The principal issue in this case is whether plaintiffs must plead reliance in order to state a claim under federal bank reporting laws. Plaintiff-appellant Brown Leasing filed suit against defendants-appellees alleging violation of the National Bank Act (NBA) and the Federal Reserve Act (FRA). Following the district court’s dismissal of its suit, Brown Leasing moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, and now it timely appeals the denial of that motion. Since the motion attempts to re-open the case, it is a final order over which we have jurisdiction. However, Brown Leasing’s second amended complaint again fails to plead that it relied to its detriment on misleading statements filed by defendant-appellee Cosmopolitan Bank. Because we agree that the NBA and the FRA require a showing of detrimental reliance to prove causation of plaintiffs damages, we affirm the district court’s denial of leave to file a third deficient complaint.
Cosmopolitan Bank (Cosmopolitan) was a subsidiary of Cosmopolitan Bancorp Inc. (CBI). Gerald DeNicholas was Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Cosmopolitan and President, Secretary, Director, and Shareholder of CBI; Alex Vercillo was President, Chief Operating Officer and Director of Cosmopolitan and Vice President, Director, and Shareholder of CBI. In June of 1989, DeNicholas and Ver-cillo asked Brown Leasing to extend a onetime $1,950,000 loan to Illinois State Treasurer and Cosmopolitan customer James Cosen-tino so that Cosentino could pay off an overdraft at the bank. According to the explanation offered to Brown Leasing, federal regulations prevented Cosmopolitan from extending Cosentino any more credit until he paid his overdraft. To provide Brown Leasing with the funds to lend Cosentino, Cosmopolitan paid Brown Leasing $1,986,490 for participation interests in four outstanding loans that Brown Leasing had made to others.
In return for the loan to Cosentino, Brown Leasing received a note for $1,950,000 signed by Cosentino and cosigned by James Wells, president of Cosmopolitan, in his personal capacity. Brown Leasing also received a “Standby Letter of Guaranty” (Guaranty) issued on CBI letterhead signed by DeNicho-las, as President of CBI, and Vercillo, as Vice President of CBI, which obligated the “issuer” of the Guaranty to buy back the Cosen-tino loan in the event of default. Brown Leasing claims that it understood the “issuer” to be Cosmopolitan, despite the fact that it was drafted on CBI letterhead, and that the note was reinforced by an oral promise that Cosmopolitan would buy back the loan if defaulted. Cosmopolitan did not record the Cosmopolitan-Cosentino-Brown Leasing credit arrangement in its books or records, nor did it include any of this information in its quarterly reports to federal regulators.
In April of 1990, upon request by DeNicho-las and Vercillo, Brown Leasing agreed to restructure the loan. This request appears to have been motivated by a federal investigation into alleged misappropriation of funds by defendant Wells. The original Cosenti-no/Wells note was cancelled and replaced by: (1) a $1,000,000 note from Cosentino guaranteed by original defendant Michael High, (2) a $450,000 note from Cosentino, (3) a $250,-000 note from original defendant Charles Robbins, and (4) a $250,000 note from original defendant Dennis Polk. The Guaranty remained undisturbed, as apparently did the verbal promise that Cosmopolitan would buy back the loan pursuant to the Guaranty in the event of default. Soon after the final restructuring, the Cosentino, Robbins and Polk notes went into default. In December, 1990, Brown Leasing invoked the Guaranty and requested that Cosmopolitan buy back the notes, but the bank refused. In May of 1991, Cosmopolitan was taken over by the FDIC.
Brown Leasing originally filed suit in state court against Cosmopolitan, CBI, and numerous officers and directors alleging, among *1115other things, that the Guaranty obligated Cosmopolitan to remedy Cosentino’s default. After being appointed as receiver, the FDIC was substituted as defendant in Cosmopolitan’s place and removed the ease to federal court. The FDIC successfully moved for dismissal on the grounds that the Guaranty was an obligation of CBI and not Cosmopolitan; therefore, no valid written agreement existed, as it must according to D’Oenck Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. 1 and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) to obligate the FDIC to assume the Cosentino debt.
Brown Leasing then amended its complaint, for the first time naming as defendants the outside directors who are appellees in this ease. The amended complaint included state law claims pendent to a federal law claim alleging a violation of § 93/161 of the NBA2 for the Cosmopolitan directors’ willful or reckless failure accurately to record the details of the credit arrangement in its quarterly reports to federal regulators. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim under § 93/161 of the NBA because Brown Leasing did not plead that it relied upon the misleading filings: “Brown Leasing’s amended complaint is wanting of any allegation of reliance on these misleading records.” Brown Leasing, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., No. 91-C3729, 1993 WL 115552, at *5 (N.D.Ill. March 24, 1993).
Brown Leasing moved for leave to file a second amended complaint which, aside from the state law claims, sought to revise its NBA § 93/161 claim and to add a new claim under § 503/1005 of the FRA.3 The district *1116court denied this motion, holding that the second amended complaint failed to state a claim because, once again, it failed to allege requisite “reliance” with regard to both the NBA § 93/161 claim and the FRA § 503/1005 claim. Brown Leasing Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 833 F.Supp. 672, 677 (N.D.Ill.1993). We review this decision for an abuse of discretion. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); J.D. Marshall Int'l, Inc. v. Redstart, Inc., 935 F.2d 815, 819 (7th Cir.1991).
Brown Leasing contests the district court holding that “to state adequately a claim under § 161(a), Brown Leasing must link the misstatements to reports filed with the Comptroller and must allege sufficiently its reliance on these misleading records. This applies with equal force to the § 1005 claim.” 833 F.Supp. at 677. According to Brown Leasing, the district court erroneously required Brown Leasing to plead that it had relied upon Cosmopolitan filings regarding the questionable three-way credit transaction in order to satisfy the causation element of these two statutes. Brown Leasing seeks reversal of the judgment of dismissal and remand to the district court with instructions that it allow Brown Leasing to file a second amended complaint.
Plaintiffs reliance upon the honesty of official bank statements, either in the bank’s books or in reports filed with the Comptroller of the Currency, is a necessary element of a cause of action under § 93/161 and § 503/1005. Because Brown Leasing failed to and is evidently unable to plead that it had relied to its detriment on Cosmopolitan’s mischaraeterization of the Cosmopolitan-Co-sentino-Brown Leasing transaction, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Brown Leasing to file a second amended complaint.4
I.
In Chesbrough v. Woodworth, 244 U.S. 72, 37 S.Ct. 579, 61 L.Ed. 1000 (1917), the Supreme Court established the necessity of pleading reliance on the statements filed with the Comptroller of the Currency in order to satisfy the causation element and state a cause of action under the predecessor to § 93 of the NBA: “the sole primary issue is whether defendants caused or permitted to be made a statement of the bank’s condition upon which statement plaintiff relied to his injury and which statement defendants knew was materially false.” Id. at 77, 37 S.Ct. at 582 (emphasis added).5 Brown Leasing does *1117not satisfy this requirement by pleading requisite reliance in any of the pleadings offered before this court. It pleads only that:
Plaintiff reasonably relied on the defendant directors to satisfy their obligations under the National Bank Act to properly record and reflect the Cosentino Credit Arrangement, including without limitation the guaranties by Cosmopolitan and its chairman, in its books and records and in its reports to federal regulators....
This pleading does not allege, as it must, that Brown Leasing relied to its detriment on misleading statements filed with the Comptroller of the Currency. We note that Brown Leasing could not have relied to its detriment on the mischaracterization of a financial dynamic that Brown Leasing helped create and of which it was fully cognizant. Furthermore, reliance on directors’ actions is not and was never intended to be one of the elements of a cause of action under this statute. Plaintiff urges that reliance on the actions of directors is, for liability purposes, synonymous with reliance upon the accuracy or veracity of requisite financial filings. The statutory scheme refutes this construction.
In a supporting Motion to Reconsider and for Leave to Amend, Brown Leasing states that:
As a direct and proximate consequence of the defendant directors’ failure and refusal to properly record and report this guaranty, the FDIC as Receiver has been able to assert the D’Oench doctrine and 12 U.S.C. 1823(e) to bar Brown Leasing from enforcing its guaranty against Cosmopolitan’s receivership estate. Accordingly, Brown Leasing has been damaged in an amount in excess of $1,950,000 by the defendant directors’ willful violation of 12 U.S.C. § 161(a).
In this passage, Brown Leasing highlights the fatal flaw of its pleading. Misstatements and omissions in Cosmopolitan filings caused the injury because they allowed the FDIC to invalidate the contractual obligations that Brown Leasing seeks to enforce, not because Brown Leasing relied to its detriment upon the accuracy of the reports filed with federal regulators. In order to state a cognizable claim under § 93/161, however, plaintiff must plead the latter. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court that Brown Leasing failed to allege relevant reliance and thus has stated no cause of action under § 93/161.
II.
The causation element of a § 503/1005 violation has received less attention than that of a § 93 NBA violation. As a result, we can find no case precedent expressly addressing whether a plaintiff must plead reliance in order to state a claim under § 503/1005. Nonetheless, the identical causation language and the similarity in nature, substance, and structure of the two provisions dictate our conclusion that the detrimental reliance requirement of § 93 of the NBA also exists in § 503 of the FRA. Section 93 of the NBA states that directors who knowingly violate or who knowingly permit any other officers, agents, or servants to violate the NBA “shall be liable in [their] personal and individual capacity for all damages which the association, its shareholders, or any other person, shall have sustained in consequence of such violation.” (Emphasis added.) Section 503 of the FRA, by comparison, states that directors who knowingly violate or permit agents, officers, or directors knowingly to violate § 1005 of this Act “shall be held liable in [their] personal and individual capacity for all damages which the member bank, its shareholders, or any other persons shall have sustained in consequence of such violation.” (Emphasis added.) The similarity of the language used by the two sections is striking, especially in the italicized *1118phrase concerning causation.6 Chesbrough found that detrimental reliance was required to fulfill this causation requirement for § 93 of the NBA, and we can see no reason, nor does plaintiff offer us one, why this interpretation should not apply to the identical causation requirement codified in a clearly related statute.
We have found only one opinion which directly addresses this question. In Adato v. Kagan, 599 F.2d 1111 (2d Cir.1979), Judge Timbers dissented from a majority opinion which remanded the case so that further facts could be developed to determine whether the requisite “causal relation” under § 503 was present. Id. at 1117. He criticized the majority for two things: failing to define the causation standard under § 503, and failing then to apply the defined standard to the plaintiffs 12(b)(6) motion.7 Although “no court, so far as we know, ha[d] passed on what sort of causation is required under this section,” Id. at 1123, Judge Timbers believed that the causation standard should be derived from § 93 of the NBA because of its identical causation language and its similarity to § 503 in substance and nature. Citing Chesbrough, among other cases, Judge Timbers noted that causation under § 93 is shown only when a plaintiff has relied to his or her detriment on a defendant’s false reporting. He concluded that plaintiffs must also allege detrimental reliance to state a cause of action under § 503.8
We agree. Because Brown Leasing’s FRA claim is deficient for the same reasons that its NBA claim fails, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown Leasing leave to file a second amended complaint. Moreover, the record fully supports the conclusion that further amendment would not cure the defect; the dismissal should stand. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.