IBJNews

First Merchants posts larger loss on fraud charge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Muncie-based First Merchants Corp. disclosed this week that the bank lost $31.2 million in the second quarter, including $10.2 million it blamed on fraudulent financial statements provided by a large commercial borrower.

First Merchants did not disclose the name of the borrower but said it is pursuing legal action to recover the loss.

The Muncie Star Press reported the loss may have been related to the bank's business relationship with the Eye Center Group, a Muncie-based eye care and surgery practice. In a recent lawsuit to collect unpaid fees, Eye Center Group ophthalmologist Jeffrey Rapkin alleged that the corporation was $21 million in debt.

The quarterly loss of $31.2 million amounted to $1.48 per share compared to a profit of $6.6 million, or 36 cents per share, in the same period a year earlier.

First Merchants' loan charge-offs for the quarter totaled $40.4 million. Commercial real estate and commercial and industrial loans accounted for much of the charge-offs.

"The single largest charge-off, totaling $10.2 million, was taken as a result of fraudulent financial statements provided by a large commercial and industrial borrower," the bank said in a prepared statement.

First Merchants said it boosted provision for loan losses to $59 million, or 2.2 percent of total loans, from 1 percent in the same quarter last year.

Total assets in the second quarter rose 19 percent over the year-ago period, to $4.7 billion. Deposits grew 20 percent, to $3.6 billion, in the same period.

Much of the growth can be attributed to First Merchant's acquisition of Plainfield-based Lincoln Bancorp., which closed late last year. The purchase expanded First Merchant's share of the Indianapolis market.

Lincoln Bancorp, the parent of Lincoln Bank, had Hendricks County locations in Avon, Brownsburg and Plainfield. In Johnson County, Lincoln branches were in Bargersville, Franklin, Greenwood and Trafalgar.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT