FDIC Requires SouthPoint Bank to Improve Credit Risk Management

The bank consented to the issuance of the consent order without admitting or denying the charges, the FDIC said in a Monday (Dec. 29) press release.

SouthPoint Bank did not immediately reply to PYMNTS’ request for comment.

The consent order requires the bank’s board to increase its supervision and direction of bank management, retain a qualified bank consultant to assess the bank’s senior executive officers and their ability to return the bank to satisfactory condition and performance, and engage a qualified outside party to provide ethics training to bank directors, officers and employees.

Other requirements of the consent order include notifying supervisory authorities of the resignation or termination of any of the bank’s directors or executive officers, improving credit risk management, improving internal controls and internal audit procedures regarding credit risk management, and engaging a qualified outside party to review the credit portfolios of any credit officer that departed the bank in the 12 months preceding the effective date of the order.

This order was among seven enforcement actions the FDIC took against banks and individuals in November and announced in the Monday press release.

The FDIC terminated proceedings against Vermont, Illinois-based Vermont State Bank; terminated consent orders against Vivian, Louisiana-based Citizens Bank & Trust Company of Vivian, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana-based Bank of Louisiana; and terminated insurance of El Centro, California-based Community Valley Bank after determining that the bank does not receive deposits, other than trust funds.

The regulator also announced two prohibition orders, including one against a former teller at a branch of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Truist Bank who allegedly stole around $50,000 from a drive-through teller drawer, and another against a former teller at Baton Rouge, Louisiana-based b1BANK who allegedly misappropriated about $34,500 from the bank. In each of these cases, the individual neither admitted nor denied the charges and consented to the prohibition order, according to the orders.