In a verdict with major implications for the banking and finance industry, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP—led at trial by partners Ann Marie Mortimer, Jake Struck, and Tara Elgie—secured a complete defense verdict for Nano Banc after a two-month jury trial in Orange County Superior Court. The judgment, entered December 18, 2025 by the Honorable Shawn Nelson, rejected all claims that Nano Banc aided and abetted a theft and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with a $37 million commercial real-estate loan.

The decision delivers a powerful clarification of a core principle of financial-institution liability: a bank is judged by the conduct of its own officers and employees, not by the misconduct of shareholders or borrowers who may seek to misuse the bank for their own ends. Even where bad actors hold equity interests in a bank or are major borrowers, the verdict confirms that lender liability does not attach absent culpable conduct by the bank’s own decision-makers.

The case arose from a dispute between two members of a joint venture—Security National Guaranty, Inc. and Evariste Group LLC—developing $150 million in beachfront property in Monterey County, California. Security National alleged that Evariste and its investors (many of whom were also shareholders of Nano Banc) obtained a $37 million loan from Nano Banc without authorization under the joint-venture agreement and diverted the proceeds for their own benefit. Security National further claimed that Nano Banc “aided and abetted” the alleged scheme because the loan reduced risk and improved the bank’s financial position.

The jury found Evariste Group and its investors liable for breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting, awarding Security National $83.25 million, including punitive damages.

Yet in a result that underscores the verdict’s importance for financial institutions, the same jury found Nano Banc not liable on any claim and awarded no damages against the bank—despite the fact that the liable parties were both shareholders of and significant borrowers from Nano Banc. In doing so, the jury drew a critical distinction: it refused to attribute shareholder misconduct to the bank itself, instead evaluating Nano Banc based on the conduct of its own executives, employees, and lending processes.

Mortimer and Struck took the lead in the courtroom, conducting the majority of witness examinations that framed the bank’s good-faith processes and decision-making. Hunton’s defense strategy centered the case on the real people that make up the bank and the careful, day-to-day work that drives their responsible banking decisions. To impose aiding-and-abetting liability, the plaintiff was required to prove that Nano Banc had actual knowledge of and substantially assisted a theft and breach of fiduciary duty. The defense framed the issue in clear human terms: the jury would have to believe that seasoned career bankers—with decades of experience, spotless regulatory histories, and everything to lose—deliberately chose to risk their careers and the bank itself to participate in wrongdoing.

Through testimony and documentary evidence, the defense showed that the loan was vetted and approved through Nano Banc’s ordinary underwriting, compliance, and regulatory processes, and that its officers reasonably believed the proceeds would be used for legitimate joint-venture purposes. The jury rejected the notion that these professionals secretly abandoned those principles, delivering a complete defense verdict.

The verdict provides a roadmap for banks facing similar claims: focus the jury on the integrity, judgment, and professionalism of the bank’s own people—not on the misconduct of independent shareholders or borrowers who may attempt to misuse the institution.

The Hunton trial team was led by Ann Marie Mortimer, Jake Struck, and Tara Elgie, with key assistance from counsel Larry DeMeo, associate Hak Stepanyan, special counsel Harry Manion, and associate Michael Pearlson, among others.