The bill adds a new clawback provision to Section 8(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that authorizes the FDIC to recover a wide range of executive compensation from persons it deems responsible for a depository institution’s failure. It defines covered compensation to include salary, bonuses, equity awards, time- and service-based awards, awards tied to non-financial metrics, and profits from securities trading, and defines ‘‘covered parties’’ to include directors, officers, controlling stockholders (excluding bank or thrift holding companies), change-in-control filers, and others who participated in an institution’s affairs and were found primarily responsible for the failure.
For institutions with assets greater than $10 billion, the FDIC must claw back all or part of covered compensation paid to covered parties during the three years before insolvency, resolution, or appointment of the FDIC as receiver, and deposit recoveries into the Deposit Insurance Fund. The bill also tweaks the Dodd-Frank orderly liquidation language to make clear the FDIC’s authority to act as receiver regardless of how it was appointed.
The change is aimed at channeling failed-executive liability into the DIF, altering executive incentives, and giving regulators a clearer statutory basis to pursue pay recoveries after large bank failures.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new paragraph into FDIA Section 8(b) that (1) defines broad categories of ‘‘covered compensation’’ and ‘‘covered parties’’ and (2) requires the FDIC to claw back covered compensation paid in the prior three years when it takes an insured depository institution with over $10 billion in assets into insolvency or receivership. Recoveries go to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
Who It Affects
Directors, officers, controlling shareholders (other than bank or thrift holding companies), persons who filed change-in-control notices, and other individuals found by federal banking regulators to be primarily responsible for a bank failure at institutions larger than $10 billion. The FDIC and appropriate federal banking agencies gain an enforcement tool.
Why It Matters
It creates a targeted post-failure recovery mechanism that reaches many forms of pay beyond cash bonuses, shifts recovered losses into the DIF, and clarifies FDIC authority in connection with orderly liquidation—potentially changing how regulators pursue accountability after large bank failures and how banks design executive compensation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to create an explicit, regulator-driven clawback regime for failed insured depository institutions above a $10 billion asset threshold. It does two primary things: first, it spells out what counts as ‘‘covered compensation’’—a deliberately broad list that captures ordinary salary and bonuses, equity and time-based awards, awards tied to non-financial metrics, performance-based awards, and even trading profits.
Second, it identifies who can be reached: directors, officers, controlling stockholders (excluding bank or thrift holding companies), anyone required to file a change-in-control notice, and other people who took part in running the bank if regulators find they were primarily responsible for the failure.
When an insured depository institution with more than $10 billion in assets becomes insolvent, undergoes resolution, or the FDIC is appointed receiver for it, the FDIC must claw back ‘‘all or part’’ of covered compensation that any covered party received during the prior three years. The statute channels any amounts recovered into the Deposit Insurance Fund.
The bill leaves room for the ‘‘appropriate Federal banking agency’’ to identify additional covered parties by regulation or on a case-by-case basis and to make findings about who was primarily responsible for the failure.Practically, the measure creates an administrative enforcement lever for the FDIC: recoveries will be sought after failure events and used to replenish the DIF rather than for punitive fines or criminal sanctions. The exclusion of bank holding companies and savings-and-loan holding companies from the covered-party definition is noteworthy: the bill focuses reach on individuals and certain shareholders rather than on the holding-company level.
The amendment to Dodd-Frank’s orderly liquidation provision clarifies that the FDIC’s receivership powers attach ‘‘regardless of the process by which the Corporation is appointed,’’ removing ambiguity about the FDIC’s ability to act as receiver for covered financial companies under different appointment mechanisms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies only to insured depository institutions with more than $10,000,000,000 in total assets and targets compensation paid in the 3 years preceding insolvency, resolution, or FDIC receivership.
Covered compensation is defined very broadly to include salary, bonuses, equity-based awards, time- or service-based awards, awards tied to non-financial metrics, performance-based pay tied to financial reporting measures, and profits from buying or selling securities.
Covered parties include directors, officers, controlling stockholders (excluding bank and thrift holding companies), persons required to file change-in-control notices, and other individuals whom the appropriate federal banking agency finds were primarily responsible for the failed condition.
Any compensation the FDIC successfully clawed back under the new paragraph is required to be deposited into the Deposit Insurance Fund rather than used for other enforcement purposes.
The bill amends Dodd-Frank’s orderly liquidation language to confirm that the FDIC can exercise receivership powers for a financial company ‘‘regardless of the process by which the Corporation is appointed,’’ reducing legal ambiguity about the FDIC’s authority after different appointment routes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the measure the name ‘‘Failed Bank Executives Clawback Act.’
New paragraph (9): definitions of covered compensation and covered party
This provision adds paragraph (9) to Section 8(b) and establishes two working definitions. The covered compensation definition is intentionally expansive—cash, equity, time-vested awards, performance awards tied to financial or non-financial metrics, and trading profits are all listed—so that common pay practices at banks fall inside the statute. The covered party definition enumerates categories (directors, officers, certain shareholders and control filers) and allows the appropriate Federal banking agency to designate additional persons who ‘‘participate in the conduct of the affairs’’ of the institution and are found to be primarily responsible for its failure, either by regulation or on a case-by-case basis.
Liability, lookback period, threshold, and destination of recoveries
Clause (B) makes covered parties at institutions with assets above $10 billion ‘‘liable to the Corporation’’ for covered compensation the FDIC determines should be clawed back. The FDIC must seek recoveries for pay received during the three years prior to insolvency, resolution, or appointment as receiver. Any amounts the FDIC recovers are required to be deposited into the Deposit Insurance Fund. The statute uses mandatory language for institutions over the threshold: the FDIC ‘‘shall claw back all or part’’ of the relevant compensation.
Excludes bank and thrift holding companies; agency discretion on responsible parties
The statute explicitly excludes bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies from the ‘‘controlling stockholder’’ label, narrowing direct exposure to individuals and certain shareholders rather than parent firms. At the same time, the ‘‘appropriate Federal banking agency’’ retains discretion to identify other covered parties by regulation or on a case-by-case basis and to make determinations that an individual was ‘‘primarily responsible’’ for the failure—an administrative gatekeeping role that will drive enforcement practice.
Orderly Liquidation Act language broadened to cover any receivership appointment process
This change replaces a clause in Section 204(a)(3) of Dodd-Frank so the FDIC’s receivership authority over a financial company applies ‘‘regardless of the process by which the Corporation is appointed.’’ The practical effect is to reduce ambiguity about the FDIC’s ability to act as receiver—and therefore to pursue recoveries—whether appointment occurs under standard receivership practice, the OLA, or another route.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Deposit Insurance Fund and FDIC: Recoveries are directed into the DIF, increasing funds available to cover insured deposits and reducing the need for special assessments on banks or taxpayer exposure.
- Insured depositors and taxpayers: By replenishing the DIF after large failures, the bill aims to protect deposit insurance resources and limit broader fiscal exposure from bank failures.
- Federal banking regulators: Grants regulators an explicit statutory tool to seek post-failure accountability and to signal that executives can be held financially responsible for failures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Directors, officers, and certain controlling shareholders of failed banks larger than $10 billion: They face potential restitution obligations for pay received in the prior three years if regulators find them primarily responsible.
- Failed-bank estates and counterparties: Clawbacks can complicate resolution planning, asset sales, and creditor recoveries and may trigger litigation that delays resolution outcomes and increases administrative costs.
- Banks’ compensation and legal functions (and potentially recruiting): Banks will incur compliance, monitoring, and legal costs to defend against clawback claims or to redesign compensation schemes to reduce exposure, and firms may face higher costs recruiting senior talent worried about retrospective liability.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus predictability: the bill strengthens ex post accountability by allowing the FDIC to recoup broad forms of pay after a failure, but it does so without clear procedural guardrails or a defined standard for who is ‘‘primarily responsible,’’ creating uncertainty for executives, banks, and the courts about when and how pay can be clawed back.
The bill creates powerful but administratively ambiguous authority. It requires the FDIC to ‘‘claw back all or part’’ of covered compensation for covered parties but does not prescribe the procedural path for recovery—whether through FDIC administrative process, negotiated settlements, civil actions, or expedited receivership tools—leaving open litigation over process, burden of proof, notice, and appeals.
The statute uses the phrase ‘‘primarily responsible’’ without defining the legal standard or evidentiary threshold, which will push a lot of weight onto agency rulemaking and case-by-case factual determinations and likely produce contested litigation over causation and culpability.
There are also cross-cutting legal frictions the bill does not resolve. Executive employment contracts, releases, severance agreements, and ERISA-covered plans may limit or complicate recoveries; the bill does not address whether contractual waivers or plan terms are preempted.
Bankruptcy and receivership priority rules could collide with post-failure clawback claims, producing fights among creditors and the FDIC over priority of recovered funds. The exclusion of bank and thrift holding companies from the covered-party definition narrows reach in a way that may be legally and practically significant, since many compensation arrangements are structured at the holding-company level.
Finally, the $10 billion asset threshold creates a cliff: it targets very large banks while leaving smaller institutions outside the regime, which may incentivize corporate structuring or risk-shifting behaviors around the threshold.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.