Todd Lane is at the center of one of the most unusual, combative merger-and-acquisition sagas in recent years. He's the CEO of California Coast Credit Union, which last year sued the larger San Diego County Credit Union after
Since then, the two credit unions have communicated largely through a series of
There are a number of elements that make this merger an outlier. It's rare for a financial institution to seek to renegotiate the terms of a deal before closing. And it's even more uncommon for an unfinished deal to descend into public acrimony. If Cal Coast prevails in court, and the merger gets completed under the deal's original terms, it will fall to Lane to mend fences, since he will become CEO of the combined institution.
In his interview with American Banker, Lane sought to lower the temperature, saying that despite what's been said in court filings, "the emotions and feelings that we have towards SDCCU" are "not contentious."
At the same time, Lane defended himself and his $3.4 billion-asset credit union against some of SDDCU's claims. SDCCU has sought to change the terms of the merger deal — in part by installing its own CEO, Teresa Campbell, as leader of the combined institution — because it says it found that Lane led a "culture of noncompliance" at Cal Coast.
Lane denied that allegation on Friday, saying the notion that there's a "lax compliance culture" at Cal Coast "couldn't be further from the truth, and it couldn't be further from what's been tested and what's been confirmed."
One specific point of contention in the lawsuit involves the
Lane told American Banker that the issue arose from Cal Coast opening a branch in San Diego's Logan Heights neighborhood, which is heavily Latino, in an effort to address financial inclusion.
"And we worked with attorneys before we put any Spanish-language courtesy materials in that particular branch, and we knew that there is some level of risk in doing that, because if you don't have 100% of … documents in the Spanish language, that creates a risk," Lane said. "We put guardrails around it. We managed the risk of doing so."
The $9.3 billion-asset SDDCU declined to comment for this article, but it previously said the following in a court filing: "Integration meetings, documents, and revelations made all too clear that Todd Lane would not, in fact, steer the combined entity true to 'conservative banking principles,' as he had pledged."
'I have never called myself a dictator'
SDCCU's chief risk officer, Carolyn Kissick, has alleged in a court filing that Lane berated her during a September 2025 meeting, saying: "I do not care what you say or what you think. I do not care what anyone says or what anyone thinks. I am a dictator and I run a dictatorship."
In his interview with American Banker, Lane denied Kissick's allegation. "I did not use those words. I have never called myself a dictator. I did not call myself a dictator in that meeting," he said. "It is just categorically inaccurate."
Lane said the meeting with Kissick last fall dealt with the workings of the integration steering committee, which was set up after the credit unions agreed to merge. That committee had five members from Cal Coast and four from SDCCU, and the imbalance had sparked concern, he said.
"And what I shared continuously … [was] that we would not outvote them if there was any contentious issue," Lane said.
In other words, he added, if the committee members from the two credit unions couldn't reach an agreement, the committee's vote would not count. Instead, he and SDCCU CEO Campbell would make the decision together.
That sort of deadlock only happened once during the integration process, according to Lane, and he and Campbell were able to resolve the matter. "In that case, we happened to favor, both of us, what her team was recommending, not what the Cal Coast team was recommending," Lane said.
One document that emerged during the litigation process is a text message sent last November by Cal Coast's chief lending officer, Mitzi Zarcone. In the text, Zarcone wrote that after SDCCU sought to amend the merger agreement in a way that would allow Campbell to become CEO of the merged institution, Lane "is going scorched earth on her!"
Six days later, Cal Coast filed its lawsuit. Cal Coast wants a state court judge to find that SDCCU violated the terms of the merger agreement by pausing integration work, and to order the credit union to pay damages and legal costs. A ruling is expected next month.
Lane told American Banker that while he can't comment on what Zarcone wrote, it's not often that a credit union sues another credit union.
"And we knew going in that this would be picked up throughout the industry," Lane said. "So we knew that there was potential for this to be a contentious issue. I think that's what perhaps she meant. This was unusual, and we knew that. But we felt as though we needed to protect our membership. We also need to adhere to the contract."
"We have fully lived up to that contract," Lane said. "In all respects. So suggested changes to that contract — and I don't want to speak for the board — but they're quite honestly unnecessary. We've lived up to the contract."
'It's not bad blood'
Lane said that Cal Coast has not "aired dirty laundry" and hasn't "attacked SDCCU" during the litigation.
Following the interview, American Banker asked how to square Lane's assertion with a recent Cal Coast court filing in which its CEO wrote: "Despite poor management, SDCCU's executives have been compensated at an extremely high level that is out of line with the norms for non-profit credit unions."
Lane responded in an email, saying: "Those statements were included in a legal declaration and reflect context relevant to the case. They were not intended as personal attacks, and they don't change our position. As we've said, Cal Coast does not hold animosity toward SDCCU."
The dispute's outcome is now in the hands not only of a judge, but also the National Credit Union Administration, which has so far deferred a decision on whether to approve the merger. In a Jan. 27 letter, an NCUA official described "areas of concern" that the agency had identified.
Lane indicated that he is unable to see the full picture regarding the NCUA's concerns, since when the agency conducts a merger examination, it occurs at the institution with the surviving charter, which in this case was SDCCU.
"It's hard to say what it will take because we were not part of the examination process," Lane said. "I don't know what they had access to and what they didn't have access to. That was all done through SDCCU."
Still, Lane said that he believes the proposed merger can get regulatory approval, adding that both credit unions are well regarded by both the NCUA and state regulators.
"Both credit unions are very healthy," Lane said. "So I absolutely believe that it can be done successfully."
Lane insisted that despite everything that's transpired over the last six months, the deal, which he likened to a merger of equals, should move forward as originally planned.
"This merger benefits not only the community and the membership, but the entire employee base of both organizations," he said.
When asked how he'd be able to bring together the two organizations, Lane chalked up the public bickering to "the legal process."
"It's not bad blood," he said. "In my mind, I'm able to separate those two things."
