Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )


Menu:
  •                              NO. 3097
    Article 4727, Revised Civil Statutes ‘of
    Texas, 1925, and Article 577$ Penal Code of
    Texas, 1925, do not prohibit a life insurance
    company from making a,loan to another corpora-
    tion if a director or officer of the insurance
    company is also a director or officer of the
    borrowing corporation,where the officer or.di-
    rector of the insurance company has no personal
    interest in the loan and receives no money or
    valuable thing for negotiating, procuring, re-
    commending, or adding in.the furtherance of the
    lOan3 either as principal, co-rincipal,agent
    .orbeneficiary in such loan,
    OFFICE OF TRE ATTORREY GENERLL
    January 6, 1940
    Iion:Walter C. Wood;ilard,
    Chairman        ;fnion NO. O-1586
    Board of Insurance Commissioners           : Constructionof Arti-
    Austin, Texas                            cle 4727, Revised Civil
    Statutes of Texas, and Ar-
    tic&e 577, Penal Code of
    Dear Sir:                                Texas.
    We are in receipt of your letter in which you quott
    Article 4727 Revised Civil Statutes of Texas end Article 577,
    Penal Code oh Texas, and request an opinion 0; the following
    questibn:
    8,     whether in your opinion Article 4727,
    supra,*pGoi&bitsa life insurance c6mpany from
    making a loan to another cprporation if a diroc,-
    tor or officer of the life insurance conpany is
    also a director or an officer of the borrozting
    corporation, the officer or director having no
    personal interest in the loan and receiving no
    looney or valuable thing for negotiating, procur-
    ing\ r,ecomnending, or aiding in the furtherance
    of the loan, either as princl.pal,co-princLpa.l;l,
    agent or beneficiary in such loanli."
    Arrticlc4727,   supra;   rezds as follzsz
    "No dlroctor or officer of any l.nsuranceCOW
    pany transacting buslncss in or organized under the
    Hon. kklter C. Moodward, January 6, 1940, page 2
    laws of this State, shell
    ._ receive
    s-      any money or
    valuable thing for negotlatlng, procurlng, recom-
    mendIng or aiding in any purchase or sale by such
    company of any property, or any loan from such
    company; nor be pecuniarily, interested, either
    as principal, co-principal,agent or beneficiary
    in any such purchase, sale or loan. Nothing in
    this article shall prevent a life insurance cor-
    poration from making a loan upon a policy held
    therein, by the borrower, not in excess of the re-
    serve value thereof."
    Article 577 of the Penal Code provides:
    %o director or officer of any insurance com-
    pany transacting biness    in this State
    ized under the laws of this State, shali ````$0"
    any money or valuable thing for negotiating, pro-
    curing, recommending or aiding in any purchase or
    sale by such company of any property~or loan from
    such company, nor be pecuniarily interested either
    as principal, co-principal,agent or beneficiary,
    in any such purchase, sale or loan. Nothing con-
    : tained in this article shall prevent a life insur-
    ance corporationfrom making a loan upon a policy
    held therein, by the,borrower not in excess of,.the
    reserve value thereof.. hny person violating any
    provision of this article shall.begfined not les8
    than three hundred nor more than ohe thousand dol-
    lars."
    Both articles stem from Senate Bill 291, Chapter 108,
    ?I& Legislature,.approvedKarch 22, 1909, which reads as fol-
    :
    Wo director or officer of any insurance com-
    pany transactingbusiness in this State, or organ-
    .ised under the laws of this State, shall receive
    any money or valuable thfng for negotiating, procur-
    ing, recommending or aiding in any purchase or sale
    by such company of any property or any loan from such
    cornpan:?,
    nor be pecuniarfly interested tither as prin-
    cipal, co-princ3.pa1,agent or beneficiary, in any
    such purchase, sale or loan; provided, that nothing
    contained in this Section shall prevent a life icsur-
    am0 corporationilromuiak3.s~ a loar,GpoIla policy
    held therein, by the boxover  not in excess of the
    reserva valua t!121’eof..-Al’/
    per    ‘:i.Q:;.j,+i,nS
    S’-‘3         a:,yp;:a..
    risior-;cf t::ijSei:tionsha11 be guilty of a misde-
    meazort and upon convIction thereof, shall be punished
    Hon. ualter C. Moodward, January 6; 1940,   page   3
    by a fine of not less than $330.00 nor more than
    $19000000~)'
    At the outset we call your attention to the fact
    that Article ~4727and Article 577 do not prohibita life
    insurance company from doing anything.
    The two statutes, civil and criminal, do contain an
    express prohibition, but it is directed at the directors and
    officers of insurance com&anies, and in no manner can it be
    construed as a restraint upon the power and authority of in-
    surance companies to make valid loans.
    -At the expense of repetition we again call attention
    to the explicit and unambiguous language of the articles above
    quoted:
    JINodirector or officer of any insurance com-
    pany...    shall receive any money or valuable
    t$..iIf;; negotiating, procuring, recommending or
    . 'any loan from such company nor be
    pecuniaril; interested, either as principd, co-
    g;ictpal, agent or beneficiary in any such . . .
    a
    The directors and officers of insurance companies
    are inhibited from receiving any money or valuable thing for
    their part in negotiating the loan, and also from'being pecun-
    iarily interested, either as principal, co-principal,agent
    or beneficiary in such loan. Any director or officer who vio-
    lates the law in this respect is subj,ectunder the criminal
    statute to a fine of not less than three hundred nor more than
    one,thousand dollars. But neither the inhibition nor the pen-
    alty can be stretched to prevent an insurance company from
    makIng a loan to a corporationwhere a director or ~officerof
    the lending insurance company is also a director or an officer
    of the borrowing corporation. Whatever the guilt of the di-
    rector or officer-in-common the insurance company, i.e., the
    corporate entity, has commleted no offense under Articles 4727
    and 577$ and cannot be punished by fine.
    The prohibition, by the clear language of the stat-
    utes, being operative against individual officers and direc-
    tors and not the company itself, a life insurance company may
    make loans in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of
    lirticle472s9 vernon9.snnnotated Civil Statutes, and subject
    to the regulatory poi!crsof the Board of Insurance CoiMXCSSiOn-
    ers as set out'in Chagtsr I, Title 78, Insurance, A rticles
    b679-4698,  Vernon's i¬ated Civil Satute~.
    Hon. Walter C. Woodward, January 6, 1940, page 4
    In this opinion we are not concerneriwith the rela-
    tionship of the diraotor or officer to the loan or the degree
    .of interest,’direct or indirect, vhich the director may or
    may not have in the loan, The question, however, is whether
    or not the life insurance company may make a loan to aqother
    corporationtrhereItadirector or officer of the life insurance
    company is also a dire&or :or an officer of the borrowing co:-
    poration, the officer or director having no.personal interest
    in the loan and receiving no money or valuable thing for nego-
    tiating, procuring, reoommending or aiding in the furtherance
    of the loan, either as principal, co-principal,agent or bene-
    ficiary in such loan.”
    The question is not whether a director of an insur-
    ance company which makes a loan to a corporation of which he
    is also a director falls within the prohibition of the civil
    and criminal statutes.
    It is to.be noted that in the question propounded.to
    ;~us:; director or officer-in-commonis given a clean bill of
    . The Board of Insurance Commissioners,using the lan-
    guage of the statute, states that none of the prohibitionsof
    the statute are v:oLated. The statutory phrase "nor be decun-
    iarily interested" is not incorparatedspocificzLl.y in the
    uestion, but the director or officer-in-commonis said to have
    sno per.sonalinterest in the loan and reoeiring no money or
    valuablesthing. . 2'
    ‘where,under the language of the articles, there is
    a serious question that a director of. a life insurance company
    is 8~pecuniarilyinterested . 0 . as o 0 o beneficiary” in a loan
    made to a corporation of which he is also a director, it would
    indeed be doing violence to the language of the statutes under
    considerationto hold that the prohibition therein operated as
    a bar against the insurance cornpanG,as well as against the di-
    rectors.and officers.
    ,The question propoaded presents the weakast situation
    imaginable for extending the statutory prohibition to a loan by
    a life insurance company to a corporationwith which it has a
    director in common.
    f to Irrafficbetween two cor-
    The common law in respec,
    porations ui%h one or more identical d2roct6rs or officers sup-
    ports our constructionof Artif;les6727 ,z?d577. The foUowdrig
    statement i.n2 Thompson.on Corporations, page 842, is persuasive
    and illuminating:
    Hon. Walter C. Woodward, January 6, 1940, page 5
    corporations,from the mer'efact that a portion,
    less than a quorum, of the board of directors in
    the one 6onstituteda part of that in the other
    at the same time, and participated in the dealings
    between the two; .birt
    it is only when their deal-
    ings are shown to be prejudicial to one of the cor-
    porations represented by them that they will be
    set aside by the courts."
    The rule acted on in Texas, in respect to benefit to
    directors as individuals, as stated in 10 Texas Juri,s.,p. 958,
    IS:
    '(. . i assuming that the transactionbe au-
    thorized by competent, disinterested directors,
    and that it passes the test of fairness to the
    corporation,the interested director may not be
    deprived of the profits of the transaction.11
    and
    VhiJ.e the transaction, if otherwise unassail-
    table,is not void because interested directors con-.
    stituting a minority use their.positionfor the
    purpose of advancing their own interests, any want
    of good faith, reflected in the unfairness of the
    transaction to the corporation,will render it void-
    able even though sanctionedby "fqualified majority
    of the directors."
    The same reasoning is applicable to officers as well
    as directors.
    The contemplatedLoan would be valid at common law;
    it is not prevented by the statutory law of this State. We feel
    that your question is answerable in the negative.
    It is our opinion, and you are so advised that Artiale
    4727 Revised Civil Statutes of Texas' 1925 and Ar?Scle 577t Pe-
    nal &ode of Texas, 1925, do not prohi6i.ta iife insurance company
    from makin& a loan to another corporation if a director or offi-
    cer of the insurance company is also a director or officer of the
    borrowing corporation,where the officer or director of the in-
    surance company has no personal interest in the loan and receives
    no money or valuable thing for negotiating, procuring, recommend-
    ing? or aiding in the furtherance of the loan: either as princi-
    co-principal,agent or beneficiary in such 105:~.
    pal!.,
    Reference was made in your letter of re+cst'to eil~Piir.
    i.cn of this department by the \Jriter under date of September 17,
    aon. tjalterC. Woodward, January 6,,1940, page 6
    1937, to Honorable  R. L. Wiiiel, Chairman of the Board of In-
    surance Commissioners, gusting Texas. In that opinion the
    main question urder considerationwas whether the provisions
    of Articles   4727 and 577, supra, extended to fire and cas-
    ualty insurance com?annies: and it was held that they did. In-
    sofar as said opinion in answer to rel&ted questions held
    that Articles 4727 and-577 prevents an Insurance  company from
    maldng a loan to a corporationwith which it has a director in
    common,-it is overruled.
    Wewish to emphasize the fact that this opinion is
    U$ed    strictly to the circumstancesdescribed in your re-
    There Is no attempt on.our part to lay down a universal
    rule &pllcable to every situation in which a director or offi-
    cer of the lending insuranca company is also a director or of-
    ficer.of the borrowing corporation.-
    ~Trustingthat we have answered your inquiry satisfac-
    torily, we are
    Yours very truly
    ATTORXEY GENERbI,GF TEIUS
    By /s/ Dick Stout
    Dick Stout, Assistant
    DSaLWtwb
    This opinion has been considqed in conference, ap-
    proved, and ordered recorded.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: O-1586

Judges: Gerald Mann

Filed Date: 7/2/1939

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017