FDIC special assessment
Capital One v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Date: Sept. 10, 2025
Issue: Whether the FDIC unlawfully imposed an excessive $474.1 million special assessment related to the failures of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank.
Case Summary: Capital One sued the FDIC in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging it unlawfully imposed an excessive $474.1 million special assessment related to the failures of SVB and Signature Bank.
In March 2023, SVB and Signature Bank suffered debilitating runs on customer deposits and failed. Roughly 88% of SVB’s deposits and 67% of Signature’s deposits exceeded the FDIC’s $250,000 insurance limit and counted as “uninsured deposits.” The FDIC exercised its statutory authority to protect these uninsured depositors by drawing from the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF).
To recover the DIF losses, the FDIC imposed a special assessment in November 2023 on certain large FDIC-insured banks, including Capital One. Under this Special Assessment Rule, the FDIC calculated each bank’s assessment using estimated uninsured deposits reported in the December 31, 2022, Call Report, including any amendments confirmed through its Assessment Reporting Review.
In calculating Capital One’s special assessment, the FDIC treated a $56 billion position with Capital One Funding, LLC, and a $189 million position with Capital One Auto Receivables LLC (the “Intercompany Position”) as uninsured deposits. Capital One, however, did not report the Intercompany Position in its Dec. 31, 2022 Call Report or in any later amendments confirmed through the FDIC’s Assessment Reporting Review. In its complaint, Capital One challenged the FDIC’s decision to include the $56 billion intercompany position in the Special Assessment Rule calculation and made three main arguments.
First, Capital One argued that the intercompany position does not qualify as a “deposit” under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA). Second, Capital One argued the FDIC relied on an outdated Call Report that Capital One amended in June 2023 to remove the position. Finally, Capital One argued that a retroactive distribution had reduced the position to $2 billion as of Oct. 1, 2022, before the Dec. 31, 2022 reporting date. Capital One alleged the FDIC ignored these corrections and instead applied its own calculation, which inflated Capital One’s special assessment to $475 million rather than the $325 million reflected in its Revised December 2022 Call Report — an overcharge of about $149.5 million.
Capital One seeks a declaratory judgment to prevent payment of the disputed amount and any penalties. Capital One asks the court to declare that the intercompany position does not qualify as a deposit, that the FDIC improperly included it in the special assessment calculation, and that Capital One owes no unpaid assessment.
Bottom Line: The industry-wide assessment was intended to help the FDIC cover losses from the 2023 crisis of SVB and Signature Bank. Capital One sued to correct the alleged overcharge.
Document: Complaint
