“there may have been—well, I would have ... gotten—and I can’t remember whether it was an e-mail or something from Tim Leitaker saying it was okay for me to do that.” The executive was then asked whether there was something in writing other than the email, .to which he replied, “I don’t remember the exact communication, but, yeah ... I guess I’m positive that it was communicated in writing. If not, it still had to be signed off on every time I turned.a loan in for it.” Even viewing the executive’s testimony about the purported side agreement in favor of the borrowers, there is no evidence from which a jury might conclude that all of the conditions - necessary to overcome section 1823(e) are present. At most, the statements are evidence of communicat d 378, 383-84 (11th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>); FDIC v. Gardner, 606 F.Supp. 1484, 1488 (S.D.
holding that a written form despite outlining the obligations of both parties and existing in the insolvent banks records did not meet section 1823es requirements because it had not been executed by the failed bank holding that a copy of an agreement executed by an insolvent bank found in the draft documents of the banks attorney did not satisfy section 1823es requirements because it was not an official record of the failed bank holding that the fdic may rely on erroneous bank records to determine whether there was an insured deposit at the time of the banks failure holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding that courts comments after the parties had reached a definite agreement that had been reduced to writing and executed by the defendant and the government all without any direct involvement by the district judge did not violate rule 11