In issuing the foregoing order, the Court specifically found that:
1. Plaintiff has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its complaint;
2. Defendant's action preliminarily authorizing the establishment of the proposed bank was void because it was not supported by findings and conclusions as required by procedural due process and for other reasons set forth in this Court's Opinion of October 3, 1972;
3. Plaintiff would suffer economic injury if the proposed bank is permitted to open during the pendency of this proceeding;
4. The sponsors of the proposed bank ("Intervenor") may suffer some economic injury if the bank is not permitted to open at this time, however, mere economic injury does not take precedence over the public interest;
5. The public would be irreparably harmed through confusion and inconvenience if the proposed bank opens and later is forced to close; and
6. Equity demands that the status quo be kept pending final action on the merits.
On October 4, 1972, Intervenor filed a motion seeking a stay of the injunctive portion of the Court's October 3, order pending appeal.
The Court denies the application for a stay pending appeal upon the following grounds:
1. The motion is founded on factual contentions which are directly antithetical to this Court's articulated findings.
2. The motion assumes that final administrative action approving the proposed bank has been taken, whereas this Court expressly held to the contrary that the action required to be taken at the administrative level was never completed. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which Defendant may issue a charter authorizing Intervenor to commence operations.
3. If the injunctive portion of the Court's order is stayed, Defendant's findings and conclusions are likely to be merely a statement of support for an operating bank. This, of course, would frustrate the purpose of the Court's remand.
II. Intervenor's Motion is Founded on Contentions Which Are Directly Antithetical to the Court's Articulated Findings
The grounds stated in support of the pending motion are precisely those which Intervenor raised in its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. The Court addressed and specifically rejected each of these grounds and issued antithetical findings on each point. Since Intervenor has made no effort to demonstrate the invalidity of these findings, its motion is without basis and should be denied.
III. Intervenor's Motion Assumes That Final Administrative Action Approving the Proposed Bank Has Been Taken, Whereas This Court Expressly Held to the Contrary That the Action Required at the Administrative Level Was Never Completed
The basic assumption underlying Intervenor's motion is that final administrative action approving the proposed bank has been taken and that all that remains is judicial review. This assumption does not comport with the language of this Court's Opinion, an excerpt from which is set forth below:
"At this stage, the Court has held the Comptroller's preliminary authorization to have been unlawfully made, hence void, and the onus is now on the Comptroller to come forward with findings to support his conclusions. Until these findings are made a part of this record and the Court has had a chance to review them in accordance with the applicable law, no authorization may take final effect." (p. 1328)