1[11134]
July 23, 1999
TO: COMPLIANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE No. 30-99
RE: DRAFT INSTITUTE LETTER ON AGGREGATION FOR CONTROL PURPOSES
UNDER THE CHANGE IN BANK CONTROL ACT AND THE BANK HOLDING
COMPANY ACT
______________________________________________________________________________
At the request of several members of the Compliance Advisory Committee, the Institute has
prepared a draft letter (attached) requesting that the Federal Reserve Board (“Board”) clarify that, in
certain circumstances, entities comprising multi-service investment management organizations would
not be required to aggregate beneficial ownership of securities for purposes of determining whether
prior notice and Board approval is required under the Change in Bank Control Act (the “CIBC Act”) or
the Bank Holding Company Act (the “BHC Act”), and Regulation Y thereunder. The letter states that
the entities comprising these multi-service investment management organizations often include one or
more investment companies and that the Institute believes that investment companies and other
advisory clients of these investment management entities may be adversely affected if securities of a
bank or bank holding company held by these entities must be aggregated for purposes of the CIBC Act
and the BHC Act.
The letter also states that the Institute believes that assumptions regarding control for
aggregation purposes based solely on corporate form or affiliation are not warranted when the entities
comprising multi-service investment management organizations operate as independent and separate
business units. Requiring prior notice and approval of the Board each time these entities, in the
aggregate, acquire ten percent or more of any class of voting securities of a state member bank or bank
holding company (as required by Board regulations) imposes unnecessary regulatory burdens and
operating constraints on these entities. Requiring prior notice and approval also adversely affects the
types and amounts of investments these entities can make and discourages the acquisition of bank
securities.
The letter suggests that the functional approach applied by other federal regulations in
determining whether an entity controls another entity for aggregation purposes can be applied to the
Board’s requirements in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the CIBC Act and the BHC Act,
i.e., preventing these entities from directing, influencing, or controlling the management or policies of a
bank if they were to acquire in the aggregate more than 10 percent of the outstanding stock of the bank.
The letter therefore requests that the Board clarify that if certain conditions are met, entities comprising
multi-service investment management organizations will be treated as separate entities not required to
aggregate their holdings under the CIBC Act and the BHC Act. These conditions could include, for
example, undertakings by these entities that they will, in the normal course of business (1) not exercise
or attempt to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of the bank or its bank
subsidiaries; (2) maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
2flow of information to and from the entities comprising the organization that relate to the voting and
investment powers over the securities; (3) not have or attempt to have any employees serve as an officer,
agent, or employee of the bank or its bank subsidiaries; (4) not take any action causing the bank or its
bank subsidiaries to become a subsidiary of the investment management organization; (5) not solicit or
participate in soliciting proxies with respect to any matter presented to the shareholders of the bank or
its bank subsidiaries; and (6) not seek or accept representation on the board of directors of the bank or
its subsidiaries.
If you have any comments on the Institute’s draft letter, please contact the undersigned by
phone at (202) 371-5408, by fax (202) 326-5839, or by e-mail at aburstein@ici.org by Monday, August
16.
Ari Burstein
Assistant Counsel
Attachment
Latest Comment Letters:
TEST - ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Response to the European Commission on the Savings and Investments Union