Old National vs Bell Bank Lawsuit: Claims and Injunction Ruling

The Old National Bell Bank lawsuit is an 11-count federal case Old National Bank filed in December 2025 accusing Bell Bank and eight former employees of orchestrating a coordinated mass resignation from its Brainerd and Baxter, Minnesota, branches and walking off with confidential customer information. Old National called it a “coup d’état” aimed at crippling its operations in the Brainerd-Baxter market.¹ The court denied Old National’s request for a preliminary injunction, and as of May 2026 the case has cleared an early procedural hurdle and is in discovery.²

What Happened at the Brainerd and Baxter Branches

On the morning of December 8, 2025, every senior business and commercial banking employee at Old National’s Brainerd branch resigned at the same time. Key staff at the nearby Baxter branch resigned that day too. Eight people in all. Six were senior banking professionals.³ Almost immediately, all eight took positions at Bell Bank, a Fargo-based competitor that had already been expanding into the area.

The Brainerd branch could not open that day. The Baxter branch’s lobby also shut down temporarily.⁴ The branches were former Bremer locations that had converted to the Old National name only weeks earlier, part of Old National’s $1.4 billion acquisition of Bremer Financial Corporation.⁵

What Old National’s Complaint Alleges

Old National filed its complaint on December 15, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case, Old National Bank v. Adams et al., No. 25-CV-4636, was assigned to Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz.⁶ The eight individual defendants are Sarah Adams, Kasey Bernu, Yvette Campbell, Kimberly Ellingson, Rachal Johnson, Michael McConkey, Sharon Vold, and Daniel Yantes. Bell Bank is also a defendant.⁷

The 11 counts blend federal and state claims. The core allegations:

Misappropriation of trade secrets. Old National says the departing employees removed several boxes of documents from the offices before business hours on December 8, without letting security or HR inspect the materials. The bank says the information included customer contact details, account data, credit analyses, pricing, and performance metrics.⁸
Improper customer and employee solicitation. The complaint says the former employees started contacting Old National clients on the day they resigned, telling them the bank no longer had a meaningful presence in the area. Cedarbrook Lumber was named as an example. Old National also says the group has been recruiting other Old National bankers to Bell Bank.¹
Breach of fiduciary duty and confidentiality. Old National contends the employees owed it a duty of loyalty while still on payroll and that weeks or months of secret planning to leave together violated that duty. The bank points to resignation letters containing identical typographical errors and internal messages referencing plans to leave badges and corporate credit cards in “our” desks.⁹
Civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment. Old National alleges Bell Bank and the employees acted in concert, and that Bell Bank has been unjustly enriched by the customer relationships and confidential data the employees brought with them.⁴
Tortious interference and unfair competition against Bell Bank for interfering with Old National’s existing business and employment relationships.⁹

What Old National Is Asking For

Old National wants broad injunctive relief: an order barring Bell Bank from employing the eight individuals, preventing the defendants from soliciting Old National’s customers or remaining employees, prohibiting the use or retention of any confidential Old National information, and stopping the destruction of evidence. The bank also seeks compensatory and punitive damages. No specific dollar figure has been disclosed publicly. Old National has described the harm as “irreparable and ongoing.”⁸⁴

How Bell Bank Has Responded

Bell Bank has publicly denied wrongdoing. A spokesperson said the bank “looks forward to demonstrating why these employees left Old National Bank and joined Bell Bank,” framing the departures as voluntary choices rather than the result of an improper scheme.⁴ The phrasing signals that Bell Bank plans to argue the employees were dissatisfied under new ownership and left on their own. No formal counterclaim has been reported.

Bell Bank had already been setting up in the Brainerd-Baxter area before the resignations. It runs a deposit and loan production office in leased space in Baxter and plans a full-service branch there, with construction expected to begin in spring 2026.³

The Injunction Ruling and Case Status

Old National moved fast after filing, seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the former employees from working at Bell Bank and from soliciting its customers. Chief Judge Schiltz treated the motion as a request for a preliminary injunction because the defendants had notice and a chance to respond. After a hearing on December 23, 2025, the court denied the motion.⁶

That was a significant early setback. Without a preliminary injunction, the eight employees can keep working at Bell Bank and keep serving customers in the Brainerd-Baxter market while the litigation runs its course.

By May 2026, a judge allowed the lawsuit to move forward, and the case entered discovery. Bell Bank and all eight individual defendants continue to deny wrongdoing.² No trial date has been publicly reported, and no settlement has been announced.

Why This Isn’t a Non-Compete Case

Minnesota banned new non-compete clauses in employment contracts effective July 1, 2023, making them void and unenforceable. The ban does not reach agreements made before that date, and it does not cover nondisclosure agreements, trade secret protections, or non-solicitation agreements, which remain enforceable.¹⁰

That shapes the whole dispute. Old National is not trying to enforce non-competes. It is relying on trade secret law, breach of fiduciary duty, and improper solicitation, all still viable in Minnesota. Where the fight gets close is the line between solicitation and a lawful announcement of new employment. A June 2025 decision from the same district, involving wealth management employees who left U.S. Bank, held that solicitation requires an “affirmative invitation or encouragement” for a client to move business. A neutral announcement of a job change does not qualify, though adding new contact information or subtly persuasive remarks can push an announcement across the line.⁸ That standard will matter as discovery produces evidence of what the eight employees actually said to Old National clients.

The trade secret theory has its own contours. Federal courts have recognized that customer lists and relationship data in financial services can qualify as protectable trade secrets, especially when the information includes fee structures, risk preferences, and account specifics that would give a competitor a real advantage. Courts have also held that employees can misappropriate trade secrets by remembering confidential client information, even without taking physical files. Whether that reasoning applies to what the eight employees did, and whether the boxes removed on December 8 contained protectable material, are questions discovery will test.

1
Banking Dive. Old National Accuses Bell Bank of Coup D’Etat in Lawsuit Over Mass Resignation
2
Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal. Old National Bank Bell Bank Lawsuit Moves Forward
3
Brainerd Dispatch. Bell Bank Announces Branch Opening in Baxter
4
Star Tribune. Old National Claims Rival Bell Bank Staged Coup D’Etat at Its Brainerd Branch
5
Old National Bancorp. Old National to Partner With Bremer Financial Corporation
6
Justia. Old National Bank v. Adams et al., No. 25-CV-4636
7
PACER Monitor. Old National Bank v. Adams et al.
8
InForum. Old National Bank Claims Bell Bank Poached Its Brainerd and Baxter Employees
9
Minnesota Lawyer. Old National Bell Bank Lawsuit Mass Resignation
10
Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minn. Stat. § 181.988