As
ING
Quietly Asked
Fed to Waive
Application to
Own 9.8% of
Capital One,
Syria &
Sudan Business
Shielded, FOIA
Shows
By
Matthew
R. Lee
SOUTH
BRONX,
August 8 --
When Capital
One applied to
acquire ING
Direct,
the US
Internet
banking
subsidiary of
Amsterdam-based
ING, community
groups like
our filed
protests,
based on
Capital One's
anti-consumer
practices.
But less was
said about
ING, in part
because its US
business had
been directed
at a more
affluent
clientele, and
because
it was not
viewed as the
applicant.
But
after Inner
City Press
filed a
Freedom of
Information
Act request
with the
Federal
Reserve Board
on July 22, a
partial
response from
the Fed
Reserve shows
that ING has
quietly sought
a ruling from
Fed General
Counsel Scott
Alvarez that
ING should not
have submit
any
application
subject to
public comment
to own up to
9.9% of
Capital One.
This
would exclude
public comment
and
consideration
of ING doing
business with
the likes
of Sudan and
Syria, Cuba,
Iran and
others on the
US state
sponsors of
terrorism
list.
ING
has admitted
being under
investigation
for, and
negotiating
with the US
Department of
Justice about,
such
violations,
and there have
been
expressions of
Congressional
concern to ING
Group
Executive
Board Chairman
Jan H.M.
Hommen and US
Treasury
Secretary
Timothy
Geithner which
the
Fed could
ignore by
granting ING's
stealth
request.
The
documents
obtained under
FOIA show that
ING,
represented by
the Wall
Street law
firm of
Sullivan &
Cromwell, on
July 15 wrote
to the Fed's
Alvarez asking
for "written
confirmation
that [ING]
will not be
deemed to
directly or
indirectly
'control'
Capital One
for purposes
of the Bank
Holding
Company Act
upon the
consummation
of the Bank
Sale."
Earlier
in ING's
13 page
request, on
which the Fed
has until now
not solicited
or
accepted any
public
comment, ING
says that the
shares with
which
Capital One
would pay it
for ING Direct
would
"represent
between
9.7% and 9.9%
of the
outstanding
shares of
Capital One's
Common Stock
on the closing
date."
Under
the Bank
Holding
Company Act,
any holding
over 4.9% can
be considered
control.
One would
think, given
the issues
raised, that
the Fed would
solicit
comment and
hold the
requested
public
hearings on
ING's request
to
own nearly 10%
of Capital
One. But it
has only come
about because
of
the Fed's
partial FOIA
response.
Inner
City Press /
Fair Finance
Watch
immediately
submitted a
comment to the
Fed and its
chairman Ben
Bernanke
formally
demanding the
ING submit an
application to
own over 4.9%
of Capital
One, and that
public comment
be accepted on
these issues.
Fed
board,
Bernanke in
center, ING's
Sudan &
Syria business
not shown
Inner
City Press /
Fair Finance
Watch also
joined in
requests by
NCRC and
others for
public
meetings and
an extension
of the comment
periods until
at least
October 22.
In
a FOIA appeal
already filed,
Inner City
Press has
demanded all
withheld
records
about ING's
stealth
request, as
well as the
withhold
portions of
Capital One's
application,
which range
from exhibits
about money
laundering to
ING's mortgage
portfolio.
Amazingly,
the Fed
mis-read Inner
City Press'
FOIA request
as only asking
from Fed
communications
with ING and
Capital One
about the
proposed
acquisitions,
when in fact
Inner City
Press
requested all
records
reflecting Fed
communications
concerning
either of the
two companies.
The Fed has
provided such
records,
including internal Fed
emails
about the
Industrial
&
Commercial
Bank of China
and Governor
Warsh's
meeting with
its chairman,
in previous
responses to
Inner
City Press.
The
Fed has also
withheld
records about
an "ex
parte"
meeting as far
back at
May 26 between
Capital One's
Kevin Murray
(SVP of
Regulatory
Relations),
John Finneran
and Gary
Perlin with a
range of Fed
officials.
It
seems the Fed,
ING and
Capital One
may really
have something
to hide in
this
transaction,
including
seeking to
exclude from
public comment
and
consideration
ING illegally
doing business
in and with
Syria, Iran,
Cuba and
Sudan. Watch
this site.
* * *
Fed
Governor
Was Lobbied by
Chinese Gov't
on Bank Deal,
FOIA Documents
Show,
Insiders' Game
Faced with
Challenge
By
Matthew
R. Lee,
Exclusive
NEW
YORK,
August 2 --
When the US
Federal
Reserve Board
decided to allow
a
company owned
by the
People's
Republic of
China to buy
an American
bank
without
requiring any
application by
the Chinese
government, it
had been
lobbied at the
level of Fed
Governor
Warsh, by a
lawyer who
was previously
the General
Counsel of the
Federal
Reserve Bank
of New
York, documents
show.
Earlier
this year
Inner City
Press filed a
challenge and
Freedom of
Information
Act
request with
the Fed about
the proposed
acquisition of
US-based Bank
of East Asia
by the China
Investment
Corporation,
and Central
Huijin
Investment
Limited and
Industrial and
Commercial
Bank of China
(ICBC), owned
by the Chinese
government.
While
the US Bank
Holding
Company Act
says that US
government
entities do
not need to
seek Fed
approval to
buy banks, there
is no
exemption for
foreign
governments.
But the Fed
has read in
such an
exemption.
More
than three
months after
its FOIA
request, Inner
City Press has
received a set
of
heavily
redacted
documents from
the Fed, some
of which are
now being
put online,
here.
The
documents
reflect
multiple
inquiries by
ICBC's lawyer
Ernest
Patrikis,
previously the
General
Counsel of the
Federal
Reserve Bank
of New
York, now at
the law firm
of White &
Case.
In
August 2010,
the Fed's Ann
Misback wrote
to Kathleen
O'Day and four
others, "Ernie
called with
two questions,
one on China
and one on
India. What
would
be the Fed's
reaction if
one of the
largest
Chinese banks
entered an
agreement to
purchase a
small U.S.
bank (likely
serving an
ethnic
Chinese
community)
[REDACTION] I
told him I
would get back
to him on
this
question."
While
the Fed
blacked out
"Ernie's"
question about
India, the
e-mail
still shows
how lawyers
for the
Chinese
government and
banks can
essentially
seek
pre-approval
from the
Federal
Reserve,
before any
public comment
period is
announced.
Even
after
protests, the
Fed continued
"ex
parte"
communications
with
"Ernie." But
these
communications
and
pre-approvals
went to
the top level
of the Federal
Reserve.
On
November 12,
2011 Patrikis
e-mailed the
Fed's Ann
Misback about
a meeting the
chairman of
government-owned
ICBC had with
then Fed
Governor Kevin
Warsh, on
October 20,
saying that
ICBC's
chairman had
complained to
Governor
Warsh "about
the inability
to buy a bank
in the U.S..
The
governor said
the bank could
file an
application
now."
The
applications,
when they came
in 2011, did
not include
any
application by
the
Chinese
government,
ICBC's owner.
That
the Fed is not
only outside
the law but
also unwise in
inventing an
exemption from
the Bank
Holding
Company At for
foreign
government has
been made more
clear by
issues
surrounding
the assets of
the Gaddafi
regime's
Libyan
government.
Exemptions
lead to
instability,
apparenlty the
Fed's main
concern. (FOIA
and the Community
Reinvestment
Act do not
appear to be
concerns of
the Fed.)
While
the Fed gives
exemptions to
the Chinese
government,
other branches
of the US
government are
now
investigating
Dutch-based
ING for
violating
sanctions in
Iran, Cuba and
Sudan. ING is
trying to sell
its US bank
ING Direct to
consumer-challenged
Capital One.
Can the Fed be
expected to
fairly review
the
application?
Likewise,
global
bank HSBC is
trying to
ditch 180
upstate New
York branches
to
Buffalo-based
First Niagara,
which now says
it would
divest (sell
or
close) fully
100 of the
branches.
Perhaps the
Fed doesn't
really care
for stability,
either, at
least not the
stability of
moderate
income
US
communities.
The
documents
reflect an
insider's game
at the Fed
that is not
only
distasteful
but
we believe
illegal. A
Freedom of
Information
Act appeal has
been
filed with all
the withheld
information,
and more steps
will follow:
watch this
site.
Here is a
complaint from
inside Wells
Fargo
Financial that
Inner City
Press published
in
2008.
And here
the New York
Times.