• SVB Financial Group has lost its $1.7 billion claim against the FDIC
• A federal judge found executives breached fiduciary duties
• SVB was exposed to excessive interest-rate and liquidity risks
• Finance and risk committee members were found to have known about the breaches
• The failures were deemed a substantial factor in causing damages
• SVB collapsed in March 2023 after suffering severe liquidity pressure
• The ruling renews focus on management accountability and balance sheet risk

Silicon Valley Bank’s former parent company cannot pursue a $1.7 billion claim against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. after a federal judge ruled that executive decisions exposing the lender to excessive interest-rate and liquidity risk contributed to its failure.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that executives at SVB Financial Group, including former CFO Daniel Beck and Treasurer Michael Kruse, breached their fiduciary duties through decisions that ultimately damaged the bank.

The executives caused SVB to take on “excessive interest-rate risk and liquidity risk for the benefit of the Holding Company and adversely to the Bank,” Freeman said in her ruling.

The FDIC also demonstrated that other executives, including members of SVB’s finance and risk committees, knew about the breaches, according to the judgment. Freeman concluded that the failures were “a substantial factor in causing damages.”

The decision represents another legal consequence stemming from SVB’s dramatic collapse in March 2023 and puts renewed focus on the governance and balance sheet management failures preceding one of the largest bank failures in U.S. history.

“The holding company chose to run the bank through holding company officers in accordance with the global, enterprise-wide policies, limits, and metrics that the holding company established,” Freeman wrote. “Having made this choice, it must live with the consequences.”

SVB, based in Santa Clara, California, had developed a substantial concentration of customers within the technology and venture capital sectors and held a particularly high proportion of uninsured deposits.

Its vulnerability became acute as rapidly rising interest rates reduced the value of securities held on its balance sheet.

At the same time, its concentrated depositor base left the bank exposed to unusually severe liquidity pressure when customers began withdrawing funds.

The resulting run led regulators to close SVB in March 2023, becoming one of several high-profile U.S. bank failures during the first half of that year.

The collapse subsequently triggered extensive scrutiny of management decisions, interest-rate risk, liquidity planning, corporate governance and the effectiveness of regulatory supervision.

The Federal Reserve has previously attributed the failure partly to weaknesses in SVB’s management while also acknowledging shortcomings in its own supervisory approach.

The latest judgment adds another dimension by linking decisions taken at the holding-company level with the risks accumulated within the bank itself.

The ruling highlights the potential consequences when enterprise-wide policies, risk limits and financial objectives expose a regulated banking subsidiary to risks that may benefit its parent while weakening the institution.

It also reinforces the governance responsibilities of senior executives and risk committees overseeing balance sheet exposures.

Freeman’s finding that officials beyond those directly responsible for financial decisions knew of the breaches places particular emphasis on the role of broader management oversight.

More than three years after SVB’s collapse, the judgment therefore provides another stark assessment of the interest-rate, liquidity and governance failures that helped turn mounting balance sheet vulnerabilities into a historic bank failure.