Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D contacted P to request that P assist D in acquiring certain thrift institutions. P learned that four other central Texas thrift institutions, known as the 'Lamb Package,' were available for purchase. P informed D about the availability of the Lamb Package. D entered into a letter agreement with P; wherein D promised to pay $750,000 over a three-year period if D were successful in acquiring the Lamb Package. The Bank Board told D that its payment of fees to P would be acceptable as long as D made payment and not any of the thrift institutions in the Lamb Package or the entity formed to acquire the Lamb Package. The night before the acquisition D learned that the Bank Board probably would not permit payment of the fees to P. The Bank Board approved the acquisition conditioned on a prohibition against Texas Trust's direct or indirect payment of finder's fees. D did not pay P because of the prohibition imposed by the Bank Board. The Bank Board's successor OTS issued such a cease-and-desist order to prevent D or Texas Trust from paying any fees to P under the letter agreement. P sued and won summary judgment. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.