C.F.R. » Title 12 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION › SUBCHAPTER B—REGULATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY › PART 359—GOLDEN PARACHUTE AND INDEMNIFICATION PAYMENTS

12 C.F.R. § 359.4

Permissible golden parachute payments

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

(a) An insured depository institution or depository institution holding company may agree to make or may make a golden parachute payment if and to the extent that:

(1) The appropriate federal banking agency, with the written concurrence of the Corporation, determines that such a payment or agreement is permissible; or

(2) Such an agreement is made in order to hire a person to become an IAP either at a time when the insured depository institution or depository institution holding company satisfies or in an effort to prevent it from imminently satisfying any of the criteria set forth in § 359.1(f)(1)(ii), and the institution's appropriate federal banking agency and the Corporation consent in writing to the amount and terms of the golden parachute payment. Such consent by the FDIC and the institution's appropriate federal banking agency shall not improve the IAP's position in the event of the insolvency of the institution since such consent can neither bind a receiver nor affect the provability of receivership claims. In the event that the institution is placed into receivership or conservatorship, the FDIC and/or the institution's appropriate federal banking agency shall not be obligated to pay the promised golden parachute and the IAP shall not be accorded preferential treatment on the basis of such prior approval; or

(3) Such a payment is made pursuant to an agreement which provides for a reasonable severance payment, not to exceed twelve months salary, to an IAP in the event of a change in control of the insured depository institution; provided, however, that an insured depository institution or depository institution holding company shall obtain the consent of the appropriate federal banking agency prior to making such a payment and this paragraph (a)(3) shall not apply to any change in control of an insured depository institution which results from an assisted transaction as described in section 13 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1823) or the insured depository institution being placed into conservatorship or receivership; and

(4) An insured depository institution, depository institution holding company or IAP making a request pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section shall demonstrate that it does not possess and is not aware of any information, evidence, documents or other materials which would indicate that there is a reasonable basis to believe, at the time such payment is proposed to be made, that:

(i) The IAP has committed any fraudulent act or omission, breach of trust or fiduciary duty, or insider abuse with regard to the depository institution or depository institution holding company that has had or is likely to have a material adverse effect on the institution or holding company;

(ii) The IAP is substantially responsible for the insolvency of, the appointment of a conservator or receiver for, or the troubled condition, as defined by applicable regulations of the appropriate federal banking agency, of the insured depository institution, depository institution holding company or any insured depository institution subsidiary of such holding company;

(iii) The IAP has materially violated any applicable federal or state banking law or regulation that has had or is likely to have a material effect on the insured depository institution or depository institution holding company; and

(iv) The IAP has violated or conspired to violate section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1032, or 1344 of title 18 of the United States Code, or section 1341 or 1343 of such title affecting a federally insured financial institution as defined in title 18 of the United States Code.

(b) In making a determination under paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, the appropriate federal banking agency and the Corporation may consider:

(1) Whether, and to what degree, the IAP was in a position of managerial or fiduciary responsibility;

(2) The length of time the IAP was affiliated with the insured depository institution or depository institution holding company, and the degree to which the proposed payment represents a reasonable payment for services rendered over the period of employment; and

(3) Any other factors or circumstances which would indicate that the proposed payment would be contrary to the intent of section 18(k) of the Act or this part.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: Wmi Liquidating Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wmi Liquidating Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 51× “[ 6 ] 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(l)-(3). Qualifying for any of these exceptions requires a two-step process.”
Daniel Wollschlager v. FDIC, 992 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2021). · cites it 8× “12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (b)(1)–(2). They add, for good measure, “[a]ny other factors or circumstances which would indicate that the proposed payment would be contrary to the intent” of the statute.”
Bunn v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 908 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2018). “Certain types of golden parachute payments are permissible pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 . Bunn does not claim that the change of control termination benefit is authorized by this specific regulation, however.”
Jerry Von Rohr v. Reliance Bank, 826 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(4). The parties signed a joint motion to stay the district court action to allow Von Rohr to “submit a written application covering all of the issues concerning which Von Rohr seeks a decision from the FDIC concerning the payment.”
Rosenberger v. United Cmty. Bancshares, Inc, 2017 IL App (1st) 161102 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 5× “" 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(1)-(3) (2012). ¶ 28 Qualifying for any of these exceptions requires a two-step process.”
F. Bauer v. FDIC, 38 F.4th 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 5× “12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (b) (emphasis added). Any entity seeking the FDIC’s consent to a golden parachute payment must submit an application to the appropriate FDIC regional director.”
Piszel v. United States, 833 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “29, 1995) (codified at 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 ); see also Hill, 2012 WL 694639 , at *7 (noting that both the bank and the affected party are "equally eligible to apply for the exception to the golden parachute restrictions”).”
John R. McCarron v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., as Receiver of Meritor Sav. Bank & in Its Own Capacity, 111 F.3d 1089 (3rd Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “The FDIC’s rule itself, set out at 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 , states that: (a) An insured depository institution or depository institution holding company may agree to make or may make a golden parachute payment if and to the extent that .”
Faigin v. Signature Grp. Holdings, Inc., 79 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 679 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “( 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(l)-(3) (2012).) We conclude that the damages award here does not constitute a golden parachute payment.”
Rosenberger v. United Cmty. Bancshares, Inc, 2017 IL App (1st) 161102 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 3× “) 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(1)-(3) (2012). ¶ 28 Qualifying for any of these exceptions requires a two-step process.”
Martinez v. Rocky Mountain Bank, 540 F. App'x 846 (10th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “See 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(4)(h). The Bank could not make this certification, however, because Mr.”
Vernon Hill, II v. TD Bank NA, 586 F. App'x 874 (3rd Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “Bancorp informed Hill that it could not make the golden parachute payment because it could not comply with the certification requirement imposed by 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(4) (“Golden Parachute Regulation”).”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— 12 C.F.R. § 359.4(a)(3) — 1 case
Wollschlager v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (E.D. Mich. 2020).
— 12 C.F.R. § 359.4(a)(4) — 1 case
Wmi Liquidating Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015). “[ 6 ] 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(l)-(3). Qualifying for any of these exceptions requires a two-step process.”
— 12 C.F.R. § 359.4(b) — 1 case
Wmi Liquidating Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015). “[ 6 ] 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(l)-(3). Qualifying for any of these exceptions requires a two-step process.”
— 12 C.F.R. § 359.4(b)(1) — 1 case
Wmi Liquidating Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015). “[ 6 ] 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(l)-(3). Qualifying for any of these exceptions requires a two-step process.”
— 12 C.F.R. § 359.4(b)(2) — 1 case
Wmi Liquidating Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015). “[ 6 ] 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (a)(l)-(3). Qualifying for any of these exceptions requires a two-step process.”
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.