[PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
No. 1 1- 11 19 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cv -0 16 56 -RAL-TGW

IBERIAB ANK, a Lou is ia naba nk in g c or

po rat io n a ndau th or iz edto do bu si ne ss in th e St at e o f Fl or id a, Plai nt iff - App el le e,
ve rs us BENEVA 41 -I, LLC, a Fl or id a li m it edli ab il it y co m pa ny, BENEVA 41 -II, LLC, a Fl or id a li m it edli ab il it y co m pa ny, BENEVA 41 -III. LLC, a Fl or id a li m it edli ab il it y co m pa ny, Defend an ts - App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Nov em be r 30 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN, andHILL, Circu itJu dg es .

Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 1 of 19TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Inth is cas e, we are c al le d upo n t o d et erm in e whe th er a s ub le as e tr an sf erre d by the Fed eral Depo si t In su ran ce Co rp or at io n (“ FDIC” ) to Ibe riaba nkaft er i t t oo k
ov er t he ass et s o f a fai le d b an k i s en fo rceabl e d es pi te a cl au se pu rp orti ng to te rm in at e th e subl eas e o n s al e o r tr an sf er o f th e fai le d b an k. Th e Dis tri ctCo urt gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Ibe riaba nk , ho ld in g t ha t t he term in at io n cl au se was u ne nf

or ceab le ag ai ns t Ib eri ab an k u nd er 1 2 U.S.C. § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A) (2 00 6) , whi ch gra nt s t he rece iv er au th or it y to en fo rce c on tra ct s en te redin to by 1 th e fai le d b an k n ot wit hs ta nd in g c laus es th atpu rp ort t o t erm in at e th e co nt ract s o n in so lv en cy

or r ecei ve rs hi p. Be ne vaap pe al s t ha t d eci si on , con te nd in g t ha t Ib eri ab an k h as no au th or it y to en fo rce t he subl eas e an d t ha t, ev en if i t d oe s, t he te rm in at io n c laus e is en fo rceabl e b ecau se itdo es no t fa ll wit hi n § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A)’s pr oh ib it io n o n s uc h c laus es . Becau se we fin d t ha t t he FDIC act edwit hi n i ts po wer t o e nf or ce co nt ract s u nd er § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A) an d t ha t t he

In its complaint, Iberia

bank cites 12 U .S.C. § 1821(e)(12) (A) ( 2006) ra ther than 12 1 U.S.C. § 1821(e)(13) (A) ( 2006). The e rror appea rs to be the r esult of a r enumbering of the statute that occ urre d in 2005. As part of the Ba nkruptcy Abuse Preve ntion and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub. L . No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, Congr ess amende d the Fe dera l Deposit Insuranc e Ac t by

addinga new

section and r enumber ing pa ragraphs ( 11) through (15) a s para g raphs ( 12) through (16). The District Court also cites § 1821(e )(12) (A) in its order . We will refe r to the statutory

provision as it is currently numbere d, § 1821(e) (13)( A), throughout this opinion, ex cept whe n discussing a case decide d befor e the r enumber ing. B eneva ’s contention that the mistake is an abuse of discre tion by the district court is without merit. 2 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 2 of 19te rm in at io n c laus e is un en fo rceabl e ag ai ns t Ib eri ab an k a s t he FDIC’s tran sf eree , we affi rm . InPartI, we reco un t t he fact s o f th e cas e an d the pro ceed in gs in th e Dis tri ct Co urt. In PartII, we ex pl ai n t he st atut ory fram ewo rkth atgo ve rn s t he FDIC’s po wers when itact s as rece iv er o f a fai le d b an k. We th en in te rp ret § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A) as itap pl ie s t o t he di sp ut edsubl eas e. I. A. Ben ev a an d Ib eri ab an k b ecame part ie s t o t he subl eas e atis su e th ro ug h a
se rie s o f as si gn m en ts . The s ub le as e, whi ch co ve rs pre m is es on whi ch Ibe riaba nk op erat es a ba nkbra nc h, was ex ecu te d o n J anua ry 3, 1 97 9, b y

Cas to Deve lo pe rs as
subl es so r an d Nat io na l Ba nkGul f Gat e as subl es se e. The t erm of the subl eas e was twen ty y ears , with a n o pt io n t o re ne w forten su cces si ve pe rio ds of f iv e y ears each
. The ren t fo r eac h re ne wal p eri odwas s etat 1 10 % of t he ren t p ai d dur in g t he pr eced in g t erm . The s ub le as e p ro vi de d t ha t o n t erm in at io n o f th e ag reem en t, t he
subl es se e wou ldsu rren de r th e p rem is es to th e subl es so r. So m et im e b etween 19 79 an d 2 00 2, Nat io na l Ba nkGul f Gat e was m erg ed in to or a cqui redby Sun Trus t Ba nk . On Apr il 26 , 20 02 , Sun Trus t as si gn edit s in te res ts in th e subl eas e to Orio n B an k. Ori on pa idSu nTru st$1 ,05 1,0 00 for th e 3 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 3 of 19im

pr ov em en ts onth e p ro pe rty. Cast o In ve st m en ts Co m pa ny, L td ., su cces so r-i nin te res t t o C as to Deve lo pe rs , si gn eda Mem or an du m of Lea se wit h Ori on . At th at ti m e, th e o rig in al term

of t wen ty y ears ha d ru n a ndth e cu rren t t erm of t he lea se
was for fiv e y ears co m

m en ci ng Ju ne 3, 1 99 9. Anop ti on to ren ew fo r ni ne ad di ti on al fiv e-year pe rio ds rem ai ne d. On J an ua ry

8, 2 00 9, Ori on was n ot ifi edth atCas to ha d s ol d t he subl eas ed pr op erty to Ben ev a. On Au gu st31 , 20 09 , Ben ev a an d Ori on en te redin to an
am en dm en t t o t he subl eas e. The a m en dm en t p ro vi de d t ha t the subl eas e te rm
wou ldbe ex te nd edto Ju ne 3, 2 04 9, t he ex pi rat io n d at e o f th e fi na l fi ve -y ear
ex te ns io n i n t he ori gi na l s ub le as e. Orio n a gr eedto pa y Ben ev a $ 1.7 5 m il li on as a

“ le as e ex te ns io n i nc en ti ve .” The am en dm en t al so co nt ai ne d aterm in at io n c laus e, 2 whi chis at i ss ue in th is cas e. It p ro vi de s: “ 3. Term in at io n. Subl es so r sh al l h av e th e ri gh t t o t erm in at e th e Sub- le as e if (i) Orio n i s s ol d a nd/o r tr an sf erre d t o ano th er ba nk in g i ns ti tu ti on , or (i i) Ori on sel ls an d/ ortra ns fers all or s ub st an ti al ly all o f it s
as se ts .” On No ve m

be r 13 , 20 09 , th e Fl or id a Offi ce o f Fi na nc ia l Re gu la ti on clo se d Orio n a ndap po in te d the FDIC re cei ve r, wit h aut ho riz at io n t o t ak e ch arg e an d

It is unclear f

rom the re cord why

Be neva a nd Orion executed the Amendment, since the 2 expiration date and re nt did not chang e, and why Orion agree d to pay

Be neva $1.75 million. 4 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 4 of 19po ss es si on of a ll ass et s o f Orio n. Thatsame day , th e FDIC a ndIbe riaba nk 3
en te redin to a Purch as e an d As su m pt io n Ag reem en t u nd er wh ic h Ib eri ab an k ag reedto pu rch as e Ori on ’s ass et s an d a ss um e certa in of i ts li ab il it ie s, dut ie s, an d ob li ga ti on s. OnJu ne 29 , 20 10 , Ben ev a n ot ifi edIbe riaba nkth at , pu rs ua ntto th e te rm in at io n c laus e co nt ai ne d i n t he am en dm en t en te redin to by Iberi ab an k’s pr ed eces so r, Orio n, Be ne vawas e xe rci si ng it s ri gh t t o t erm in at e th e subl eas e. The
no ti ce s ta te d, “ Thi s p ro vi si on was s pe ci fic al ly neg ot ia te d t o a ll ow Subl es so r th e rig htto term in at e th e Subl eas e in ev en ts su ch as wh enOrio n was clo se d b y th e FDIC an d i ts ass et s wer e tr an sf erre d t o Ib eri ab an k.” Ben ev a g av e Ib eri ab an k o ne y ear t o v acat e th e p rem is es , as p ro vi de d b y th e subl eas e. B. Ib eri ab an k b ro ug htth is de cl arat ory jud gm en t ac ti on inth e Dis tri ctCo urt fo r

The F lorida Off

ice of Financ ial Regulation took possession of Orion and appointed the 3 FDI C as rec eiver

pursuant to Fla . Stat. §§ 658.79, 658.80, and 658.81 (2009). Under § 658.79, the Off

ice of Financ ial Regulation may desig nate a

rec eiver to take char g e of the assets and a ffa irs of a ba nk “[w]henever the office has re ason to conc lude, base d upon the re ports furnished to it by a state ba nk or trust company

examiner or upon other satisfac tory

evidenc e, that any

state bank or

trust company : (1) I s insolvent or immi nently insolvent.” Under § 658.80(2), “ [t ]he Fede ral De posit Insuranc e Corporation or any appropr iate fede ral a g ency

shall be appointed by

the offic e as r ece iver or liquidator of any state bank, the deposits of which a

re to a ny extent ins ured by

the cor poration.” Section 658.81 provides for notice and c ourt confir

mation of appointment of the r ece iver afte r a he aring . Florida

Circuit J udg e Hugh Hayes found that the O fficehad shown that Or ion was imminently

insolvent as define d in § 655.005(1)(k) and ente red a n order confirming appointment of the F DI C on November 13, 2009. 5 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 5 of 19th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a o n J ul y 26 , 20 10 . It as ke d t he co urt t o ru le th atth e te rm in at io n c laus e was un en fo rceabl e und er 1 2 U.S.C. § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A) an d t hu s th e subl eas e was st il l i n e ffec t wi th ou t t he term in at io n c laus e. Ibe riaba nkals o 4
as ke d fo r at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts as p ro vi de d i n t he subl eas e. On J an ua ry

25 , 20 11 , bef

or e d is co ve ry

ha d b een co m

pl et ed , Ibe riaba nk
m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t. The Dis tri ctCo urt en te redjud gm en t i n fa vo r of Ib eri ab an k o n F eb ru ary 11 , 20 11 . It co nc lu de d t ha t t he FDIC h ad“ th e ab so lu te rig htto ass um e th e subl eas e an d t ran sf er i t t o t he Pla in ti ff,” an d tha t t he te rm in at io n c laus e o pe rat edas a n i ps o fa ct o c laus e an d was th eref or e 5 This court has jurisdiction over this case unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In a dec laratory 4 judgme nt action, the cour t normally

looks to whether “ the ca

use of a ction anticipated by the decla ratory judgme nt plaintiff arises unde r fe dera l law.” Hudson I ns. Co. v. Am. Elec. Corp., 957 F.2d 826, 828 ( 11th Cir. 1992). Although the anticipated c ause of action her e is a state contra ct claim, re solution of the dispute require s interpre tation of a substantial fe dera l issue. See id. at 829 (11th Cir. 1992) (quotingFr anchise Tax Bd. V. Construction L abore rs Vac ation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 28, 103 S. C t. 2841, 2856, 77 L . Ed. 2d 420 (1983)) (“[S] tate-c reated ca uses of a ction can some times arise unde r fe dera l law when the potential state cour t plaintiff’s right to relief nece ssarily

depends on r esolution of a substantial question of fe dera l law.” ( internal quotation marks omitted)). Eve n if the fe dera l issue would not appear on the fa ce of

a we ll-pleade d complaint by

Be neva, but r ather

as a de fense by

I beria bank, I beria bank likely

could bringits own state contra ct claim, which w ould nece ssarily raise a fede ral que stion. S ee Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc v. Da

rue Eng . & Mf

g , 545 U.S. 308, 315, 125 S. C t. 2363, 2368, 162 L . Ed. 2d 257 (2005) ( findingjurisdiction under § 1331 whe n plaintiff brought quiet titl e ac tion that turned on a fede ral tax provision: “[ the meaningof the fe dera l tax provision] appea rs to be the only

leg al and fac tual issue contested in the c ase. [It] is an important issue of fe dera l law that sensibly belong s in a fe dera l court. . . . [B]ecauseit will be the rare state title case that raises a contested matter of fede ral law , fede ral jurisdiction to resolve g enuine disagree ment over f eder al tax ti tle provisions will portend only

a miscrosc opic ef

fec t on the fede ral-state division of labor.”)
. An ipso fac to clause is a c lause that provide s the conseque nces if a cer tain event oc curs. 5 Section 1821(e) (13)( A)’s pr ohibition on i pso fac to clauses is ana logous to the une nforc eability of 6 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 6 of 19un en fo rceabl e ag ai ns t t he su cces so r-i n- in te res t t o t he FDIC u nd er 1 2 U.S.C.

§ 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A). The c ou rt o pi ne d tha t t he term in at io n c laus e wou ldren de r Orio n’s as se ts “ worth le ss ,” th us de st ro y in g t he FDIC’s ab il it y to sel l t he fai le d ba nk ’s ass et s. Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed . Ben ev a arg ue s, i nt er al ia , th atsu m m ary jud gm en t i n 6 fav orof I be riabanksh ou ldbe rev ers edbe cau se Ibe riaba nkha s n o ri gh t t o e nf or ce th e subl eas e an d, ev enif i t d oe s, t he term in at io n c laus e is no t anip so fact o c laus e
an d i s t hu s en fo rceabl e ag ai ns t Ib eri ab an k. 7 ipso facto c lauses in the bankr uptcy context. I n bankruptc y , an ipso fac to clause pr ovides the conseque nces, suc h as termination of a contra ct, upon insolvency or filingof a ba

nkruptcy petition. Under 11 U.S.C. § 365(b)( 2), ipso fac to clauses a re not e nforc eable ag ainst the trustee. Be neva a lso argues that the district cour t abused its discretion in grantingsummary 6 judgme nt without requiringthe par ties to narrowthe fa ctual issues as r equire d by the cour t’s case manag ement orde r. The a rgument is without m erit. Be neva a lso argues that the District Court abuse d its discretion in gr antingattorney ’s 7 fee s to Iberia

bank bec ause the re is no statutory authority for a g rant of f ees unde r the De clar atory J udg ment Act. I

beria bank’s r equest for

fee s was base d on a cla

use in the sublease , howeve r. Section 16.04 of the sublea se provides:

In case suit s h al l b e brought by Sub-lessor for the rec overy of posses sion of the Demised Premises or for the rec overy of rent or beca use of the brea ch of any covena nt b y th e S ub-lessee and if the Sub-lessor is successful in such litigation, then the Sub-lessee shall pay all costs of said litigation i ncluding a reasonable attorney ’s fee; if unsucce ssful, the Sub-lessor shall pay to the Sub-lessee all costs of said litigation including a rea sonable attorney ’s fee incurre d by sublessee in the defe nse there of. In case suit shall be brought by the Sublessee beca

use of the brea ch of any covena nt by Sub-lessor and if the Sub-lessor is succe ssful in such litigation, then the Sub-lessee shall pay all costs of said litigation, including a rea sonable attorney ’s fee
. The District Court, in g rantingsummary judgme nt, reser

ved jurisdiction on the matter of attorney ’s fe es and dire cted the pa rties to eng ag e in g ood faith neg otiations to resolve the amount

7 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 7 of 19II.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Ho ll om an v. M ai l-Well Co rp or at io n, 4 43 F.3d83 2, 8 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e co ns id er t he
ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y . Id

. Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te when th ere i s n o g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al factan d t he
ev id en ce co m

pe ls jud gm en t as a m at te r of law i n fa vo r of

th e m ov in g p art y . Id. at 83 6– 37
. The re ap pe ar t o b e n o g en ui ne is su es of m at eri al factinth is cas e. Ben ev a

of fe es and c osts. In its order grantingattorney ’s fe es, the c ourt noted that the pa rties had stipulated to fees of

$19,438.50, but that Be neva c ontended that the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction to awa rd the fe es bec ause it wa s divested of jurisdiction when B eneva filed its notice of a

ppeal. Although the languag e of Sec tion 16.04 does not provide for f ees in the e vent that the sublessee br ings a

decla ratory judgme nt action, B eneva has wa ived any

claim about the languag e of the c ontrac t clause by

stipulating to the amount of f ees ow ed. See Cha

rter Co. v. United States, 971 F.2d 1576, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992) ( “Having induc ed the c ourt to rely on a par ticular err oneous proposition of law or fac t, a par

ty in the normal ca se may

not at a later

state of the c ase use the e rror

to set aside the immediate c onsequenc e of the err or.”)
. We also note that Be neva’ s jurisdiction argument fails. Filingan appe al does not divest a district court of jurisdiction to decide the issue of attorney ’s fe es. Rather , Be neva’ s appea l was premature whe n filed bec ause the court ha d not y et enter ed judg ment on attorney ’s fe es. I n this circ uit, “a re quest for attorney ’s fe es pursua nt to a contra ctual cla

use is considere d a substantive issue; and an or der that leaves a substantive fee s issue pendingcannot be ‘final.’ ” B randon, J ones, Sandall, Z eide, Kohn, Cha lal & Musso, P.A. v. MedPar tners, Inc., 312 F .3 d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2002). A pre mature a ppeal may

be cur ed, howe ver, by

a subseque nt order te rminating the litigation. Nor

man v. Hous. Auth. of Montg omery , 836. F.2d 1292, 1295–96 ( 11th Cir. 1988) (citingBa nk South L easing , Inc. v. Willi ams, 778 F.2d 704, 705 ( 11th Cir. 1985)) (“ [A] notice of appea l filed afte r judg ment was re ndere d but beforethe attorne y ’s fe e issue wa s decide d was premature, but . . . a subse quent orde r dec iding the a ttorney ’s fe es issue cur ed the pr emature notice.”) . Be cause the district court e ntere d an orde r on attorne y ’s fe es one w eek a fter the notice of appe al was f

iled, Be neva’ s notice of a ppeal is timely
. 8 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 8 of 19an d Ib eri ab an k’s d is pu te in vo lv es co ns tru ct io n o f § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A) an d

ap pl ic at io n o f th e st atut e to th e subl eas e an d a m en dm en t atis su e, whi chare
m at te rs of l aw ap pr op ria te forsu m m ary jud gm en t. We firs t d es cri be th e st atut ory ba ck gr ou ndon whi chth e is su es pl ay ou t b efo re turni ng to th e m eri ts of the cas e. A. The Fin an ci al Ins ti tu ti on s R efo rm , Reco ve ry , andEnfo rcem en t Actof 1 98 9 (“ FIRR EA”), Pub. L. No. 1 01 -7 3, 1 03 Sta t. 1 83 (co di fie d a s amend edin sca tt ered
se ct io ns of 1 2 U.S.C.) , was en act edto st ren gt he n re gu la ti on of t he na ti on ’s fin an ci al syste m

in th e wak e o f th e sa vi ng s an d l oa n c ris is of t he 19 80 s. The Act 8 pr ov id es a m ech an is m

forde al in g wi th fin an ci al ly dis tre ss edbank s i n away th at pr es erv es th ei r go in g- co nc ern va lu e. McAn dr ews v. Fl eetBan k o f Mas sa ch us et ts , N.A., 989 F.2d13 , 15 (1s t Ci r. 19 93 ). It g ran ts th e FDIC b ro adpo wers un de r 12 U.S.C. § 1 82 1 t o m an ag e th e aff ai rs of i ns ol ve ntba nk s as rece iv er o r co ns erv at or . Whe n t he FDIC i s ap po in te d c on se rv at or or r ecei ve r, itsu ccee ds to “ al l rig ht s, t it le s, p owe rs , andpri vi le ge s o f th e in su redde po si to ry in st itut io n.” § 1 82 1( d) (2 )(A)(i ). It m ay op erat e th e in st itut io n, § 18 21 (d )(2 )(B) , or i t m ay

“ tra ns fer a ny ass etor l iabi li ty of th e in st itut io n i n d efau lt
. . . wit ho utan y

FIRREA amended the Fe dera l Deposit Insuranc e Ac t, Pub. L . No. 81-797, 64 Stat. 873 8 (codifie d as ame nded in sca ttered se ctions of 12 U.S.C.), which wa s enac ted in 1950 and g overns the FD I C. 9

Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 9 of 19ap pr ov al , ass ig nm en t, o r co ns en t wi th res pe ctto su ch tra ns fer,”

§ 1 82 1( d) (2 )(G)(i )(II) . The FDIC m ay als o “ ex erci se all po wers an d aut ho rit ie s sp eci fic al ly gran te d t o c on se rv at or s o r rece iv ers , res pe ct iv el y , un de r th is ch ap te r
an d s uc h i nc id en ta l p owe rs as s ha ll be ne ces sa ry to carry ou t s uc h p owe rs .” § 1 82 1( d) (2 )(J )(i ) The FDIC’s p owe rs wit h re sp ectto co nt ract s en te redin to be fo re i ts ap po in tm en t as co ns erv at or or r ecei ve r are p ro vi de d i n § 18 21 (e). Th e rec ei ve r ha s t he au th or it y

to rep ud ia te or d is affi rm an y co ntractor l eas e to whi chth e de po si to ry

in st itut io n i s a p art y

if t he rece iv er d et erm in es th atitwou ldbe bu rd en so m e an d t ha t re pu di at io n wo ul d “ pr om ot e th e o rd erl y ad m in is tra ti onof t he in st itut io n’s af

fai rs .” § 1 82 1( e)(1 ). Con ve rs el y , § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A) p ro vi de s t ha t 9 th e FDIC m ay

en fo rce c on tra ct s en te redin to by the de po si to ry in st itut io n: The co ns erv at or or rec e i ve r m ay en fo rce an y co nt ract , ot he r th an a di rect or ’s or of fic er’s li ab il it y in su ran ce co nt ract or a de po si t o ry in st itut io n bo nd , en te red in to by th e de po si to ry in st itut io n no twi th st an di ng an y pr ov is io n of t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i d i n g f o r t e rmi n a t i o n , d e f

a u l t , acce le rat io n, or ex erci se of rig ht s up on , or so le ly by reas on of , in so lv en cy or ap po in tm en t of or th e ex erci s e o f r ig ht s orpo wers by a con se rv at oror r ecei ve r.

A par ty who has be en har

med by repudia tion may rec eive a ctual compe nsatory 9 damag es, § 1821(e )(3) , but the Act spec ifically provides that a le ssor may not rec eive damag es if the FD I C repudiates a

lease under which the instituti on is the lessee. 10 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 10 of 19It i s § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A) t ha t i s atis su e in th is cas e. Ben ev a arg ue s t ha t

Ib eri ab an k h as no po wer t o e nf or ce t he subl eas e u nd er § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A) b ecau se th e st atut e g ran ts th atpo wer o nl y to a co ns erv at oror r ecei ve r. Ben ev a fu rth er 1 0 arg ue s t ha t, ev en if Ib eri ab an k d oe s h av e th e p owe r to en fo rce t he subl eas e, th e te rm in at io n c laus e b ars en fo rcem en t o f th e subl eas e b ecau se th e te rm in at io n c laus e do es no t fa ll wit hi n t he lan gu ag e o f § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A). Alt ho ug h t he Dis tri ctCo urt d et erm in edth atIbe riaba nk , as t he FDIC’s
su cces so r-i n- in te res t, co ul d e nf or ce t he co nt ract , we do no t ag ree t ha t Ib eri ab an k i s at te m pt in g t o e nf

or ce t he co nt ract . If th e co nt ractrem ai ns ineffe ct , itis be cau se th e FDIC e nf

or ceditwhen ittra ns ferr edOrio n’s as se ts to Ibe riabank . W e th us lo okto th e rec or d t o d et erm in e whe th er t he FDIC en fo rcedth e co nt ract . B. Whe n t he Flo rid a Offi ce o f Fi na nc ia l Re gu la ti on ap po in te d t he FDIC
rece iv er o f Orio n, i t au th or iz edth e FDIC t o “ ta ke ch arg e an d p os se ss io n o f al l
as se ts an d a ffai rs of Ori on Ban k.” Sect io n 6 58 .82 (1 ) of th e Fl or id a st atut es pr ov id es th atwhen th e FDIC i s ap po in te d re cei ve r, “ itm ay pro ceedin de pe nd en tl y

Be neva a lso argues that § 1821(e )(13) (A) doe s not authorize a private cause of ac tion 1 0 by I beria bank ag ainst Be neva. T his argument is irreleva nt. Iberia bank has br oug ht a dec laratory judgme nt action in anticipation of a state eje ctment ac tion by Be neva. I

nterpre tation of § 1821(e) (13)( A) is nec essar y to determine I

beria bank’s a nd Be neva’ s rights under the sublea se, construction of which is g overne d by state law. 11 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 11 of 19wit h t he rece iv ers hi p p ur su an t t o i ts rul es an d re gu la ti on s.” Und er 1 2 U.S.C. 1 1 § 1 82 1( d) (2 )(A)(i ), th e FDIC a s re cei ve r su ccee de d b y op erat io n o f la w to “ al l rig ht s, t it le s, p owe rs , andpri vi le ge s o f th e in su redde po si to ry in st itut io n.” The FDIC t hu s t oo k p os se ss io n o f th e subl eas e as anass etan d ri gh t o f Orio n p ur su an t to th e FDIC’s p owe rs as r ecei ve r un de r st at e an d fe de ral law. The same day

th e FDIC t oo k p os se ss io n o f Orio n, i t t ran sf erre d Ori on ’s
as se ts , li ab il it ie s, an d o bl ig at io ns to Ibe riabankpu rs ua ntto it s p owe r un de r § 1 82 1( d) (2 )(G)(i )(II) to “ tra ns fer a ny ass etor l iabi li ty of th e in st itut io n i n de fau lt .” The s ub le as e was no t l is te d a s an ass etin th e ag reem en t t ha t g ov ern ed th e tr an sf er. Ins te ad , th e FDIC g ran te d Ib eri ab an k a n o pt io n t o h av e th e le as e o f 1 2
an y oc cupi edpro pe rty ass ig ne d t o Ib eri ab an k. The ag reem en t p ro vi de d tha t, i f 1 3 12 U.S.C. § 1821 li kewise pr ovides that the F DI C may acc ept appointment as re ceive r 1 1 by an appr opriate State supe rvisor of a n insured State depository institution and that the FD I C will enjoy the power s of both state law a nd § 1821. § 1821(c) (3)( A)–(B ). In fac t, the Agree ment specific ally excluded the sublease . Section 3.5(f) , which listed 1 2 assets not purcha sed by

the assumingbank, provide s, “The A ssuming B ank does not purc hase, acquir e or a ssume . . . lease d or owne d Ba nk Premises . . . provided that the A ssuming B ank does obtain an option under Sec tion 4.6, Section 4.7 or Section 4.8, as the ca se may be, with re spect there to.” The sublea se wa s likewise not listed on Schedule 3.2, thoug h it is l isted as an a sset subject to an option to purcha se. The option was c ontained in Section 4.6 of the A g ree ment, “Agree ment with Respect 1 3 to Ba nk Premises.” It provides in rele vant par t: (b) Option to L ease . The Rec eiver here by grants to the AssumingBa nk an exclusive option for the period of ninety (90) da y s commencingthe day

afte r B ank Closing to cause the Rece iver to assign to the Assuming B ank any or all lea ses for lease d Ba nk Premises, if any , which have been c ontinuously occupie d by

the Assuming B ank fr om Ba

nk Closing to the date it ele cts to acc ept an a ssignment of

12 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 12 of 19th e le as e co ul d n otbe ass ig ne d, t he FDIC wo ul d e nt er i nt o asubl eas e wit h t he

as su m in g b an k c on ta in in g t he same term s an d c on di ti on s as th e ex is ti ng lea se . 1 4 The ag reem en t fu rth er p ro vi de d t ha t, s ho ul d Ib eri ab an k fa il to no ti fy th e FDIC tha t itwis he d t o e xe rci se th e o pt io n b utco nt in ue to oc cupy the pre m is es fora cert ai n
am ou ntof t im e, itwou ldbe de em edto ha ve ass um edth e le as e. 1 5 Inass um in g t he subl eas e an d s ub se qu en tl y trans ferr in g i t t o Ib eri ab an k, t he FDIC was act in g wi th init s p owe r to tak e ch arg e o f Orio n’s as se ts , to tra ns fer
the lease s with respec t thereto to the e x tent such lea ses ca n be assigned; provided, that the exercise of

this opti on with respec t to any lease must be as to all premises or other pr operty

subject to the lea se. Section 4.6(b) c ontinues: 1 4 I f an a ssignment c annot be made of any such lea ses, the Rec eiver may , in its discretion, ente r into subleases with the AssumingBa nk containingthe same terms and c onditions provided under such e x isting lea ses for suc h lease d Ba nk Premises or other

proper ty . The AssumingBa

nk shall g ive notice to the Rec eiver within the option period of its election to ac cept or not to acce pt an assignment of any or all lea ses (or e nter into sublease s or new le ases in lieu ther eof) . The Assuming B ank agree s to assume all lease s assigned (or enter into subleases or new lea ses in lieu there of) pur suant to this S ection 4.6. An anti-a ssignment pr ovision in t he sublea se does not af fec t the FDI C’s rig hts. W hen the FDI C was appointed r ece iver, it succe eded by operation of law to all the asse ts and rights of Orion, includingthe sublease , notwithstanding a ny anti-assignment provision. The a utomatic assumption provision was contained in Sec tion 4.6 of the Agree ment. It 1 5 provides in re levant par

t: (g ) Va catingPremises. (ii) B y failingto provide notice of its int ention to vacate such pre mises prior to the expiration of the option period specif ied in Section 4.6(b), or

by occupy ing suc h premises a fter the one hundre d eighty (180)- day

period spec ified above in this para g raph ( ii), the Assuming B ank shall, at the Rec eiver ’s option, (x ) be de emed to have a ssumed all lease s, obligations and liabilit ies with respe ct to such premises (inc luding a

ny g round lea se with respe ct to the land on which pr emises are located)
. 13 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 13 of 19th os e as se ts , andto en fo rce c on tra ct s en te redin to by O rio n. Th e te rm in at io n

cl au se in th e subl eas e p ur po rti ng to all ow t erm in at io n o n t ran sf er o f Orio n’s as se ts
wou ldha ve be en tri gg eredby the FDIC’s t ak eo ve r of Orio n’s as se ts . The FDIC , ho wev er, h adth e p owe r to en fo rce t he lea se no twi th st an di ng claus es to th e
co nt rary. It m

us t h av e en fo rcedth e subl eas e whe n i t t ran sf erre d Ori on ’s ass et s t o Ib eri ab an k; ot he rwis e, th e o pt io n t o l eas e th e o ccupi edpre m is es wou ldha ve be en
m ean in gl es s. With ou t t he lea se d p rem is es , th e v al ue of Ori on ’s ass et s wo ul d h av e de crea se d. Th e FDIC was th us carry in g o utit s dut y un de r FIRR EA to m ax im iz e th e v al ue of f

ai le d b an ks when iten te redin to th e Pu rch as e an d As su m pt io n Agr eem en t an d e nf

or cedth e subl eas e. C. Not wit hs ta nd in g t he FDIC’s p owe r to tra ns fer a ss et s an d e nf or ce co nt ract s, Ben ev a co nt en ds th atth e te rm in at io n c laus e is en fo rceabl e ag ai ns t t he FDIC be cau se itdo es no t ex pr es sl y co nd it io n t erm in at io n o n i ns ol ve nc y or app oi nt m en t of a co ns erv at or

or r ecei ve r. Ibe riaba nkarg ue s t ha t t he term in at io n c laus e is
un en fo rceabl e u nd er § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A) b ecau se , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r itco nt ai ns
ex actlan gu ag e fro m

th e st atut e, itwas t rig ge redby the FDIC’s rec ei ve rs hi p o f Orio n. In te rp ret at io n o f § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A)’s pr ov is io n b arri ng en fo rcem en t o f ip so
14 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 14 of 19fact o c laus es ag ai ns t re cei ve rs an d c on se rv at or s i s a m at te r of fir stim pr es si on in th is cir cu it . In fa ct , few co urts ha ve ad dr es se d § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A). To res ol ve th is 1 6 di sp ut e, we th us tu rnto set tl edpri nc ip le s o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n. We lo okfir st to th e te xtof t he st atut e. Uni te d S ta te s v . DBB, In c., 18 0 F .3d12 77 , 12 81 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ The st art in g p oi ntforall st atut ory in te rp ret at io n i s the lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e it se lf.” ). If th e te xtof t he st atut e is un am bi gu ou s, we n eedlo okno fur th er. W e wil l l oo k b ey on d t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e st atut e to ev id en ce o f co ng res si on al in te nton ly if th e st atut e’s lang ua ge is am bi gu ou s; ap pl y in g t he pl ai n m ean in g o f

Three Courts of Appea ls have de cided c ases in which § 1821( e)( 13)(A) (or its 1 6 prede cessor , § 1821(e) (12)( A)) is re fer ence d. None of the ca ses is applicable here
. The District Court in this case r elied on McAndrew s v. New B ank of N ew Eng land, N.A., 796 F .Supp. 613 (D. Mass. 1992), a ff’ d sub nom. McAndre ws v. Fle et B ank of Massac husetts, N.A., 989 F.2d 13 ( 1st Cir. 1993), in holding that the Te rmination Clause is unenfor cea

ble ag ainst the FD I C or its successor- in-interest. B ut in that case, the FDI C was a party to the action, and the court did not eng ag e in interpre tation of § 1821(e) (12)( A). Instead, the Fir st Circuit held that applying the statute to a contra ct enter ed into befor e F I RREA was enac ted did not constitute an impermissible retroa ctive application, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking. In Resolution Trust Corp. v. District of Columbia, 78 F.3d 606 ( D.C. Cir. 1996), the RTC challeng ed the District of Columbi a’s invocation of a “ba nkruptcy clause ” providingfor termination of a le ase of

office space if the lessor “ failed in business.” T he District Court for the District of Columbia had deter mined that if the bankr

uptcy clause applied, it would be over ridden by § 1821(e) (12)( A). The Court of Appea ls for the D.C. Circuit did not rea ch the issue, howe ver, beca use it determined tha

t an estoppel c ertificate sig ned by the District of Columbia preve nted it from invokingthe bankr

uptcy clause when the le ssor went into rec eiver ship. The Six th Circuit has decide d two case s in which § 1821(e) (13)( A)’s pr edec essor is mentioned. FD I C v. Aetna Cas. a nd Sur. Co., 903 F.2d 1073 (6th Cir. 1990), involved a provision in bankers blanke t bonds that provided for te rmination of cove rag e on take over by the FDI C. The cour

t noted that § 1821(e) (12)( A) spec ifically excludes fidelity

insurance from its prohibitions, so t he provision in the bonds could not be a g ainst public policy . RTC v. Cheshire Mg mt Co., 18 F.3d 330 (6th Cir. 1994), involved a qua lified financ ial contra ct, which is g overne d by

a sepa rate provision, § 1821(e)( 8)(A)
. 15 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 15 of 19th e st atut e wou ldlea d t o a n abs ur d re su lt ; o r th ere i s cl ear e vi de nc e o f co nt rary

le gi sl at iv e in te nt . Id. Und er § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A), the FDIC m ay en fo rce c on tra ct s en te redin to by the de po si to ry

in st itut io n “ no twi th st an di ng an y pro vi si on of t he co nt ractpro vi di ng for te rm in at io n, d efau lt , acce le rat io n, o r ex erci se of r ig ht s upo n, o r so le ly by reas on of , in so lv en cy

or t he ap po in tm en t o f orth e ex erci se of r ig ht s o r po wers by a
co ns erv at oror r ecei ve r.” The term in at io n c laus e atis su e p ro vi de s fo r te rm in at io n if “ Orio n i s s ol d a nd/o r tr an sf erre d t o a no th er b an ki ng in st itut io n.” The cl au se do es no t m en ti on in so lv en cy or app oi nt m en t o f a rec ei ve r orco ns erv at or , andit ap pl ie s i n c on te xt s o ut si de in so lv en cy . There is no th in g i n § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A), ho wev er, tha t p rem is es un en fo rceabi li ty on e xp li ci t re fere nc e to in so lv en cy or
co ns erv at or sh ip or r ecei ve rs hi p. Al th ou gh th e te rm in at io n c laus e d oe s n ot in co rp or at e th e st atut ory

lan gu ag e “ ex erci se of t he rig ht s o f th e rec ei ve r,” the te rm in at io n c laus e’s tr ig ge r is th e ex erci se of o ne of t he rig ht s o f th e rec ei ve r—t he rig htto su ccee d t o a ll rig ht s an d t it le of Ori on pu rs ua ntto § 1 82 1( d) (2 )(A)(1 ) orto tra ns fer o r se ll Orio n’s as se ts pu rs ua ntto § 1 82 1( d) (2 )(G)(i )(II)
. Eve n p res um in g a m

bi gu it y as t o wh ethe r § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A) ap pl ie s o nl y to ip so fact o c laus es th atin cl ud e sp eci fic st atut ory lan gu ag e, ou r rea di ng of t he st atut e co m

po rts wit h C on gr es s’s s ta te d i nt en t i n e na ct in g F IRREA an d i ts gra ntof
16 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 16 of 19br oa d p owe rs to th e FDIC t o m an ag e th e aff ai rs of f ai li ng ba nk s u nd er § 18 21
. Co ng res s amend ed§ 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A) in 20 05 to ad d “ orth e ex erci se of r ig ht s o r po wers by” afte r “ th e ap po in tm en t o f.” Ban krup tc y Abu se Prev en ti on an d Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Actof 2 00 5, Pub. L. No. 1 09 -8 , 11 9 S ta t. 2 3 (2 00 6) . By br oa de ni ng th e sc op e o f cl au se s t ha t ar e u ne nf or ceab le ag ai ns t t he FDIC as
rece iv er, Co ng res s ev id en cedanin te ntto st ren gt he n t he FDIC’s ab il ity to en fo rce
co nt ract s. Were we to ho ldth atth e te rm in at io n c laus e is en fo rceabl e ag ai ns t t he FDIC, we wo ul d e vi sc erat e § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A). If t erm in at io n c laus es th atdo no t
co nt ai n t he ex pl ic itlan gu ag e “ on ex erci se of t he rig ht s o f th e rec ei ve r” b utare tri gg eredby exerc is e o f th os e ri gh ts are v al id , th e la ng ua ge ad de d b y Co ng res s i n 20 05 wou ldbe ren de redto ot hl es s. Fo r ex am pl e, rece iv ers hi p n eces sa ril y in vo lv es a tr an sf er o f as se ts when th e FDIC t ak es ov er t he fai li ng bank . Con tra ct in g p art ie s
co ul d t hu s g etaro un d § 18 21 (e)( 13 )(A) s im pl y by draft in g c laus es th atpro vi de for te rm in at io n o n s al e o r tr an sf er o f as se ts . The n ot ic e o f te rm in at io n i n t hi s ca se pr ov id es ev id en ce t ha t Be ne vain te nd edjus t s uc h ares ul t: “ Thi s p ro vi si on was sp eci fic al ly neg ot ia te d t o a ll ow Subl es so r th e ri gh t t o t erm in at e th e subl eas e in
ev en ts su ch as wh en Orio n was clo se d b y th e FDIC a ndit s as se ts were t ran sf erre d

17 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 17 of 19to Ibe riabank .” 1 7

Ben ev a al so arg ue s t ha t t he term in at io n c laus e d oe s n otfal l wi th in th e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e b ecau se th ere a re s itua ti on s o ut si de th e in so lv en cy co nt ex t in whi chth e cl au se wou ldbe en fo rceabl e. If Ori on ’s sh areh ol de rs ha d s im pl y so ld th e b an k, Be ne vawou ldha ve be en ab le to term in at e th e subl eas e u nd er t he term s of th e am en dm en t. The factth atth e te rm in at io n c laus e is en fo rceabl e in so m e
co nt ex ts , ho wev er, d oe s n otm ean th atitis en fo rceabl e in all co nt ex ts . As ap pl ie d whe n aba nkis in rece iv ers hi p, t he Claus e o pe rat es to term in at e upo n “ ex erci se of rig ht s o r po wers by a con se rv at oror r ecei ve r,” an d t hu s i s u ne nf or ceab le un de r § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A). The b ro adsco pe of t he claus e d oe s n otsav e it
. Ben ev a’s na rro w read in g o f § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A) is un supp orte d b y th e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e an d wo ul d a ll ow co nt ract in g p art ie s t o d efea t the FDIC’s po wer t o e nf

or ce co nt ract s s im

pl y by draft in g t erm in at io n c laus es th atdo no t
ex pl ic it ly m en ti onin so lv en cy or r ecei ve rs hi p. Gi ve n F IRREA’s g ran t o f br oa d po wers to th e FDIC t o m an ag e th e aff ai rs an d p res erv e th e v al ue of i ns ol ve nt ba nk s, Co ng res s co ul d n otha ve in te nd edth e st atut e to be co ns tru edto all ow s uc h
a res ul t. We ho ldth atth e Term in at io n C laus e fal ls wit hi n t he lan gu ag e o f

The notice does not aff

ect our interpre tation of the Ter

mination Cl ause. We point out 1 7 the languag e simply

to show the eff

ect a narr ow re adingof the statute would have on contr acting parties, who w ould know full well how to avoid § 1821(e )(13) (A). 18 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 18 of 19§ 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A) an d i s t he refo re u ne nf or ceab le ag ai ns t t he FDIC as rece iv er o f Orio n. Th e FDIC was act in g wi th init s p owe rs when iten fo rcedth e subl eas e
no twi th st an di ng th e te rm in at io n c laus e. The Di st ric t Co urt p ro pe rly gran te d
su m m ary jud gm en t t o Ib eri ab an k, an d t he subl eas e b etween Ben ev a an d Ib eri ab an k re m ai ns in effe ct . 1 8 W e n ot e th atou r de ci si on do es no in jus ti ce t o B en ev a. The o rig in al
subl eas e was dra fte d i n 1 97 9, b efo re FIR REA was e na ct edbu t wel l af te r th e FDIC
was crea te d a ndim

bu edwit h b ro adpo wers to m an ag e th e aff ai rs of f ai li ng ba nk s. Any ent ity

th aten te rs in to a le as e wit h aba nk , or a ccep ts ass ig nm en t o f su ch a le as e, is onno ti ce tha t, s ho ul d t he ba nkfai l, t he FDIC wi ll ha ve th e p owe r to
en fo rce t he lea se . Con gr es s g ran te d t he FDIC s uc h p owe rs for th e h eal th of t he ba nk in g i ndus try andth e b en efi t o f de po si to rs , andBen ev a m ay no t s ki rt § 1 82 1( e)(1 3) (A) wit h ana rro w read in g o f th e st atut e. AFFIR MED

The sublea se conta ins a sever ability provision, Section 19.01, which provides that if 1 8 any term or pr ovision of the sublease is found to be invalid or unenfor cea ble, the re mainder of the sublease will remain in eff ect. 19 Case: 11-11195 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 19 of 19