12 C.F.R. § 330.4

Continuation of separate deposit insurance after merger of insured depository institutions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever the liabilities of one or more insured depository institutions for deposits are assumed by another insured depository institution, whether by merger, consolidation, other statutory assumption or contract:

(a) The insured status of the institutions whose liabilities have been assumed terminates on the date of receipt by the FDIC of satisfactory evidence of the assumption; and

(b) The separate insurance of deposits assumed continues for six months from the date the assumption takes effect or, in the case of a time deposit, the earliest maturity date after the six-month period. In the case of time deposits which mature within six months of the date the deposits are assumed and which are renewed at the same dollar amount (either with or without accrued interest having been added to the principal amount) and for the same term as the original deposit, the separate insurance applies to the renewed deposits until the first maturity date after the six-month period. Time deposits that mature within six months of the deposit assumption and that are renewed on any other basis, or that are not renewed and thereby become demand deposits, are separately insured only until the end of the six-month period.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1984–1996 · leading case: Eli B. Jones, of the Est. of Jesse L. Bobo, Deceased v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., in Its Corp. Capacity, 748 F.2d 1400 (10th Cir. 1984).
Eli B. Jones, of the Est. of Jesse L. Bobo, Deceased v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., in Its Corp. Capacity, 748 F.2d 1400 (10th Cir. 1984). · cites it 6× “00 were “funds of a decedent” pursuant to FDIC regulation 12 C.F.R. § 330.4 , 1 thereby limiting total insurance coverage to $100,000.”
Metro Cnty. Title, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 13 F.3d 883 (5th Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “12 C.F.R. § 330.4 (b)(1). Safeco’s suggestion that it need not comply with the FDIC's record-keeping requirements is incorrect.”
Miguel Villafane-Neriz, Ins. Comm'r of Puerto Rico v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 75 F.3d 727 (1st Cir. 1996). “At oral argument, the Commissioner raised the application of 12 C.F.R. § 330.4 (b)(4), which states, in pertinent part: If any deposit obligation of an insured depository institution is evidenced by a negotiable certificate of deposit .”
W.H. Nimon, Bonnie K. Nimon, & W.H. Nimon, Tr. for Bonnie K. Nimon v. Resolution Trust Corp., 975 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1992). “12 C.F.R. § 330.4 (a). 3 If RTC determines that the deposit account records are clear and unambiguous, those records shall be binding on the depositor, and no other records will be considered.”
Texful Textile Ltd. v. Cotton Express Textile, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 1381 (C.D. Cal. 1995). · cites it 3× “]” 12 C.F.R. § 330.4 (a)(1). The FDIC can only consider claims for deposit insurance based on fiduciary relationships to the extent such relationships are “expressly diselose[d]” in the institution’s records.”
Suzan Tantleff Trusts v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 938 F. Supp. 14 (D.D.C. 1996). · cites it 2× “” 12 C.F.R. § 330.4 (a)(1). Congress authorized the FDIC to make “clear and unambiguous” records binding on the depositors “in its sole discretion,” even when the records turn out to be incorrect.”
Paul v. Palermo v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 981 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1993). “and other books and records of the insured depository institution, including records maintained by a computer, which relate to the insured depository institution’s deposit taking function, but does no mean account statements, deposit slips, items deposited or cancelled checks.”
Hale House Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 788 F. Supp. 1309 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “§ 1822 (c) and 12 C.F.R. § 330.4 (b) (fiduciary or representative capacity of depositor must be disclosed on bank records).”
Fletcher Vill. Condo. Ass'n v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 864 F. Supp. 259 (D. Mass. 1994). “12 C.F.R. § 330.4 . Here, because of the absence of any indication in BTB’s records that the proceeds of the Treasury bills were held for investment, the FDIC declined excess coverage.”
Massachusetts v. FDIC, 916 F. Supp. 54 (D. Mass. 1996). “The regulations, however, state that “[n]o claim for insurance coverage based on a fiduciary relationship will be recognized if no fiduciary relationship is evident from the deposit account records [emphasis added] of the insured depository institution.”
Anheuser-Busch Employees Credit Union v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 651 F. Supp. 718 (W.D. Mo. 1986). “3 (testamentary accounts in the nature of “Totten trusts”), 12 C.F.R. § 330.4 (accounts held by executors or guardians) and 12 C.”
Abrams v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 938 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “Although it is presumed that deposit account records reflect true ownership of the amounts on deposit, see 12 C.F.R. § 330.4 (a) (1991), that presumption can be rebutted if the depository records disclose a fiduciary relationship between the depositor and other parties that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.