Each depositor insured to at least $250,000 per insured bank

Home > Regulation & Examinations > Laws & Regulations > FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts



[Table of Contents] [Previous Page] [Next Page] [Search]

6000 - Bank Holding Company Act


§ 225.132  Acquisition of assets.

(a)  From time to time questions have arisen as to whether and under what circumstances a bank holding company engaged in nonbank activities, directly or indirectly through a subsidiary, pursuant to section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)), may acquire the assets and employees of another company, without first obtaining Board approval pursuant to section 4(c)(8) and the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.4(b)).

(b)  In determining whether Board approval is required in connection with the acquisition of assets, it is necessary to determine (a) whether the acquisition is made in the ordinary course of business1 or (b) whether it constitutes the acquisition, in whole or in part, of a going concern.2

(c)  The following examples illustrate transactions where prior Board approval will generally be required:

(1)  The transaction involves the acquisition of all or substantially all of the assets of a company, or a subsidiary, division, department or office thereof.

(2)  The transaction involves the acquisition of less than "substantially all" of the assets of a company, or a subsidiary, division, department or office thereof, the operations of which are being terminated or substantially discontinued by the seller, but such asset acquisition is significant in relation to the size of the same line of nonbank activity of the holding company (e.g., consumer finance, mortgage banking, data processing). For purposes of this interpretation, an acquisition would generally be presumed to be significant if the book value of the nonbank assets being acquired exceeds 50 percent of the book value of the nonbank assets of the holding company or nonbank subsidiary comprising the same line of activity.

(3)  The transaction involves the acquisition of assets for resale and the sale of such assets is not a normal business activity of the acquiring holding company.

(4)  The transaction involves the acquisition of the assets of a company, or a subsidiary, division, department or office thereof, and a major purpose of the transaction is to hire some of the seller's principal employees who are expert, skilled and experienced in the business of the company being acquired.

(d)  In some cases it may be difficult, due to the wide variety of circumstances involving possible acquisition of assets, to determine whether such acquisitions require prior Board approval. Bank holding companies are encouraged to contact their local Reserve bank for guidance where doubt exists as to whether such an acquisition is in the ordinary course of business or an acquisition, in whole or in part, of a going concern.

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.132]

[Source:  39 Fed. Reg. 35128, September 30, 1974; 57 Fed. Reg. 28779, June 29, 1992]

§ 225.133  Computation of amount invested in foreign corporations under general consent procedures.

For text of this interpretation, see § 211.111 of this subchapter.

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.133]

[Source:  40 Fed. Reg. 43199, September 19, 1975, effective September 12, 1975]

§ 225.134  Escrow arrangements involving bank stock resulting in a violation of the bank holding company act.

(a)  In connection with a recent application to become a bank holding company, the Board considered a situation in which shares of a bank were acquired and then placed in escrow by the applicant prior to the Board's approval of the application. The facts indicated that the applicant company had incurred debt for the purpose of acquiring bank shares and immediately after the purchase the shares were transferred to an unaffiliated escrow agent with instructions to retain possession of the shares pending Board action on the company's application to become a bank holding company. The escrow agreement provided that, if the applicant were approved by the Board, the escrow agent was to return the shares to the applicant company; and, if the application were denied, the escrow agent was to deliver the shares to the applicant company's shareholders upon their assumption of debt originally incurred by the applicant in the acquisition of the bank shares. In addition, the escrow agreement provided that, while the shares were held in escrow, the applicant could not exercise voting or any other ownership rights with respect to those shares.

(b)  On the basis of the above facts, the Board concluded that the company had violated the prior approval provisions of section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act ("Act") at the time that it made the initial acquisition of bank shares and that, for purposes of the Act, the company continued to control those shares in violation of the Act. In view of these findings, individuals and bank holding companies should not enter into escrow arrangements of the type described herein, or any similar arrangement, without securing the prior approval of the Board, since such action could constitute a violation of the Act.

(c)  While the above represents the Board's conclusion with respect to the particular escrow arrangement involved in the proposal presented, the Board does not believe that the use of an escrow arrangement would always result in a violation of the Act. For example, it appears that a transaction whereby bank shares are placed in escrow pending Board action on an application would not involve a violation of the Act so long as title to such shares remains with the seller during the pendency of the application; there are no other indicia that the applicant controls the shares held in escrow; and, in the event of a Board denial of the application, the escrow agreement provides that the shares would be returned to the seller.

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.134]

[Source: 41 Fed. Reg. 9859, March 8, 1976; 41 Fed. Reg. 12009, March 23, 1976]

NOTE

Escrow arrangements involving bank stock resulting in a violation of the Bank Holding Company Act.  On February 26, 1976, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issued an interpretation (12 C.F.R. Part 250--Miscellaneous Interpretations) finding that the manner in which a company structured an escrow arrangement involving bank stock resulted in a violation of the Bank Holding Company Act:

Escrow arrangements involving bank stock resulting in a violation of the Bank Holding Company Act.  In connection with a recent application to become a bank holding company, the Board considered a situation in which shares of a bank were acquired and then placed in escrow by the applicant prior to the Board's approval of the application. The facts indicated that the applicant company had incurred debt for the purpose of acquiring bank shares and immediately after the purchase the shares were transferred to an unaffiliated escrow agent with instructions to retain possession of the shares pending Board action on the company's application to become a bank holding company. The escrow agreement provided that, if the application were approved by the Board, the escrow agent was to return the shares to the applicant company; and, if the application were denied, the escrow agent was to deliver the shares to the applicant company's shareholders upon their assumption of debt originally incurred by the applicant in the acquisition of the bank shares. In addition, the escrow agree-ment provided that, while the shares were held in escrow, the applicant could not exercise voting or any other ownership rights with respect to those shares.

On the basis of the above facts, the Board concluded that the company had violated the prior approval provisions of section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act ("Act") at the time that it made the initial acquisition of bank shares and that, for purposes of the Act, the company continued to control those shares in violation of the Act. In view of these findings individuals and bank holding companies should not enter into escrow arrangements of the type described herein, or any similar arrangement, without securing the prior approval of the Board, since such action could constitute a violation of the Act.

While the above represents the Board's conclusion with respect to the particular escrow arrangement involved in the proposal presented, the Board does not believe that the use of an escrow arrangement would always result in a violation of the Act. For example, it appears that a transaction whereby bank shares are placed in escrow pending Board action on an application would not involve a violation of the Act so long as title to such shares remains with the seller during the pendency of the application; there are no other indicia that the applicant controls the shares held in escrow; and, in the event of a Board denial of the application, the escrow agreement provides that the shares would be returned to the seller.

§ 225.136  Utilization of Foreign Subsidiaries to Sell Long-Term Debt Obligations in Foreign Markets and to Transfer the Proceeds to Their United States Parent(s) for Domestic Purposes.

For text of this interpretation, see § 211.112 of this subchapter.

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.136]

[Source:  42 Fed. Reg. 752, January 4, 1977]

§ 225.137  Acquisitions of shares pursuant to section 4(c)(6) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

(a)  The Board has received a request for an interpretation of section 4(c)(6) of the Bank Holding Company Act ("Act")1 in connection with a proposal under which a number of bank holding companies would purchase interests in an insurance company to be formed for the purpose of underwriting or reinsuring credit life and credit accident and health insurance sold in connection with extensions of credit by the stockholder bank holding companies and their affiliates.

(b)  Each participating holding company would own no more than 5 percent of the outstanding voting shares of the company. However, the investment of each holding company would be represented by a separate class of voting security, so that each stockholder would own 100 percent of its respective class. The participating companies would execute a formal "Agreement Among Stockholders" under which each would agree to use its best efforts at all times to direct or recommend to customers and clients the placement of their life, accident and health insurance directly or indirectly with the company. Such credit-related insurance placed with the company would be identified in the records of the company as having been originated by the respective stockholder. A separate capital account would be maintained for each stockholder consisting of the original capital contribution increased or decreased from time to time by the net profit or loss resulting from the insurance business attributable to each stockholder. Thus, each stockholder would receive a return on its investment based upon the claims experience and profitability of the insurance business that it had itself generated. Dividends declared by the board of directors of the company would be payable to each stockholder only out of the earned surplus reflected in the respective stockholder's capital account.

(c)  It has been requested that the Board issue an interpretation that section 4(c)(6) of the Act provides an exemption under which participating bank holding companies may acquire such interests in the company without prior approval of the Board.

(d)  On the basis of a careful review of the documents submitted, in light of the purposes and provisions of the Act, the Board has concluded that section 4(c)(6) of the Act is inapplicable to this proposal and that a bank holding company must obtain the approval of the Board before participating in such a proposal in the manner described. The Board's conclusion is based upon the following considerations:

(1)  Section 2(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a company is deemed to have control over a second company if it owns or controls "25 per centum or more of any class of voting securities" of the second company. In the case presented, the stock interest of each participant would be evidenced by a different class of stock and each would, accordingly, own 100 percent of a class of voting securities of the company. Thus, each of the stockholders would be deemed to "control" the company and prior Board approval would be required for each stockholder's acquisition of stock in the company.

The Board believes that this application of section 2(a)(2)(A) of the Act is particularly appropriate on the facts presented here. The company is, in practical effect, a conglomeration of separate business ventures each owned 100 percent by a stockholder the value of whose economic interest in the company is determined by reference to the profits and losses attributable to its respective class of stock. Furthermore, it is the Board's opinion that this application of section 2(a)(2)(A) is not inconsistent with section 4(c)(6). Even assuming that section 4(c)(6) is intended to refer to all outstanding voting shares, and not merely the outstanding shares of a particular class of securities, section 4(c)(6) must be viewed as permitting ownership of 5 percent of a company's voting stock only when that ownership does not constitute "control" as otherwise defined in the Act. For example, it is entirely possible that a company could exercise a controlling influence over the management and policies of a second company, and thus "control" that company under the Act's definitions, even though it held less than 5 percent of the voting stock of the second company. To view section 4(c)(6) as an unqualified exemption for holdings of less than 5 percent would thus create a serious gap in the coverage of the Act.

(2)  The Board believes that section 4(c)(6) should properly be interpreted as creating an exemption from the general prohibitions in section 4 on ownership of stock in nonbank companies only for passive investments amounting to not more than 5 percent of a company's outstanding stock; and that the exemption was not intended to allow a group of holding companies, through concerted action, to engage in an activity as entrepreneurs. Section 4 of the Act, of course, prohibits not only owning stock in nonbank companies, but engaging in activities other than banking or those activities permitted by the Board under section 4(c)(8) as being closely related to banking. Thus, if a holding company may be deemed to be engaging in an activity through the medium of a company in which it owns less than 5 percent of the voting stock it may nevertheless require Board approval, despite the section 4(c)(6) exemption.

(e)  To accept the argument that section 4(c)(6) is an unqualified grant of permission to a bank holding company to own 5 percent of the shares of any nonbanking company, irrespective of the nature or extent of the holding company's participation in the affairs of the nonbanking company would, in the Board's view, create the potential for serious and widespread evasion of the Act's controls over nonbanking activities. Such a construction would allow a group of 20 bank holding companies--or even a single bank holding company and one more nonbank companies--to engage in entrepreneurial joint ventures in businesses prohibited to bank holding companies, a result the Board believes to be contrary to the intent of Congress.

(f)  In this proposal, each of the participating stockholders must be viewed as engaging in the business of insurance underwriting. Each stockholder would agree to channel to the company the insurance business it generates, and the value of the interest of each stockholder would be determined by reference to the profitability of the business generated by that stockholder itself. There is no sharing or pooling among stockholders of underwriting risks assumed by the company, and profit or loss from investments is allocated on the basis of each bank holding company's allocable underwriting profit or loss. The interest of each stockholder is thus clearly that of an entrepreneur rather than that of an investor.

(g)  Accordingly, on the basis of the factual situation before the Board, and for the reasons summarized above, the Board has concluded that section 4(c)(6) of the Act cannot be interpreted to exempt the ownership of 5 percent of the voting stock of a company under the circumstances described, and that a bank holding company wishing to become a stockholder in a company under this proposal would be required to obtain the Board's approval to do so.

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.137]

[Source:  42 Fed. Reg. 1263, January 6, 1977, effective December 22, 1976, as amended at 42 Fed. Reg. 2951, January 14, 1977]

§ 225.138  Statement of policy concerning divestitures by bank holding companies.

(a)  From time to time the Board of Governors receives requests from companies subject to the Bank Holding Company Act, or other laws administered by the Board, to extend time periods specified either by statute or by Board order for the divestiture of assets held or activities engaged in by such companies. Such divestiture requirements may arise in a number of ways. For example, divestiture may be ordered by the Board in connection with an acquisition found to have been made in violation of law. In other cases the divestiture may be pursuant to a statutory requirement imposed at the time an amendment to the Act was adopted, or it may be required as a result of a foreclosure upon collateral held by the company or a bank subsidiary in connection with a debt previously contracted in good faith. Certain divestiture periods may be extended in the discretion of the Board, but in other cases the Board may be without statutory authority, or may have only limited authority, to extend a specified divestiture period.

(b)  In the past, divestitures have taken many different forms, and the Board has followed a variety of procedures in enforcing divestiture requirements. Because divestitures may occur under widely disparate factual circumstances, and because such forced dispositions may have the potential for causing a serious adverse economic impact upon the divesting company, the Board believes it is important to maintain a large measure of flexibility in dealing with divestitures. For these reasons, there can be no fixed rule as to the type of divestiture that will be appropriate in all situations. For example, where divestiture has been ordered to terminate a control relationship created or maintained in violation of the Act, it may be necessary to impose conditions that will assure that the unlawful relationship has been fully terminated and that it will not arise in the future. In other circumstances, however, less stringent conditions may be appropriate.

(1)  Avoidance of Delays in Divestitures.   Where a specific time period has been fixed for accomplishing divestiture, the affected company should endeavor and should be encouraged to complete the divestiture as early as possible during the specific period. There will generally be substantial advantages to divesting companies in taking steps to plan for and accomplish divestitures well before the end of the divestiture period. For example, delays may impair the ability of the company to realize full value for the divested assets, for as the end of the divestiture period approaches the "forced sale" aspect of the divestiture may lead potential buyers to withhold firm offers and to bargain for lower prices. In addition, because some prospective purchasers may themselves require regulatory approval to acquire the divested property, delay by the divesting company may--by leaving insufficient time to obtain such approvals--have the effect of narrowing the range of prospective purchases. Thus, delay in planning for divestiture may increase the likelihood that the company will seek an extension of the time for divestiture if difficulty is encountered in securing a purchaser, and in certain situations, of course, the Board may be without statutory authority to grant extensions.

(2)  Submission and Approval of Divestiture Plans.  When a divestiture requirement is imposed, the company affected should generally be asked to submit a divestiture plan promptly for review and approval by the Reserve Bank or the Board. Such a requirement may be imposed pursuant to the Board's authority under section 5(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act to issue such orders as may be necessary to enable the Board to administer and carry out the purposes of the Act and prevent evasions thereof. A divestiture plan should be as specific as possible, and should indicate the manner in which divestiture will be accomplished--for example, by a bulk sale of the assets to a third party, by "spinoff" or distribution of shares to the shareholders of the divesting company, or by termination of prohibited activities. In addition, the plan should specify the steps the company expects to take in effecting the divestiture and assuring its completeness, and should indicate the time schedule for taking such steps. In appropriate circumstances, the divestiture plan should make provision for assuring that "controlling influence" relationships, such as management or financial interlocks, will not continue to exist.

(3)  Periodic Progress Reports.  A company subject to divestiture requirement should generally be required to submit regular periodic reports detailing the steps it has taken to effect divestiture. Such a requirement may be imposed pursuant to the Board's authority under section 5(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act, referred to above, as well as its authority under section 5(c) of the Act to require reports for the purpose of keeping the Board informed as to whether the Act and Board regulations and orders thereunder are being complied with. Reports should set forth in detail such matters as the identities of potential buyers who have been approached by the company, the dates of discussions with potential buyers and the identities of the individuals involved in such discussions, the terms of any offers received, and the reasons for rejecting any offers. In addition, the reports should indicate whether the company has employed brokers, investment bankers or others to assist in the divestiture, or its reasons for not doing so, and should describe other efforts by the company to seek out possible purchasers. The purpose of requiring such reports is to insure that substantial and good faith efforts are being made by the company to satisfy its divestiture obligations. The frequency of such reports may vary depending upon the nature of the divestiture and the period specified for divestiture. However, such reports should generally not be required less frequently than every three months, and may in appropriate cases be required on a monthly or even more frequent basis. Progress reports as well as divestiture plans should be afforded confidential treatment.

(4)  Extensions of Divestiture Periods.   Certain divestiture periods--such such as the December 31, 1980 deadline for divestitures required by the 1970 Amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act--are not extendable. In such cases it is imperative that divestiture be accomplished in a timely manner. In certain other cases, the Board may have discretion to extend a statutorily prescribed divestiture period within specified limits. For example, under section 4(c)(2) of the Act the Board may extend for three one-year periods the two-year period in which a bank subsidiary of a holding company is otherwise required to divest shares acquired in satisfaction of a debt previously contracted in good faith. In such cases, however, when the permissible extensions expire the Board no longer has discretion to grant further extensions. In still other cases, where a divestiture period is prescribed by the Board, in the exercise of its regulatory judgment, the Board may have broader discretion to grant extensions. Where extensions of specified divestiture periods are permitted by law, extensions should not be granted except under compelling circumstances. Neither unfavorable market conditions, nor the possibility that the company may incur some loss, should alone be viewed as constituting such circumstances--particularly if the company has failed to take earlier steps to accomplish a divestiture under more favorable circumstances. Normally, a request for an extension will not be considered unless the company has established that it has made substantial and continued good faith efforts to accomplish the divestiture within the prescribed period. Furthermore, requests for extensions of divestiture periods must be made sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the prescribed period both to enable the Board to consider the request in an orderly manner and to enable the company to effect a timely divestiture in the event the request for extension is denied. Companies subject to divestiture requirements should be aware that a failure to accomplish a divestiture within the prescribed period may in and of itself be viewed as a separate violation of the Act.

(5)  Use of Trustees.  In appropriate cases a company subject to a divestiture requirement may be required to place the assets subject to divestiture with an independent trustee under instructions to accomplish a sale by a specified date, by public auction if necessary. Such a trustee may be given the responsibility for exercising the voting rights with respect to shares being divested. The use of such a trustee may be particularly appropriate where the divestiture is intended to terminate a control relationship established or maintained in violation of law, or where the divesting company has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to take timely steps to effect a divestiture.

(6)  Presumptions of Control.  Bank holding companies contemplating a divestiture should be mindful of section 2(g)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act, which creates a presumption of continued control over the transferred assets where the transferee is indebted to the transferor, or where certain interlocks exist, as well as § 225.2 of Regula- tion Y, which sets forth certain additional control presumptions. Where one of these presumptions has arisen with respect to divested assets, the divestiture will not be considered as complete until the presumption has been overcome. It should be understood that the inquiry into the termination of control relationships is not limited by the statutory and regulatory presumptions of control, and that the Board may conclude that a control relationship still exists even though the presumptions do not apply.

(7)  Role of the Reserve Banks.  The Reserve Banks have a responsibility for supervising and enforcing divestitures. Specifically, in coordination with Board staff they should review divestiture plans to assure that proposed divestitures will result in the termination of control relationships and will not create unsafe or unsound conditions in any bank or bank holding company; they should monitor periodic progress reports to assure that timely steps are being taken to effect divestitures; and they should prompt companies to take such steps when it appears that progress is not being made. Where Reserve Banks have delegated authority to extend divestiture periods, that authority should be exercised consistently with this policy statement.

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.138]

[Source:  42 Fed. Reg. 10969, February 25, 1977]

§ 225.139  Presumption of continued control under section 2(g)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

(a)  Section 2(g)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act (the "Act") establishes a statutory presumption that where certain specified relationships exist between a transferor and transferee of shares, the transferor (if it is a bank holding company, or a company that would be such but for the transfer) continues to own or control indirectly the transferred shares.1 This presumption arises by operation of law, as of the date of the transfer, without the need for any order or determination by the Board. Operation of the presumption may be terminated only by the issuance of a Board determination, after opportunity for hearing, "that the transferor is not in fact capable of controlling the transferee."2

(b)  The purpose of section 2(g)(3) is to provide the Board an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of divestitures in certain situations in which there may be a risk that the divestiture will not result in the complete termination of a control relationship. By presuming control to continue as a matter of law, section 2(g)(3) operates to allow the effectiveness of the divestiture to be assessed before the divesting company is permitted to act on the assumption that the divestiture is complete. Thus, for example, if a holding company divests its banking interest under circumstances where the presumption of continued control arises, the divesting company must continue to consider itself bound by the Act until an appropriate order is entered by the Board dispelling the presumption. Section 2(g)(3) does not establish a substantive rule that invalidates transfers to which it applies, and in a great many cases the Board has acted favorably on applications to have the presumption dispelled. It merely provides a procedural opportunity for Board consideration of the effect of such transfers in advance of their being deemed effective. Whether or not the statutory presumption arises, the substantive test for assessing the effectiveness of a divestiture is the same--that is, the Board must be assured that all control relationships between the transferor and the transferred property have been terminated and will not be reestablished.3

(c)  In the course of administering section 2(g)(3) the Board has had several occasions to consider the scope of that section. In addition, questions have been raised by and with the Board's staff as to coverage of the section. Accordingly, the Board believes it would be useful to set forth the following interpretations of section 2(g)(3):

(1)  The terms "transferor" and "transferee," as used in section 2(g)(3), include parents and subsidiaries of each. Thus, for example, where a transferee is indebted to a subsidiary of the transferor, or where a specified interlocking relationship exists between the transferor or transferee and a subsidiary of the other (or between subsidiaries of each), the presumption arises. Similarly, if a parent of the transferee is indebted to a parent of the transferor, the presumption arises. The presumption of continued control also arises where an interlock or debt relationship is retained between the divesting company and the company being divested, since the divested company will be or may be viewed as a "subsidiary" of the transferee or group of transferees.

(2)  The terms "officers," "directors," and "trustees," as used in section 2(g)(3), include persons performing functions normally associated with such positions (including general partners in a partnership and limited partners having a right to participate in the management of the affairs of the partnership) as well as persons holding such positions in an advisory or honorary capacity. The presumption arises not only where the transferee or transferred company has an officer, director or trustee "in common with" the transferor, but where the transferee himself holds such a position with the transferor.4 It should be noted that where a transfer takes the form of a pro-rata distribution, or "spinoff," of shares to a company's shareholders, officers and directors of the transferor company are likely to receive a portion of such shares. The presumption of continued control would, of course, attach to any shares transferred to officers and directors of the divesting company, whether by "spinoff" or outright sale. However, the presumption will be of legal significance--and will thus require an application under section 2(g)(3)--only where the total number of shares subject to the presumption exceeds one of the applicable thresholds in the Act. For example, where officers and directors of a one-bank holding company receive in the aggregate 25 percent or more of the stock of a bank subsidiary being divested by the holding company, the holding company would be presumed to continue to control the "divested" bank. In such a case it would be necessary for the divesting company to demonstrate that it no longer controls either the divested bank or the officer/director transferees. However, if officers and directors were to receive in the aggregate less than 25 percent of the bank's stock (and no other shares were subject to the presumption), section 2(g)(3) would not have the legal effect of presuming continued control of the bank.5 In the case of a divestiture of nonbank shares, an application under section 2(g)(3) would be required whenever officers and directors of the divesting company received in the aggregate more than 5 percent of the shares of the company being divested.

(3)  Although section 2(g)(3) refers to transfers of "shares" it is not, in the Board's view, limited to disposition of corporate stock. General or limited partnership interests, for example, are included within the term "shares." Furthermore, the transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of a company, or the transfer of such a significant volume of assets that the transfer may in effect constitute the disposition of a separate activity of the company, is deemed by the Board to involve a transfer of "shares" of that company.

(4)  The term "indebtedness" giving rise to the presumption of continued control under section 2(g)(3) of the Act is not limited to debt incurred in connection with the transfer; it includes any debt outstanding at the time of transfer from the transferee to the transferor or its subsidiaries. However, the Board believes that not every kind of indebtedness was within the contemplation of the Congress when section 2(g)(3) was adopted. Routine business credit of limited amounts and loans for personal or household purposes are generally not the kinds of indebtedness that, standing alone, support a presumption that the creditor is able to control the debtor. Accordingly, the Board does not regard the presumption of section 2(g)(3) as applicable to the following categories of credit, provided the extensions of credit are not secured by the transferred property and are made in the ordinary course of business of the transferor (or its subsidiary) that is regularly engaged in the business of extending credit: (i) consumer credit extended for personal or household use to an individual transferee; (ii) student loans made for the education of the individual transferee or a spouse or child of the transferee; (iii) a home mortgage loan made to an individual transferee for the purchase of a residence for the individual's personal use and secured by the residence; and (iv) loans made to companies (as defined in section 2(b) of the Act) in an aggregate amount not exceeding ten per cent of the total purchase price (or if not sold, the fair market value) of the transferred property. The amounts and terms of the preceding categories of credit should not differ substantially from similar credit extended in comparable circumstances to others who are not transferees. It should be understood that, while the statutory presumption in situations involving these categories of credit may not apply, the Board is not precluded in any case from examining the facts of a particular transfer and finding that the divestiture of control was ineffective based on the facts of record.

(d)  Section 2(g)(3) provides that a Board determination that a transferor is not in fact capable of controlling a transferee shall be made after opportunity for hearing. It has been the Board's routine practice since 1966 to publish notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER of applications filed under section 2(g)(3) and to offer interested parties an opportunity for a hearing. Virtually without exception no comments have been submitted on such applications by parties other than the applicant and, with the exception of one case in which the request was later withdrawn, no hearings have been requested in such cases. Because the Board believes that the hearing provision in section 2(g)(3) was intended as a protection for applicants who are seeking to have the presumption overcome by a Board order, a hearing would not be of use where an application is to be granted. In light of the experience indicating that the publication of FEDERAL REGISTER notice of such applications has not served a useful purpose, the Board has decided to alter its procedures in such cases. In the future, FEDERAL REGISTER notice of section 2(g)(3) applications will be published only in cases in which the Board's General Counsel, acting under delegated authority, has determined not to grant such an application and has referred the matter to the Board for decision.6

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.139]

[Source:  43 Fed. Reg. 6214, February 14, 1978; amended at 43 Fed. Reg. 15321, April 12, 1978; 45 Fed. Reg. 8279, February 7, 1980; 45 Fed. Reg. 11125, February 20, 1980, effective February 7, 1980]

§ 225.140  Disposition of property acquired in satisfaction of debts previously contracted.

(a)  The Board recently considered the permissibility, under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act, of a subsidiary of a bank holding company acquiring and holding assets acquired in satisfaction of a debt previously contracted in good faith (a "dpc" acquisition). In the situation presented, a lending subsidiary of a bank holding company made a "dpc" acquisition of assets and transferred them to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the bank holding company for the purpose of effecting an orderly divestiture. The ques- tion presented was whether such "dpc" assets could be held indefinitely by a bank holding company subsidiary as incidental to its permissible lending activity.

(b)  While the Board believes that "dpc" acquisitions may be regarded as normal, necessary and incidental to the business of lending, the Board does not believe that the holding of assets acquired "dpc" without any time restrictions is appropriate from the standpoint of prudent banking and in light of the prohibitions in section 4 of the Act against engaging in nonbank activities. If a nonbanking subsidiary of a bank holding company were permitted, either directly or through a subsidiary, to hold "dpc" assets of substantial amount over an extended period of time, the holding of such property could result in an unsafe or unsound banking practice or in the holding company engaging in an impermissible activity in connection with the assets, rather than liquidating them.

(c)  The Board notes that section 4(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act provides an exemption from the prohibitions of section 4 of the Act for bank holding company subsidiaries to acquire shares "dpc" . It also provides that such "dpc" shares may be held for a period of two years, subject to the Board's authority to grant three one-year extensions up to a maximum of five years.1 Viewed in light of the Congressional policy evidenced by section 4(c)(2), the Board believes that a lending subsidiary of a bank holding company or the holding company itself, should be permitted, as an incident to permissible lending activities, to make acquisitions of "dpc" assets. Consistent with the principles underlying the provisions of section 4(c)(2) of the Act and as a matter of prudent banking practice, such assets may be held for no longer than five years from the date of acquisition. Within the divestiture period it is expected that the company will make good faith efforts to dispose of "dpc" shares or assets at the earliest practicable date. While no specific authorization is necessary to hold such assets for the five-year period, after two years from the date of acquisition of such assets, the holding company should report annually on its efforts to accomplish divestiture to its Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank will monitor the efforts of the company to effect an orderly divestiture, and may order divestiture before the end of the five-year period if supervisory concerns warrant such action.

(d)  The Board recognizes that there are instances where a company may encounter particular difficulty in attempting to effect an orderly divestiture of "dpc" real estate holdings within the divestiture period, notwithstanding its persistent good faith efforts to dispose of such property. In the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, (Pub. L. 96-221) Congress, recognizing that real estate possesses unusual characteristics, amended the National Banking Act to permit national banks to hold real estate for five years and for an additional five-year period subject to certain conditions. Consistent with the policy underlying the recent Congressional enactment, and as a matter of supervisory policy, a bank holding company may be permitted to hold real estate acquired "dpc" beyond the initial five-year period provided that the value of the real estate on the books of the company has been written down to fair market value, the carrying costs are not significant in relation to the overall financial position of the company, and the company has made good faith efforts to effect divestiture. Companies holding real estate for this extended period are expected to make active efforts to dispose of it, and should keep the Reserve Bank advised on a regular basis concerning their ongoing efforts. Fair market value should be derived from appraisals, comparable sales or some other reasonable method. In any case, "dpc" real estate would not be permitted to be held beyond 10 years from the date of its acquisition.

(e)  With respect to the transfer by a subsidiary of other "dpc" shares or assets to another company in the holding company system, including a section 4(c)(1)(D) liquidating subsidiary, or to the holding company itself, such transfers would not alter the original divestiture period applicable to such shares or assets at the time of their acquisition. Moreover, to ensure that assets are not carried at inflated values for extended periods of time, the Board expects, in the case of all such intracompany transfers, that the shares or assets will be transferred at a value no greater than the fair market value at the time of transfer and that the transfer will be made in a normal arms-length transaction.

(f)  With regard to "dpc" assets acquired by a banking subsidiary of a holding company, so long as the assets continue to be held by the bank itself, the Board will regard them as being solely within the regulatory authority of the primary supervisor of the bank.

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.140]

[Source:  45 Fed. Reg. 49905, July 28, 1980, effective July 22, 1980]

§ 225.141  Operations subsidiaries of a bank holding company.

In orders approving the retention by a bank holding company of a 4(c)(8) subsidiary, the Board has stated that it would permit, without any specific regulatory approval, the formation of a wholly-owned subsidiary of an approved 4(c)(8) company to engage in activities that such a company could itself engage in directly through a division or department. (Northwestern Financial Corporation, 65 Federal Reserve Bulletin 566 (1979).) Section 4(a)(2) of the Act provides generally that a bank holding company may engage directly in the business of managing and controlling banks and permissible nonbank activities, and in furnishing services directly to its subsidiaries. Even though section 4 of the Act generally prohibits the acquisition of shares of nonbanking organizations, the Board does not believe that such prohibition should apply to the formation by a holding company of a wholly-owned subsidiary to engage in activities that it could engage in directly. Accordingly, as a general matter, the Board will permit without any regulatory approval a bank holding company to form a wholly-owned subsidiary to perform servicing activities for subsidiaries that the holding company itself could perform directly or through a department or a division under section 4(a)(2) of the Act. The Board believes that permitting this type of subsidiary is not inconsistent with the nonbanking prohibitions of section 4 of the Act, and is consistent with the authority in section 4(c)(1)(C) of the Act, which permits a bank holding company, without regulatory approval, to form a subsidiary to perform services for its banking subsidiaries. The Board notes, however, that a servicing subsidiary established by a bank holding company in reliance on this interpretation will be an affiliate of the subsidiary bank of the holding company for the purposes of the lending restrictions of section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. (12 U.S.C. 371c)

The Board has issued this interpretation pursuant to its statutory authority under sections 4(a)(2) and 5(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. 1843(a)(2) and 1844(b).

[Codified to 12 C.F.R. § 225.141]

[Source: 45 Fed. Reg. 54326, August 15, 1980, effective August 11, 1980]

1 Section 225.4(c)(3) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.4(c)(3)) generally prohibits a bank holding company or its subsidiary engaged in activities pursuant to authority of section 4(c)(8) of the Act from being a party to any merger "or acquisition of assets other than in the ordinary course of business" without prior Board approval. Go back to Text

2 In accordance with the provisions of section 4(c)(8) of the Act and § 225.4(b) of Regulation Y, the acquisition of a going concern requires prior Board approval. Go back to Text

1 Section 4(c)(6) of the Act provides an exemption from the Act's prohibitions on ownership of shares in nonbanking companies for "shares of any company which do not include more than 5 per centum of the outstanding voting shares of such company." Go back to Text

1 The presumption arises where the transferee "is indebted to the transferor, or has one or more officers, directors, trustees, or beneficiaries in common with or subject to control by the transferor." Go back to Text

2 The Board has delegated to its General Counsel the authority to issue such determinations, 12 CFR 265.2(b)(1). Go back to Text

3 It should be noted, however, that the Board will require termination of any interlocking management relationships between the divesting company and the transferee or the divested company as a precondition of finding that a divestiture is complete. Similarly, the retention of an economic interest in the divested company that would create an incentive for the divesting company to attempt to influence the management of the divested company will preclude a finding that the divestiture is complete. (See the Board's Order in the matter of "International Bank", 1977 Federal Reserve Bulletin 1106, 1113.) Go back to Text

4 It has been suggested that the words "in common with" in section 2(g)(3) evidence an intent to make the presumption applicable only were the transferee is a company having an interlock with the transferor. Such an interpretation would, in the Board's view, create an unwarranted gap in the coverage of section 2(g)(3). Furthermore, because the presumption clearly arises where the transferee is an individual who is indebted to the transferor such an interpretation would result in an illogical internal inconsistency in the statute. Go back to Text

5 Of course, the fact that section 2(g)(3) would not operate to presume continued control would not necessarily mean that control had in fact been terminated if control could be exercised through other means. Go back to Text

6 It should be noted that in the event a third party should take exception to a Board order under section 2(g)(3) finding that control has been terminated, any rights such party might have would not be prejudiced by the order. If such party brought facts to the Board's attention indicating that control had not been terminated the Board would have ample authority to revoke its order and take necessary remedial action.
  Orders issued under section 2(g)(3) are published in the FEDERAL REGISTER and in the Federal Reserve "Bulletin."
Go back to Text

1 The Board notes that where the dpc shares or other similar interests represent less than 5 percent of the total of such interests outstanding, they may be retained on the basis of section 4(c)(6), even if originally acquired dpc. Go back to Text


[Table of Contents] [Previous Page] [Next Page] [Search]

Last updated December 28, 2012 regs@fdic.gov