Lawyers & the Bank

[CB301]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA.
Is it permissable for the Atty. for defendants who have been ordered to leave a Corporation for Malfeasance and apperance of embezzlement, to be in direct contact with the Corporate bank, even though there is no counter claim filed by these defendants?? I would think this Atty. could only contact the council to the Corp.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by CB301

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA.
Is it permissable for the Atty. for defendants who have been ordered to leave a Corporation for Malfeasance and apperance of embezzlement, to be in direct contact with the Corporate bank, even though there is no counter claim filed by these defendants?? I would think this Atty. could only contact the council to the Corp.

Based only on your post, the answer is a definite MAYBE.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Without a subpoena the bank should only release information to authorized signers. Having said that, nothing would keep the def's attorney from asking.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by CB301

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA.
Is it permissable for the Atty. for defendants who have been ordered to leave a Corporation for Malfeasance and apperance of embezzlement, to be in direct contact with the Corporate bank, even though there is no counter claim filed by these defendants?? I would think this Atty. could only contact the council to the Corp.

**A: the atotrney should be talking to the corporation's legal counsel unless agreed to otherwise by the parties.

[CB301]

So, the defendant (A) is Corp. Pres., but not a corp.share holder. This individual (A) writes the checks, but has been ordered out of this position by the shareholder(s) because of malfeasance, in particular, not writing checks to Corp. Counsel (Atty 1), and failure to co-operate in audit for unexplained payroll expenses. The Atty (2) for this defendant (A) could contact the bank because (A) was the check writer for the Corp???
If that is true, when & how would (A) cease being check writer???

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by CB301

So, the defendant (A) is Corp. Pres., but not a corp.share holder. This individual (A) writes the checks, but has been ordered out of this position by the shareholder(s) because of malfeasance, in particular, not writing checks to Corp. Counsel (Atty 1), and failure to co-operate in audit for unexplained payroll expenses. The Atty (2) for this defendant (A) could contact the bank because (A) was the check writer for the Corp???
If that is true, when & how would (A) cease being check writer???

The president would cease being a check writer when new documentation has been signed with the bank. Until then, the bank will release information because they have not received information to the contrary.

[CB301]

The bank was presented with articles of inc., Stock certificates (issued and not issued), and minutes to meeting deauthorizing check writing power of Def A. and assigning it to I, the only shareholder. Shouldn't this have ended def A's authority to control checking accts??

It seems to me that the bank's next response should have been "May we see your driver's license?"

Bank was less than co-operative, almost combative, and I believe they were being influenced by false info supplied to them through Atty 2. Corp.counsel (Atty 1) did nothing to question any of this. BTW this is one of the major banks in deep do-do

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by CB301

The bank was presented with articles of inc., Stock certificates (issued and not issued), and minutes to meeting deauthorizing check writing power of Def A. and assigning it to I, the only shareholder. Shouldn't this have ended def A's authority to control checking accts??

Did you complete the paperwork required by the bank? If not, then you missed a step.

[CB301]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Did you complete the paperwork required by the bank? If not, then you missed a step.

No. I requested this, but it was the bank who adamantly refused to assist, and in fact was obstructing me with nonsense requests such as " We need a certified copy of your Pa. contractor's lisence." Ahhhhh, no such license exists in Pa. currently!!! They even threatened to freeze the accounts if I did not stop requesting a solution to this obvious problem !!!! It would seem to me that if a party showed it had legal, unchallenged title to property, the bank would be obligated to diligently safegard that property. Would they not be in a fiduciary position to the shareholders of that account???

[Antigone*of*Greece]

You might want to seriously consider interviewing other banks, especially if this person already has a relationship.

Closing your accounts is not as difficult as it may seem. My suggestion to you is to interview more than one bank. Make you decision based on what your banker and their institution can do for you.

Once you've established your new accounts begin to use them a.s.a.p. I can honestly tell you that if your ex-president already has established ties, it is going to be difficult for you to focus on your business with all these banking issues looming over you.

take care and I wish you well. ana

[CB301]

Originally Posted by Wirelessany1

You might want to seriously consider interviewing other banks, especially if this person already has a relationship.

Closing your accounts is not as difficult as it may seem. My suggestion to you is to interview more than one bank. Make you decision based on what your banker and their institution can do for you.

Once you've established your new accounts begin to use them a.s.a.p. I can honestly tell you that if your ex-president already has established ties, it is going to be difficult for you to focus on your business with all these banking issues looming over you.

take care and I wish you well. ana

Did that, I took all nescessary docs to another bank, opened a new acct. And one week later Atty 1, tells them he was corp. counsel, of course this is not true, but 2nd bank wanted no part of it.!!!! See why I am curious as to where this guy (Atty 2) crossed the line into potential criminal territory ??? And was corp. Atty 1 negligent in not demanding copy of all contact between Atty 1 and the bank??
Apparently he was representing himself as corp. counsel, yet no meeting of shareholders authorizing this exists.
Thank you for your input, I appreciate it.