Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Code 1933, § 41A-2211, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 705, § 1; Ga. L. 1977, p. 730, § 7; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 7; Ga. L. 2017, p. 693, § 1/HB 192.)
The 2017 amendment, effective July 1, 2017, rewrote this Code section. See Editor's note for applicability.
- Ga. L. 2017, p. 693, § 4/HB 192, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall apply only to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2017."
- For article, "2013 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments," see 19 Ga. St. B.J. 28 (April 2014). For annual survey on business associations, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 15 (2014). For annual survey of business associations, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 15 (2015). For article, "2014 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments," see 20 Ga. St. Bar. J. 26 (April 2015). For article on the 2017 amendment of this Code section, see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2017). For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 321 (2017).
- After the FDIC brought claims against a bank's former directors and officers for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence, a court declined to take judicial notice of facts in the FDIC's Officer of Inspector General's Audit Report of the Bank and its Congressional testimony that the defendants alleged rebutted allegations that the defendants were negligent or grossly negligent because at the motion to dismiss stage, it was not for the court to weigh those facts against allegations of the complaint and determine, as a matter of law, whether the defendants breached the standard of care required under Georgia law. FDIC v. Adams, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Apr. 10, 2013).
- FDIC's claims against former officers and directors of a bank for ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty were subject to the business judgment rule. The FDIC rebutted the business judgment presumption, and the FDIC's claims could go forward, as the allegations of the complaint, taken together, painted a picture of the officers and directors failing to implement any safeguards and ignoring the ones actually put in place so that they could pursue a rapid growth strategy and accumulate large profits in a short period of time. FDIC v. Adams, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Apr. 10, 2013).
- 9 C.J.S., Banks and Banking, §§ 106, 107, 111.
- Powers of bank president or vice-president, 1 A.L.R. 693; 67 A.L.R. 970.
Implied, apparent or ostensible, and presumed authority of bank cashier to surrender or waive some right of bank, 108 A.L.R. 713.
Liability, under National Banking Act (12 USCS § 93), of national bank directors for retaliation against officer or employee who discloses or refuses to commit banking irregularity, 101 A.L.R. Fed. 377.
Total Results: 3
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-09-22
Citation: 295 Ga. 747, 763 S.E.2d 879, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 739
Snippet: violate the standard of care established by OCGA § 7-1-490 when he acts in good faith but fails to act with
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-07-11
Snippet: examination of the statutory law starts with OCGA § 7-1-490 (a), which concerns the care with which bank officers
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-07-11
Citation: 295 Ga. 579, 761 S.E.2d 332, 2014 WL 3396655, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 587
Snippet: examination ofthe statutory lawstarts with OCGA § 7-1-490 (a), which concerns the care with which bank officers