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. § 359.7

Applicability in the event of receivership

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

The provisions of this part, or any consent or approval granted under the provisions of this part by the FDIC (in its corporate capacity), shall not in any way bind any receiver of a failed insured depository institution. Any consent or approval granted under the provisions of this part by the FDIC or any other federal banking agency shall not in any way obligate such agency or receiver to pay any claim or obligation pursuant to any golden parachute, severance, indemnification or other agreement. Claims for employee welfare benefits or other benefits which are contingent, even if otherwise vested, when the FDIC is appointed as receiver for any depository institution, including any contingency for termination of employment, are not provable claims or actual, direct compensatory damage claims against such receiver. Nothing in this part may be construed to permit the payment of salary or any liability or legal expense of any IAP contrary to 12 U.S.C. 1828(k)(3).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2018–2018 · leading case: Bunn v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 908 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bunn v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 908 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2018). “The FDIC further argues that Bunn is not entitled to payment of the change of control termination benefit because 12 C.F.R. § 359.7 precludes recovery and because he did not establish a "change of control," as defined in the Agreement, actually occurred.”
James Bunn v. FDIC (7th Cir. 2018). “10 The FDIC further argues that Bunn is not entitled to payment of the change of control termination benefit because 12 C.F.R. § 359.7 precludes recovery and because he did not establish a “change of control,” as defined in the Agreement, actually occurred.”
James Bunn v. FDIC (7th Cir. 2018). “10 The FDIC further argues that Bunn is not entitled to payment of the change of control termination benefit because 12 C.F.R. § 359.7 precludes recovery and because he did not establish a “change of control,” as defined in the Agreement, actually occurred.”
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.