Republic Bank, the subject of the Hill and Norcross lawsuit, has a patchwork record in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

      Comments Off on Republic Bank, the subject of the Hill and Norcross lawsuit, has a patchwork record in Pennsylvania and New Jersey
Republic Bank, the subject of the Hill and Norcross lawsuit, has a patchwork record in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell’s Book
BBC-gbritish tutorHonduras- ESPN
NY Magazine

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 22 – There is a fight and lawsuit against the board of directors of a bank in Philadelphia – but otherwise unreported, the disparate loan records of the institution in question, Republic Bank, a subsidiary of Republic Bancorp.

In Pennsylvania in 2020, it granted 613 mortgages to whites and only 14 to African Americans.

In New Jersey, insurgent George E. Norcross III’s stomping ground — literally — Republic Bank in 2020 granted 1,662 mortgages to whites and just 67 to African Americans, according to Home Mortgage Disclosure data research Act by Fair Finance Watch.

Meanwhile, in the court case, reviewed by SDNY-based Inner City Press: “This May 19, 2022, in plaintiffs’ motion for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc . No. 2), by agreement of Plaintiffs Vernon W. Hill, Brian Tierney, Barry Spevak (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), Defendants Andrew B. Cohen, Lisa Jacobs, Harry Madonna, Harris Wildstein (the “Madonna Defendants”) ) and nominal defendant Republic First Bancorp Inc. (“FRBK”), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The parties are bound to maintain the status quo as of Thursday, May 19, 2022 for a period of 7 days following the entry of this order in accordance with the following. 2. Defendants and Plaintiffs shall conduct the affairs of FRBK and Republic Bank (the “Bank”) in the ordinary course during the period that this order remains in effect (the “Standby Period”). Defendants and Plaintiffs may not cause FRBK or the Bank (directly or indirectly) to engage in any actions outside of the normal course of the day-to-day management of FRBK’s or the Bank’s affairs, except with the unanimous written consent of all members. of FRBK’s Board of Directors. directors (the “Board”) then in office.

For the avoidance of doubt, no new or additional approvals will be granted with respect to branch expansion and no changes will be made to material employee contracts which are subject to the approval of the FRBK Board of Directors or the Bank or any of its committees during the State Period Quo. 3. The Board shall not engage in “business transaction” (Bylaws, Article II, Section 15) at a Board meeting without at least 5 Board members present in person or by telephone at any Board meeting during this standstill period. In addition, no board committee shall take any action during the standstill period.

4. This Order will remain in full force and effect for a period of 7 days following entry of this Order. 5. The Court may vary paragraph 3 of this Order at the request of any party for cause, after notice to all other parties. The order doesn’t mention George Norcross – but the story does. We’ll have more on that.

The case is HILL v. COHEN (ED Pa. 2022), 22-cv-01924 (District Judge Paul Steven Diamond)


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month keeps us going and gives you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Comments: Editorial [at]
SDNY 480 Press Room, Forward Cabin
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Journalist’s mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, older, Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]