As
Fed to Meet on
Capital One's
ING Deal, It
Blacks Out
More Info
By
Matthew
R. Lee
SOUTH
BRONX,
February 6 --
As questions
mount about
the Federal
Reserve
Board's lack
of
transparency,
it has today
responded to
requests a
full four
months ago for
information,
and then
scheduled a
February 8
meeting
to consider
allowing
Capital One to
buy ING Direct
and become the
fifth largest
bank in the
US.
Inner City
Press
immediately
appealed under
the Freedom of
Information
Act, arguing
that the Fed
should re-open
its comment
period,
following its
Freedom of
Information
Act
denial of
February 3,
2011 --
emailed to ICP
at 5 pm today
-- of
ICP's FOIA
request of
September 28,
2011, for
"ING's
request for
a non-control
determination
to own up to
9.9% of
Capital One;
(2) all
records
reflecting any
FRS
communications
regarding the
request; and
(3) FRS
communications
about any
adverse
supervisory
action
involving
ING, including
but not
limited to
records
reflecting FRS
communications
about an
OFAC/DOJ
investigation
into alleged
violations of
sanctions by
ING."
The
Fed took MORE
THAN FOUR
MONTHS to
provide even
the redacted
documents
it now has,
less than 48
hours before
the Board
intends to
meet on,
and presumably
rubber stamp,
Capital One's
ING DIRECT
application.
Click
here
for Fed's FOIA
Denial letter
to ICP,
dated Feb 3,
emailed Feb 6.
Click
here
for one of the
redacted files
the Fed Feb 6
sent ICP,
cited below.
From the
records
belated
provided, much
has been
redacted, or
blacked out. Tellingly,
the
August 16,
2011 email to
Fed general
counsel Scott
Alvarez notes
that
there are
already
protests to
the
applications
(including
ICP's) - and
then is
blacked out.
The protests
trigger the
Fed's rules
against
ex parte
communications.
But here, much
information is
withheld. ICP
is appealing.
Even
the August 22,
2011 summary
of ING's
request,
including on
"Corporate
Governance,"
is redacted -
ICP is
appealing.
An
August
24, 2011 email
to Alison Thro
-- who later
publicly
encouraged
ICP to submit
this FOIA
request --
mentions
another
application,
by
Industrial and
Commercial
Bank of China.
But elsewhere
in the
response,
material that
is not exempt
from FOIA is
redacted on
the
theory that it
is "non
responsive."
The Fed is now
trying to use
"non-responsive"
as a way about
FOIA, to
withhold
without
even citing a
FOIA
exemption. It
is an outrage,
and on appeal
ALL of
this
information
should be
released.
From
the December
8, 2011 email,
even the NAME
of an
attachment is
redacted - so
too a
paragraph
about ING's
activities
from ING's
counsel's
December 27,
2011
submission -
both are being
appealed.
Despite public
allegations of
sanctions
violations by
ING, the Fed
is now
withholding at
least 61 pages
in full about
ING, and for
example the
whole November
28, 2011 email
except for the
word "Pam,"
the November
10, 2011 email
except for the
name "Suzanne"
and the
November 16,
2011 email
except from
the name
"Stanlyn."
ICP is
appealing.
Similarly, 83
+ 15 + 52
pages in full
about the
"bulk
transfer" are
now belatedly
referred to
the OCC for
decision, such
that ICP
cannot get a
ruling and
comment on
them.
There are
also,
redacted, the
October 3,
2011
"questions"
from the OCC.
The delay, and
last minute
rush, is
anti-participatory
and cannot be
accepted.
For
the reasons of
record, and as
argued by
NCRC, the
Federal
Reserve
should re-open
the comment
period to
fully consider
Capital One's
related
proposal to
buy the
ex-Household
predatory
lending
platform
from HSBC, and
the related
stealth ING
proposals.
Fed Board:
withheld info
not shown,
rubber stamp
prepared?
Footnote:
When
JPMorgan Chase
executive
William Daley
left
as President
Obama's chief
of staff, to
be replaced by
Citigroup
Jacob Lew,
some wondered
if JPM Chase
might be
losing access
with
Obama.
But now
nominated to
the board of
the Federal
Deposit
Insurance
Corporation is
the
head of JPMC's
investment
bank,
Jeremiah
Norton.
That is, an
executive of
one of the
largest
recipients
of federal
bailout funds
is being
placed to
guard the
FDIC, which
insures
deposits.
The
move is
similar
tothenomination
in December of
a hedge fund
executive from
the Carlyle
Group, Jay
Powell, for an
open seat on
the Federal
Reserve Board.
Beyond
the obvious
overtones
of putting
foxes to guard
the chicken
house, what in
fact was
learned
from the
global
financial
meltdown?
What conflict
of interest
safeguards
would be in
place? What
for example
will
Occupy Wall
Street do? Who
can still say
that the
Emperor has no
clothes? Watch
this site.