21675. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Norfolk, VA)

Bank Information

Episode Type
Suspension → Closure
Bank Type
trust company
Start Date
January 1, 1931*
Location
Norfolk, Virginia (36.847, -76.285)

Metadata

Model
gpt-5-mini
Short Digest
c1b0b2b7

Response Measures

None

Description

The articles describe an initial suspension/closing in January 1931 by the state banking department, a reopening in July 1931 under agreement, and a final closing with a receiver appointed June 21, 1933. The reporting does not describe a depositor run that precipitated the final closing; the 1933 action follows failed reopening plans and regulatory/ judicial action. OCR errors in articles were corrected (dates and some phrasing).

Events (4)
1. January 1, 1931* Suspension
Cause
Government Action
Cause Details
Closed by order of the state banking department in January 1931 (regulatory action).
Newspaper Excerpt
Metropolitan Bank was closed for the first time ... on January 1931, on orders the state banking department.
Source
newspapers
2. July 14, 1931 Reopening
Newspaper Excerpt
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company of Norfolk had been reop after having closed for more than ven months ... reopened on 14, 1931 under agreement.
Source
newspapers
3. June 21, 1933 Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
METROPOLITAN BANK PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP ... The appointment of Willis Fentress, receiver ... by Judge Allan R. Hanckel ... On the closing day the assets ... deposit liability ... Mr. Rich expressed belief that under the receivership depositors receive substantial portion of their funds.
Source
newspapers
4. June 21, 1933 Suspension
Cause
Government Action
Cause Details
Reopening plans failed and judge/state commissioner ordered receivership; receiver appointed June 21, 1933.
Newspaper Excerpt
the appointment of Willis Fentress ... receiver for the institution by Judge Allan R. Hanckel ... when in January, All the this were the bank March this year ... On June officials of the bank were by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation ... the receiver was appointed June 21, 1933.
Source
newspapers

Newspaper Articles (10)
1. August 6, 1932 New Pittsburgh Courier Pittsburgh, PA
Article from New Pittsburgh Courier, August 6, 1932

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

preciation of the sympathetic treatgiven by newspapers of news reports concerning the bank. He said the publicity will do the bank He also stated and telegrams had been received from all over the country congratulating the bank on keep ing The Ric the First Baptist Church was present at the meeting by request of the the Pruden and how Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company of Norfolk had been reop after having closed for more than ven months The Rev. William pastor of Mount Carmel Baptist Church,

2. June 24, 1933 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, June 24, 1933

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

METROPOLITAN IN RECEIVERS' HANDS (Continued from page be inin stock, and this Mr. Bristow the three substitute reopening Substitute Plans That subscribe worth of That depositors purchase the building in for that original with the people Norfolk to $25,000 preferred stock to be paid for Metropolitan Bank was closed for the first time began erations, January 1931, on ders the state banking department. The cause was given as too much capital building itself. The institution mained closed about six reopened on 14, 1931, under agreement. ceiver for the bank when in January, All the this were the bank March this year, when the along all the on the President's order. Only operations on since In an effort held by bank with the state missioner and the Corporation, both in Richmond and in

3. June 24, 1933 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, June 24, 1933

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

METROPOLITAN BANK PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP Reopening Plans Fail; Assets $276,000 On Closing Day Continued to whether not the Metropolitan Bank would reopen an unrestricted basis. was halted Wednesday af ternoon when officials announced that receiver had been appointed for the bank. The appointment of Willis Fentress, white, receiver for the stitution by Judge Allan R. Hancthe City Circuit Court, Wednesday morning, brought to an end sustained effort on the part of bank officials to effect reopening under several plans submitted by Bristow, state commissioner of insurance and banking On the closing day the assets of bank President William M. Rich be $276,000, the deposit liability, $155,000. Mr. Rich expressed belief that under the receivership depositors ceive substantial portion of their funds when the affairs of the bank are finally settled. Early Plan Submitted In ordering the bank to close its doors, Mr. Bristow gave his reason the fact that he did not believe that sufficient progress on any the reopening being made by bank officials. One of these plans provided that depositors agree to purchase the bank building the bank, 50 cent deposits for this purpose. This plan, of the earlier one ones submitted following the bank's partial suspension of on March in conformity with Governor Pollard's and President Roosevelt's ders, accepted by the state banking department, provided the Reconstruction Finance Corporation would invest at least $25,000 in the bank's preferred stock. The bank was given 60-day extension in May to the perfect plan. On June officials of the bank were by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation that that or(Continued on Page 15)

4. June 24, 1933 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, June 24, 1933

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

METROPOLITAN IN RECEIVERS' HANDS (Continued from page ganization unable $25,000 stock, Bristow proposed the following three substitute reopening Substitute Plans That to worth of preferred That depositors purchase the building in full for and that the original plan consummated with the people Norfolk subscribing $25,000 preferred stock to be paid for Metropolitan Bank closed for the first began erations, on January state banking department. The cause as bank building itself. The mained about six reopened on July depositors' Mr. ceiver for the when pended January, 1931 All the of this agreeby bank until March this year, when bank along country's President's order. Only operations been since time. In effort reopen, several were held by bank officials the state banking missioner and with officials the Finance Corporation, in Richmond and in Washing ton.

5. April 14, 1934 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, April 14, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

The Metropolitan Norfolk that the city has for IS recently account grievances much publicity Bank Trust Company. the failure of Metropolitan from that everybody who natural suppose perfectly transactions with this institution their business money by reason This situation has become should feel aggrieved about during which time many the past five years, America during So the losses have been have closed their doors. banks suffering has been intensified and the attendant distributed and social troubles which other losses economic direction to distress the have arisen from every Norfolk's troubles, deplorable they are, thousands of cases elsewhere, been matched by the most other the difference that people and and their hearts have kept their heads places bitter internecine strife, involved in from becoming the orderly restoration or went about while they of the banks. liquidation been criminal negliOf where there has course, by those charged and unlawful gence thousands of closed management these with the by the lawful banks there been prosecution should have been. thorities, there January 1931. closed its doors on Metropolitan Bank The accounts of the bank failure the books and and following this Prior Banking Department and auditors for the State examined by the failed reveal, or to receiver. These inquisitions auditors for the the connection with closing. criminal acts in produce, any demonstration of faith, bank reopened, after of the officers, for they the integrity the 5,000 more depositors, the reopened bank. men back there run put the same the hands of 1933 the bank was again put On June there were detailed this final failure Prior and following ceiver. auditors the State Banking books and accounts by examinations failed to produce any the receiver, which inquisitions Department and has passed, So that opportunity criminal charges. appears responsibility, there the depositors, fix criminal has been denied Bank Trust Company. in the failure of Metropolitan any, charge extravagance upNow committee of depositors comes the part the receiver the administration of his trust. These deto make their charges, and to legal and moral right positors have every will be judicial, nor public, nor their inquisition, and there no pursue there should be, of from doing And effort prevent them private orderly, legal inquiry into the course of any course, no effort who have interests there. affairs the bank by those the that proceeding this inquiry, nevertheless deplorable, ridicule man of the board singled out for extensive public there was condemned humiliaRICHARD H. BOWLING and of directors, Rev. for provocation that his wife and children, no and mental torture him with moral turpitude. could connect in 1931 this nearly all of his time, the bank closed man gave When for which was publicly privatefor months, reopening many depositors. Today, for the alunselfish servant of the acclaimed an he pilloried and crucified in public the receiver, leged modest line of credit at the bank is disclosed that he had because of his wife, the ultimate moral guarantee secured by the endorsement man can give of the honesty and sincerity of his motives in procuring credit. this minister for GUIDE does not believe that The JOURNAL AND Norfolk's largest churches, stands conof his adult life to one of all The JOURNAL AND GUIDE bebefore the bar of public opinion. demned lieves, rather, that his accusers traducers stand condemned, for an for baseness and wickedness has no and that reprisal vengeance in Norfolk. precedent

6. April 14, 1934 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, April 14, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Metropolitan Receivership The the has been given for Norfolk that city of grievances flowrecently on account much unfavorable publicity Bank and Trust Company. from the failure of Metropolitan everybody lost any natural that perfectly suppose with this institution their business transactions reason of money has become general in situation should feel aggrieved about which time many thousands the years, during America during past losses been very widetheir doors. the banks have closed has been intensified by the and attendant suffering distributed social troubles which losses economic other direction to distress the arisen from every people. Norfolk's troubles, as deplorable as they are, have been matched by thousands of cases elsewhere, and the difference that the people in most other heads cool and their hearts kept their places bitter internecine strife, becoming involved in from about the orderly restoration while they went the banks. liquidation there has criminal negliOf where course, gence and unlawful acts committed by those charged these of closed the management of with by the lawful banks there has been prosecution there should have been. thorities, doors January 1931. Bank first closed its on The Metropolitan books and accounts the bank this failure the Prior State Banking and auditors for the examined by the were inquisitions failed to reveal, to the receiver. These the auditors for connection the closing. criminal acts in produce, remarkable of faith, reopened, after The bank of the officers, for they depositors, in the integrity by the 5,000 more the reopened bank. back there run put the same men into the hands of 1933 bank was again June there were detailed this final failure Prior and following ceiver. auditors the State Banking books accounts by examinations its which inquisitions failed to produce any Department and the that opportunity has been passed, criminal charges. So appears has denied the depositors, to criminal responsibility, if there Bank and Trust Company. the failure Metropolitan any, committee of depositors who charge extravagance upNow comes of his trust. These deof the receiver in the the part make their charges, and to legal moral right to positors have every will be judicial, nor public, nor their inquisition, and there no pursue And there should be, of effort prevent them from doing private orderly, legal inquiry into effort obstruct the course of any course, no the affairs of the bank by those who have interests there. that proceeding with this inquiry, nevertheless deplorable, in there singled extensive public ridicule one man the board and condemned to humiliaRev. RICHARD H. of directors, children, for provocation that torture his and no tion and mental him with moral turpitude. could connect 1931 this nearly all of his time, When the bank closed in man for which he publicly and privatefor months, reopening many the depositors. Today, for the acclaimed an unselfish servant he pilloried and crucified in public of the receiver, leged had modest of credit the bank disclosed that he because of his wife, the ultimate moral guarantee secured by the that man can give of the honesty and sincerity of his motives in curing credit. The JOURNAL AND GUIDE does not believe that this man, minister for all adult life to one of Norfolk's largest churches, stands The JOURNAL AND GUIDE bedemned before the bar of public opinion. lieves, rather, that his accusers and traducers stand condemned, for an that for baseness and wickedness has reprisal and vengeance precedent Norfolk. varying ability and temperament the fifty men actually made their own Fishbein, Morris and popular book which presents sane, clear and the failure in business Miss M. of Ruthville, "Science Changing, showing the effects science mankind and his civilization. She wants some books that help her. Haldane, Science the optimistic glimpse of the future. Russell, the Future of Science.' Takes the opposite view, maintaining neither good rational, and that his the Randall, Changing The book the change that has brought about modern life of science and the machine. Chase, And Maphilosophic the machines upon life and civilization. Millikan, "Science the Five by leading American physimaking benefactor modern reasons envelope direct

7. June 2, 1934 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, June 2, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

BLAND CHARGES DENIED BY MET. BANK RECEIVER Case May Be Argued In Circuit Court Saturday A petition to intervene in the administration of the assets of the closed Metropolitan Bank filed eral weeks ago by Attorney Foreman Peters on behalf of Charles Bland, substantial depositor in the bank when was placed in receivership, will all probability, be argued before Judge Allan R. Hanckel in Circuit Court on Saturday. In his petition, to which an anhas been filed by Willis Fentress receiver, Mr. Bland asks the right intervene and challenge the expenditure of the ceiver on the grounds that his administration the bank's assets have been "unwise, extravagant and wasteful." In his answer to Mr. Bland's tition, the receiver admits several allegations but denies most them. He admits that the assets of the bank amounted to $19,070. 04, when he assumed the receiverJune 21, 1933, and that up ship on to April 30, 1934, he collected received out of the assets 40,814.51 making in all, an aggregate total of He denies, ever, that he has expended the sum of as Mr. Bland alleges, but states that he has actually spent only $34,922.82 and that the cash on hand as of April 30, was $24,941.69. Refuting the petitioner's claim that expenditures made by him in administering the bank's assets has been "unwise, extravagant and wasteful," the receiver's petition points out that" every item of ex. penditure and every disbursement made this cause have been made wisely, honestly, and like manner and for the best interest creditors of said bank.' Mr. Fentress also denies that the sum of $2,274.01 spent by him to the Reconmaking struction Finance Corporation for loan with which to make pay. ment to depositors, spent wisely, extravagently wastefully, that he proceeded hastily and without being accurately and fully advised in the premises. He states further that all expenditures made in the application made pursuant the orders of the court. As regards to the two clerks in each employ per week, at of $42.50 salaries denies their serthe by one can be performed vices other persons can be and that son, smaller figure. secured denial that his comA general five per cent of of pensation through his monies which pass too great, hands receiver, Fentress in his anmade by Mr. and he the charges, swer to Mr. Bland's clares that, contrary allegations, he devotes large his time to the duties tion trust. regards of the first

8. June 2, 1934 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, June 2, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

BLAND CHARGES DENIED BY MET. BANK RECEIVER Case May Be Argued In Circuit Court Saturday A petition to intervene in the of the assets of the closed Metropolitan Bank filed eral weeks ago by Attorney Foreman Peters behalf of Charles Bland, substantial depositor in the bank when was placed in receivership, will in all probability, argued before Judge Allan R. Hanckel in Circuit Court on Saturday. In his petition, to which an swer has been filed Willis Fentress Mr. Bland asks the right intervene and chalthe expenditure of the lenge ceiver the grounds that his adof the bank's assets have been "unwise, extravagant and wasteful." In his answer to Mr. Bland's tition, the receiver admits allegations but denies most of them. He admits that the assets of the bank amounted to $19,070. 04, when he assumed the receiverJune 21, 1933, and that ship on April 30, 1934, he collected and received out of the assets 40,814.making in all, aggregate tal of $59,884.55. He denies, howthat he has expended the sum of $40,081.42 Mr. Bland alleges, but states that he has actually spent only $34,922.82 and that the cash balance on hand as of April 30, was $24,941.69. Refuting the petitioner's claim that the expenditures made by him in administering the bank's assets has been "unwise, extravagant and wasteful," the receiver's petition points out that" every item of expenditure and every disbursement made in this cause have been made and businesswisely, honestly, for the best like manner of creditors of said Fentress also denies that the Mr. sum of $2,274.01 spent by him application the Reconmaking struction Finance Corporation make for with which to payloan ment to depositors, "was spent wastefulextravagently wisely, ly, that he proceeded hastily without being accurately and fully in the premises. advised that all further expenditures He states made in connection the application were made pursuant to the orders the court. As regards to the two clerks in his employ week, $42.50 each per salaries of that their serreceiver denies the by one percan performed vices can be that other persons and son, smaller figure. secured that his comdenial general cent of five per pensation through his which pass monies too great, hands Fentress in his made by Mr. and he dethe charges, to Mr. Bland's clares that, contrary devotes large his time to the duties of the first regards

9. June 30, 1934 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, June 30, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

SUIT AGAINST BANK RECEIVER IS DISMISSED Court Holds Charges In Petition Are Without Merit Judge Alan L. Hanckel of the Norfolk Circuit Court ruled Monday that the charges filed against Willis Fentress, receiver for the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, by Charles Bland in his suit to intervene in the receivership, "are wholly false and without merit," ordered Mr. Bland's petition dismissed and the costs incident to the suit assessed against him. The court's decree stated that not only were the charges filed against Mr. Fentress the receiver, unfounded, but that "to the contrary the administration of the receiver has been honest ,energetic and prudent, and that he guilty any the charges alleged in the said petition, amendpetition, or bill of particulars. When hearing on Mr. Bland's petition came on June 16, his counsel moved court to dismiss the that some of the relief sought by Mr. Bland about through the distribution of dividend to deposit- Insisted On Adjudication The receiver, however, took the position that the petition had leged various charges of mismanagement against and also against the court and therefore he objected the suit dismissed without an adjudication of the charges. The thereupon instructed counsel for the receiver to prepare decree. This done the decree was formally entered by the court on June 25. Text of Decree The text of the court's decree follows:- "It appearing to the court that the charges made by said petitioner against the extravagance, and unwise imprudent expenditures of monies in the employment of clerks. counsel, and other services in connection with the liquidation of the assets of the bank, the preparation schedule required applica tion for loan from Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and unwarranted the bank occupancy building are wholly false and without merit but to the contrary, appearing that the the receiver been honest, energetic, and prudent. court order, adjudge, and decree, that is guilty any of the charges leged said petition, amended petition, or bill particulars, and said petition be dismissed, the clerk shall tax the costs incident said petition against the said Charles Bland, for which is givin favor of the receiver in this Previous Suit Dismiss Mr. Fentress was represented by Charles Eason Mr. Bland was represented by W. W. Foreman and E. S. Peters. In addition to making the charges against the conduct of the receivership by Mr. Fentress, Mr. Bland had petitioned for the right to intervene in the receivership that he may have opportunity to "scrutinize and challenge, if all subsequent reports of the said receiver whrein are recommended by him, before same are authorized and approved by court." This the second suit brought against the receiver The first suit, filed by minority depositors group, also dismissed by the without merit. This group had petitioned for the right to inas co-receivers. The under Mr. Fentress' receivership now paying 15 percent dividend to the depositors. The distribution amount between $24,000 and $25,000.

10. June 30, 1934 New Journal and Guide Norfolk, VA
Article from New Journal and Guide, June 30, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

SUIT AGAINST BANK RECEIVER DISMISSED Court Holds Charges In Petition Are Without Merit Judge Alan L. Hanckel of the Norfolk Circuit Court ruled Monday that the charges filed against Willis V. Fentress, receiver for the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, by Charles Bland in his suit to intervene in the receivership, "are wholly false and without merit," and ordered Mr. Bland's petition dismissed and the costs incident to the suit assessed against him. The court's decree stated that not. only were the charges filed against Mr. Fentress the receiver, unfounded, but that the contrary the administration of the has been honest and prudent,' and that he guilty of any of the alleged in the said amendpetition, bill of particulars When the hearing on Mr. Bland's petition came up on June 16, his counsel moved court to dismiss the ground that some of the relief by Mr. Bland had come about through the distribution of dividend to depositors. Insisted On Adjudication The receiver, however, took the position that the petition had alleged various of mismanagement against him and also against the court and therefore he objected to the suit dismissed without an adjudication of the charges. The court thereupon instructed counsel for the receiver prepare decree. This done and the decree formally entered by the court on June 25. Text of Decree The text of the court's decree "It appearing to the court that the charges made by said petitioner against the receiver extravagance, wastefulness, and unwise expenditures monies the employment of clerks. counsel, and other services in connection with the of the assets of the bank, the preparation required with application for loan from Finance Corporation, and unwarranted occupancy of the bank building are wholly false and without merit; the contrary, that the administration the has been honest, energetic, and prudent. "The order, adjudge, and decree, that the not guilty of any of the charges leged said petition, amended petition, bill particulars, and that said petition be dismissed, the clerk shall tax the costs incident to the filing said petition against the Charles Bland, for which hereby givin favor of the receiver in this cause. Previous Suit Dismiss Mr. Fentress by Charles Eason. Mr. Bland was represented by W. W. Foreman