- 43 -
majority opinion, the exit fee paid by Metrobank was for
insurance coverage that Community’s deposit liabilities had
received before Metrobank acquired Community’s assets and assumed
its liabilities.8 Nevertheless, the majority concludes that
“Metrobank paid the exit fee to the SAIF as a nonrefundable,
final premium for insurance that it had already received.”
Majority op. p.20. (Emphasis added.) Of course, if the exit fee
was paid for insurance that Metrobank had already received, it
would follow that there was no significant future benefit.
However, the majority’s conclusion that the exit fee was a
“premium” for insurance coverage that Metrobank had already
received from the SAIF is clearly wrong.
Metrobank never received any “insurance” benefit from the
SAIF. Any SAIF insurance benefit was derived prior to
Metrobank’s acquisition of Community’s assets. Indeed, the
majority acknowledges that “Metrobank was not affiliated with the
SAIF either before or after the transaction” whereby it acquired
Community’s assets and liabilities. Majority op. p. 21.
Metrobank would have no reason to pay for “insurance” coverage on
deposits for a period prior to its acquisition of those deposits.
7(...continued)
Oct. 31, 1993, 1994, and 1995.
8It is ironic that the majority relies on this theory that
petitioner never argued. Petitioner argued that the exit fee
paid to the SAIF was for insurance coverage that it received
during the years in issue. The majority correctly recognizes
that Metrobank was not insured by the SAIF during those years.
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011