or other benefit by reason of such violation ...; and (C)such violation, practice, or breach— (i) involves personal dishonesty on the part of such party; or (ii) demonstrates willful or continuing disregard by such party for the safety or soundness of such ... institution.... 12 U.S.C. § 1818(e)(1) (1994). That is, the statute requires: misconduct, with certain adverse effects, committed with a culpable state of mind. Landry argues that each of these three factors is absent. Misconduct. The Board ruled that Landry’s actions constituted both unsafe and unsound banking practices under § 1818(e)(l)(A)(ii) and breaches of his fiduciary duty under § 1818(e)(l)(A)(iii). Because there is significant overlap between the two categories, see Kaplan v. OTS, 104 F.3d 417, 421 & n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), it is unsurprising that the Board found that
holding only a party to the partnership agreement can breach it and be liable for a breach of fiduciary duty relating to partnership obligations holding that claim of breach of fiduciary duty can be resolved under connecticut law holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba recognizing that both involve undue risk and that a fiduciary breach can qualify as an unsafe or unsound practice recognizing the right of a creditor to sue a corporate director for breach of fiduciary duty