Lawsuit against Leidel ends in settlement

A civil lawsuit filed by Highlands Independent Bank against former financial adviser David Leidel has ended in a settlement.

The ruling, filed on Feb. 24, favored both the bank and its president, John Shoop, in both their suit and a separate one filed by Leidel for what he claimed were "false statements" the CEO published to third parties about him.

In the original lawsuit, which asked for damages in excess of $15,000 that did not include attorney and court fees, Leidel was accused of violating an agreement he signed with Highlands Independent Bank since resigning on Sept. 15, 2009.

That agreement included not soliciting bank customers or working for a competing company for one year upon leaving the bank, as well as not divulging confidential customer information, according to court records.

An investigation found that Leidel had been in touch with Raymond James officials about establishing a branch in Highlands County, the records stated.

Leidel was also accused of trying to solicit bank customers and sending to Raymond James information about customers' holdings and other data, according to the records.

The court order awarded damages in favor of the bank, and against Leidel, in the amount of approximately $48,465.96.

An injunction was also put into place that prohibits Leidel in engaging in "prohibited activity," including not directly soliciting bank customers, through Oct. 3.

He was also ordered to stop with the retention, use, disclosure and conversion of confidential information, the records stated.

In Leidel's counter suit against Shoop individually and the bank itself, he claimed the false statements made were that he participated in banking irregularities, fraud and actions that were "comparable to those actions of Bernie Madoff," according to the court records.

The bank's and Shoop's response was that all the statements were true and that the third party was actually sent to the bank, "as an agent of Leidel to harass Shoop," the records stated.

"Any damages sustained by Leidel were his own doing, based upon grandstanding associated with his desire to publicize this litigation," according to court records.