BankBryanCave.com

Bank Bryan Cave

Georgia

Main Content

Atlanta MSA Deposit Data Signals Trend Towards Consolidation

November 1, 2013

Authors

Michael Shumaker

Atlanta MSA Deposit Data Signals Trend Towards Consolidation

November 1, 2013

by: Michael Shumaker

On September 30th, the FDIC released updated deposit data as of June 30, 2013.  As many community banks are now regaining their footing after the financial crisis began in 2008, we wanted to take a look at how the deposit data has changed over the past five years within the Atlanta MSA.

Perhaps the most obvious trend seen in the deposit data relates to the decreasing number of banks and branches serving the Atlanta MSA.  Overall, Atlanta is down from 167 banks and thrifts in 2008 to 104 in 2013, a 38% decrease over the past five years, and

Read More

Georgia Court Holds Foreclosure Confirmation Statute Inapplicable to Certain Guarantors

September 19, 2013

Authors

Curtis Romig

Georgia Court Holds Foreclosure Confirmation Statute Inapplicable to Certain Guarantors

September 19, 2013

by: Curtis Romig

In a landmark decision, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently ruled that a guarantor may waive the right to require the holder of a secured debt to confirm a forceclosure sale prior to seeking a deficiency judgment.  In HWA Properties, Inc. v. C&S Bank, 2013 WL 3498088 (Ga. App. July 15, 2013), the Court of Appeals was asked to consider whether a guarantor could be liable for a loan deficiency where there had not been a valid confirmation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 44-14-161 and the borrower had been discharged.  The Court of Appeals held that a confirmation following a foreclosure

Read More

Proposed Rule for Georgia Merchant Acquirer Limited Purpose Bank

August 27, 2013

Authors

Jerry Blanchard

Proposed Rule for Georgia Merchant Acquirer Limited Purpose Bank

August 27, 2013

by: Jerry Blanchard

The Georgia DBF recently published its proposed rules (the “Rule”) for implementing the Georgia Merchant Acquirer Limited Purpose Bank Act. The Act was adopted 2012 to create a special purpose state-chartered bank that would allow companies to enter card networks directly rather than renting a Bank Identification Number (“BIN”) from a financial institution sponsor. Existing networks currently require that members be “eligible” for FDIC deposit insurance coverage in order to obtain a BIN and currently the only institutions that are eligible for such coverage are state and federal owned financial institutions that accept demand deposits. The Act addresses that

Read More

Significant Georgia Supreme Court Lender Liability Decision

June 21, 2013

Authors

Jerry Blanchard

Significant Georgia Supreme Court Lender Liability Decision

June 21, 2013

by: Jerry Blanchard

The typical lender liability lawsuit is premised on an allegation that a bank has violated some “duty” owed to a bank customer or even a third party. Sometimes that duty arises under contract and sometimes under common law such as for negligence. In the recent case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Jenkins, the Georgia Supreme Court grappled with the issue of whether a party can  sue  a bank for negligence based upon an alleged violation of a federal statute where the federal statute itself does not contain such a remedy. The case arose out of an identify theft situation. Stephen

Read More

A Rundown on Georgia’s FDIC Failed Bank Litigation

June 11, 2013

Authors

Michael Carey

A Rundown on Georgia’s FDIC Failed Bank Litigation

June 11, 2013

by: Michael Carey

As we have reported before, Georgia has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation in bank failures since the onset of the late-2000s financial crisis.  Georgia has also seen far more FDIC bank failure lawsuits than any other state:  15 of the 63 bank failure cases brought by the FDIC since 2010 involve Georgia banks and are currently pending in Georgia federal courts.  While some allegations vary from case to case, the general thrust of all of these lawsuits is that the former directors and/or officers of the banks were negligent or grossly negligent in pursuing aggressive growth strategies, with

Read More

Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Non-Judicial Foreclosures

May 20, 2013

Authors

Jennifer Dempsey

Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Non-Judicial Foreclosures

May 20, 2013

by: Jennifer Dempsey

On May 20, 2013, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in the You v. JP Morgan Chase case (Case No. S13Q0040).  The You Opinion addresses several questions that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia had certified to the Supreme Court regarding the operation of Georgia’s law governing non-judicial foreclosures.

First, the Supreme Court addressed the question: “Can the holder of a security deed be considered a secured creditor, such that the deed holder can initiate foreclosure proceedings on residential property even if it does not also hold the note or otherwise have

Read More

Georgia Appellate Court Decisions Back Secured Lenders

April 18, 2013

Authors

Bryan Cave

Georgia Appellate Court Decisions Back Secured Lenders

April 18, 2013

by: Bryan Cave

Two recent Georgia Court of Appeals en banc decisions issued on March 29 have weighed in on one aspect of the MERS fallout, holding in favor of the secured lender.

In Montgomery v. Bank of America et al., No. A12A0514, 2013 WL 1277830 (Ga. App. March 29, 2013) and LaRosa v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. A12A2393, 2013 WL 1286692 (Ga. App. March 29, 2013), the Court of Appeals was asked whether a security deed which includes a non-judicial power of sale is transferable without evidence of the transfer of the underlying debt instrument. Montgomery at *2; LaRosa

Read More

Constitutional Challenge to Garnishment Statute

March 4, 2013

Authors

Bill Custer and Julia Fenwick Ost

Constitutional Challenge to Garnishment Statute

March 4, 2013

by: Bill Custer and Julia Fenwick Ost

This update is provided to our earlier post regarding the passage of HB 683 in 2012 permitting banks to answer garnishments without the need for an attorney.   As you may recall, we advised you then that there may subsequently be a challenge to the statute of on the grounds that the statute allegedly violates the separation of power principle set forth in the Constitution of Georgia.  As we predicted, Georgia Legal Services Program (“GLSP”) has recently challenged HB 683 on precisely this ground.

GLSP is challenging this law on the grounds that the General Assembly cannot define the practice

Read More

2013 Georgia Banking and Finance Law Seminar

January 24, 2013

Authors

Bryan Cave

2013 Georgia Banking and Finance Law Seminar

January 24, 2013

by: Bryan Cave

Make your plans now to attend the 2013 Banking and Finance Law seminar.  The seminar, sponsored by the Business Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia, will be Feb. 8, at the Bar Center in Atlanta. The seminar chair, Gerald L. Blanchard, Bryan Cave LLP, has put together a terrific set of topics and speakers for this program.

Topics include:

  • Reading the Regulatory Tea Leaves:  Basel III and Dodd-Frank Update
  • Advising Bank Board Directors on Regulatory Relations and Legal Risk Minimization
  • Recent Banking Law Cases
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – There’s A New Sheriff in Town!
  • Regulator
    Read More

Federal Courts in Georgia and Florida Dismiss Ordinary Negligence Claims

September 13, 2012

Authors

Bard Brockman

Federal Courts in Georgia and Florida Dismiss Ordinary Negligence Claims

September 13, 2012

by: Bard Brockman

We have previously summarized an important district court ruling dismissing the FDIC’s ordinary negligence claims against former directors and officers of Integrity Bank of Alpharetta, Georgia.  The FDIC asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to reconsider its decision in that case, but the court recently denied that request and reaffirmed its rationale that Georgia’s version of the Business Judgment Rule bars claims for ordinary negligence against corporate directors and officers.  A copy of the court’s recent order in the Integrity Bank case is available here.  Although the district court declined to reconsider

Read More
The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.