May 24, 2012

Reform Reading: FDIC Gets Tough, Banks May Get Bigger Dividends

 

FDIC Gets Tough With Failed Banks

Former top executives and board directors of failed banks are being pressured to settle fraud allegations soon or fight them in court. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has authorized filing lawsuits that would seek to recover more than $2 billion from some 80 or so former bank execs, reports Scott Reckard of the Los Angeles Times. The agency, which is eager to use settlement money to replenish its insurance fund, could end up suing or settling with former execs of about one-quarter of the more than 300 banks that have collapsed since the start of 2008.

So far the FDIC has filed only two civil suits – a July complaint against former IndyMac Bank executives seeking $300 million and a November case against former Heritage Community Bank insiders.

Coming Soon: Bigger Bank Dividends?

The Fed will soon issue guidance allowing some banks to boost their dividend payments to shareholders, Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo said in a speech today. But first, the banks have to detail to the Fed exactly how well prepared they are to face tough economic conditions and remain well capitalized. Banks that received capital injections from the Treasury Department’s bailout program during the crisis were required to halt or cut dividend payments.

Big Banks Blitz Bureaucrats

Big banks and financial services companies shifted some lobbying from Congress to the federal agencies that are writing regulations to carry out the Dodd-Frank law. Third quarter lobbying data showed 723 companies and groups lobbied on the financial reforms that were signed into law in late July, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Of that group, 123 companies or groups specifically targeted the Securities and Exchange Commission for lobbying while 93 mentioned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, according to information submitted on the quarterly disclosure forms. That marks a substantial double-digit increase over the second quarter, the center said.

Reform-watchers can keep an eye on lobbyists’ meetings with financial regulators by checking the following sites every week:

Fed Won’t Wait for Consumer Agency on Money Transfers

One of the first consumer-oriented regulations to spring from the Dodd-Frank law is shaping up to be stricter disclosure rules for Western Union Co., MoneyGram International Inc., and other remittance companies. Bloomberg, citing unidentified sources, says the Fed is already looking at how to force the money transfer companies to tell consumers more about fees and exchange rates. If the Fed doesn’t get the regulation done by July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will take over and finish it.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Deputy Editor

Julie Vorman joined the Center in 2010 after more than 20 years as a correspondent, bureau chief, and editor at Reuters. As the Washington company news editor, she guided Reuters’ coverage of federal multi-billion-dollar bailouts to U.S. banks and automakers after the 2008 financial meltdown, the healthcare industry’s influence as Congress attempted to reform healthcare, and changes within the Securities and Exchange Commission after the Madoff investment fraud scheme. Vorman led the Reuters team that won the “Best in Business Breaking News” award from the Society...

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.