Barclays Withdraws Cayman Islands Bid For Federal Reserve Approval Inner City Press Opposed and Reports

Inner City Press

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

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

More: InnerCityPro

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

Barclays Withdraws Cayman Islands Bid For Federal Reserve Approval Inner City Press Opposed and Reports

By Matthew R. Lee, Patreon

NEW YORK CITY, May 30 – Barclays applied to the U.S. Federal Reserve in early 2018 for regulatory approval for a Cayman Islands holding company to become the parent of its U.S. bank. Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch, as dubious then as now about such moves, requested documents and a delay or denial of the proposal.

 Now on May 29, 2019, fifteen months later, the Federal Reserve has informed Inner City Press that Barclays has "withdrawn" its Cayman Islands application.  Federal Reserve's May 29 Barclays letter and more on Patreon, here.

This comes, for example, the day after a proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the first U.S. Panama Papers prosecution, which Inner City Press attended and reported on here, and amid renewed focus on the activities of non U.S. banks like Deutsche Bank in the US.  Here's from Inner City Press' 16 February 2018 filing with the Federal Reserve: "Dear Chair Powell, Secretary Misback and others in the FRS:  This is a timely first comment opposing and requesting an extension of the FRB's public comment period on the Applications of Barclays PLC and Barclays US Holdings Ltd., organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands to acquire Barclays Bank.  It is noteworthy that on the very final day of the comment period of this Barclays Bank Cayman Islands application, the Federal Reserve has announced “The Federal Reserve Board on Friday announced that it is seeking to permanently bar Peter Little, the former head of the foreign exchange (FX) spot desk at Barclays Bank PLC in New York, from employment in the banking industry and to impose a $487,500 fine on him. Little is alleged to have engaged in unsafe and unsound practices by using electronic chat rooms to coordinate with traders at competitor banks to influence FX pricing benchmarks and by engaging in manipulative trading. Little is also alleged to have failed to adequately supervise subordinate traders at Barclays who coordinated with and disclosed confidential information to competitors on Little's behalf.”  Those problems are about the institution, which is here applying to interpose a Cayman Islands subsidiary. Is this to evade taxes? To evade disclosure?  Barclays is associated with using tax havens to avoid taxes: for example in Ireland paying a mere 2%, versus a statutory rate of 12%.  The compliance - or “managerial resources” - problems at Barclays go right to the top: Barclays' Jes Staley had to apologize for trying to unmask a whistleblower   The “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has received 703 credit card complaints against Barclays since June 1, 2012, including for the record:  Bank: Barclays Issue    Via    Date Received by CFPB    Date Sent to Bank Rewards    Web    8/12/2016    8/12/2016 Credit determination    Web    3/21/2015    3/21/2015 Bankruptcy    Web    3/21/2015    3/21/2015 Other fee    Web    10/8/2016    10/8/2016 Other    Web    4/6/2015    4/6/2015 Advertising and marketing    Web    11/20/2015    11/20/2015   Closing/Cancelling account    Web    12/16/2015    12/16/2015 Other    Web    7/9/2015    7/14/2015 Billing disputes    Web    8/14/2015    8/14/2015 Billing disputes    Web    1/7/2016    1/7/2016 Late fee    Web    10/4/2016    10/7/2016 Advertising and marketing    Web    3/20/2015    3/20/2015 Communication tactics    Web    3/25/2015    3/25/2015 Identity theft / Fraud / Embezzlement    Web    10/11/2016    10/11/2016 Identity theft / Fraud / Embezzlement    Web    3/30/2015    3/30/2015 Other transaction issues    Web    3/30/2015    3/30/2015 Billing disputes    Web    10/12/2016    10/17/2016 Closing/Cancelling account    Web    8/16/2016    8/16/2016 Billing statement    Web    8/18/2016    8/18/2016 Identity theft / Fraud / Embezzlement    Web    8/4/2015    8/4/2015 Credit determination    Web    7/22/2015    7/22/2015 Rewards    Web    1/24/2016    1/24/2016 Credit line increase/decrease    Web    10/9/2016    10/20/2016 Account opening, closing, or management    Web    10/18/2016    10/21/2016 Closing/Cancelling account    Web    10/23/2016    10/23/2016 Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed    Web    11/4/2015    11/4/2015 Advertising and marketing    Web    4/7/2015    4/7/2015 Delinquent account    Web    5/21/2015    5/21/2015 Billing disputes    Web    10/9/2016    10/13/2016 Closing/Cancelling account    Web    4/11/2016    4/11/2016  Also for the record, there's also this, attempt to collect debt not owed:  In fact, the whole operation is in question, militating for hearings: “The U.K. Serious Fraud Office’s charges against Barclays, “in theory at least, put the bank’s entire existence at risk: if it is found guilty its license could be revoked,” the Wall Street Journal says. That’s because the charges, stemming from the bank’s secret emergency fundraising from Qatari investors during the crisis of 2008, were made against the bank’s operating company, which holds its banking license, not its holding company. That’s an important distinction.”  Inner City Press is requesting all records concerning the application, and an extension of the comment period. On the current record, Barclays' applications should be denied."

Federal Reserve's May 29 Barclays letter and more on Patreon, here.

   When BB&T announced a $66 billion proposal to take over Suntrust Bank, which would close a still undisclosed number of branches and extend BB&T disparate lending patterns, many linked it to deregulatory moves in Washington. Then two days after Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard was asked by Inner City Press about the Fed's lax review of previous mergers, including WSFS on which the Fed still hasn't ruled on the bank's withholding of information after rubber stamping the deal, the Fed announced public hearings. But the fix it seems it still in. On April 18, conveniently, the Fed "announce[d] termination of enforcement action with BB&T Corporation" for money laundering. So there's a public comment period on the merger, but none on the Fed's dubious move while the application is pending. Meanwhile as Inner City Press has exclusively reported, BB&T has been named in connection with sleazy debt collections in a case in the SDNY - more on all this to come. On April 29, Inner City Press submitted a FOIA request about the dubious termination of enforcement action, and a comment to the Fed and FDIC, below.

  On the afternoon of May 2, before seeking to close the comment period on BB&T - Suntrust on May 3, the Federal Reserve wrote to Inner City Press that only ONE PAGE about its BB&T money laundering enforcement termination would be provided, and 133 pages withheld in full, no even subject to the type of partial redaction that is required under FOIA. FRB 99% denial letter here.

  The one page is not even from the Federal Reserve: it is from the North Carolina regulator. And there is a request to the FDIC about three pages. Just after the Federal Reserve's FOIA "response," the FDIC wrote to Inner City Press to say its comment period would closed on May 3, and has not responded how it and the Fed's May 3 public meeting, replete with singing for supper, can be viewed. On May 3 before 5 pm Inner City Press raised the bogus FOIA response to the Fed governors and FDIC: "Dear Chair Powell, Secretary Misback and others in the FRS:      This is a timely second comment opposing and requesting an extension of the FRB's public comment period on the Application by BB&T Corporation to merge with SunTrust Banks, Inc. and indirectly acquire SunTrust Bank Holding Company, Orlando, FL, and SunTrust Bank.       As Fair Finance Watch was reviewing the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and other data of the banks with an eye toward commenting or not commenting by the current May 3 expiration of comment period on this proposed mega-merger, it and Inner City Press were shocked to see the Federal Reserve Board's cynical April 18 termination of the enforcement action against BB&T for money laundering.       Money laundering is, along with redlining, one of the most serious crimes a bank can engage in. For example currently in the SDNY there are numerous AML prosecutions, resulting for example in the conviction of CEFC's Ho for UN-related bribery. Even the Fed had historically acknowledged the primacy of full AML compliance over the rush toward corporate combination, for example in connection with M&T Bank.       Yet here, for the convenience of and in collusion with a proposed mega merger, the Fed without transparency has terminated the BB&T AML enforcement action during the public comment period on the merger, without taking any public comment on it.     Inner City Press has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Reserve for records related to this troubling de-regulatory action. It requested expedited treatment and formally requests that the comment period be kept open until the FRB has made these records available.        Cynically, the Fed responded just before deadline with one page, withholding 133 pages in full in contravention of FOIA. Inner City Press has timely appealed:  an mmediate FOIA appeal of FRB absurd denial by providing only one page and withhold 133 pages in full - in response to Inner City Press' FOIA request regarding the FRB's decision to terminate the money laundering enforcement action against BB&T during the pendency of its application to acquire Suntrust.      As you must know, agencies are request to provided all reasonably segregable information and are not allow mass withhold, as here, over 99% of responsive pages, in full.      Troublingly, just as the Fed acquiesced to BB&T and lifted the enforcement action to facilitate this merger, now it provide a shameful FOIA (non response), to claim it is legitimate to close its comment period on this, the largest merger proposal since 2008.        This is a demand that on this record the comment period must be extended. Inner City Press also timely notes that it asked the FDIC how to view today's public meeting and was told it is only live streamed INSIDE the Federal Reserve Bank. This should be explained - it is far from the best practice, of smaller regulators, on smaller proposed mergers. Something is dreadfully wrong here - the comment period must be extended.     Again, Fair Finance Watch has reviewed BB&T's HMDA data for 2017, the most recent year for which such disclosure data is available, and for now note that for example in the Houston Texas MSA in 2017, BB&T made 56 conventional home purchase loans to whites and only four to African Americans and only six to Latinos. In the New York City MSA in 2017, BB&T made four such loans to whites and none at all to people of color. In Charleston, WV in 2017 it made 57 such loans to whites and none to people of color. From the first of what should now be more than two public meetings, in West Virginia, SunTrust has already closed all of its branches; over the past four years, BB&T has closed more than 10 branches in the state.       We note on the FDIC's web page no sign of an application for this merger. The Federal Reserve should not rule until the FDIC board is full, and to coordinate its review with such a full FDIC board.   On the current record, BB&T's applications should be denied." We'll have more on this.  Watch this site.

  Recent deregulatory moves  include an assault on the Community Reinvestment Act, being led by Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting, who while at OneWest Bank led a false commenting process to push through a merger with CIT Group. (Otting is trying to change the OCC's practices on FOIA fee waivers and is even refusing to consider comments on some Business Combinations. But this BB&T proposal will go to the Fed whose Jerome Powell has vowed, credibly or not, to conduct a full review. And so consider this:  BB&T has been ordered to return $5.2 million to investors, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, over charges it it acquired misled clients about the cost of advisory services.  The SEC said the firm that BB&T acquired with Susquehanna Bancshares, known then as Valley Forge Asset Management, misled about 1,200 clients into believing they were receiving full service brokerage services at a discount. We'll have more on this.

 Fair Finance Watch, which has been tracking BB&T as well as Otting's and the Federal Reserve's anti-CRA moves, finds that for example in the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2017 BB&T denied the home purchase mortgage applications of African Americans 2.2 times more frequently than whites, while making only 50 such loans to African Americans, and 23 to Latinos, compared to 458 to whites, all more disparate that other lenders in the market.

  While some portray the proposed merger as a fait accompli, the Fed and OCC must hold public comment periods and consider the banks' CRA records, even as they race to undermine the law. Inner City Press will submit requests under the Freedom of Information Act, as it has on OneWest - CIT and now for Otting's schedule as Comptroller.

On January 16 Inner City Press asked the OCC on the expedited basis for records to disclose Otting's meetings with the banking industry and others:  "Dear OCC FOIA Officer: Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch (ICP) makes this request for records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and OCC regulations. ICP requests 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... ICP requests that you expedite the processing of this request. There is media interest and there exist possible questions concerning the OCC's integrity, which affect public confidence. See e.g. this article and the CRA ANPR since." We'll have more on this.

 Bigger picture, or on the club BB&T is trying to join, Otting's OneWest colleague and now boss, US Treasury Department Steve Mnuchin on December 22 from Cabo called six big US banks: "Brian Moynihan, Bank of America; Michael Corbat, Citi; David Solomon, Goldman Sachs; Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase, James Gorman, Morgan Stanley; Tim Sloan, Wells Fargo. The CEOs confirmed that they have ample liquidity available for lending to consumer, business markets, and all other market operations...  Here are some of the documents, for (still) free download on Patreon.

 On October 1 Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch submitted the documents obtained under FOIA into the record before the OCC, stating that "These documents, which must be considered as part of this ANPR and any subsequent formal rulemaking, show that fraudulent comments supporting Otting's OneWest were submitted to the OCC - presumptively attributable to Otting.
The documents show that the OCC sought an explanation from Otting's / OneWest's outside counsel - and the OCC's and Justice Department's response to date reflect that no such explanation was ever provided. The OCC nevertheless approved the merger and even gave weight to the fraudulent comments. On this record we again insist that Otting be recused from this ANPR and any related rulemaking or proceedings. We have other substantive concerns about this ANPR but view the question of Mr Otting's recusal (and of with whom he has met, on which Inner City Press has another long-pending FOIA request) as threshold matter than must be addressed as quickly as possible."

 The FOIA document as provided by the OCC and US Department of Justice reflect that the OCC never followed up on its lone (and wan) question to Otting's counsel as Sullivan & Cromwell to explain the fraudulent comments. Nor did this counsel respond to questions from The Intercept's David Dayen, who reports: "AFTER A YEARLONG effort to obtain the information, which included ongoing litigation, the OCC made available 15 pages. They contain emails to and from David Finnegan, an OCC senior licensing analyst who was a point of contact for public comment on the merger.

Four individuals contended in emails to Finnegan that they never sent the comment letters supporting the merger. “This is to bring to your attention that I received an email from the office of OCC regarding a subject I am completely unaware of,” wrote one individual (the OCC redacted the emailers’ identifying information). “I DID NOT send the email below that you responded to. This is a fraudulent use of my email account.” The other three sent similar complaints.

The letter of support attributed to these individuals was identical to the letter posted at the OneWest Bank website.

Matthew Lee of Inner City Press expressed outrage at the fake comments. “There’s nothing more offensive of speech rights than artificially presenting someone as saying something you don’t believe,” Lee said. “You have the right to be silent. It’s so beyond the pale.”

FOIA Finds: OneWest CIT Ban... by on Scribd

Finnegan responded to these emailers, thanking them for letting him know. He also sent two emails to Stephen Salley, an attorney with Sullivan & Cromwell, who was representing OneWest in the merger. “FYI and review. We would appreciate any information you can provide regarding this submission,” Finnegan wrote to Salley on both occasions.

Presumably, Finnegan reached out to OneWest’s lawyer about the fake comments because they featured the same form letter that OneWest had written to encourage public support. But the two emails are the only record that OCC did any investigation of the fake comments. There is no reply from Salley or Sullivan & Cromwell to the OCC, at least not in written form. “By reaching out to the attorneys immediately, it suggests something serious, and yet there’s no follow-up that’s apparent whatsoever,” said Kevin Stein of the California Reinvestment Coalition...Olivia Weiss, a spokesperson for CIT, forwarded a request for comment to her colleague Gina Proia, who declined to comment. Salley did not respond when asked whether he or his law firm responded to the OCC.... In his public comment for Inner City Press, Lee asked for Otting to recuse himself from the new rule-making, highlighting the fake comment controversy. “Public participation is key to CRA, on performance evaluations and crucially on bank merger and expansion applications,” Lee wrote. He added that it’s unclear whether the OCC has improved its processes to prevent fake comments from being submitted again in the CRA rule-making

We'll have more on this - watch this site.  


Feedback: Editorial [at]

Mount Carmel Station, Box 580188, Bronx NY 10458

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

 Search  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 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for