In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew R. Lee, Video, FOIA fee denial

SOUTH BRONX, SDNY, August 21 – With Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting moving to undermine the US Community Reinvestment Act, on August 21 while he is engaged in a cynical tour of Jamaica, Queens with Rep. Gregory Meeks, his OCC is also refusing to consider a CRA protest filed less than 30 days after People's Bank's application was filed and that, later, available. This is fraud.

 In June 2019 Otting denied access to documents about whom he meets with which Inner City Press requested back in January 2019. This while he had made the OCC start rejecting timely CRA comments on mergers and on Fifth Third's lateral move to the less regulated OCC charter, asserting that he has unfettered discretion to consider such comments.

  Now it gets worse - Otting is citing a 30 day comment period as a basis to refuse to consider comments even when by his own OCC's letter it was timely, less than thirty said. Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch was sent this by the OCC on August 21: "People’s United Bank, National Association, Bridgeport, Connecticut filed its Application with the CCC on July 18, 2019, and published its first public notice of the application on July 17, 2019. The 30-day public comment period ended on August 15, 2019. The 0CC made information concerning the application publicly available in the July 20, 2019 Weekly Bulletin and, on July 23, 2019, posted the public portion of the application to the OCC’s Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room. Your comment was submitted on August l6, following the close of the comment period on August 1 As a result, the comment was not timely and the OCC will not consider this comment in its review of the pending application." Do the math. Then impeach Otting.

 On August 15-16, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch, less than 30 days after the application was filed, submitted this to the OCC including its Barry Wides in DC: "August 15-16, 2019    

 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency  Northeastern District Office  Deputy Comptroller, Kristin Kiefer  Acting Director for District Licensing, Marva V. Cummings  340 Madison Avenue, Fifth Floor  New York, NY 10173-0002  and Barry Wides, DC

   Re: Timely Initial Comment on Application of People's United Bank to acquire United Bank     Dear Deputy Comptroller Kiefer, Ms. Cummings, Mr. Wides and others in the OCC:     

This is a timely first comment opposing and requesting an extension of the OCC's public comment period on the Application by People's United Bank to acquire United Bank.       The OCC states that "when a public notice is published, the public has 30 days to submit a written comment to the OCC." See here.       This comment is timely. While the "public" notice in the Hartford Courant is behind paywall - we are noting that for the record, to be acted on by the OCC like its now routine late updating of its online Weekly Bulletins - dispositively, the OCC web site says "Filing Status:     Action Date Receipt 2019-07-18." July 18 plus 30 days is August 17. Even if one ignores the filing date for comment period start date, July 17, plus 30 days is August 16. This comment is timely.     

Add to the above, for the record, that the OCC under Comptroller Otting has reversed years of OCC precedent and refused FOIA fee waivers for copies of the application to comment on. This comment is timely,and the lawless policy reversal(s) must be reversed.       

People's United is getting worse and worse.          In the the New York City MSA in 2017, the most recent year for which HMDA data is publicly available - the comment period should be extended until the delayed 2018 data is available - People's United made 83 home purchase loans to whites, only seven to Latinos and only FOUR to African Americans. Its denial rate for African Americans was 2.81 times higher than for whites - worse than its peers, by far. This comment is timely, an evidentiary hearing is needed; on the current record the application should be denied.     For refinance loans in the New York City MSA in 2017, People's United made 85 loans to whites, only five to Latinos and only six to African Americans.  This is systematic redlining; this proposed acquisition could not legitimately be approved and People's United should be referred for prosecution for redlining by the Department of Justice and CFPB.     People's United record is hardly sufficient in the Hartford MSA where it now proposes to acquire United Bank. In 2017 in the Hartford MSA, People's United made 139 home purchase loans to whites and only 10 to African Americans and only five to Latinos. Its denial rate for African Americans was a whopping 4.71 times higher than for whites - worse than its peers, by far.    Again, this is systematic redlining; this proposed acquisition could not legitimately be approved and People's United should be referred for prosecution for redlining by the Department of Justice and CFPB.      

See also, for the record, "People’s United Bank is growing, but at the expense of branches and possibly jobs.  The Bridgeport-based subsidiary of People’s United Financial is looking to acquire the parent company to United Bank in Hartford for roughly $759 million by the end of the year, and executives have confirmed that the merger would result in cuts.  “There is a lot of overlap, and we’ve done quite a bit of homework and due diligence already, but we will finish that work with the United (Bank) team and we will make decisions about which will close,” People’s United CEO Jack Barnes said.          In this context, the comment period should be extended so that public evidentiary hearings can be held, and the application should be denied." Watch this site.

  Now in a promotional brochure about his attack on CRA, Otting has misstated what the CRA statute says, and significantly so. His brochure said that the law requires the regulators to "consider the CRA RATING in connection with certain licensing applications." Uploaded by Inner City Press on Scribd here.

  In fact, the process is that CRA issues are considered on merger and charter conversion and other applications, not just ratings. That is a safe harbor, something repeatedly considered, fought off and rejected. Now fraudulent comment generator Otting is simply changing the law. We'll have more on this. And on this:

 On August 9 Otting issued an Orwellian summary of a visit to Atlanta ostensibly to help the CRA be more transparent: "WASHINGTON — Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting, today visited Atlanta to tour neighborhoods that have benefitted from activities encouraged by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and areas that could benefit from additional CRA activity.  “Today, we saw what great things can be accomplished when banks, civil rights organizations, nonprofit groups, and local advocates work together to meet the needs of their communities,” Comptroller Otting said following the tour. “We also discussed how current CRA regulations hamstring efforts that could revitalize these areas and bring even more lending, investment, and service to where they are needed most.”  The Comptroller was joined on the tour by John Hope Bryant, CEO and Founder of Operation HOPE, Ambassador and former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, and representatives from area community groups, redevelopment organizations, and banks. The group began their tour of Atlanta from the Martin Luther King Sr. Community Resources Collaborative and visited a HOPE Inside office at [a shopping center]... “The places we visited today confirm how CRA has been a force for good for the past 40 years,” the Comptroller said. “Our goal now is to strengthen CRA so that it continues to encourage the flow of billions of dollars into our communities and neighborhoods each year. We can modernize CRA regulations to encourage banks to do even more by clarifying what counts for CRA credit, updating where activity qualifies, making evaluations of bank CRA performance more objective, and reporting results in a more timely and transparent manner.”  More transparent? From a man who withholds all his information, after generating fake comments to support the cash out merger of One West when he ran it? And which unnamed banks were along on this tour?

  After first denying a Freedom of Information Act fee waiver for these documents, and now for all bank merger applications is obvious retaliation, on June 20 the OCC wrote to Inner City Press:

"Dear Mr.Lee: This is in response to your letter dated January 16, 2019, which was received in my office on January 17, 2019 for processing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. You requested copies of records sufficient to show all of Comptroller Otting's scheduled meetings, appointments, and scheduled events from the date he became Comptroller to the date of your response including but not limited to Outlook calendar entries and daily briefing books for Comptroller Otting on those dates. You seek records of any kind, including paper records, electronic records, audiotapes, videotapes, photographs, data, and graphical material. Our determination concerning your request is as follows:

1. Mr. Otting’s Calendar is published on the OCC’s Website in the Electronic Reading Room located at www.occ.gov.  Certain entries have been deleted under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2) and 12 C.F.R. (b)(2), related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency which covers confirmation numbers, ticket numbers, dialin numbers and PIN codes for telephone conferences; 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5) and 12 C.F.R. 4.12(b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency which are considered deliberative in nature; 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6) and 12 C.F.R. 4.12(b)(6), personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy which covers personal, non-government issued telephone cell phone numbers; and, 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(8) and 12 C.F.R. 4.12(b)(8), contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;.
2. Briefing books or materials submitted to the Comptroller in preparation for meetings appearing on his calendar and are marked “MATERIALS ATTACHED” are withheld under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5) and 12 C.F.R. 4.12(b)(5) inter-agency or intraagency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, which is consistent with Department of Justice policy.
3. The OCC does not capture audiotapes or videotapes of meetings.
4. Telephone messages made to the Comptroller are also not captured.
5. The OCC does not maintain transcripts.
6. Handwritten notes are not maintained by the Comptroller or the OCC. 7. The OCC does not sweep the personal email accounts of its employees. 
8. A Vaughan index is not required to be produced at the administrative level of processing FOIA requests.

Once you have reviewed the calendars for Mr. Otting and have identified specific topics you you’d like to review, please submit a targeted FOIA request and we will once again search our records. Please note that you requested a fee waiver that I denied.  This was because the basis for your fee waiver did not constitute an official reason as set forth in our regulations to justify a fee waiver.  Upon receive a request for possibly vast amounts of data, you need to adequately justify any such request for a fee waiver.  Due to the volume of requests the OCC is now receiving, each request for a fee waiver is being scrutinized very closely and such waivers are not automatic.    Additionally, keep in mind that the less targeted a FOIA request is, and the possible large amount of data that must be gathered and reviewed, the less likely a request for expedited processing will be granted.  It is just physically impossible."

   Impossible for an ex-banker turned regulator, gone rogue. Otting has also denied access to documents about the application to the OCC for WSFS to acquire Beneficial Bank and close 25 branches. Inner City Press requested the records months ago, along with a request for a waiver of fees as the other Federal bank regulators grant it and as the OCC has until now.

  But Otting is different. First he denied a fee waiver on Inner City Press' request for his calendar. Then he relented on that, after Inner City Press citing case law and precedent. But seemingly in retaliation, he has denied access to a merger application subject to public comment. Denial here on Scribd.

  And now, dated June 11 but e-mailed later, a final denial, after putting Inner City Press through three rounds of more and more detailed argumentation - just to waste its time until long after Otting rubber stamped the merger - accusing Inner City Press of not "explaining how the application submitted by WSFS would contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the operations or activities of the OCC. As such, your request for a fee waiver is denied. Until you contact the OCC Disclosure Services office with assurance that you will pay associated fees, FOIA request # 2019-00206 will not be processed."

  So the OCC thinks it can hinder public review and public comment by changing the law and its own pre-Otting practice.

  On 1 June 2019 the most recent OCC Weekly Bulletin of bank merger applications on which the comment periods are 30 days is from May 4. Inner City Press tweeted photo here. That is to say, the applications are being hidden until the comment period closes.But we'll have more on this, now that Otting's OCC has fully shown itself.

  Ironically the grounds cited for the FOIA fee waiver denial is that releasing this information about a merger subject to public comment would not increase the public's understanding. This shows Otting contempt for CRA - and for the public. Now it's ever worse. His claim is that while he might have to wave fees for OCC document, he can withhold / hinder the release of the bank's underlying application. But how can the public access what his OCC does on the application, without seeing the application? In a Friday afternoon dump on May 17 this came in from the OCC: "Mr. Lee,  I am writing to follow-up on the FOIA Appeal you submitted regarding the fee waiver denial for request 2019-00206-F.  In the denial, Mr. Frank Vance identified his concern about lack of information for the third public interest factor – contribution to public understanding.  However, on appeal, I am providing you an opportunity to address the first factor – how the requested records specifically concern identifiable operations or activities of the government and the second factor – how the requested records are likely to contribute to an understanding of specific government operations or activities.  In your appeal you assert that disclosure of the information sought will document and reveal the activities of the federal government, including how the OCC reviews CRA and branch closing aspects of the merger between WSFS and Beneficial.  However, the records you requested are for the withheld portions of the application filed by WSFS.  Your request does not seek any records of OCC action before or after receiving the WSFS application.  See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Reno, No. 00-0723, 2001 WL 1902811, at *10 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2001) (upholding agency's assessment of fees, reasoning that while agency's response to citizen letters regarding Cuban emigré Elian Gonzales would likely contribute to understanding of agency actions, incoming citizen letters to agency on that topic do not).  Emphasis added to DOJ summary.  If you would like to supplement your appeal with additional information that demonstrates how the WSFS application itself contributes significantly to public understanding about the operations or activities of the OCC, please do so." We'll have more on this. Inner City Press initially filed this appeal with Otting, et al.:

"Dear Comptroller Otting:    

Inner City Press traditionally has received fee waivers from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 12 C.F.R. § 4.17. Waivers were granted on the basis of similar or identical language contained in the instant Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which is now the subject of OCC’s waiver rejection. Outrageously, on Inner City Press' FOIA request for the portions of the WSFS - Beneficial merger application that the applicants unilaterally requested confidential treatment for, your FOIA Manager Frank Vance writes:   

 "Concerning the third consideration, contribution to public understanding, we examined whether or not disclosure of the requested records would contribute to the understanding of the public at large, as opposed to the understanding of the requester or a small number of interested persons.  In other words, we considered whether or not you demonstrated how contribution to public understanding outweighs personal benefit to you.  I find that you did not demonstrate this component; therefore, you did not satisfy the regulatory requirement of 12 C.F.R. 4.17(b)(4)(i).  In light of this, there is no need to analyze your justification with respect to 12 C.F.R. 4.17(b)(4)(ii). "     

So you are claiming that the public is not interested in, and should be constrained in access, the bank merger applications on which the public has a right to comment. You are claiming that to get any OCC review of the often outrageously overbroad requests for confidential treatment of the banks you supervise, the public has to pay untold fees. This is a new low, and Inner City Press is appealing.     Inner City Press Is Eligible for a Fee Waiver     In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 12 C.F.R. § 4.17, Inner City Press is eligible for, and requests, a waiver of fees associated with processing its request for records. The subject of this request—the review of a merger to close at least 25 bank branches -- concerns the operations of the federal government, and the disclosures will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by the general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes.     Inner City Press requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested information is “in the public interest because the disclosure . . . [i]s likely to contribute significantly to public understanding” of government operations or activities.

 Specifically, the disclosure of the information sought under this request will document and reveal the activities of the federal government, including how your OCC reviews the CRA and branch closing aspects of the merger.      As discussed below, Inner City Press has both the ability and the intention to effectively convey the information it receives to the public.     Inner City Press does not have a commercial interest in the requested information. This request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. Inner City Press does not have a commercial purpose and the release of the information requested is not in its financial interest. Inner City Press’s mission is to engage in cutting-edge investigative reporting focused, fair lending, development, and government accountability advocacy. Core to its mission is to educate the public about government activities and to ensure the accountability of government officials. Inner City Press uses the information gathered, and its analysis of it, to educate the public through reports, press releases, or other media. It also makes materials it gathers available on its public website and promotes their availability on social media platforms. Inner City Press has demonstrated its commitment to the public disclosure of documents and creation of editorial content. For example, Inner City Press’s website contains dozens of articles describing the operations of the federal government from a unique perspective, including about the OCC:  
 In SDNY FreddieMac Via FHFA of Otting Says Its Negligent Late Objection Is Fine As Otting Lawless

 And this.

   Inner City Press’s website contains many more examples demonstrating its ability and intention to inform the public about government activities, including specifically related to how the subject of the instant FOIA request spent his time at OCC.     Accordingly, Inner City Press qualifies for a fee waiver.    

Significantly, well before this outrageous denial which now longer keeps secret the requested documents, even the OCC wrote "your correspondence of March 8 is more robust and sets forth with reasonable specificity the grounds to justify the OCC's granting of the fee waiver. Therefore, your request for a fee waiver with respect to FOLA request 2019-00104 is granted. The OCC's Disclosure Services office will remove the matter from "Hold" status and proceed to process the request."    

Of course, even in that case [about your / Otting's schedule] in the two month since our letter we have not received a single document from your OCC.          

There can be no doubt that Inner City Press qualifies for a waiver based on the foregoing. Moreover, Inner City Press’s long track record of fee waivers is further evidence of our current eligibility. In particular, we have demonstrated repeatedly our intent and ability to inform the public about government operations and that our requests for information are not primarily in our commercial interest.     

We find your OCC's FOIA and other practices outrageous and demand expeditious ruling on this appeal and release of the already long delayed documents.    Matthew Lee, Esq., Executive Director Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch." Watch this site. 

  Otting has been sued again for offering a CRA-lax fintech bank charter. The lawsuit, filed September 14 by the New York State Department of Financial Services, says Otting "puts New York financial consumers—and often the most vulnerable ones—at great risk of exploitation by federally-chartered entities improperly insulated by New York law. The OCC’s reckless folly should be stopped." It's Vullo v Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 18-cv-8377, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. On May 2, SDNY Judge Victor Marrero allowed DFS' suit to go forward. He wrote, "As a result of the Fintech Charter Decision, New York State's regulations for over "600 non-bank financial services firms" are all at risk of becoming null and void. (Complaint ~ 10.) Of course, certain steps, namely the application for, and then the granting of, an SPNB charter must occur before a fintech firm can flout New York's laws. But those steps do not stymie DFS's standing. For both steps, DFS benefits from the supposition that the government enforces and acts on its recent, non-moribund laws. See Hedges v. Obama, 724 F.3d 170, 19 7 ( 2d Cir. 2 013) . Specifically, DFS alleges that OCC has invited fintech companies to its offices to discuss SPNB charters, potentially indicating at least some demand for, and interest in, such charters." Sounds like Otting, the secret meetings of the type the OCC has YET to disclose in response to Inner City Press' FOIA request which was delayed by the OCC disputing fee waivers as it never had before, We'll have more on this. The OCC's spokesman Bryan Hubbard had said the agency "is confident in its authority to grant national bank charters including special purpose national bank charters to companies that are engaged in the business of banking, meet the qualifications for becoming a national bank, and apply to conduct business as part of the federal banking system. The agency will vigorously defend that authority, but will not comment on pending or potential litigation.” Otting, as we've noted, as a pre-OCC history of generating dubious comment supporting mergers like his OneWest with CIT.  A showdown in the Senate scheduled for September 13 has been pushed back more than two weeks to October 2. Here is the notice: "NEW DATE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2018
ORIGINAL DATE (POSTPONED): THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
Full Committee Hearing: “Implementation of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.”
Witnesses: The Honorable Joseph M. Otting, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; The Honorable Randal K. Quarles, Vice Chairman for Supervision, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; The Honorable Jelena McWilliams, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and The Honorable J. Mark McWatters, Chairman, National Credit Union Administration.
Time and Location: 10:00 a.m. in room 538 of  Dirksen Senate Office Building." Meanwhile, Otting's OCC wrote to Fair Finance Watch rebuffing Inner City Press' straight forward request for information and stating on the "Application for KleinBank, Chaska, MN to Merge with and into Old National Bank,
Evansville, IN, Dear Mr. Lee, Esq.: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) acknowledges receipt of your comments regarding the above referenced application. The comment letter requests the OCC (i) extend the public comment period and (ii) hold a public hearing on the application. The OCC has decided not to extend the comment period." Klein settled charges of racial discrimination, quite recently. We'll have more on this. #TreasureCRA. With the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Mick Mulvaney moving to undermine liability for disparate impact discrimination, on September 7 a new, smaller and less consumer representative Consumer Advisory Board was announced. Now on September 10 this, from members of the former CAB that was disbanded by Mulvaney in June: "We are disappointed that the current administration of the CFPB chose to only appoint nine members to this new CAB. While each of the individual members is qualified in her or his own right, the fact that there are so few of them means that Acting Director Mulvaney’s CAB lacks sufficient diversity and depth of perspective. There are only 2 consumer advocates, whereas there were at least 8 advocates on the former 25 member CAB. Ironically, there are no large financial institutions, major credit card providers, or debt collectors on this new CAB. While these sectors probably have other opportunities for access with the CFPB, one of the most valuable aspects of the recently disbanded CAB was that it provided a forum for fruitful and productive conversations among a variety of stakeholders in consumer finance, which often generated valuable insights for the Bureau and the CAB members. This will be missing from the new CAB. The lack of a multitude of perspectives is ironic given that a stated reason for disbanding the former CAB was to increase the diversity of viewpoints on the Board.
“We are also disappointed that Acting Director Mulvaney and his appointees have chosen to limit the service of these CAB members to one year instead of three years as with previous CAB members. Because the CAB meets only a few times a year, it takes one year for members to become familiar with the CFPB and other CAB members, and to get up to speed. New members will be just getting started when their terms end. One year does not permit members to provide the type of rich feedback and perspective that traditionally has been the role of the CAB.
As consumer advocates and academics with decades of experience among us, we are committed to continue working to ensure that consumer protection and fair market practices are given due priority. We must ensure that the most financially vulnerable Americans are protected from the worst abuses of predatory consumer practices.
Ann Baddour, former chair of the disbanded CAB and director of the Fair Financial Services Project of Texas Appleseed stated that “We hope the new panel builds on the work of the previous boards, and ensures that the CFPB stays on track in meeting its consumer protection mission. We are happy to be a resource to them in their important work.”
Ann Baddour, Texas Appleseed; former Consumer Advisory Board Chair
Lynn Drysdale, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.; former Consumer Advisory Board Vice Chair
Kathleen Engel, Suffolk University Law School
Ruhi Maker, Empire Justice Center
Lisa Servon, University of Pennsylvania
Chi Chi Wu, National Consumer Law Center
Josh Zinner, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
(Affiliations for informational purposes only)."

Meanwhile state Attorneys General from New York and 13 other states have delivered a letter of opposition, on September 5. NY AG Barbara Underwood said, "the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was enacted because of our country’s sordid history of credit discrimination — and it’s unbelievable that the CFPB is considering refusing to use it to protect consumers." The letter  signed by the attorneys general of North Carolina, California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia stated that they "will not hesitate to uphold the law if CFPB acts in a manner contrary to law with respect to interpreting ECOA." We'll have more on that - and this: the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting on August 28 began a process to weaken and take the community out of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Now in September he has given conditional approval to a fintech bank, Varo Bank of Varo Money, which will include only Salt Lake City, Utah in its CRA assessment area. The CEO is Colin Walsh, previously of scandal plagued Wells Fargo. But will the FDIC, which has not for now joined Otting's crusade, hand out deposit insurance? On August 29 when the OCC purported to solicit public comments for the CRA evaluation of banks in the fourth quarter of 2018 and even first quarter of 2019, the OCC's notice did not even mention or link to Otting's proposal to change the CRA. Here is what the OCC e-mailed out on August 29. So the community is not informed - but the industy is. Even open sources are full of banks and their lobbying groups celebrating and preparing to support Otting's proposal(s). From Louisiana, there is this: "GAME FACE ConsumerBankers GC Steve Zeisel is ready for today’s Membership Call regarding the @USOCC ANPR on #cra. #intense. #focus." On the other hands, there's this, on and of which we'll have more. The protagonist, akin to Scott Pruitt until recently at the US Environmental Protection Agency, is Joe Otting. While Reuters blandly noted that he is "a former banker," the bank he headed, OneWest, was accused of predatory lending and when its acquisition by the CIT Group was challenged by Fair Finance Watch, CRC and others Otting arranged for seemingly counterfeit or compelled comments supporting the merger. In this light, Question 11 of his "Advanced Notice of Proposal Rulemaking" or ANPR is noteworthy: "11. How can community involvement be included in an evaluation process that uses a
metric-based framework?" How, indeed. Here's what Otting wrote as a banker, already long public, in support of his merger:

"From: Otting, Joseph M [at] owb.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 5:00 PM
Cc: Haas, Alesia Jeanne; Tran, Cindy; Kim, Glenn
Subject: Support For OneWest Bank
 
Dear Friends,
 
We were excited to announce on July 21, 2014, that IMB HoldCo LLC, the parent company of OneWest Bank entered into a merger agreement with CIT Group Inc. As part of the applications for regulatory approval of the transaction, our regulators are interested in the perspectives of the public. We are writing you to seek your support of the Bank and pending merger. This merger, if approved, would create the largest bank headquartered in Southern California with a full suite of banking products and services, which will allow us to better serve our customers. We would retain and grow jobs and are committed to continuing and expanding our efforts to serve the economic and development needs of our community. I would like to ask you to take a moment to click on the link below and submit a letter of support adding any of your own words or thoughts.
 
Please submit your letter by clicking here, or by visiting our website at www.OneWestBank.com/merger-support (if the link isn't clickable or part of the link is cut off, please copy and paste the entire URL into your browser's address bar and press Enter)
 
Thank you for your support.  Best wishes for a successful 2015 and please call on me if I can ever be of assistance.
 
Joseph M. Otting
President and CEO
OneWest Bank N.A.
888 East Walnut Street
Pasadena, CA 91101"

   There will be fight-back, under NCRC's TreasureCRA campaign. Watch this site - including on actual enforcement of CRA. A bank that was sued by the US Justice Department in 2017 for redlining and discrimination is trying to sell itself to Old National, and Fair Finance Watch has formally challenged it under the Community Reinvestment Act in a filing to the Federal Reserve on the last day of the comment period. From the filing: "This is a timely first comment opposing the Applications of Old National Bancorp to merge with Klein Financial, Inc., Chaska, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire KleinBank, also of Chaska, Minnesota.

As an initial matter, this is a request that the FRS immediately send by email to Inner City Press all non-exempt portions of the applications / notices for which the Applicants have requested confidential treatment.

  It was only last year that “the U.S. Justice Department accused Chaska-based KleinBank of redlining, the illegal practice of denying mortgage loans to minority residents. Lawyers from the department's civil rights division said KleinBank engaged in discrimination in Minneapolis and St. Paul by failing to market its services and open bank branches in areas dominated by minorities. KleinBank, which operates 21 branches in mostly outer-ring suburbs of the Twin Cities, is one of Minnesota's largest community banks. 'KleinBank's discriminatory practices … have been intentional and willful, and implemented with reckless disregard for the rights of individuals on the basis of their race and/or national origin,' the complaint said.”

   Now, attempting to cash in / out of that discrimination, Klein Bank seeks to sell, to Old National which has its own insufficient records. Fair Finance Watch has been tracking Old National:
In 2012 in its Evansville (Headquarters) MSA for conventional home purchase loans back in 2012, Old National Bank made only six such loans to African Americans. In 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, Old National made only THREE such loans to African Americans.  In Table 4-1, in 2012 it made three such loans to African Americans. In 2016 this fell to one.
Old National has gotten worse. It cannot be allowed to acquire Klein so recently prosecuted for discrimination.
 (Separately, note that in Evansville MSA in 2016, Old National reported a 100% approved and originated rate for both African Americans and Latinos, until in other MSAs - this is not credible, presumptively indicates pre-screening and should be investigated in connection with this Klein proposal.)

   For refinance loans in Evansville in 2012, Old National made eight such loans to African Americans. This fell to four in 2016.
   For home improvement loans in the Evansville MSA, Old National in 2012 made five such loans to African Americans. This fell to four in 2016.
   For refinance loans in Indianapolis in 2012, Old National made 18 such loans to African Americans. This fell to a mere seven in 2016, when Old National denied 62% of applications from African Americans (see above). 
Old National has gotten much worse. It cannot be allowed to acquire Klein so recently prosecuted for discrimination.
  Also troubling regarding Old National is its history of branch closings. According to its hometown newspaper the Evansville Courier News & Press
 "since 2004 Old National has purchased 175 banking offices, either through acquiring smaller financial institutions or buying selected office locations. Old National has also shed 140 banking offices by consolidating 121 locations and by selling 19 other offices."
 Old National is a bank with a disparate lending record that specializes in buying and closing bank branches - now it seeks to acquire Klein Bank prosecuted only last year for redlining.
  ICP is requesting evidentiary hearings and that this proposed acquisition, on the current record, not be approved. There is no public benefit." We'll have more on this - and this: the US Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting, who said he's never witnessed discrimination and is poised to attack the Community Reinvestment Act, yesterday announced he'll be giving out "fintech" bank charters. CRA won't apply. Instead, the announcement vaguely says, "The expectations for promoting financial inclusion will depend on the company’s business model and the types of planned products, services, and activities." But what to expect of the OCC of Otting? When at OneWest, he arranged for Astro-turf and even fake public comments supporting its acquisition by the CIT Group. In other comment period news, we like it when banks challenge each others. Like this, today: "The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) today called on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to deny Nelnet Bank’s deposit insurance application for its proposed industrial loan corporation and impose a two-year moratorium on future ILC applications. Like the since-withdrawn applications of SoFi Bank and Square, Nelnet’s is designed to avoid the legal restrictions of the Bank Holding Company Act, ICBA wrote in a letter to the agency. “The ILC loophole allows commercial interests to own full-service banks while avoiding the legal restrictions and regulatory supervision that apply to other bank holding companies—threatening the financial system and creating an uneven regulatory playing field,” ICBA President and CEO Rebeca Romero Rainey said. “To support a safe and sound financial system and to maintain the separation of banking and commerce, the FDIC should impose a two-year application moratorium and Congress should close the ILC loophole for good. Our deposit-insurance system was created to protect depositors—not commercial firms.” Regulation under the Bank Holding Company Act entails consolidated supervision of the holding company by the Federal Reserve and restricts the activities of the holding company and its affiliates to those that are closely related to banking. Because of a loophole in the law, companies that own ILCs are not subject to BHCA supervision even though the ILC charter is a full-service banking charter. As a result, companies that own FDIC-insured ILCs are not subject to consolidated supervision and can engage in non-banking commercial activities. Citing several previous moratoriums on ILC applications, ICBA’s letter notes that Nelnet Bank is applying as an ILC—not a commercial bank—so its parent company can retain its commercial activities. These include investing in start-ups, and maintaining telecommunications, investment and sports-software businesses. Nelnet Inc. should be subject to the same restrictions and supervision as any other bank holding company, ICBA wrote."  Later on July 31 New York regulator Maria T. Vullo issued this: "The New York State Department of Financial Services fiercely opposes the Department of Treasury’s endorsement of regulatory ‘sandboxes’ for financial technology companies. The idea that innovation will flourish only by allowing companies to evade laws that protect consumers, and which also safeguard markets and mitigate risk for the financial services industry, is preposterous. Toddlers play in sandboxes.  Adults play by the rules. Companies that truly want to create change and thrive over the long-term appreciate the importance of developing their ideas and protecting their customers within a strong state regulatory framework. DFS also strong opposes today’s decision by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to begin accepting applications for national bank charters from nondepository financial technology (fintech) companies.  DFS believes that this endeavor, which is also wrongly supported by the Treasury Department, is clearly not authorized under the National Bank Act. As DFS has noted since the OCC’s proposal, a national fintech charter will impose an entirely unjustified federal regulatory scheme on an already fully functional and deeply rooted state regulatory landscape." Sounds good -- but NYS DFS has for example allowed First Republic Bank to redline The Bronx, and hasn't even confirmed receipt of a timely comment opposing it. We'll have more on this - and on this: First Republic Bank, which excludes The Bronx as well as Brooklyn and Queens from its assessment area while funding outer borough slumlords, has applied to New York bank regulators to open another branch in Manhattan. Fair Finance Watch has filed opposition, along with Inner City Press, also citing FRB's record of displacement in California:  On behalf of Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch (ICP), this is a timely comment opposing the application by First Republic Bank to open a new insured deposit-taking facility at 329 Tenth Avenue, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York 10001. First Republic Bank is engaged in redlining. Its branches in New York are entirely in Manhattan, and only in the most affluent sections. It excludes from its CRA Assessment Area, in their entirety, the boroughs of The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. This is an outrage, and that ICP had thought was no longer allowed by regulars. (ICP previously challenged and got changes such exclusionary Assessment Areas at Bank of New York, HSBC, predecessors of Bank of America and others). Cynically, while excluding the outer boroughs from its assessment area, First Republic Bank does business with landlords who have been described as slumlords, such as Moshe Piller. See, e.g., Daily News, “Moshe Piller, owner of the Hunts Point Ave. building in the Bronx where two children died when a faulty radiator spewed steam into their bedroom.” (ICP also takes note of the San Francisco analysis of its fellow NCRC member CRC). Fair Finance Watch has reviewed First Republic Bank's most recent publicly available HMDA data for the NYC MSA and, for home purchase loans, find that FRB made 283 such loans to whites, and only three each to Latino and  African American applicants. Its denial rate disparity is astronomical: 20% denial rate for African American, less than 1% for whites. Again: First Republic Bank is a redliner. For all of these reasons, First Republic Bank's applications should be denied." We'll have more on this - and this: People's United Bank, which has applied to buy Farmington Bank in Connecticut, has become more and not less disparate in its lending, as shown by analysis of U.S. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data by Fair Finance Watch submitted to the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency by Inner City Press in opposition to the proposed merger. From the timely July 27 filing: "This is a timely first comment opposing and requesting an extension of the OCC's public comment period on the Application by People's United Bank to acquire Farmington Bank.
  In the the New York City MSA in 2014, People's United made 82 home purchase loans to whites and NONE to African Americans or Latinos.   We note that People's has been in these markets since 2010 -- NOT “recently” -- and that New York City is not the “Lower Hudson Valley. Then we found that in 2015 in the New York City MSA, People's United made 110 home purchase loans to whites and only ONE to an African American and only four to Latinos.
  In 2016, the most recent year for which HMDA data is publicly available, People's got even worse: in the NYC MSA it made 144 home purchase loans to whites (more than in 2015) and still only one to an African American.
   For refinance loans in the New York City MSA in 2014, People's United made 24 loans to whites, 1 to an African American and four to Hispanics. By 2016, it was again worse: 165 loans to whites and only two to African Americans.
This is systematic redlining; this proposed acquisition could not legitimately be approved and People's United should be referred for prosecution for redlining by the Department of Justice and CFPB.
   People's United record is hardly sufficient in the Hartford MSA where it now proposes to acquire Farmington Bank. In 2016 in the Hartford MSA, People's United made 162 home purchase loans to whites and only 10 to African Americans and only 14 to Latinos.
  Again, this is systematic redlining; this proposed acquisition could not legitimately be approved and People's United should be referred for prosecution for redlining by the Department of Justice and CFPB.
     In this context, the comment period should be extended so that public evidentiary hearings can be held, and the application should be denied." Bank of America has been sued for failure to maintain properties it forecloses on in communities of color. Nationwide, the lawsuit contends, 45 percent of the Bank of America properties in communities of color had 10 or more maintenance or marketing deficiencies, while only 11 percent of the Bank of America properties in predominantly white neighborhoods had 10 or more maintenance or marketing deficiencies. 64 percent of the Bank of America properties in communities of color had trash or debris visible on the property, while only 31 percent of the Bank of America properties in predominantly white neighborhoods had trash visible on the property. 37 percent of the Bank of America properties in communities of color had unsecured or broken doors, while only 16 percent of the Bank of America properties in predominantly white neighborhoods had unsecured or broken doors. 49.6 percent of the Bank of America properties in communities of color had damaged, boarded, or unsecured windows, while only 23.5 percent of the Bank of America properties in white neighborhoods had damaged, boarded or unsecured windows.

  In Milwaukee, for example, recently profiled in the book "Evicted," the lawsuit cites 134 Bank of America REO properties. Of these 134 REO properties, 74 were located in African American neighborhoods, 21 were located in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, eight were located in predominantly nonwhite
neighborhoods, and 31 were located in predominantly white neighborhoods. 83.9% of the REO properties in predominantly white neighborhoods had fewer than five maintenance or marketing deficiencies, while only 21.4% of REO properties in neighborhoods of color had fewer than 5 maintenance or marketing deficiencies. 78.6% of REO properties in neighborhoods of color had 5 or more marketing or maintenance deficiencies, while only 16.1% of the REO properties in white neighborhoods had 5 or more marketing or maintenance deficiencies. 8.7% of REO properties in neighborhoods of color had 10 or more marketing or maintenance deficiencies, while none of the REO properties in white neighborhoods had 10 or more marketing or maintenance deficiencies. Some including the Fair Finance Watch notice similar disparities in Milwaukee when it comes to the placement of the Bublr bike share program. Maybe Bank of America will want to put its name on the disparate network, as Citibank has in New York with disparately placed CitiBike.

  At the UN on June 4, when Citigroup managing director Michael Eckhart appeared, it was to talk about renewable energy with the UN Environment Program. Inner City Press asked Eckhart about Citigroup's role in the Dakota Access Pipeline.

He paused and admitted it was a lender, than said that the outcry against the pipeline, on indigenous human rights and other issues, was entirely unexpected. He said they had not protested early enough. Video here. But what about free prior informed CONSENT? Is silence consent? Or, as is too often the case, is the UN a place of hypocrisy?

As Inner City Press has shown, UNEP paid money to Volvo Ocean Races, and appears to have engaged in pay-for-prize with MoBikes. Inner City Press also asked about the UN bribery scandal in which China Energy Fund Committee - oil money - bribed UN President of the General Assembly Sam Kutesa, but CEFC remains in special consultative status with UN ECOSOC. Video here. We'll have more on this - and on Citigroup. Watch this site.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?)

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2015 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for