FDIC OKs Rhode Island bank's wind-down plan
This story was originally published on Banking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Banking Dive newsletter.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has approved East Greenwich, Rhode Island-based Independence Bank's plan to liquidate, according to FDIC enforcement actions released Friday, settling a years-long back-and-forth between the lender and the regulator.
The bank was required to pay restitution of $3.5 million to affected consumers, according to a Jan. 14 order. The FDIC accused the bank of charging illegal fees for Small Business Administration 7(a) loans and causing the agency to lose an estimated $8.8 million.
Since the bank seeks to terminate deposit insurance and surrender its banking charter, Independence was ordered to dispose of any SBA loans still in its portfolio and ensure continuance of servicing rights and obligations connected with any of its SBA loans, according to the consent order.
The community lender, which neither admitted or denied the FDIC's allegations, also must ensure it's compliant with all laws and regulations related to ongoing maintenance of required information technology infrastructure, as well as document and data retention, the FDIC said.
The development wraps up a saga that stems from a SBA lending scheme the FDIC said was perpetuated between 2017 and 2019 by the bank's former CEO, Robert S. Catanzaro; former chief operating officer Danielle M. Desrosiers; and John C. Ponte, a loan referral agent who referred small businesses to the bank for SBA loans.
According to a February 2023 FDIC complaint, Catanzaro 'caused the Bank to enter into a high-risk non-diversified SBA lending strategy.'
Ponte's company targeted struggling small businesses and referred the 'vast majority' of SBA loans the bank funded: On average, about 76% of the dollar amount of SBA loans approved and funded by Independence was from loans referred by Ponte, the FDIC said.
Additionally, Ponte's company offered high-interest bridge loans to SBA loan applicants while they awaited approval and funding from the bank, the FDIC said; interest rates on these loans were 50% to 100%, the FDIC said.
Ponte sought to shift the risk associated with these bridge loans, arranging to have the loans repaid from the proceeds of the SBA loans made by Independence, and concealing information about the bridge loans and their repayment from SBA loan proceeds, the FDIC charged.
The SBA found the default rate of loans issued through Independence to be five times higher than those of peer banks, which cost the government agency millions of dollars, the FDIC said.
Catanzaro and Desrosiers participated in the bridge loan scheme, the FDIC contended, and Catanzaro worked with Ponte to ensure the loans were not documented in the bank's records.
The former CEO, who exhibited 'deficient risk management practices,' was 'repeatedly notified by the FDIC of deficiencies in the Bank's SBA Loan program,' the regulator said.
While employed at the bank, Desrosiers also developed a romantic relationship with Ponte, which she didn't disclose to the board, and began working for his company. Once aware of the romantic relationship, in February 2017, the board took away Desrosiers' COO title, but made her executive vice president of independent sales organization lending. Desrosiers left the bank in 2018.
All three faced FDIC fines, according to the 2023 complaint, and the regulator sought to ban each from the industry. The FDIC ordered Catanzaro's removal as CEO last year.
The bank sued the FDIC and the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation in federal court in Rhode Island in October 2023, accusing the regulators of 'blatant federal and regulatory agency overreach.'
The bank, which denied wrongdoing related to its SBA lending, said it was 'unable to overcome a Kafka-esque nightmare of the FDIC's design' because the regulator required Independence to operate for an indefinite amount of time, despite the bank's intention to wind down its operations, surrender its charter and terminate deposit insurance.
Independence said it had incurred about $3.6 million in operating expenses since first raising voluntary liquidation with regulators. But the FDIC said the termination process couldn't begin until the bank's outstanding regulatory obligations were satisfied. The regulator sought to have $6.9 million in restitution paid to bank customers harmed by its SBA lending program.
The case was dismissed Jan. 15. Cases Ponte filed against the FDIC, in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, were also dismissed. The FDIC also terminated a 2019 consent order against the bank.
A lawyer representing the bank in its Rhode Island district court case declined to comment Wednesday. The bank's president, Heather L. Marshall, couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
Recommended Reading
Fed, FDIC, OCC extend long-term debt comment period
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's business empire was built on government help. How badly could Donald Trump hurt him?
Even for Elon Musk, this is — to use the precise technical term — bonkers. Barely one week after leaving the Trump administration with every semblance of amity, the world's richest person is going scorched earth against the leader of the world's richest nation. Insults and threats. Calls for impeachment. Sinister references to Jeffrey Epstein. Somehow, Kanye West is also involved. It's like the messiest online influencer drama you've ever seen, except the parties are two of the most powerful people on Earth. But when it comes down to brass tacks, what exactly does Musk stand to lose in this titanic celebrity divorce? If Trump were to follow through on all his threats, and use every available weapon against Musk's business empire, how badly could it hurt him? The short answer is: pretty badly. In fact, with some admittedly quick and dirty math, we can put a price tag on some of it. Elon Musk's estimated $388bn fortune — already $26.6bn smaller than it was before this frank exchange of thermonuclear warheads — depends on the success of two companies which are both intertwined with the U.S. political system. One is Tesla, which makes electric vehicles; the other is SpaceX, which builds rockets, spacecraft, and satellites. X, formerly Twitter, can be left aside for now; having bought the social network 2022 for $44bn, Musk is still struggling to recoup his investment and has almost certainly lost money overall. Let's start with Space Exploration Technologies Corp., aka SpaceX. Not many people can afford to rent a rocket, so a lot of its business comes from government contracts, and U.S. government contracts most of all. As of writing, according to federal data, the Texas-based company has been paid or promised just under $21bn by Uncle Sam since 2008. The total potential value of all SpaceX's existing contracts, however, is much higher: $89.2bn. If Trump cancelled every contract tomorrow, that would mean a theoretical maximum of $68bn in lost potential income. For context, that's more than four times SpaceX's entire forecasted revenue for 2025, and nearly 15 times its revenue from 2022. Of course, there's no way to know if those maximum payments would ever actually have been made. So we could also get a rough sense of what SpaceX stands to lose by looking at the actual cash it received from federal coffers every year. In 2022 that was $2.8bn; in 2023, $3.1bn; and in 2024, $3.8bn. On the plus side for Musk, the U.S. government is so dependent on SpaceX that some critics have called it a monopoly in the making. SpaceX ferries our astronauts to and from the International Space Station, is heavily involved in Nasa's moon landing program, and manages an increasing share of government satellite communications as well. Still, that does not guarantee safety. Would you really, in all soberness, bet against Donald Trump doing something that hurts the country merely to punish his personal enemies? In fact, as Talking Points Memo editor-in-chief Josh Marshall argues, SpaceX's critical role might actually put it in greater danger, because it leaves the feds with few options except "expropriation or nationalization". Like SpaceX, Tesla has benefited greatly from taxpayer money, mostly in the form of emission trading payments from non-electric carmakers and tax credits or consumers buying electric vehicles. An analysis by The Washington Post put Tesla's total income from emission credits since 2007 at $11.4bn as of this February. Its gain from tax credits, which allow more people to buy its cars at higher prices, has been estimated at $3.4bn. Those emission credit schemes are run by U.S. states, not by the federal government. Nevertheless, Trump and the Republican Party have tried to undermine such schemes by contesting states' ability to set their own emissions rules. The wider impact is difficult to calculate. In contrast to SpaceX, Tesla sells to ordinary people, who tend to have their own opinions independent of government. In reputational terms, splitting noisily with Trump could reverse some of its recent sales losses; on the other hand, it might just make Tesla hated on both sides of politics. The biggest risk may be regulatory. At the time of Trump's second inauguration, Tesla was being investigated by numerous federal agencies including the Justice Department, the National Labor Relations Board, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — which by itself had six pending probes. During his time at DOGE, Democrats feared Musk could use his power to influence or cancel these cases. But Trump's unabashed willingness to wield state power to punish those who displease him while rewarding loyalists cuts both ways. Live by the chainsaw, die by the chainsaw. How much that costs Tesla would depend on how far Trump is willing to go, and on the outcome of any ensuing court battle. But when U.S. stock exchanges closed on Thursday its share price had crashed by nearly 12 percent, wiping $122bn off its market value. So far we've only addressed Elon Musk's finances. Yet there are other, more personal ways that Trump could hurt him if the former reality TV star truly isn't here to make friends. For example, Trump's old advisor Stephen Bannon — who has previously branded Musk a "parasitic illegal immigrant" — urged the administration to investigate Musk's immigration history, and potentially deport him. Unlike some of the feverish allegations that emanate from the extended Trump-o-sphere, this one actually has some substance. An investigation by The Washington Post last year alleged that Musk had worked illegally in the U.S. while launching his Silicon Valley career in the mid-90s. Musk has denied this, and in any case he has been a U.S. citizen since 2002. Still, legal experts have said his citizenship could technically be revoked if he were proven to have lied to immigration authorities. And while those laws have only rarely been enforced in the past 25 years, some Trump aides and allies have said they want that to change. Nor is that anywhere close to the only alleged skeleton in Musk's closet. What is his relationship with ecstasy, Adderall, ketamine, or magic mushrooms? Has he ever been in regular contact with Vladimir Putin? Did his colleagues at DOGE rigorously follow information security laws when extracting sensitive data from federal systems? What happened to all that data after it was obtained? At least we can probably can rule out plain old assassination by government special forces. Although, to be fair, that is literally something that Trump and his lawyers have argued should be protected by presidential immunity. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Adviser Urges Immigration Investigation Into Elon Musk's Past as "Illegal Alien"
As Elon Musk and Donald Trump's bromance experiences a rapid but totally predictable disassembly, Musk's archnemesis Steve Bannon is calling on the president to investigate the world's richest man's dubious immigration history. "They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately," Bannon told the New York Times on Thursday. He also declared that Musk should be investigated for his alleged drug habit. Bannon was a former chief strategist to Trump. He no longer holds the role in an official capacity, but remains an informal adviser and an influential voice on the American far right. Musk and Trump traded blows on their respective personal social media playgrounds this week, not long after Musk suddenly announced that his time as a "special government employee" was over. Once out of the White House, it didn't take long for things to escalate from Musk blasting the president's newly proposed spending bill, to Trump threatening to cancel Elon's billions of dollars worth of government contracts, to Musk clapping back by saying he'd cut off NASA's invaluable access to his spacecraft. Musk also really went off the rails by shouting from the rooftops of X that Trump is in the unreleased Epstein files, and then agreeing that the president should be impeached. We can only imagine the pure schadenfreude bliss that Bannon must be experiencing right now. He's made no secret of his contempt for Musk, who he's previously called a "toddler," and "not tough enough," and a "parasitic illegal alien." Some of that is probably his jealousy speaking: Musk had replaced Bannon as the president's golden boy, a role he lost when Trump kicked Bannon kicked to the curb for stealing the limelight during his first term in office. Bannon, an alleged white supremacist, has always been skeptical of Musk's sudden realignment with the MAGA movement, and has constantly chided the Silicon-Valley-liberal turned Texas-based-technocrat for not being conservative — or racist — enough. So you can bet he's making the most of Musk's downfall, capitalizing on his dubious personal immigration history. Despite his constant slandering of immigrants, the South Africa-born businessman was likely at one point an "illegal" immigrant too, overstaying on a student visa even though he'd dropped out of school to work on his startup. His brother, Kimbal, has admitted to both of them working illegally. Bannon, on top of calling for Musk's deportation, has recommended nationalizing Musk's businesses, too. "President Trump tonight should sign an executive order calling for the Defense Production Act to be called and seize SpaceX tonight before midnight," Bannon said Thursday on an episode of his War Room podcast, as quoted by the Daily Beast. But he faces a fearsome keyboard warrior in Musk, who retaliated in a slur-bedazzled tweet: "Bannon is peak r*tard." Then he doubled down, clarifying that Bannon was, in fact, a "communist r*tard." There's clearly no love being lost between the two. Trump, for his part, is doing his best Don Draper impression. "I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem," he said Friday, per CNN. More on Elon Musk: Elon Musk Declares That He's "Immediately" Cutting Off NASA's Access to Space
Hamilton Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Michaels completes acquisition of Joann's intellectual property and fan-favorite labels
NEW YORK (AP) — Craft labels from the now-shuttered fabrics seller Joann are making their way to a new home: Michaels. The Michaels Companies announced on Thursday that it had completed its purchase of Joann's intellectual property and private label brands — in an acquisition that arrives as the Texas-based arts and crafting chain works to expand its own fabric, sewing and yarn offerings. 'We're honored to have the opportunity to welcome JOANN customers into our creative community and are committed to delivering the selection, value, and inspiration they are looking for at Michaels,' Michaels CEO David Boone said in a statement. The deal, he added, allows the company to better 'respond to rising demand' among both new and existing customers. Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. The Associated Press reached out to Michaels for further information on Friday. With roots dating back to a single Ohio storefront in 1943 , Joann had grown into a destination for generations of sewers, quilters, knitters and lovers of other crafts for more than 80 years. But more recently, operational challenges continued to pile up — with the retailer pointing to sluggish consumer demand, inventory shortages and rising competition. Joann announced it would be going out of business back in February, just one month after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the second time within a year. At the time, the company said financial services company GA Group, together with Joann's term lenders, had been selected as the winning bidder to 'acquire substantially all of Joann's assets' and conduct going-out-of-business sales at all store locations. Michaels on Thursday said that its purchase of Joann's IP and private brands included the acquisition of 'Big Twist' yarns, which had become a staple in Joann stores over the years. Those 'Big Twist' labels are now being developed as part of Michaels' portfolio — and will be available in-stores and online later this year, the company said. In the meantime, Michaels has also dedicated a landing page to welcome former Joann customers online. And as part of its overall expansion into fabrics, Michaels said on Thursday that its adding more than 600 new products from new and existing brands — including quilting supplies and fabrics, specialty threads, sewing machines and more. Michaels, founded in 1973, currently operates 1,300 stores across 49 U.S. states and Canada. Its parent company also owns Artistree, a framing merchandise manufacturer.
