Bunn v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-FDIC’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-former bank employee’s motion to recover “change of control benefit” that plaintiff asserted that he was entitled to receive after FDIC was appointed receiver of bank that employed plaintiff, and after FDIC disaffirmed benefits agreement between bank and plaintiff. Under agreement, plaintiff was to receive $240,000 in benefits if bank terminated plaintiff within 12 months of change of bank’s control for reasons other than death, disability or retirement, and defendant could properly maintain that plaintiff could not receive such payment, since said benefit was akin to “golden parachute payment” that was prohibited by 12 USC section 1828(k), where: (1) said agreement concerned payment of compensation by bank to plaintiff, where bank was insured depository institution, and plaintiff was institution-affiliated party, and (2) payment was contingent upon plaintiff’s termination of employment after change of bank’s control, which occurred after defendant’s appointment as bank’s receiver. Moreover, record did not support plaintiff’s claim that instant benefit was in essence bona fide deferred compensation plan, where bank did not ever designate fund that was specific to him and to terms of his potential benefits as outlined in agreement.