- 70 -
“protect the integrity” of the SAIF and the BIF. Id. The
majority additionally assert that “Metrobank paid the exit fee to
the SAIF as a nonrefundable, final premium for insurance that it
had already received”, while the entrance fee was a nonrefundable
premium “for the current year’s insurance.” Majority op. pp. 20-
21. Once again, I disagree.
The majority’s conclusion that Metrobank paid the exit fee
for insurance it had already received is clearly wrong. As the
majority opinion clearly states, the exit fee was paid to the
SAIF. See id. The deposits of Community acquired by Metrobank
were insured by the SAIF only when they were Community’s
deposits; those deposits became insured by the BIF upon their
acquisition by Metrobank.
Therefore, if the exit fees accurately can be described as
premiums for SAIF insurance, they were for insurance coverage the
deposits received before Metrobank acquired them. The only
business purpose Metrobank could have had for paying this “SAIF
insurance expense” was its desire to acquire Community’s assets
and deposits.
The majority’s reliance on the role the fees played in
protecting the “integrity” of the SAIF is misplaced. While it
may have been the FDIC’s purpose in imposing the exit fees, it
certainly wasn’t Metrobank’s reason for paying them. Moreover,
the FDIC’s purpose is of limited relevance to the case at hand.
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011