compensation plans; they refused. CNB did not pay the wages, severance pay, and benefits required under the contracts. That same month, Stockwell and Larose filed an action against CNB and its directors challenging the bank’s actions in terminating, refusing to honor, or interfering with their employment agreements. CNB filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 24, para. 5 (1988), precluded their claims. Six of the seven counts asserted claims grounded in state law. The circuit court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that all six of the state law counts were preempted by the National Bank Act. The circuit court followed the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in International Bank of Miami v. Bennett, 513 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). Stock-well and Larose did not further amend
holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank holding that for diversity purposes a national bank is  a citizen of  the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its organizational certificate holding that the national bank act preempts state regulation of the posting order of debit card transactions as well as any obligation to make specific affirmative disclosures to bank customers holding a bank liable where a bank officer held checks that were intended to pay the irs for withheld taxes holding that the national bank act preempts state law claims challenging termination of national bank officers and voids a contractual promise to pay severance upon early termination