- Key insight: A federal judge ruled the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. can keep $1.71 billion that SVB Financial had deposited at Silicon Valley Bank, blocking creditors from recovering the funds.
- What's at stake: Wall Street investors bought Silicon Valley Bank parent company debt at a discount and had counted on the FDIC covering that deposit.
- Expert quote: The SVB Financial officers' "conduct fell below the standard of care for ordinarily prudent bankers." — Judge Beth Labson Freeman
WASHINGTON — A federal court has ruled that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. doesn't have to return $1.71 billion to creditors of Silicon Valley Bank's parent company.
Creditors won't be able to reclaim the $1.71 billion in cash that the SVB parent company, SVB Financial, deposited in its subsidiary bank, ruled Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. She found that the bank's parent company pursued a negligent strategy for the bank.
"The officers of the Holding Company negligently caused billions of dollars in losses by their imprudent investment strategy that favored yield over safety," she said. "Their conduct fell below the standard of care for ordinarily prudent bankers."
The Silicon Valley Bank collapse was at the time the second largest bank failure in U.S. history. After regulators seized the bank in March 2023, the FDIC took control of the $1.7 billion deposit.
SVB Financial later filed for Chapter 11 protection. Hedge funds and other distressed investors had purchased the parent company's debt at discounts, wagering that the $1.71 billion deposit and other assets could generate recoveries for creditors.
The liquidation trust
"FDIC's claims stem from its disagreement with business decisions, but that does not amount to a breach of fiduciary duty. FDIC's criticisms are based on hindsight," SVB Financial Trust said in its June trial brief. "In light of the circumstances when the decisions were made, the 2021-2022 investments and sale of hedges were reasonable, adhered to Board-set policies, aligned with peer banks, and were endorsed by regulators."
The FDIC argued that it was entitled to retain the funds to help cover losses from the bank's failure. After a 12-day trial, Freeman sided with the regulator.
Read more:
OCC and FDIC finalize narrower bank supervision procedures As education costs rise, credit unions chip in for employees A $111 million scheme to keep bad merchants banked How Google and Apple's youth plays are pressuring banks
"The evidence presented at trial established that the risk of a bank run was not only foreseeable but in fact foreseen," she said in her ruling. "The Officers and Directors were not only aware of the possibility of a sharp increase in rates, but actively worried about this possibility."
