After both a state and federal judge ruled that the bank would likely prevail on the merits of the arbitration, and that dissipation risk was real, Qenta was able to successfully argue that the TRO should be vacated anyway, as I lacked standing to bring the case. Even though I was the sole shareholder of the bank, and the one who signed the Purchase and Assumption Agreement on behalf of the bank, and also had personal rights under that agreement, I had no authority to act for the bank. The assets in question were owned by the bank, and the bank itself needed to be a party to any action to recover them. But since the bank was in receivership, only the receiver could act on its behalf. As the sole shareholder, I no longer possessed that legal power. Since the receiver refused to join as a party, despite my multiple requests that he do so, the federal judge had no choice but to vacate the TRO. But for the gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty of the OCIF-appointed receiver, the TRO would have stayed in force, the bank’s assets would have been protected, and customers could have been made whole.
