U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Https

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Breadcrumb

Failed Bank Review – Metropolitan Capital Bank & Trust, Chicago, IL

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued its report on the Failed Bank Review of Metropolitan Capital Bank & Trust, Chicago, IL.

On January 30, 2026, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR), Division of Banking, took possession and control of Metropolitan Capital Bank & Trust, Chicago, IL and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as the receiver. According to the FDIC, the estimated loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) was $19,647,000 or 8 percent of the bank’s $232,051,439 in total assets. Following a period of supervisory actions by regulators, the IDFPR took possession of Metropolitan Capital Bank & Trust because it experienced continued asset quality issues, which ultimately eroded its capital position. 

When the DIF incurs a loss under $50 million, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires the Inspector General of the appropriate federal banking agency to determine the grounds identified by the state or federal banking agency for appointing the FDIC as receiver and to determine whether any unusual circumstances exist that might warrant an in-depth review of the loss. 

When conducting failed bank reviews, the OIG considers a series of factors to determine whether unusual circumstances warrant further review. These factors include: (1) the magnitude and significance of the loss to the DIF in relation to the total assets of the failed institution; (2) the extent to which the FDIC’s supervision identified and effectively addressed the issues that led to the bank’s failure or the loss to the DIF; (3) indicators of fraudulent activity that may have significantly contributed to the loss to the DIF; and (4) other relevant conditions or circumstances that significantly contributed to the bank’s failure or the loss to the DIF. 

Our review did not identify unusual circumstances that warranted an in-depth review of the loss.