through its operations, it seeks to safeguard the solvency and liquidity of Venezuela's banking system. A Clearing House to settle accounts between banks is operated by the CBV. When bank customers draw and deposit checks, credits and debits between banks are created that have to be reconciled on a daily basis. Venezuelan banks are required by law to maintain a deposit account at the CBV in order to settle such accounts. If after reconciliation, a bank owes money to other banks, its CBV account is debited to cover the debt. If after reconciliation, a bank is owed money, its account is credited. If a bank does not have enough on deposit to cover its debts, it can present to the CBV cash or checks or payment orders against other banks in sufficient amount. It can also present funds obtained outside the country. Finally, it can obtain funds by rediscounting commercial paper at the CBV. Rediscount consists of endorsing eligible commercial paper to the CBV in return for payment. Eligible paper, for example, must mature within 360 days and be adequately secured so that there is assurance as to its liquidity or self-liquidating nature. Thus, medium or long-term loans do not normally give rise to eligible paper. The decision to exclude the BND from the Clearing House was reached on December 5 and 6, 1978. Prior to this time, BND had had repeated difficulties converting its debts at the Clearing House. On December 5, the CBV Board authorized the exclusion of the BND in principle subject to discussion with the Venezuelan Government. At the time, the BND did not have commercial paper considered eligible by the CBV to receive credit assistance from the CBV. The situation was examined again on December 6 by the CBV to see if there were new elements or new alternatives. On December 6, 1978, the BND was overdrawn at the Clearing House to the extent of being unable to make good in its negative balance of approximately Bs. 100 million. It was decided there were no new elements or alternatives, and accordingly, the President of the CBV wrote to the Venezuelan Minister of Finance to let him know (1) that the BND had a deficit in its legal reserve requirement (see below); and (2) that the CBV Board had decided to exclude the BND from the Clearing House effective December 7, 1978. Prior to the exclusion of the BND from the Clearing House, the CBV Board considered the possibility of extending extraordinary credit assistance to the BND. The Board concluded that such assistance would be in violation of Article 45 of the law governing the CBV. That article provides: "Article 45. - In exceptional cases and with the favorable vote of the six members of its Board of Directors, the Banco Central de Venezuela may, in order to insure the due liquidity of a bank or credit institution in transitory difficulties, provide it with funds for a period not to exceed ninety days, which may be extended for an equal term at the Bank's discretion, secured by other assets of said bank or credit institution, different from those listed in the previous article. "Loans may in no event be made to a bank or credit institution if the trans- itory difficulties it faces are due, in the Board's opinion, after having consulted with the Bank Regulatory Commission, to the poor management or inadequate investment of its resources." In the case of the BND, the CBV Board concluded extraordinary credit assistance would be illegal because BND's liquidity problems were not "transitory" but rather structural, permanent and progressive, because the liquidity problems of the BND were due to improper investment of its resources, and because its funds were invested in operations that were insecure or lacking in guarantees, which reflected bad banking management. Under the rules and regulations of the Clearing House, the exclusion of the BND was mandatory. On the evening of December 6, 1978, a meeting was held at the Presidential Palace attended by the President of Venezuela, the Minister of Finance, other ministers involved in the financial sector, some of the board members of the CBV and the Superintendent of Banks. The stated purpose of the meeting was to inform the President of the Republic about the BND situation. The meeting lasted three hours. There was a discussion as to whether there was any alternative to the one proposed by the CBV. It was concluded that there was no alternative. The President of the Republic instructed the Minister of Finance and the President of CBV to hold a meeting the following morning to inform the banking community that the BND had been excluded from the Clearing House and that the government had decided to intervene the BND. The decision to intervene was unanimous. Two major events which contributed to the liquidity crisis which allowed the government to intervene the BND, were the result of actions by the government itself. The first of these actions was the substantial withdrawal of public funds from the BND. Between November 30 and December 6, over 100 million dollars was withdrawn by the government agencies from the BND. Withdrawals averaged 20 million dollars per day with a high of 30 million dollars on December 6. These daily balances were reported by the Comptroller of the bank to Gorrondona, Jr. on a twice daily basis during these days. No testimony, either from a witness or in the form of an exhibit, was ever introduced to contradict Gorrondona, Jr.'s testimony concerning these substantial withdrawals during the week prior to the intervention. The second action which was taken by the government injurious to the BND was the refusal to accept commercial paper for rediscount. Gorrondona, Jr.'s unrebutted testimony established that the same paper which was denied rediscount by the Central Bank on December 6 was granted rediscount on December 30 and during the period of time after the intervention. Gorrondona, Jr.'s testimony established that it would have been impossible to change the loan portfolio within such a short period of time and therefore of necessity it was the same loan portfolio which was granted rediscount after the intervention which had been denied rediscount during the week prior to the intervention. Gorrondona, Jr. further testified that the December 7, 1978, hand- written balance sheet, contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 70, the Intervenor's January 12, 1979, report, was a consolidated balance sheet including all 60 of the BND's branches. Therefore, the balance sheet was prepared by employees of the intervenor during the period between December 7, 1978 and January 12, 1979. On the issue of loans eligible for rediscount on December 7, Mr. Gabledone, Respondent's witness, using Respondent's Exhibit 70, stated that if the figures in Exhibit 70 were correct, the BND had 3.663 billion Bolivars eligible for rediscount on December 7, and that "the BND would have been able to obtain a large amount of rediscounts, or large amounts that would be eligible for rediscounts." In part, a result of the withdrawal of government funds, the failure of the government to repay its loans and overdrafts, and the denial of rediscount by the Central Bank of BND commercial paper, the BND had a deficit at the Central Clearing House on December 6 of 100 million Bolivars. Article 166 of the General Banking Law of Venezuela provides: "Whenever a bank or credit institute, subject to the Provisions of this Act, faces a preca- rious situation which might entail an eventual detriment to its depositors or creditors, or endanger the banking system in general, or when infringing repeatedly (the provisions of) this Act, or those of the Central Bank of Venezuela Statute or the Regulations of either or both, or any Resolution adopted by the Executive Branch, the Superintendent of Banks or of the Central Bank of Venezuela, then the Executive Branch shall empower the Superintendent of Banks or any other individual it may deem com- petent to place the Bank or Credit Institute in Receivership. The Receiver may agree with the Central Bank of Venezuela on the course of action to be taken for the respective bank's or credit institute's redress, its eventual reorganization or liquidation, which shall become mandatory for the respective financial house. But he shall, without exception, pre- pare, within a period not exceeding thirty days as from the date or resolution decreeing the receivership, a complete and itemized report concerning the legitimacy of the respective intervention and submit it to the Executive Branch. By Resolution 2296 issued December 7, 1978, the Minister of Finance of Venezuela intervened the BND. Intervention is an uncommon occurrence and the law contemplates it will occur only when a financial institution is in danger. The decision to intervene the BND could have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Venezuela. No appeal was taken. Neither Gorrondona, Sr. or Jr. or any other shareholder filed suit to block or overturn the intervention, although they had lawyers in Venezuela and Gorrondona, Sr. was in Venezuela. The BND is still under intervention. On march 31, 1979, the Superintendent of Banks of Venezuela issued its Annual Report for the year 1978 ("Superintendent's Report"). The Report contains an extensive discussion of the BND and the reasons for its intervention. The Superintendent's Report states the following: In 1977 and 1978, a decrease in the rate of growth of the Venezuelan economy together with unbalanced financial management at the BND whose key feature was credit over- expansion, especially as regarded credits to companies connected to the bank, placed the BND in a non-liquidity crisis to be- come increasingly notorious. The BND was the object of special attention by the Bank Regulatory Commission because over the 5 years preceding the intervention several violations of the General Law on Banks and other Credit Institutions had been detected. The BND had repeated insufficiency of the reserve requirement, a problem from which the bank chronically suffered. The BND was twice fined the maximum amount for illegal credits extended (1) to the Banco Suramericano de Desarollo ("BSD"), a Panamanian bank in which Gorrondona Jr. owns 80 percent of the shares, and (2) Crenca, a BND subsidiary, in violation of Article 153 of the Banking Law. Certain credits regarded by the BND as agricultural were not properly classified as agricultural. As of March 31, 1978, Bs. 2,553.8 million of bank loans were concentrated in 130 customers (the "Specially Classified Companies"). Directors of these companies were also bank directors. Credits were granted to these companies easily, then were renewed frequently and even when over- due, balance sheets for some of these credits did not exist and most of the credits were unsecured. The minutes provided by the BND to the Superintendent of Banks were not identical to those recorded in the BND's minute book, including that innumerable credit operations with subsidiaries had been omitted from the provided minutes. BND employees failed to cooperate with the Superintendency in providing requested in- formation. An official memorandum was sent to the BND president about this matter, ordering him to rectify this situation. Irregularities in the BND's legal reserve led to numerous notices to the BND president as well as to the levying of several fines. Until December 12, 1978, the BND received 224 memoranda concerning shortages in the legal reserve requirement and was fined 32 times for such legal reserve requirement deficiencies. The average weekly shortage in the legal reserve requirement through- out 1978 was Bs. 124 million. An audit conducted as of September 30, 1978, showed that the estimated loss on the loans to the Specially Classified Companies was Bs. 632.9 million. The estimated loss on other credits in the bank Portfolio was 35.7 million. The reserve for Portfolio Contin- gencies was Bs. 12 million. On January 12, 1979, the BND Intervenor, Tinco, made a report 1/ to the Minister of Finance pursuant to Article 166 of the General Banking Law of Venezuela. The Report describes the reasons for intervention. The Intervenor's Report states the following: During the first eleven months of 1978 the BND increased its Invested Assets by Bs. 1.0789 billion while in that same period deposits increased only Bs. 183 million. The imbalance was partially covered by rediscounts. By November 30, 1978, the BND had rediscounts of Bs. 485.4 million, which is 32.7 percent of all commercial bank re- discounts for that period. Many of the documents submitted to the Central Bank for rediscounts were rejected by it since they did not comply with the requirements for eligible paper. Credit restrictions were imposed on the BND by other banks. The BND's failure to make timely remittance of funds to correspondents resulted in their not honoring checks and refusing to open let- ters of credit. In 1975-78 the BND had a chronic shortage in its legal reserve requirement. The BND had a shortage in the legal reserve in 38 of 48 weeks during the first 11 months of 1978. The BND's reserve shortage stabilized during the months of September 1978 through November 1978 at over Bs. 100 million and reached Bs. 169 million in the last week of November. Prior to the intervention the BND was twice fined Bs. 30,000 for having granted illegal credits to the BSD, the Panamanian bank owned by Gorrondona Jr., and to Crenca. Even after the fines, the illegality was not corrected. In the case of the BSD the credit at the time of the fine through a time deposit was Bs. 657 million. At the time the BND was inter- vened, this deposit had not been reduced at all. In late November and early December of 1978 the situation grew more serious as the BND's negative balances at the Clearing House in- creased, and the BND had difficulty sub- mitting documents eligible for rediscount by the CBV. Questions from abroad about the BND's situation became more insistent. When the BND was unable to make good on its negative balance at the Clearing House on December 6, the BND was expelled as of December 7 in compliance with Article 11 of the pertinent Rules and Regulations. Thereupon the BND was intervened pursuant to Article 166. There were large withdrawals after the intervention and instructions were given that teller windows would not close as long as there were clients present. As of December 7, 1978 loans placed with affiliates (companies owned totally or partially by the BND) totaled more than Bs. 1.302 billion. Loans placed in 93 companies with which important shareholders, directors or executive officers of either the BND or its affiliates were directly or indirectly associated totaled Bs. 1.739 billion. Other credits were as of the date of the Intervenor's Report are still under study. On October 14, 1976, five vice-presidents of the BND, including the vice-president of Credit, the First Vice- President-Treasurer, the Vice- President-Comptroller, the Vice- President of Branches and Agencies, and Jaime Benitez ("Benitez") Vice-President for Banking Services, wrote a confidential memorandum to Gorrondona, Sr. and Gorrondona, Jr. in order to emphasize deficiencies and problems within the BND and to present recommendations. As summarized by Benitez, who testified at the hearing in this matter on July 16, 1982, the principal problem was a high concentration of credits in a group of businesses. These credits were not paid as they matured. This created a deficiency in cash flow and caused liquidity problems. There were also deficits in the legal reserve requirement. Accounting procedures were not being correctly applied and there was a problem of overdrafts. The memorandum recommended: (1) a change in credit policy even though this would limit the expansion program; (2) affiliated and related companies should start paying their debts; (3) concentration of credit should be eliminated; and (4) internal controls aid internal procedures should be improved. Benitez' testimony established that as a whole, recommedations were not carried out and deficiencies were not eliminated. The Memorandum of October 14, 1976, stated that: "The Office of the First Vice-President for the Treasury has repeatedly voiced to the highest authorities in the institution its opinion regarding the excessive placements with Group Companies and has gone as far as to file a written report with the President and the Acting President. In spite of the fact that, on account of its position, it must authorize almost all of the overdrafts and/or charges to the accounts of Group companies, it acknowledges the need to put an end to this practice. This question has been the subject of repeated discussions with the President and the Acting President, who are the only authorities empowered to put an end to this situation. The Memorandum of October 14, 1976, identified a number of problems then existing at the BND. It stated that there existed problems of: "1. High credit concentration (approximately 60 percent of the entire credit portfolio is placed with 1.4 percent of the total number of clients) in Group companies or companies directly or in- directly tied and/or related to it. We mean by this those companies or natural persons in the organization created by the highest ex- ecutive level or under instructions from it, who are organized with high Group officials, Bank officers or trusted persons, both as regards the holding and representation of their shares and their administrative or Director offices. These companies were expedited by said high levels or under orders from them, given through high Bank officers." "2. Non-payment by said companies due to con- stant renewals, without partial [the translation of "abonos parciales" should be "partial pay- ment" in the sense of "amortization"] or in- terest payments." "3. Credits to Group companies, above the legal limits, which are authorized or ordered by the highest officials." "4. Interest documented as promissory notes that accumulates above and beyond the credits originally granted." "5. Excessive number of permanent overdrafts with the National Government, governmental de- pendencies and especially and in an increasing fashion, with Group companies or companies directly tied or related thereto." "6. Overdrafts and collateral obligations in overseas banks due to the financing com- mitment and ever increasing requirements of Group companies or companies directly or indirectly tied or related thereto, which render the institution vulnerable to possible changes in the financial market." "7. Constant use of the Bank's own credit resources for the financing of Group companies directly or indirectly tied or associated there- to, whether they be already in existence or some of the ones that are constantly being created for expanionist purposes and whose activities represent a medium or long-term investment, at loggerheads with the soundness of commercial banking (Treasury Commission: see the material submitted at the meetings and on the minutes)" "8. Exclusion from the List ratified by the Board of Directors of certain operations of Group's companies and of companies directly or indirectly tied or related thereto, following longstanding instructions from high officers, who, in turn, received them from the highest levels." "9. Credits to companies whose balance sheets do not justify the amounts of said loans, mainly Group companies, and which credits are authorized or ordered by the highest levels." "10. Accounting omission of operations-especially guarantees and bonds-conducted from the Group com- panies under order from the highest levels." "11. Excessive financial burden due to the payment of surtaxes and commissions on deposits." "12. Increase in expenses through outlays that are not compatible with the normal management of the Bank." "13. Insufficient income generation, In relation to portfolio volume, which causes the interest account to be affected by amounts equal to the yield said portfolio should generate. Therefore, an insufficient amount in the account Interest Collected in Advance due to the drain it has been withstanding." "14. Inconsistency in the Reserve Requirements position due to a weak treasury and the continuous negative balances at the Clearing House." "15. Unbridled personnel growth at all levels, which has brought about an evident bueaucratization of Bank functions." "16. Ignorance of normal communication channels and of approved bonus norms and procedures." One of the signers of the memorandum of October 14, 1976, Santiago Rodriquez Marcano, was made an Assistant to the President of BND after the memorandum was sent, but he left after a few months saying that he did not receive the necessary cooperation in his new position. Gorrondona, Jr. testified that in 1978, BND was facing a "serious . . . liquidity crisis" and "had very little liquidity." Gorrondona, Jr.'s testimony established that he made his fortune in real estate. Gonzalez' testimony indicated that in 1978 the BND faced liquidity problems, a "liquidity crisis" which even with government assistance would have continued until the end of 1979. Benitez' testimony indicated that the BND was in serious trouble at the time of intervention and that the primary cause was credit concentration and the lack of payment upon maturity. Romero's testimony indicated that at the time of intervention the BND had the following problems in the area of credits or loans: A substantial part was concentrated in real estate activities. A lot of the business that had received credits from the bank was related indirectly with directors and executives of the bank. Some businesses received credits for amounts that went over what the law allows. The credits were not sufficiently col- lateralized or guaranteed. Some of these credits had a maturity of more than one year which is illegal for a commercial bank. Gabaldon's testimony established that while he has been President of the BND many adjustments had to be made to correct the accounts of the BND as they existed at the time of intervention; that the BND Board had decided to make an appropriate footnote reservation in the BND financial statements calling attention to the possibility of future adjustments which might result from investigations and analyses of the BND's accounts prior to the intervention. Gabaldon's testimony, based on his study of BND records, established that at the time of intervention is some cases the loans to subsidiary companies were paying interest but in a majority of the cases they were not doing so but rather the BND would increase the amount of the debt to cover the amount of the interest due. At the time of intervention, approximately 12 to 15 percent of the BND loan portfolio consisted of loans to these subsidiary companies. Alejandro Guevara Chacin's ("Guevara Chacin") testimony established that the minutes of the BND sent to the Superintendent compared with the minute books of the bank revealed that many operations were omitted. Guevara Chacin supervised the comparison. Juan Ramirez' ("Ramirez"), the present Superintendent of Banks of Venezuela, testimony indicated that there were many reasons for the intervention of the BND and any one of them, if put together with or alongside the others, was enough to support the decision. Benitez' testimony indicated that the basic principle of the banking business is diversification; in other words, to place loans with diverse or different customers. Childs' testimony indicated that renewal of loans without payment of interest is bad banking practice. Childs' testimony indicated that loans to corporations in which directors have an equity interest should be secured and at arms length. Wyneken's testimony indicated that there are reserve requirements in the United States and violation is not a trivial matter. The testimony of Guevara Chacin, Eenitez, Lopez-Romero and Ramirez established that one of the BND's major problems under Gorrondona, Jr. was repeated deficiencies in the BND's legal reserve. After the intervention, there was a run on the BND. Between June 30, 1978, and December 31, 1978, deposits from the public decreased by Bs. 2.1 billion and most of this decrease occurred between December 7, 1978, and December 31, 1978. In the six months following the intervention government deposits at the BND went from Bs. .6 to Bs. 2.7 billion. These deposits permitted the BND to cover withdrawals. Gorrondona, Jr. left Venezuela for a two week period on November 17, 1978, and a detention order was issued on November 24 which would have resulted in arrest had he had been in the country. In Venezuela, the subject of a detention order is immediately arrested and is held without any opportunity for posting bail until the detention order is resolved. The detention order was based upon an allegation that Gorrondona, Jr. had been involved in a company which had committed a security violation more than five years prior to the detention order. Petitioner contends that the charges against him, which resulted in the detention order, were politically motivated. This order kept Gorrondona, Jr. out of the country during the intervention, and was eventually dismissed. The Court, in dismissing the charges, stated: It then follows from the aforesaid, that it would -- clearly result in an injustice to assign any criminal liability to persons who are not even members of the Board when the presumed irregularities may have been committed. The period leading up to the intervention of the BND was also the period immediately prior to the national election which was held on December 3, 1978. In the elections in 1974, Gorrondona, Jr. had contributed 9 million dollars to the unsuccessful opponent of President Perez. In the election of 1978, Gorrondona, Jr. had contributed over 1 million dollars to the opponent of President Perez's party, the Accion Demicratico (AD) party. Venezuelan laws do not restrict the size of campaign contributions. Gorrondona, Jr. returned to Venezuela in June, 1979. At that time Gonzalez recommended to Gorrondona, Jr. that he go to court to prove his innocence. In June, 1979, Gorrondona, Jr. and Sr. initiated a noticia criminis proceeding in a Venezuelan Penal Court of First Instance. There are three ways to initiate a criminal proceeding in Venezuela: denunciation (a person makes a charge that a crime may have been committed), accusation (a person makes a charge that a particular person may have committed a crime), and noticia criminis (the court takes notice that a crime may have been committed). In Venezuela, the courts may call witnesses and thereby take investigative initiative. The noticia criminis proceeding is based on the obligation of a Venezuelan court to investigate a possible crime of which it has notice from whatever source. In the case of the noticia criminis proceeding initiated by Gorrondona, Jr. and Sr., the court was called on to determine if the BND administrators had participated in the commission of any crime while they were serving as such. In other words, the purpose of the noticia criminis proceeding initiated by Gorrondona, Jr. and Sr. was to determine if during the period of time in which they were administering the bank they committed an act that would or could be considered criminal in Venezuela. The word used by Gonzalez in describing the noticia criminis determination was "delito," which the interpreter testified means crime. The decision of the Court of First Instance in the noticia criminis proceeding was to terminate the summary investigation pursuant to Article 206 of the criminal code for criminal trials. The court found there was no evidence of crime. In other words, the determination of the judge in the noticia criminis proceeding was to end the criminal investigation because the facts presented were not of a criminal nature. With regard to the violation of banking laws described in the Superintendent's Report and the Intervenor's Report, the Court said "[a]s is clearly appreciated from these provisions, none establishes penal sanctions and although they constitute a violation of juridical regulations and comprise sanctions, same have no other character than an administrative one. The appellate court said, "this Superior Court considers that lack of maintenance of reserves in such proportion and manner as established in Articles 20, 21, and 163 of the General Act governing Banks and other Credit Institutes, is object of a sanction under Article 170 of the said law consisting of a fine to be applied by the Superintendent of Banks. Efforts to collect the loans made by the BND prior to intervention: On February 28, 1980, the BND entered into an agreement with Gorrondona, Sr. and Gonzalez regarding the loans to certain debtors of the BND ("February 28, 1980 Agreement"). All these loans were made prior to the intervention. The February 28, 1980 Agreement fixed the amount of the debt to the BND of the ap- proximately 180 companies specified therein at Bs. 4.038 billion. It specified that the BND would accept in payment of this debt the amount of Bs. 3.388 billion. It specified that payment would be made within one year. It specified that during that year no actions would be commenced to compel payment of this debt. Gorrondona, Sr. and Gonzalez signed the February 28, 1980 Agreement either as business brokers for the companies specified therein or as representatives of such companies. According to Gorrondona, Jr. all the debtor companies obligated themselves jointly, and any collateral posted by one could be used to satisfy the debts of the other. Paragraph 15 of the February 28, 1980 Agree- ment specifies certain responsibilities assumed by Gorrondona, Sr. and Gonzalez. "We, JOSE JOAQUIN GONZALES GORRONDONA, a Venezuelan citizen, of legal age, of this domicile, the bearer of identity card number 30.580; and DIOGENES Jr. GONZALES HURTADO, a Venezuelan citizen, of legal age, of this domicile, the bearer of identity card number 1.193.753, state that acting as business brokers for THE DEBTORS by virtue of the already noted common interests, personally and jointly and severally in behalf of all of THE DEBTORS undertake to accept and comply with the present agreement in all of its parts. Therefore, and to preserve the fullness of its effects, we undertake to have those debtor companies whose Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws forbid or limit the granting or posting of guarantees or securities, amend them as needed in order to allow for the profferred guarantees; we likewise undertake to have them grant their consent lawfully and execute the present in- strument within the term of thirty (30) days, and to execute any other documents, as re- quired, that may be necessary for the per- formance thereof. As of the present, the loans of the com- panies specified in the February 28, 1980 Agreement have not been paid in full. The amount remaining to be paid, exclusive of interest, is either approximately 2.8 bil- lion B's or 2.1 billion B's depending on whether the loans compromised in the February 28, 1980 Agreement (the difference between Bs. 4.038 billion and Bs. 3.388 billion) are treated as paid. Such unpaid loans as of this time are neither principal nor interest. At this time the BND's total loan portfolio is approximately Bs. 6.2 billion. Whether the figure of Bs. 2.1 or Bs. 2.8 billion is used for the amount of these unpaid loans, these frozen loans from prior to the intervention represent a substantial portion of the BND loan port- folio. These loans to related or Specially Classified Companies are in addition to the approximately Bs. 900 million in loans to subsidiary or affiliated companies that are not paying interest or amortizing principal. There is no evidence that Gorrondona, Sr. or Gonzalez were coerced into signing the February 28, 1980 Agreement. The Agreement was negotiated over an extended period of time. Gonzalez has testified that he signed the February 28, 1980 Agreement in order to assist the rehabilitation of BND and that Gorrondona, Sr. signed in the same spirit. Both men initialed each page when they signed it. Gorrondona, Jr. has testified that it is his position that the agreement is invalid in parts because he did not sign it. The BND has negotiated with Gorrondona, Jr. concerning the performance of the February 28, 1980 Agreement and the debts owed by the Specially Classified Companies. Such negotiations have not been successful. Under the February 28, 1980 Agreement, suits could not be filed for one year. When the agree- ment was not performed, the administration of Borjas pursued negotiations with Gorrondona, Jr. and, when Gabaldon became President of BND in August, 1981, he continued negotiations with Gorrondona, Jr. No suits have been filed against Gorrondona, Sr. or Gonzalez personally on account of the February 28, 1980 Agreement. The BND has very recently started to file suits against some of the debtors. Gorrondona, Sr.'s signing of the Agreement of February 28, 1980, Gorrondona, Jr.'s partici- pation in negotiations with respect to the performance thereof, together with the state- ments made in Memorandum of October 14, 1976 and described above concerning loans made prior to intervention to companies owned directly or indirectly by owners of the BND, corroborates the finding of the Intervenor that prior to intervention a substantial amount of loans were made to companies in which officers and directors of the BND had an interest. The inability to collect these loans corroborates the conclusion of the Superintendent and Intervenor that these loans were not adequately collateralized and were made in amounts in excess of what prudent credit practices would dictate based on the companies' balance sheets. Transfer of ownership of the BND: In the days following the intervention, members of the national government of Venezuela, including the Minister of Finance, met with Gorrondona, Sr. The possible liquidation of the BND and the possible transfer of ownership were discussed. On February 8, 1979, agreements were signed providing for the sale of 65 percent of the BND's shares to the Corporation Venezolana de Fomento ("CVF") . Sixteen shareholders, including Gorrondona, Sr., signed these agreements. They covered the shares owned by both Gorrondona, Sr. and Jr. The February 8, 1979 Agreement set a minimum price of Bs. 1 per share. The Agreement provided that the actual price would be set by the Superintendent of Banks prior to July 31, 1979. The price was to be fixed based on the book value of the BND and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 1978 less the uncollect- ible loans in its portfolio. At the time of intervention the losses on the BND loan portfolio exceeded the capital and reserve of the bank. Under Venezuelan law, when a bank has lost more than 25 per- cent of its capital, the stockholders are required to replace it. Accordingly, had they not sold their shares, the former owners of the BND would have had to make a capital contribution to the BND. As it is, the new owners of the shares have replaced the lost capital of the BND. Gorrondona, Jr., Borjas, the then President of the BND, and the Planning Minister of Venezuela met between June and November, 1979, to discuss the price for the BND shares and repayment of debts owed by the Specially Classified Companies. As a result of this meeting, an agreement was signed on December 21, 1979, regarding the fixing of the price of the stock and the negotiation of the re- payment of loans made to the Specially Clas- sified Companies. In February, 1980, two agreements were signed finalizing the sale of the BND shares to the CVF. One of these agreements (Respondent's Exhibit 82) was with the parties that had signed the February 8, 1979 Agreement. Re- spondent's Exhibit 82 was signed by Gorrondona Sr. and Gonzalez among others. In paragraph First it recites that: "In execution of the agreement reached in the Third clause of the sales contracts for Banco National de Descuento, C.A. shares, sub- scribed between C.V.F. and THE SELLERS and dated February 8, 1979, the Bank Examiner through Official Notices Nos. HSE-200- 3860 and HSE-200-3992, dated July 31 and August 7, 1979, respectively, ad- dressed to the Banco National de Descuento, C.A., determined losses in the Credit Portfolio of said Institution reaching an amount of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX MILLION AND SEVEN [TOS (hundred) omitted in translation] THOUSAND BOLIVARS (Bs. 1,186,700,000.00) and therefore ordered the pertinent adjustments to the BANCO NACIONAL DE DESCUENTO C.A.'s Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1978." In paragraph Second it recites: "Due to the adjustments referred to in the previous Clause, and pursuant to the agree- ment between the parties listed in the con- tracts entered into on February 8, 1979, the Book value of the sold shares resulted in an amount less than One Bolivar (Bs. 1.00) per share, wherefore 'THE SELLERS' have, pursuant to the provisions of the Third Clause of the aforementioned contracts, agreed to accept the amount of One Bolivar (Bs. 1.00) per share, as the sale price for the shares sold." In paragraph Third it recites: "Lastly, 'THE SELLERS' state for the record that what they declare herein completely invalidates any statement or claim made by them, their agents, attorneys or represent- ative regarding any questions on the validity of the agreements executed on February 8, 1979, whose contents they are aware of, and which they execute in a final and definite manner through this document." There is no claim made in the record that the signers of Respondent's Exhibit 82 were coerced in their decision to execute that agreement. The other agreement of February 1980 regard- ing the transfer of shares of the BND (Respon- dent's Exhibit 81) was with shareholders who had not signed the February 8, 1979 Agreement. That agreement also fixed the sales price at 1 B per share. As recited therein, it used as the amount of the losses the Bs. 649 million figure established by the Minister of Finance pursuant to the appeal taken November 30, 1979, rather than the Bs. 1.186 billion figure established by the Superinten- dent of Banks prior to the appeal. This established that whether the Bs. 1.186 bil- lion or the Bs. 649 million figure is used for the amount of the losses, the shares of the BND had at most a nominal value of 1 B on December 31, 1978. Property in Venezuela cannot lawfully be taken by the Government without compensation. If it is taken for less than a fair price, the aggrieved person can go to court to seek a fair price. The judiciary in Venezuela is independent. No lawsuit has yet been filed to obtain ad- ditional compensation for the shares of the BND transferred to the new owners. Recently an "administrative letter" was sent regarding additional compensation for the shares. Nothing in Venezuelan law precluded its being sent earlier. The evidence in the record does not support a finding that the government of Venezuela coerced the owners of the BND to sell their shares or that such shares were sold at less than a fair price. As alleged by Petitioner. SUMMARY FINDINGS The decision to intervene the BND was, in part, politically motivated as evidenced by the timing of the intervention, the withdrawal of substantial government deposits immediately prior to intervention and the decision to refuse recognition of previously accepted commercial paper for rediscount. This is not to conclude, however, that the continuing liquidity problems of the BND were caused by the government. The reasons for the liquidity crisis experienced by the BND in 1978 had existed since at least 1976, and were identified in internal memoranda as well as Superintendent of Banks' and Intervenor's reports. The liquidity crisis experienced by the BND in 1978 and the intervention of the BND by the Venezuelan Government have at the present time a somewhat adverse effect on the reputation of Gorrondona, Jr. with respect to his qualifications as a banker. There is no evidence of any deficiency in his character or integrity. The education and business experience of Gorrondona, Jr. tend to establish his qualifications. However, his role as President-in-Charge of the BND during the liquidity crisis and intervention reflects adversely on those qualifications. No witness was called by the Banking Department or the Applicant on the question whether the practices that gave rise to the intervention constitute unsound banking practices. Those practices have been identified in the findings herein and include concentration of credit in the loans to the Specially Classified Companies, the renewal of loans to subsidiary companies though those loans were not paying interest, repeated violation of legal reserve requirements, failure to comply with the laws relating to agricultural loans, and failure to disclose to regulatory authorities that the minutes submitted for review by those authorities were not the same as the minutes in the books of the bank. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS AND RULINGS Subsection 120.57(1)(b) 12, Florida Statutes, provides: In applications for a license or mergers pursuant to title XXXVIII which are referred by the agency to the division for hearing pursuant to this section, the hearing officer shall complete and submit to the agency and to all parties a written report consisting of findings of fact and rulings on evidentiary matters. The agency shall allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions to the report. Subsection 120.52(7), Florida Statutes, defines "license" as [a] franchise, permit, certificate, registration, charter, or similar form of authorization required by law, but it does not include a license required pri- marily for revenue purposes when issuance of the license is merely a ministerial act. Subsection 658.28(1), Florida Statutes, provides in part: (1) In any case in which a person or a group of persons, proposes to purchase or acquire a controlling interest in any state bank or state trust company and thereby to change the control of that bank or trust company, each person shall first make ap- plication to the department for a certificate of approval of such proposed change of control of the bank or trust company. . . The above provisions of Chapter 120 establish the Hearing Officer's report procedure for license applications under Florida banking laws. This is an application for a certificate of approval which is a form of license application within the meaning of that term as used and defined in Chapter 120. Therefore, no recommended order will be issued. Subsection 658.28(1), Florida Statutes, provides in part: [T]he department shall issue a certificate of approval only after it has made an investi- gation and determined that the proposed new owner or owners of the interest are qualified by character, experience, and financial responsibility to control and operate the bank and trust company in a legal and proper manner and that the interests of the other stockholders, if any, and the depositors and creditors of the bank or trust company and the interests of the public generally will not be jeopardized by the proposed change in ownership, controlling interest, or management. The above provision necessitates Respondent's investigation of Gorrondona, Jr.'s banking experience. Thus, the history of the BND and his role in the management of that institution are relevant to Respondent's investigation and to this proceeding. Petitioner's objection to such evidence is hereby overruled. FILED this 28th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant Flagship Bank of Orlando is a subsidiary of the Flagship Banks of Florida in Miami, which owns 23 banks with 66 banking offices and had assets of $1,847,000,000.00 at the end of 1979. The main office of the applicant is located at 1400 East Colonial Drive in Orlando, some nine miles from the proposed branch site. The applicant presently has two branch banking facilities in operation in Orlando: the West Branch Office, located at 3500 West Colonial Drive, and the Sand Lake Road Office, located at 6707 Sand Lake Road, which opened in September of 1979. The West Branch Office has assets of approximately $8,000,000.00 and the Sand Lake Road Office has deposits of approximately $2,700,000.00. As of June 30, 1979, the applicant had 3.8 percent of the total amount of deposits in Orange County, Florida. As of June 30, 1979, the applicant's total deposits were $60,063,000.00. For the year 1979, its net profit to asset ratio was 1.19 percent. At the end of February, 1980, the applicant's after-tax net income was $177,379.00, giving it a 1.3 percent ratio on an annual basis. As of February 29, 1980, the adjusted capital asset ratio was 11.88 percent. The applicant's liquidity ratio is 34 percent or 35 percent, and it presently has approximately $6.00 in reserve for each classified asset dollar. The applicant's president, H.E. Davis, has been with the applicant since 1973 and has been in banking since 1956. The proposed branch manager is Mike A. Fettig, who has been with the applicant for three and a half years and is presently an assistant branch manager with the applicant's Sand Lake branch office. Dean Murdock is the proposed branch loan officer and has been in banking since 1965. Vicky McHoy is the proposed branch assistant manager. She has been in banking with the applicant for 12 years. Additional staff at the proposed branch will be experienced bank personnel pulled from the applicant's main office or other branches. Due to their active training program, the applicant's president does not believe that this will have a detrimental effect upon its management capabilities. The proposed branch bank will offer extended weekday drive-in teller hours and Saturday banking hours, in addition to a full range of services including an automatic teller machine, night depository, foreign currency exchange, commercial and installment lending at the branch level, safety deposit boxes, and Visa and Master Charge. Only one other bank in the Orlando area offers foreign currency exchange services. According to the application, the interior of the proposed branch bank will contain a lobby area of approximately 1,300 square feet, with provisions for four inside teller stations. One drive-in teller will operate from within the building with provision for two remote teller lines. The building will also contain an employee lounge, two restrooms, a bookkeeping and/or work area, a storage area, a meeting room, two offices and customer booths. Based upon the applicant's actual experience at its Sand Lake Road Office, it is estimated that the cost of the building will be $162,000.00. The applicant presently owns the land and there was no evidence of any insider transaction in the purchase of the land. The applicant estimates that it will have total deposits at the end of the first year of operation in the amount of $3,000,000.00, and that it will have total deposits of $5,000,000.00 and $6,000,000.00 at the end of the second and third years of operation. The site selected for the proposed branch is located on Oak Ridge Road west of the intersection of said Road and South Orange Blossom Trail at the southwest corner of Texas Avenue and Oak Ridge Road. Oakridge Road is a main east/west thoroughfare in the area, and the proposed site is adjacent to a shopping center containing 23 stores, including a Winn Dixie and Eckerds Drug Store. The applicant's primary service area (PSA) is bordered by four main highways: the Florida Turnpike, some 2 1/4 miles to the west of the proposed site; Interstate 4 and Pinelock Avenue, some 3 3/4 miles north; Orange Avenue, some 2 3/4 miles east; and Sand Lake Road, some 1 3/4 miles south. The area is a mixture of residential housing, retail, wholesale, distribution facilities and light manufacturing. The applicant's goal in operating the proposed branch office is to acquire new customers in a rapidly growing area and to service its existing customers in the area. Presently, the applicant has 250 deposit customers and 70 loan customers residing or doing business within the designated primary service area. The applicant estimates the population of the PSA to be approximately 38,800, with the greater density of population being on the east side of Orange Blossom Trail. The majority of persons in the PSA are employed in clerical, sales and other lower income categories. The average per capita income within the PSA was $10,882.00 in 1979. According to data published by the University of Florida, Division of Population, the estimated population of Orlando on April 1, 1979, was 124,658, indicating an annual average growth rate of 2.9 percent since the 1970 population figure of 99,006. According to the same data, the total population of Orange County in April of 1979, was estimated at 441,337, indicating an average annual growth rate of 3.1 percent since the 1970 population of 344,311. Net migration into Orange County between 1970 and 1979 accounted for 73.07 percent in population growth. Between April of 1970 and July 1, 1978, the weight of retirees (the 65+ age group) in the County's total population increased from 9.6 to 10.5 percent; and the weight of the labor force (ages 15 - 64) increased from 61.7 to 66.0 percent. The per capita personal income for Orlando increased from $5,985 in 1976 to $6,535 in 1977, and the increases for Orange County were from $6,496 in 1976 to $7,093 in 1977. The state averages for the same two years increased from $6,101 to $6,697. The December 1979 issue of the Orlando SMSA Labor Market Trends shows an average unemployment rate of 5.8 percent for the twelve month period ending in November 1979, as compared to 6.4 percent for the comparable 1978 period. Within the applicant's designated PSA, there are three operating main offices of commercial banks - Landmark Bank of Orlando, Royal Trust Bank of Orlando and ComBank/Pine Castle Bank. These banks are located at a distance from 1.8 miles to 3 miles from the proposed site. There are two opened and operating branch bank facilities and four approved but unopened branch banks within the PSA. The closest existing banking office, the branch of the Sun First National Bank of Orlando, is located 1.0 mile east of the proposed site. The proposed sites of the approved, but unopened branch banks are located between 1.5 miles and 2 miles from the proposed site. The approved branch site of the protestant, Pan American Bank of Orlando, is located some 641 yards from the applicant's proposed site, and it is expected to open in April of 1980. There are also three branch offices of savings and loan associations in operation and two branches approved but unopened. The existing banking and savings and loan facilities in the area have all experienced significant increases in deposits over the past two years. Data as of June 30, 1979, from the Comparative Figures Report of the Florida Bankers Association indicate that the banks in Orlando experienced the following increases over the year's period: 18.7 percent in total loans, 13.8 percent in time deposits, 6.8 percent in demand deposits and 10.8 percent in total deposits. The name selected for the proposed branch banking facility is Flagship Bank of Orlando - Oakridge Office. No evidence was produced that such name would be misleading or confusing to the public. There was no testimony adduced at the hearing that the applicant was not in substantial compliance with all state and federal laws effecting its operations. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1)(a)(12), conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence O. Turner, Jr. Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis Pan American Bancshares, Inc State of Florida 150 Southeast Third Avenue The Capitol Post Office Box 010831 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Miami, Florida 33101 Benjamin F. Smathers, Esquire Smathers and Kemp 801 North Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 3267 Orlando, Florida 33802 Karyln Anne Loucks Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DIVISION OF BANKING PAN AMERICAN BANK OF ORLANDO, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-235 FLAGSHIP BANK OF ORLANDO and OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER, Respondents. /
The Issue The purpose of the mandatory public hearing was to afford public comment on the application for authority to acquire Intercontinental Bank, West Miami, Florida (Intercontinental Bank). The hearing also allowed the Applicants, Eligio Cedeño and Alvaro Gorrin Ramos, to present evidence that they meet the criteria of Subsection 658.28(1), Florida Statutes, relating to reputation, character, experience, and financial responsibility such that they are qualified to acquire and own Intercontinental Bank in a legal and proper manner without detriment to the interests of the bank's stockholders, depositors, and creditors, or to the general public.
Findings Of Fact On January 12, 2005, OFR received the Application. OFR published notice of receipt of the Application on January 28, 2005, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. OFR has satisfied the notice requirements of Subsection 120.80(3)(a)1.a., Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69U-105.103. On February 3, 2005, OFR made a timely request for additional information regarding the Application. The Applicants answered this request in a letter dated May 5, 2005. The Applicants, as required by federal law, have filed a separate application with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Applicants are foreign nationals. Mr. Eligio Cedño is proposed to own more than 25 percent of Intercontinental Bank's common stock, and Mr. Alvaro Gorrin Ramos is proposed to own more than 25 percent of Intercontinental Bank's common stock. On September 19, Don Saxon, Commissioner of OFR, issued an Order Granting Office's Petition for Public Hearing on the Application. The public hearing was scheduled for November 18, 2005, and the Applicants published a notice in the November 3, 2005, edition of The Miami Herald, which indicated the date, time, and location of the scheduled public hearing, and which otherwise complied with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69U-105.105(1) and satisfied the notice requirement of Subsection 120.80(3)(a)4., Florida Statutes. A public hearing was held as scheduled on November 18, 2005. No member of the public appeared at the hearing, and no person expressed opposition to the Application. Mr. Eligio Cedño, a proposed major shareholder of Intercontinental Bank, has more than 26 years of banking and financial experience. He has experience as a senior officer, director, and major shareholder with various financial institutions, including Bolivar, Banco, C.A. Mr. Cedño appears to be sufficiently qualified by reputation, character, experience, and financial responsibility to control Intercontinental Bank in a legal and proper manner, and the interests of the other stockholders and the depositors and creditors of the bank, and the interests of the public generally will not be jeopardized by the proposed change in ownership. Mr. Gorrin Ramos, a proposed major shareholder of Intercontinental Bank, is a businessman with a variety of business interests throughout the United States and Venezuela. He has prior financial institution experience with Banco Canarias. Mr. Ramos appears to be sufficiently qualified by reputation, character, experience, and financial responsibility to control Intercontinental Bank in a legal and proper manner, and the interests of the other stockholder and the depositors and creditors of the bank, and the interests of the public generally will not be jeopardized by the proposed changes in ownership. Neither of the Applicants has been convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendre to any violation of Section 655.50, Florida Statutes, relating to the Florida Control of Money Laundering in Financial Institutions; Chapter 896, Florida Statutes, relating to offenses related to financial institutions; or any similar state or federal law. OFR conducted a background investigation on the Applicants and discovered no information to preclude the Applicants from acquiring the aforementioned shares of common stock in Intercontinental Bank. The current management and directors of Intercontinental Bank, including its president, Mr. Amadeo Lopez-Castro, Jr., will maintain their positions in the bank and will continue to manage the institution. In addition, Messrs. Carlos J. Fernandez, Alvaro J. Gorrin, and Marcel Rotker will be added to the existing board of directors of the bank. Intercontinental Bank's business plan reflects that the bank will offer full-service banking to individuals and businesses located primarily in the Miami-Dade County community. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2006.
The Issue The parties' Pretrial Stipulation executed herein, limits the issues framed by the Amended Administrative Charges and Complaint for Removal: Do Respondent's acts between January 1, 1980 and May 22, 1981 constitute conduct that is an unsafe or unsound practice as that term is defined in Section 655.005(1)(d), F.S. (1985)? Do Respondent's acts of commission or omission between January 1, 1980 and May 22, 1981 constitute conduct that is a breach of fiduciary duty as utilized and understood under Title XXXVIII, Banks and Banking, F.S. (1985)? Do Respondent's acts between January 1, 1980 and May 22, 1981 constitute a violation of any other law involving fraud or moral turpitude which constitutes a felony, to wit, a violation of Section 517.301(1), F.S. (1985)? BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE The Prehearing Stipulation was admitted as Hearing Officer Exhibit A. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Thomas Flood and Gualalupe Prada, and had admitted one exhibit in evidence. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Thomas Flood, Manuel Diner, and Rolando Pozo, and had admitted nine exhibits in evidence. Petitioner filed the transcript. The parties timely submitted posthearing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have been duly considered and which are ruled upon in the appendix hereto pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Rolando Pozo was and is an officer of Capital Bank, Miami, Florida, having held the following positions: Assistant Vice-President, from July 25, 1978 to December 28, 1978; Vice-President and Branch Manager of the Downtown Branch from December 28, 1978 to September 1, 1980; Vice-President, Commercial Loans at the North Bay Village Branch (Main Office) from September 1, 1980 to May 22, 1981; and from February 3, 1986 to the present in the capacity of Vice-President and Branch Manager of the Downtown Branch. Mr. Pozo is fluent in both Spanish and English. The downtown branch offices of Capital Bank are located at 145 East Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. Guadalupe Prada is a female Mexican national with limited command of the English language. Her native language is Spanish. Ms. Prada, the state's chief complaining witness, testified through a qualified interpreter. In making the following findings of fact, it has been necessary to weigh the relative credibility of Mr. Pozo's version of the events and chronology thereof against the narrative of events and chronology of events related by Ms. Prada. Wherever possible, Ms. Prada has been taken at her word and every benefit of doubt that may accrue to her as a result of possible unfamiliarity with the English language has been accorded her. Wherever possible, extrinsic evidence, either documentary or oral by way of other witnesses, has been used to resolve all discrepancies of fact so that all witnesses may be found to speak the truth. However, in some respects, Ms. Prada's testimony is simply not internally or externally consistent and/or credible. Her memory is "convenient" to say the least. Her concept of time and chronology was elastic on direct examination and contradictory on cross- examination. Her version of the "truth" of crucial events and with regard to her finances varies with the circumstances and with the type of legal action in which she has been involved. Most telling to the undersigned is that with regard to every effort at impeachment of her testimony by Respondent's attorney, Ms. Prada either asserted that too many questions confuse her or asserted that her prior contradictory assertions under oath within various lawsuits, including a 1981 divorce, were the result of having been told by a succession of attorneys to perjure herself; then, she claimed that one of her prior attorneys also tried to swindle her. The final impression left by Ms. Prada's testimony is that when events work out to suit her, she considers herself in charge, and when events do not work out to suit her, she considers it everybody's fault but Ms. Prada's. Ms. Prada entered the United States in 1979 and between 1979 and May 1981 was unemployed and actively seeking a job and investment opportunities. She was a customer of the downtown branch of Capital Bank, during the period 1979 to and including May 22, 1981. Guadalupe Prada was and is affluent. Among other personal individual assets, she held certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by Capital Bank during 1979 through and including May 22, 1981 in varying amounts up to and including $90,000. Ms. Prada met Respondent Pozo in 1979 while her then-husband, Frank Prada, was trying to obtain a loan at the Capital Bank, downtown branch. Ms. Prada's husband, with whom she was in business in a jewelry manufacturing company called "Caribe Manufacturing", urged her to come in on the corporate loan which Pozo had agreed to grant, provided a guarantor was found. In the course of loan negotiations with both the Pradas, Pozo candidly explained to Ms. Prada that if she co-signed the loan, she could lose the bulk of her individual assets if her husband/the corporation defaulted on the loan. Therefore, Ms. Prada, on her own initiative, declined to become her husband's guarantor and developed confidence in Pozo's honesty and financial acumen. This confidence was in part due to Pozo's fluency in Spanish. In the course of reviewing Mr. and Mrs. Prada's respective individual financial statements for the loan application, Pozo became familiar with Ms. Prada's 1979 financial arrangements at Capital Bank, including the aforementioned CDs and a small checking account, and with her assets remaining in Mexico. He formed the initial opinion that she was a knowledgeable businesswoman. Thereafter, Ms. Prada would speak to Respondent Pozo from time to time at Capital Bank, however, Ms. Prada's personal banking needs were attended-to either by tellers or by a Capital Bank officer named Margarita Gonzalez. Ms. Prada continued to seek out Mr. Pozo and a personal friendship developed. Mr. Pozo and Ms. Prada met on mixed business/social occasions away from the Capital Bank and they spoke on the telephone on matters wholly unrelated to development of Capital Bank depository accounts. Between 1979 and May 1981, Ms. Prada and Respondent discussed potential investments for Ms. Prada and how she was going to get a job. These discussions were usually initiated by Ms. Prada but Mr. Pozo was a willing participant. In testimony, Ms. Prada named several investment opportunities she says Pozo recommended during this period of time. She also claims he told her to withdraw money from Capital Bank. Contrariwise, Pozo testified that he told her to leave her money in the bank and not to invest in these projects, two restaurants and a boutique, but he admits that he did refer Ms. Prada to a Mr. Savloff for a possible job in an electronics store. Ms. Prada describes the referral to Mr. Savloff as one for investment purposes. Mr. Savloff was also a Capital Bank customer. The disparity of testimony on these contacts is largely immaterial because even if each were an investment opportunity, which is hardly to be believed on the undersigned's assessment of Ms. Prada's overall credibility, each "opportunity" was rejected by Ms. Prada. In each instance, Ms. Prada acted as a knowledgeable investor at least to the extent of controlling her own money and to the extent of choosing when and in which projects she would invest. Neither Ms. Prada's nor Mr. Pozo's testimony gives the slightest hint that he exerted undue pressure to get her invest any of her money from any source or depository in any of these alleged investment ventures. During the time Mr. Pozo was employed at Capital Bank, Ms. Prada never withdrew any of the monies which she had entrusted to Capital Bank. After being transferred to Capital Bank's North Bay Village branch in September, 1980, Mr. Pozo did not maintain an office at, nor did he work out of Capital Bank's downtown branch offices at Flagler street. On or about May 23, 1981, Mr. Pozo commenced employment at Miami National Bank, located at 8101 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Thereafter, Mr. Pozo had no relationship with Capital Bank until he resumed employment at Capital Bank in February, 1986. In June 1981, Respondent Pozo and Ms. Prada became involved together in a business project known as "Hobby Market, Inc." This involvement occurred after Pozo had severed his association with Capital Bank and at a time Ms. Prada was not a customer at Miami National Bank, the Bank with which Pozo was then- associated. Pozo did not at first approach Prada with the investment opportunity. He had arranged with another Capital Bank customer, George Leijtman, to invest 50-50 in this project. Prada overheard Pozo's end of a telephone conversation concerning his arrangement while she was visiting him in his Miami National Bank office in early June 1981. She then urged Pozo to allow her to buy into the Hobby Market project and to help her get a job as a salesperson with the new corporation so that she would have a continuing source of income. At this time, Mr. Pozo knew Ms. Prada to be a qualified salesperson. He also knew she had money and assets in Mexico besides her money at Capital Bank. The record is unclear whether he knew she also had at least a $5,000 checking account at Southeast Bank in Miami, but she did. The agreement ultimately reached involved Ms. Prada, Jorge Lejtman, and Rolando Pozo and is memorialized by letter agreement and by assignment of stock interest executed on June 15, 1981, and June 16, 1981 respectively. Mr. Lejtman invested $10,000 in the business for 2,000 stock shares. In addition to the money, Lejtman's contribution was to be expertise and experience in the toy/hobby business. Lejtman would operate the first store in Omni Mall. The agreement called for Ms. Prada to pay $20,000 to Mr. Pozo in return for 800 shares of the 4000 shares of the company's outstanding stock. Pozo had subscribed to 2,000 shares of Hobby Market stock on June 12, 1981, at $10 per share. Pozo had $15,000 in savings and anticipated borrowing the remaining $5,000 needed to fulfill his subscription. Instead, he raised the necessary $20,000 by selling 800 of his subscribed-to but unpaid-for 2,000 shares to Ms. Prada, not his the $10 per share subscription price, but at $25 per share. The result enabled Pozo to secure 1200 shares free and clear without delving into his savings and without borrowing. Pozo immediately turned the money he received from Prada over to the business. In addition to his money investment, Pozo's contribution to the venture was to be his financial experience and his assistance to Hobby Market in obtaining credit from toy/hobby suppliers. Ms. Prada also agreed to tender $20,000 in loans to the business and to fund another $25,000 in loans in the future. In return, Ms. Prada received two promissory notes for $10,000, each note to bear interest at 18 percent. Ms. Prada ultimately failed to fund the additional $25,000 loan but in return for providing the first $20,000 and promising the additional $25,000, Ms. Prada was also guaranteed a job at a second Hobby Market store to be opened with the additional monies she was going to provide, but did not. Ms. Prada's contribution in expertise was purely as a salesperson. Ms. Prada was eventually paid $7,000 principal and interest on the cash loans. The Hobby Market transaction was conducted at the law offices of attorney Manuel Diner. The documents were drafted by Diner in English. All negotiations were in Spanish. Signature authority for all Hobby Market bank accounts were in Lejtman and Prada jointly. These were opened at Central National Bank located in the Omni Mall where a lease was obtained for the first store. Prada was made corporate Secretary. Prada initialed certain written English changes indicating her assent to various agreements formalized after oral negotiations in Spanish. With regard to the cash that Ms. Prada turned over to Pozo/Hobby Market Inc., her testimony is that Pozo told her to take it out of Capital Bank and she did. His testimony is that he did not and that he thought she was transferring her Mexican funds. Subsequently, Ms. Prada and Mr. Lejtman had disagreements. Ms. Prada never funded the additional loans and the second Hobby Market store was unable to open. Ultimately, Mr. Lejtman offered to purchase back from Ms. Prada and Mr. Pozo their respective interests in the business. Ms. Prada rejected an offer that would have paid her back the monies she had invested and she later filed a lawsuit against Mr. Pozo, Mr. Lejtman, and the business. In that litigation, Prada v. Lejtman, Pozo, et al., Case No. 82-1370 (Eleventh Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida), Ms. Prada received a money judgment against Rolando Pozo. That judgment states in part: . . . considered that it was the Defendant Rolando Pozo who committed the fraud against the Plaintiffs and thereby caused Plaintiffs to suffer the loss of funds due to the conversion of the stock. The case was affirmed on appeal. This judgment, admitted by stipulation, shows that Ms. Prada's son, who apparently had an interest only in her monies still in Mexico in 1981, joined in the lawsuit as a co-plaintiff. His joinder strongly suggests that her Hobby Market investment monies came from her family funds in Mexico, not from her personal funds anywhere in the United States. As to the issue of fraud, the judgment is not binding on the undersigned finder of fact in this de novo proceeding, due to different rules as to the quantum of proof in each case. The classic tort of fraud or deceit requires proof only by a preponderance of the evidence. A license disciplinary case, such as the instant one, requires proof by the "clear and convincing standard." See, Rigot v. Bucci, 245 So.2d 51 (Fla. 1971); and Spayberry v. Sheffield Auto and Truck Service, Inc., 422 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Rolando Pozo is held in high esteem at Capital Bank, has an excellent and unblemished work record, and has an excellent reputation in that limited "community" for truth and honesty. Capital Bank has never initiated or joined in any complaint against Rolando Pozo relating to Mr. Pozo's association with Ms. Prada. The only evidence of banking standards presented at formal hearing was that presented by Mr. Thomas Flood, Senior Vice-President of Capital Bank, who is personally very supportive of Mr. Pozo. He stated that it is internal policy of Capital Bank, when it deems it to be a prudent decision, to advise persons with whom it has a banking relationship that the bank will sever that banking relationship and will request or require that person to remove his or her deposits from Capital Bank; that such severance of relationship is extraordinary and is a bank decision that would have been transmitted to a bank manager such as Mr. Pozo; that Capital Bank made no such decision with regard to Guadalupe Prada; and that it would be "extraordinary" for a branch manager, which is the position Respondent held from January 1, 1979 through 1980, to tell a depositor to invest elsewhere. At no time did Mr. Flood characterize such a suggestion as a breach of banking standards or ethics.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Comptroller enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Respondent Rolando Pozo. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective posthearing proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Except as subordinate and unnecessary covered in FOF 1-3. Covered in FOF 5 and 7. Covered in FOF 6-9. Covered in FOF 23. Except as unnecessary, covered in FOF 10. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole, see FOF 4, 7, 11, 14, and 16. 8-11 Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole and as largely subordinate and unnecessary, see FOF 16-18. Covered in FOF 20. Rejected as covered in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 21-23. Respondent' PFOF: 1 Covered in FOF 1. 2 Covered in FOF 2. 3 Covered in FOF 12. 4 Covered in FOF 13. 5 Covered in FOF 5. 6 Covered in FOF 6. 7 Covered in FOF 14. 8 Covered in FOF 7. 9 Covered in FOF 9. 10 Covered in FOF 5. 11-13 Covered in FOF 1. 14, 15, and 17 Covered in FOF 13-16. 16, 18, and 24 are of such an ultimate nature as to be conclusions of law and are addressed as such within the Recommended Order. To the extent they constitute PFOF, they are covered in FOF 14-16, and 18. 19-23 Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. COPIES FURNISHED: GERALD LEWIS, COMPTROLLER DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0350 MALCOLM S. GREENFIELD, ESQUIRE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER THE CAPITOL, SUITE 1302 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 MICHAEL S. PASANO, ESQUIRE 2100 PONCE DE LEON BOULEVARD SUITE 1100 CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 CHARLES L. STUTTS, ESQUIRE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER THE CAPITOL, SUITE 1302 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Atlantic Bank of St. Augustine has its main office at 24-28 Cathedral Place, downtown St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida, and was established in 1934. It is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Atlantic Bancorporation. The applicant has one existing remote drive-in facility located approximately one mile from the main office and about nine-tenths of a mile from the proposed branch site. This facility does not offer full services, and, at the time a decision was made to apply for another branch, it was not feasible to expand this existing facility due to insufficient available land. According to the most recent data available, the applicant's adjusted capital to asset ratio was 8.3 percent and its net income to asset ratio was .94 percent for 1978. The applicant's liquidity ratio is in the 40 to 45 percent range. Its asset condition is very good as is its past performance. The applicant has suffered a declining percentage share of the market, decreasing from 50.2 percent in 1970 to 40.2 percent at year end 1978. According to the applicant, this is a result of having only one full service facility which is located in the congested downtown area of St. Augustine. The main purposes of the proposed branch are to provide more convenience for the applicant's existing customers (38 percent of which are estimated to reside in the proposed primary service area) and to protect its market share of bank customers. The applicant's management team is composed of eleven directors and non-director senior officers. Its president and chief executive officer has been with the applicant since 1950 and was born and raised in the City of St. Augustine. Three of its other officers have in excess of twenty-two years of banking experience. The proposed branch manager, Robert George Allen, is currently on the applicant's staff as an assistant vice-president and manager of the installment loan department, and has twelve years of banking experience. The site for the proposed branch is located northwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway No. 1 on State Road 312. The owner of the land for the proposed site is the Craig Funeral Home, which is not directly or indirectly associated with this application. The land will be purchased by the applicant at a cost of $180,000.00. The applicant will construct a 4,930 square foot one- story concrete block building on the site at a cost of approximately $260,000.00. The facility will have 34 parking spaces with three inside and five outside teller stations. The site will contain 200 feet of frontage on U.S. Highway No. 1 and will have both northerly and southerly access off said highway. The applicant intends to offer a full range of services at the proposed branch facility. The primary service area of the proposed branch is depicted on the map attached to the application. It is bounded on the west by Interstate 95, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by the St. Johns/Flagler County line and on the north by State Road 16, on the east by the San Sebastian River to Anastasia Island, then the south city limits of St. Augustine and the Atlantic Ocean. Within the applicant's primary service area, there are two remote banking facilities, both of which opened in 1975 and one of which belongs to the applicant, situated 0.9 and 1.2 miles north of the proposed site. Also, the protestant's approved, but unopened, main office is to be located 0.2 miles south of the proposed site. The latter two sites are located on the same, west side of U.S. Highway No. 1 and are separated by a K-Mart store. The protestant is the only independently owned bank in St. Augustine. It has a primary service area which is similar to the applicant's proposed primary service area. On the day prior to the administrative hearing in this cause, the protestant closed the purchase on its land and is now contemplating the opening of a modular facility pending construction of its permanent facility. There are also two savings and loan offices located within the applicant's primary service area. Near the primary service area, there is another branch facility (Barnett) and two main commercial banking offices -- Barnett Bank of St. Johns County and the applicant's bank, located 2.2 and 2.3 miles northeast of the proposed branch site. There are also three more savings and loan offices located near the primary service area. The two existing and operating banks in the area -- Barnett and the applicant -- had, as of December 31, 1978, total deposits of $54.78 and $36.62 million, respectively. Barnett showed a significant increase in loans and demand deposits, while the applicant illustrated a decline in deposits and a smaller percentage increase in loans. The county totals show an increase of 13.5 percent in loans, a decrease in demand deposits of 11 percent, an increase in time deposits of 12.7 percent and an increase in total deposits of 3.3 percent, for a total of $101,446,000.00. The savings and loan offices within and near the proposed primary service area have demonstrated increases in deposits ranging from 7.6 percent to over 100 percent. The applicant estimates the volume of total deposits for the proposed branch to be $1.297 million at the end of the first year, $2.699 million at the end of the second year and $4.171 million at the end of the third year of operation. The applicant estimates a loss of $56,530.00 the first year, a profit of $49,129.00 the second year and a profit in the third year of $156,076.00. The name of the proposed branch is to be Atlantic Bank of St. Augustine - St. Augustine South Branch. The applicant has received no notification that it is not in substantial compliance with the regulatory laws and statutes. Official state population estimates for the primary service area are not available. The applicant, however, estimates the population of the area to be 8,900 in 1974 and 12,792 in 1978. These figures are based primarily on estimates of a population of 12,700 for a slightly smaller area made by the Board of the County Commissioners in May, 1979, for the purpose of a grant assistance application. Based on the same data, the applicant projects the primary service area population for 1980 to be 14,438. The population growth rate for the area between 1974 and 1978 was thus estimated at 43.7 percent, for an average annual growth rate of 10.9 percent. Inasmuch as official estimates for the applicant's primary service area are not available, the Office of the Comptroller considered the trends of population changes in the city, the beaches, the county and the unincorporated areas, as measured by the University of Florida Division of Population. Some of the relevant population data considered was the following: St. Augustine Beach 632 1,131 St. Augustine 12,352 12,611 Unincorporated Area 17,412 31,188 St. Johns County 31,035 44,550 These figures illustrate that the fastest population growth has occurred in the unincorporated areas of the County. The University of Florida projects a population of 47,600 in the County by the year 1980, for an average annual growth rate of 3.4 percent. Almost all of the County's population growth between 1970 and 1978, 94.56 percent, has resulted from net migration, but not necessarily exclusive of retirees. Between 1970 and 1977, there was some increase in the weight of the 65+ age group, but a larger increase occurred in the weight of those ages 15-64, the labor age group. The former increased from 14.1 to 15.5 percent, while the latter increased from 57.9 to 62.0 percent. For the twelve months ending December 1978, the county showed an unemployment rate of 7.7 percent, as compared to the state average of 6.6 percent. Recent monthly data indicates a rise in the rate of unemployment in St. Johns County -- 8.7 percent in March, 1979, as compared with a state average of 5.8 percent. For April, the county figure is 8.4 percent and the state average is 5.3, percent. The per capita personal income for St. Johns County increased from $5,356.00 in 1976 to $5,689.00 in 1977, a 6.6 percent increase. This growth is somewhat slower than the state average of 9.8 percent, and the county's per capita incomes remained below the state averages of $6,101.00 and $6,697.00, respectively, for the same years. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.57(1)(a)(12), conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED John E. Hankal Hankal and Wolfe Post Office Drawer H-1 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Roger A. Larson Graham, Hodge, Larson and Hume, P.A. Suite 415, Kilgore Square 2400 West Bay Drive Largo, Florida 33540 Michael A. Gross Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Santa Cruz Marketing, Inc., d/b/a SMI (hereinafter referred to as SMI), a Delaware corporation, is located at Suite 29, 1280 South Powerline Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. Although SMI began operating as a business in Florida in December of 1988, it was not authorized to do business in Florida until December of 1991. At all times material hereto, Edward Winders has been the president/secretary, Jim Winders has been the vice president/treasurer, and Cecil Butler has been the general manager for SMI. Edward Winders and Jim Winders each own 50% of the stock of SMI. Cecil Butler has no ownership interest in SMI and is simply a salaried employee. Edward Winders and Jim Winders are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the business. Although Cecil Butler has some unidentified level of supervisory responsibility over some of the other employees, no evidence was offered that he in any way participates in management decisions regarding the operation of the business itself. SMI advertises by placing ads in newspapers throughout the United States. Its ad reads as follows: "Easy credit card, cash advance, $5000 credit line, no credit check! Call 1-800-347-0773." SMI's business operations consist of the following units: the origination department, the customer service department, the clerical section, and the shipping section. When a call is placed using the toll-free number, that telephone call is answered by an account representative in the origination department. A written script called a credit card presentation is utilized by the account representative. The account representatives do not deviate from that script. The account representative obtains basic information from the caller, gives a brief program description, and then causes to be sent a packet of information called the first mailer to the caller. The script utilized by the account representative, however, does not tell the account representative how to answer questions from the callers. No evidence was offered as to any procedures SMI may have in place for assuring the correctness of answers given to callers' questions. The credit card presentation script tells the caller that he or she has reached the "easy credit card division," advises the caller that "our credit card offers a $5,000 line of credit which includes cash advance availability, now our major credit cards are also available regardless of credit history!", advises the caller that there are no annual fees and that the lifetime membership is a "one time processing fee," advises the caller that he or she is participating in a "limited membership drive," and advises the caller that "all the information on our credit card will be in your package along with our customer service number." The first mailer greets the "prospective member," refers to SMI's credit card program, encloses a pre-approved application, sets forth the amount of SMI's "lifetime membership fee," encloses a "100% money-back guarantee certificate," encourages the recipient to return his or her application and membership fee within 10 days, and promises a $100 gift certificate usable on the charge balance. The lifetime membership fee is $75 if paid by money order or cashier's check and $85 if paid by personal check or C.O.D. No further information is given regarding the details of SMI's "credit card program." An enclosure in the first mailer is a one-page sheet entitled "Special Notice." It features a facsimile of a Visa card and a facsimile of a MasterCard card. The short text includes the following language: Mail today and receive all these privileges. *CASH ADVANCES *VISA CARD AVAILABLE *MASTERCARD AVAILABLE *$100.00 MERCHANDISE CERTIFICATE *ADD POSITIVE INFORMATION ON YOUR CREDIT REPORT HAPPY SHOPPING!!!! The enclosed return envelope is directed to Santa Cruz Marketing, Inc. The line underneath that states that the envelope is going to "SMI Card Distribution Center." If the recipient does not immediately comply, a second mailer is sent five days later. The enclosures are the same as in the first mailer. The "dear prospective member" letter is different and is "just a friendly reminder that we have not received your lifetime membership fee for your pre-approved $5,000 credit card." It encourages the recipient to "take advantage of this unique credit card offer!" and advises the recipient that if the recipient's deadline has already expired, then a call should be placed to SMI's customer service department at a non-toll-free number. After the recipient submits the pre-approved application and pays the membership fee, he or she then receives the membership package. That package begins with a letter greeting the "new card member" and contains the following introductory paragraph: Welcome to the wonderful world of home shopping with your SMI credit card. As a preferred card member, you are offered the opportunity to purchase merchandise from our fantastic color catalogues filled with a wide variety of items. Attached to the letter is an SMI credit card. That letter is the first advice given by SMI to its new "lifetime member" that he or she has paid $75 to join a home shopping club. The letter further advises the recipient that purchasing merchandise from SMI's catalogues will "enable you to establish that A+ credit rating you have always desired, but which may have been denied to you in the past." The letter further advises that SMI will submit monthly statements to the member and that the member can then pay 10% of the balance (with a minimum payment of $15) or the balance can be paid in full. The letter also advises that the new member will pay no interest charges on his or her purchases, "but please remember in order to help you establish your A+ credit rating, your payments must be made on time." The membership packet also contains two merchandise catalogues, an order form, and a price list. According to the price list and the terms of SMI's home shopping program, two prices are available to an SMI member. For each item, the member may pay a specified cash price and a specified shipping charge. Alternatively, the member can pay a credit price, which is higher than the cash price. If the member chooses to purchase the item on credit, the member will pay the higher price as follows: the member includes with his or her order form a specified portion of the credit price as a down payment on the item, with the balance of the credit price being charged to the member's charge account. The member paying the higher credit price will also pay the specified shipping charge. The promised $100 merchandise certificate is included in the membership packet. The certificate specifies that it can only be applied to the credit portion of an order after the down payment for that order is paid and that the certificate is void after 30 days from the date on which the membership was issued. The membership packet includes, for the first time, a description of SMI's cash advance program. The description of that cash advance program begins as follows: Once you have established a sufficient credit record with SMI, you will be extended 'cash advance privileges'. Simply prove your credit worthiness by shopping with your SMI credit card. All you have to do is, charge and pay for at least $500.00 of purchases of your unpaid balance. Once you have done that, you have qualified for a cash advance of $250.00. CASH ADVANCES OFFERS Immediate cash No interest charge Low monthly payments No processing fee Cash advances up to $2,500.00 According to the program, a cash advance of $2,500 would only be available if a member had charged and paid for $5,000 worth of purchases. The flyer also recites that the $100 merchandise certificate does not apply to cash advances. The next flyer contained in the membership packet is entitled "Qualify for a Visa or MasterCard." That flyer features facsimiles of both a MasterCard and a Visa card. The description of that portion of SMI's program begins as follows: Simply prove your credit worthiness by using your SMI Credit card. Just charge and pay for at least $750.00 of your unpaid balance. It's as simple as that! Once you have established a sufficient credit record, you will be sent a 'GOOD CREDIT REFERENCE LETTER' that you can use when applying for credit elsewhere. Plus, you will receive a 'MAJORITY APPROVED' application for a visa or mastercard with 'NO SECURITY DEPOSIT REQUIRED.' UNSECURED - NO SECURITY DEPOSIT REQUIRED (WE WILL DO IT FOR YOU) A $380.00 IMMEDIATE CREDIT LINE CASH ADVANCES COMPETITIVE INTEREST RATES ONE TIME PROCESSING CHARGE ONLY $35.00 ANNUAL CHARGE MAJORITY APPROVED WE ARE SO SURE THAT YOU WILL BE APPROVED THAT WE WILL SEND YOU A 'CASHIERS CHECK FOR $380.00' IF YOU DO NOT QUALIFY. The flyer points out that the $100 merchandise certificate does not apply to this part of the program. Another flyer contained in the membership packet explains a second way in which a member can qualify for a Visa or MasterCard as follows: New Collateralized Credit Card Program You Can Now Obtain a Major Bank Credit Card even though you may have previously been turned down! Under the 'collateralized credit card program' the member may obtain a secured major bank credit card which 'requires a security deposit equal to your initial credit limits.' If the member returns the coupon requesting details, SMI provides the name of another company, Access Credit Card Company, which company would charge an additional fee to provide the member with an application from New Era Bank. If the member followed that procedure, he or she would most likely obtain a Visa or MasterCard bank card from New Era Bank with a credit limit equal to the amount of money the member was willing to deposit in New Era Bank since that bank approves the majority of such applications. The membership packet contains three additional flyers. The first one relates to the SMI jewelry catalogue and explains that most gold items are sold by weight at current gold market prices, that prices fluctuate daily with the market, and that the member should check with SMI's ordering department by phone to receive current market prices. The second flyer gives the member information on joining the Select Coupon Club by paying a membership fee of $19.95 and receiving coupons for use at the supermarket. The third flyer describes a program whereby the member can pay $14.95 postage and handling and receive a Hotel Express Membership Directory and membership discount at participating hotels and resorts. A customer cannot obtain an SMI credit card prior to payment of the $75 membership fee. A customer cannot obtain credit for purchasing products from SMI's catalogues prior to payment of the membership fee. The SMI catalogues, received after payment of the fee, are not available to the general public. The customer is not informed prior to paying the membership fee, either during telephone conversations with SMI account representatives or from the first two mailers, that the credit card which the customer would receive can only be used to purchase goods from the two SMI catalogues. Although prospective members are advised in the first and second mailers that Visa and MasterCard cards are available, they are not told how they can obtain such cards until after they have paid their fee. Until after payment of the fee, they are not told that they can obtain a secured, i.e., a fully collateralized bank card by depositing in that bank monies equivalent to the credit limit then extended to them by the bank. Customers are not told prior to the payment of their membership fee, either by SMI account representatives during telephone conversations or in the first or second mailers, that the obtaining of a secured Visa or MasterCard card from New Era Bank will also require the payment of a processing fee and will carry a minimum $500 deposit requirement. Until after payment of the fee, they are not told that the alternative is to charge and pay for $750 worth of merchandise from SMI's two catalogues (not including the amount paid as a down payment on each item purchased) which amounts to $850 worth of charged merchandise if the customer uses the $100 gift certificate, in exchange for SMI then giving the customer a letter saying the customer is a good credit risk, which the customer can then present in applying for credit elsewhere. No evidence was offered that any other organization considers SMI's letter of recommendation meaningful. Prior to the payment of the fee, the prospective member is not advised that the cash advances which he or she would become entitled to receive are limited to an amount of one-half of the total balance the member has paid on the member's SMI charge account balance. No member has received a cash advance from SMI. No members have obtained a Visa or MasterCard card by charging and then paying for $750 worth of products from SMI's catalogues. Other than those documents previously described, no other documents, contracts, or statements are provided by SMI to prospective members or members. SMI purchases the products found in its catalogues at the distributorship cost, a lower price than members pay for the products when they purchase from SMI. As of July 1, 1991, SMI had 12,567 members. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, SMI had over fifteen thousand members. Eighty-four members had purchased items from the SMI catalogues. Petitioner received a consumer complaint regarding SMI in February of 1990. On June 28, 1990, Petitioner served on SMI a subpoena requesting that SMI provide to Petitioner the following information: Name of surety bonding company, location of surety bond and copy of surety bond; location and account number of Florida escrow account, proof of account; copy of information statement and consumer contract. SMI was unable to respond to the subpoena by providing that information because it did not have those items. SMI did respond to the subpoena, however, by providing copies of its advertising and the materials used in its mailers and membership packages. SMI further obtained a bond pursuant to Petitioner's direction to do so. In a series of letters from SMI's attorney to Petitioner, SMI submitted revised advertising and revised informational documents requesting Petitioner's approval of the revisions to bring SMI in compliance with the Department's requirements. The Department failed to respond to SMI's requests. Rather, on March 21, 1991, the Department served on Jim Winders and Cecil Butler an Administrative Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties, alleging that Jim Winders and Cecil Butler were operating as a credit service organization without fully complying with Chapter 817, Florida Statutes. Jim Winders and Cecil Butler timely requested a formal hearing, and this cause was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. While this administrative proceeding was pending, on July 1, 1991, the activities of loan brokers became regulated, and responsibility therefor was assigned to the Department. On August 12, 1991, the Department filed its Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties which included the allegations in the original Administrative Complaint, named SMI as a Respondent for the first time, added allegations that the three Respondents were operating as loan brokers, and further added allegations that the three Respondents were operating as retail sellers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Finding Respondents SMI and Jim Winders guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties as described in this Recommended Order; Finding Respondent Cecil Butler not guilty of the allegations contained within the Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties; Ordering Respondent SMI to cease and desist from violations of the statutes regulating the operation of credit service organizations, loan brokers, and retail sellers; Ordering Respondent Jim Winders to cease and desist from violations of the statutes regulating the operation of credit services organizations and loan brokers; Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent SMI in the sum of $90,000 to be paid by a date certain; and Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Jim Winders in the sum of $6,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-30, 34-46, 56, 57, 59- 66, 71-83, 85-89, and 91 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 31, 32, 95, and 96 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 33 and 97 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 84, 90, 92-94, and 111 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 47-55, 58, and 67-70 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 98-106 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 107-110 have been rejected as not being supported by any competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 4-11 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 12-19 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Bridget L. Ryan, Esquire Richard Bisbee, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Jan Peter Weiss, Esquire Parkway Plaza-Suite 21 1280 South Powerline Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is located at 4600 West Cypress Street, Tampa, Florida, and was established on May 31, 1974. Excluding its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice-President, the applicant has 25 officers with a combined total of 352 years of banking experience. The average age of the officers is 41, with an average of 15 years of banking experience. Six of the management team are past bank presidents. The applicant presently has two existing branch banking facilities. One is located 0.9 miles Southeast from the main office and one is located 8.6 miles Northwest of the main office. A third facility, acquired by merger, located 19.4 miles Southeast of the main facility, has been approved and was expected to open in April, 1979. As a result of the merger between Metropolitan and the American Guarantee Bank, the applicant now has 160 employees, The applicant has paid regular cash dividends to its stockholders since opening. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had total assets of over $187,000,000.00. Its loans to loanable funds ratio has been maintained at about 80 percent. That ratio was 76.7 percent as of February 14, 1979. The protestant stipulated at the hearing that the applicant had no problem meeting its liquidity needs. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had an adjusted capital to assets ratio of 8.2 percent. Its net profit to asset ratio was .836 percent as of December 31, 1978. The establishment of the proposed branch is expected to have no significant effect upon future earnings of the applicant. It is anticipated that the slight loss after the first year of operation will not exceed two cents per share and that the branch will contribute significantly to earnings of the applicant after the first year. The applicant presently has approximately $1.4 million in deposits and $2.8 million invested in loans from residents and business people in the primary service area of the proposed branch bank. The name of the proposed facility is to be Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Carrollwood Branch Office. It is to be located on the southwest corner of Dale Mabry Highway and Ehrlich Road, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County, approximately 8.8 air miles from the main office. The property is presently owned by the applicant. No officer or employee of the applicant has an interest in the land purchased. The total cost of the land, building, furniture and fixtures and other fees is expected to amount to approximately $409,500.00. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had an amount in excess of $1,391,500.00 to invest in bank premises. The proposed facility will offer full services, including checking and savings services, certificates of deposits, installment and commercial loans, VISA cards, safe deposit boxes, a 24-hour teller machine and Saturday banking. Additionally, the applicant intends to extend its main office services of international banking and trust services to the proposed branch. The building is to contain some 4,300 square feet and the drive-in area will contain some 1,050 square feet. Forty-three parking spaces will be provided. There will be five interior teller windows and four drive-in teller stations. The facility will also have a community room available for local citizens. The lending authority of the proposed branch manager will be $25,000.00 on an unsecured basis and $50,000.00 on a secured basis. Larger loans can be made available through consultation and approval of the parent bank. Long-term mortgage loans and acquisition and development loans will be available through the proposed branch. The proposed facility will have a branch manager and six staff (non- officer) members. The designated proposed branch manager is A. H. Vermeulen who has 22 years of experience in the banking industry and is currently a vice- president of the applicant. Mr. Vermuelen suffered a heart attack several weeks before the administrative hearing in this cause. It is expected that he will be able to resume his duties with the applicant. However, if he is unable to do so, the applicant has designated Charles Overholt as the proposed branch manager. Mr. Overholt has had 12 years of banking experience, has been an assistant branch manager of the Flagship Bank in St. Petersburg and is currently the applicant's vice-president in charge of the bookkeeping department. The applicant projects that total deposits at the proposed branch bank will be $5,000,00.00 at the end of the first year of operation, and $11,000,000.00 and $17,000,000.00 respectively at the end of the second and third years of operation. At the end of the first year of operation, the applicant anticipates a net loss of $22,100.00. Net profits of $211,300.00 and $459,500.00 are estimated for the end of the second and third years of operation. The site for the proposed branch banking facility is located on a main north/south traffic artery (North Dale Mabry Highway) and fronts on a major east/west traffic artery (Ehrlich Road). In selecting this site and designating the primary service area, the factors of residential development, population growth, traffic activity and flow, and existing financial institutions and services in the area were considered. Within the applicant's primary service area, there are presently two existing banks. The protestant Carrollwood is located 2.8 miles south of the applicant's site and the Exchange Bank of Temple Terrace branch is located 2.9 miles south of the proposed site. By an Order dated February 20, 1979, the Office of the Comptroller granted authority to the Sun Bank of Tampa Bay to open a branch bank to be located approximately 1.5 miles south of the site. Other applications for branch banks in the area are pending and there are several savings and loan institutions in the area. While the population of Tampa has declined in recent years, there have been considerable increases in population in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County, including the applicant's primary service area. The largest part (76.63 percent) of the increase in the unincorporated areas have resulted from net migration, as opposed to natural increase. There has been a good balance of growth in both the working or labor age group and the group aged 65 and above. The per capita personal income figures for Hillsborough County are below the State average and are increasing somewhat slower that the State average. The comparative figures report for June 30, 1977, through June 30, 1978, show that the protestant increased its total deposits by a little over 30 percent, the Exchange Bank of Temple Terrace increased its total deposits by almost 25 percent, and the Sun Bank of Tampa Bay likewise increased deposits by a little over 21 percent. The average for increases in deposits for the County was 16.6 percent. Official state estimates of population for the primary service area are not available. The applicant estimates the 1978 population of the primary service area to be 20,800. A population of 25,000 is projected for 1980 and a population of 33,000 is projected for 1985. The population of this area has grown approximately 105 percent since the year 1970. The two existing banks in the area result in a population per bank of 10,400 persons. The Sun Bank's branch brings this down to 6,933 persons per banking facility. The national average population per banking office is 4,715 and the Florida average is 8,086. The figures above for the primary service area do not take into account savings and loan institutions in the area nor customers served by banks outside the primary service area. The primary service area is mainly a "bedroom," residential community at the present time, with little commercial or industrial development. There is no significant concentration of employment in the area. The makeup of the populace is primarily upper middle class. Most of the residential development has occurred West of North Dale Mabry Highway. There are between 8,600 and 10,500 new residential units planned in the subdivisions located within the primary service area and, as of the date of the subject application, some 1,900 had been completed. Developers and landowners feel that commercial development in the area will naturally follow the residents development. At least two land developers in the primary service area have had difficulty obtaining financing in the form of large acquisition and development loans and construction loans from existing banks within the primary service area. The applicant is in substantial compliance with all state and federal laws affecting its operations. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1)(a)(12), conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Riley Davis William S. Lyman Taylor, Brion, Buker and Green Assistant General Counsel P. O. Box 1796 Office of the Comptroller Tallahassee, Florida 32302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Perkins and Richard B. Collins Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis Michaels, Sheffield, Perkins, The Capitol Collins and Vickers Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Post Office Box 10069 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The purpose of the public hearing was to review the application to consolidate New River Bank, Oakland Park, Florida, and 1st United Bank, Boca Raton, Florida, in accordance with Florida law.
Findings Of Fact 1st United Bancorp (Bancorp) is a Florida bank holding company which maintains its principal place of business at 980 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. 1st United is a Florida chartered bank and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bancorp and operates full service banking facilities at seven locations in Palm Beach and Martin Counties. New River is a Florida chartered bank which maintains its executive offices at 2901 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Oakland Park, Florida, and operates two banking facilities in Broward County, Florida. The Department is the duly designated state agency vested with the responsibility of processing and approving or disapproving a plan of any financial entity to acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of another financial entity pursuant to Section 655.414, Florida Statutes. On July 13, 1993, Bancorp and New River entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement which provides that Bancorp will cause 1st United to purchase substantially all of the assets and to assume substantially all of the liabilities of New River, after which New River will be liquidated and dissolved. The agreement noted above was duly adopted by majority vote of the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp, 1st United and New River. In addition, the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp, 1st United and New River duly adopted by majority vote a Plan of Acquisition of Assets and Assumption of Liabilities which summarized pertinent portions of the agreement and which includes all of the terms and conditions required by Section 655.414 (1), Florida Statutes. On September 7, 1993, 1st United and New River submitted an application to the Department seeking the Department's approval for the purchase of New River's assets and assumption of its liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized by the plan. Submitted with the application were the requisite filing fee and all of the required documents including copies of the agreement, the plan and certified copies of the authorizing resolutions of the respective boards of directors. On September 17, 1993, the Department caused notice of the receipt of the application to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This published notice met the requirements of Rule 3C-9.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. On September 7, 1993, Warren Orlando, in his capacity as president of 1st United, filed a petition for public hearing and notice of intention to appear on behalf of 1st United. On October 27, 1993, the Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of conducting a public hearing pursuant to Section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3C-9.004, Florida Administrative Code. Notice that a public hearing would be held on the application on December 13, 1993, was duly published in conformity with Rule 3C-9.005, Florida Administrative Code, in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, and Stuart News, newspapers of general circulation in the communities in which 1st United and New River do business. The agreement provides that New River will receive a combination of cash and Bancorp common stock equal to the net asset value, as defined in the plan, of the assets and liabilities of New River being purchased or assumed. The agreement further provides that after the closing of the asset acquisition, New River shall cease operations and commence dissolution and liquidation proceedings. Substantially all of the Bancorp common stock and available cash received by New River from Bancorp will be distributed to New River shareholders, other than dissenting shareholders. New River stockholders will receive a pro rata portion of the Bancorp common stock and cash available for distribution. After the acquisition of the assets and assumption of liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized in the plan, 1st United will have adequate capital structure in relation to its activities and its deposit liabilities. The acquisition of the assets and assumption of liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized in the plan, if consummated, are not contrary to the public interest. The respective boards of directors of Bancorp and New River requested the opinion of Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking with regard to the fairness to the respective shareholders of each corporation, from a financial point of view, of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking is regularly engaged in and is an expert authority in the valuation of bank and bank holding company securities in connection with bank mergers and acquisitions. Thomas Mecredy is an expert in the valuation of bank and bank holding companies in connection with bank mergers and acquisitions. On December 8, 1993, Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking through Thomas Mecredy issued its opinion to the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp and New River that the terms and conditions of the agreement were fair and equitable to the shareholders of each corporation. Pursuant to the agreement, New River's Board of Directors duly adopted a plan of dissolution and complete liquidation for New River. The plan of dissolution provides that after the sale of assets and assumption of liabilities the Board of Directors will reserve a sufficient amount of Bancorp stock and cash for payment of liquidation expenses and payment of liabilities not assumed by 1st United, including contingent liabilities (general reserves). In addition to the general reserves, New River will create a special reserve (special reserve) in an amount which it considers sufficient to defend and satisfy certain potential claims which may be asserted against New River by shareholders of New River in conjunction with the organization and initial offering of common stock of New River. In determining the amounts necessary to establish the general reserves and special reserve, New River's board of directors consulted with the national law firm of Proskauer Rose Goetz and Mendelsohn with respect to both reserves and the Florida law firm of Shutts & Bowen with respect to the special reserve for advice concerning the potential liability on the part of New River in connection with both known claims and potential claims and the amounts, if any, for which New River could be held liable. Shareholder E.D. Hittson noted that the book value of the New River stock is approximately $11.00 per share versus the $4.50 per share value of the 1st United stock. In response, bank officials noted that 1st United has dividend and strong growth potential not available to New River. Shareholder James Weck questioned provisions being made to satisfy outstanding lawsuit liabilities, the future location of the facility, and the effect on New River employees. In response, bank officials stated that the potential lawsuit liability is included in the reserve amounts, that no decision has been made as to the future location of the banking facility but that the needs of the service area will be met, and that it is their intention to draw talent from the New River staff. Shareholder Amine Semaan questioned whether New River would be represented on the Board of Directors at 1st United, whether minority areas would be a priority for the future location of the facility, and whether another buyer would have paid $10.50 per share. In response, bank officials maintained that New River will have one member on the Board of Directors at 1st United, that the needs of the service area will be met, and that no other, more attractive, buyer is available. On January 11, 1994, MaryAnn Cassel, a shareholder who reportedly attended the public hearing on December 13, 1993, filed a motion for leave to become a party. Such motion alleged that the movant, a minority shareholder, will be forced to accept Bancorp common stock in exchange for her New River shares or be forced to accept appraisal rights in lieu of her shares. Further, movant claimed that the plan is not fair to all parties because the shares of New River have been undervalued. Having deemed such motion untimely, and having determined such request does not allege circumstances unknown to movant prior to the December 13, 1993 public hearing, it is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Donald E. Thompson, II Proskauer Rose Goetz and Mendelsohn One Boca Place, Suite 340 2155 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 37431 Michael W. Ford Phillip T. Ridolfo, Jr. Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole Phillips Point East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey D. Jones Department of Banking and Finance Division of Banking The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 David S. Zimble Zimble Formoso-Murias, P.A. 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 730 Miami, Florida 33131
