Opinion No. 74-161 (1975) Ag

CourtOklahoma Attorney General Reports
DecidedFebruary 7, 1975
StatusPublished

This text of Opinion No. 74-161 (1975) Ag (Opinion No. 74-161 (1975) Ag) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Opinion No. 74-161 (1975) Ag, (Okla. Super. Ct. 1975).

Opinion

DOMESTICATION OF FOREIGN BANK A foreign bank may be domesticated in the State of Oklahoma for a limited purpose to conduct non-banking business as determined by the Oklahoma Department of Banking but it may not include the word "bank" or "savings bank" in its name while conducting such activities in the State of Oklahoma. The Attorney General is in receipt of your letter wherein you ask: "Whether a foreign bank can be domesticated in the State of Oklahoma for a limited purpose to conduct a non-banking business if that bank does not use the word 'bank' or 'savings bank' in its name while conducting those activities in the State of Oklahoma." The Oklahoma Business Corporation Act, 18 O.S. 1.1 [18-1.1] — 18 O.S. 1.250 [18-1.250] (1971), determines which foreign corporations may be domesticated and for what purposes. Title 18 O.S. 1.199 [18-1.199] (1971) provides in part: "A. No foreign corporation shall transact or engage in business in this State until it shall become domesticated. "b. A corporation may become domesticated under this Act, if it be: "(2) Any other foreign corporation which might be formed under this Act as a domestic corporation." (Emphasis added) In light of Section 18 O.S. 1.199 [18-1.199], it becomes necessary to determine whether a bank doing non-banking business might be formed under the Business Corporation Act as a domestic corporation. Sections 1.9 through 1.15 of the Act set forth the requirements for the creation of business corporations. Title 18 O.S. 1.9 [18-1.9] (1971) provides in pertinent part: "Any corporation . . . may be formed hereunder for any lawful purpose or purposes; provided, that in all instances where other statutes prescribe a special procedure for incorporations for designated purposes, corporations being created for such purposes shall be formed under such statutes and not under this Act." Title 18 O.S. 1.3 [18-1.3] (1971) delineates the scope of the Act: "The provisions of this Act shall be applicable to every private corporation, profit or non-profit, stock or non-stock, now existing or hereafter formed or domesticated under the laws of this State, and all securities thereof, except and only to the extent that such corporation be expressly excluded from the operation of this Act or portions hereof, or there be special provisions in relation to any class of corporations inconsistent with provisions of this Act, whereupon such special provisions shall govern as to such class of corporations. . . ." Sections 1.3 and 1.9, above, raise a question as to whether the Oklahoma Banking Code of 1965, 6 O.S. 1 [6-1] (1971) et seq., prescribes a special procedure for incorporation by a foreign bank for non-banking purposes. This issue must be resolved before your original question can be reached. With regard to the application of the Banking Code, 6 O.S. 301 [6-301] (1971) provides: "From and after the passage of this Code no charter of authority to engage in the banking or trust company business in this state shall be issued, and no bank or trust company permitted to engage in business except on certificate issued by the Commissioner upon approval of the Board. The issuance of such certificate shall rest solely in the discretion of the Board." (Emphasis added) A literal reading of the above statute would indicate that a bank may not engage in any business whatsoever in Oklahoma, banking or otherwise, unless it has received a charter of authority from the Banking Commission to conduct such business. Another reading of the statute in conjunction with the Business Corporation Act as a whole, however, would indicate only a prohibition against engaging in banking business without a certificate. It is the opinion of this office that the latter interpretation is the proper construction of the statute in order to fulfill the intent of the Legislature. Where the legislative intent is plainly discernible from the provisions of a statute when considered as a whole, the real purpose and intent of the legislative body will prevail over the literal import of the words employed. Keck v. Oklahoma Tax Commission,108 P.2d 162, 188 Okl. 257 (1941). Statutes should be construed and applied in such manner as to accomplish the purpose of their enactment. Ron Consol. School Dist. No. 12, Harmon County v. Arnett Consol. School Dist. No. 11, Harmon County, 141 P.2d 998, 193 Okl. 180 (1943). The purpose of the Banking Code is found in Article XIV, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution which authorizes the regulation of banks. Section 1 provides in pertinent part: "General laws shall be enacted by the legislature providing for the creation of a Banking Department. . . with sufficient power and authority to regulate and control all State Banks, Loan, Trust and Guaranty Companies, under laws which provide for the protection of depositors and individual stockholders." (Emphasis added) In order to protect depositors, the Code governs those entities which would hold themselves out as banks. Title 6 O.S. 1401 [6-1401] (1971) states in pertinent part: "It shall be unlawful for any individual, firm, association or corporation to receive money upon deposit or transact a banking business except as authorized by the laws of this state. . . or to use or advertise, in connection with any business other than the banking business, conducted under the banking laws of this state, the words: Banker, Bankers, Investment Banker, or any other word or term calculated to deceive the public into belief that such person, firm, association or corporation is engaged in the banking business." (Emphasis added) In order to protect stockholders, the Code governs those banks which are authorized to carry out banking activities in the state. For the purposes of the Code, "bank" is defined in 6 O.S. 102 [6-102] (1971) to mean "any bank authorized by the laws of the state to engage in the banking business." (Emphasis added) Therefore, in viewing the Act as a whole, it would seem that the Legislature had no apparent intent to regulate entities which engage in a non-banking business, but by chance have a corporate identity as a bank in another state. To hold otherwise would prevent the flow of out of state capital from foreign banks into the state, a result which could not be attributed to the desires of the Legislature. Statutes should be given a construction that is reasonable and sensible, bearing in mind the evils intended to be avoided or the remedy intended to be afforded, and the Legislature will be presumed not to have intended an absurd result. Independent School Dist. No. JI-69 of Canadian County v. Independent School Dist. No. D-45 of Canadian County, 363 P.2d 835 (Okl. 1961). If a foreign bank doing non-banking business in the state is deemed not to fall within the purview of the banking code, it also fails to come within the exclusionary language of 18 O.S. 1.3 [18-1.3], 18 O.S. 1.9 [18-1.9] (1971), supra. Therefore, your original question as to whether a foreign bank may be domesticated under the Business Corporation Act is determined by whether said bank may be formed under the Act as a domestic corporation pursuant to 18 O.S. 1.199 [18-1.199] (1971), supra. Obviously, a mutual savings bank could not be formed under the Business Corporation Act as a domestic corporation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McSpadden v. Mahoney
1964 OK 260 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1964)
Keck v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1940 OK 352 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Acheson v. Miller
18 Ohio St. 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1849)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Opinion No. 74-161 (1975) Ag, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-74-161-1975-ag-oklaag-1975.