Opinion ID: 2781383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Profit Sharing

Text: The first section 152.052 factor is the “receipt or right to receive a share of profits of the business.” The district court concluded that there was no profitsharing arrangement after examining not only the PAA and LSA to determine whether or not the FDIC and BB&T agreed to share profits but also BB&T’s 8- K and a “Loss Share Questions and Answers” page from the FDIC’s website. 19 We need not go beyond the language of the agreements. Under the PAA, BB&T acquired assets from the FDIC (as Colonial’s receiver) in hopes of recovering money from third parties, as Eagle is trying to do on the Notes in this case. Neither the PAA nor LSA say anything about BB&T sharing any profits (i.e., recovery in excess of what BB&T paid for an asset) with the FDIC. Defendants argue that the LSA establishes profit-sharing through provisions that require BB&T to repay certain funds to the FDIC. The LSA does not support that interpretation. Article II of the LSA provides that if BB&T takes a loss on assets it acquired, the FDIC will reimburse BB&T 80% of the loss up to $5 billion, but if BB&T recovers on assets for which it received a reimbursement, BB&T must then repay the FDIC for the reimbursement. The LSA concerns only the sharing of losses; it has nothing to do with profits. 19 2014 WL 696523, at -6. 8 Case: 14-10353 Document: 00512945235 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/23/2015 No. 14-10353 Thus, we agree with the district court that there is no evidence of profitsharing under the PAA and LSA.