The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Federal Reserve Bank
OF DALLAS
ROBERT
D. M c T E E R , J R .
DALLAS, TEXA S
P R E S ID E N T
and chief executive officer
January 5 1996
75265-5906
Notice 96-05
TO:
The Chief Executive Officer of each
member bank and others concerned in
the Eleventh Federal Reserve District
SUBJECT
Request for Public Comment on
Proposed Amendments to Regulation K
(International Banking Operations)
DETAILS
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has issued for public
comment proposed amendments to Regulation K (International Banking Operations).
The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Interstate
Act) removed geographic restrictions on interstate banking by foreign banks effective
September 29, 1995, and requires certain foreign banks without U.S. deposit-taking
offices to select a home state for the first time.
The proposed amendments to Regulation K would require these foreign
banks to select a home state by March 31, 1996, and would immediately remove
outdated restrictions on certain mergers by U.S. bank subsidiaries of foreign banks
outside the home state of the foreign bank. The Board is also requesting comment on
other aspects of the Interstate Act as it applies to foreign banks.
The Board must receive comments by February 5, 1996. Comments should
be addressed to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.
All comments should refer to Docket No. R-0911.
ATTACHMENT
A copy of the Board’s notice as it appears on pages 67050-54, Vol. 60, No.
249, of the Federal Register dated December 28, 1995, is attached.
For additional copies, bankers and others are encouraged to use one of the following toll-free numbers in contacting the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas: Dallas Office (800) 333 -4460; El Paso Branch Intrastate (800) 592-1631, Interstate (800) 351-1012; Houston
Branch Intrastate (800) 392-4162, Interstate (800) 221-0363; San Antonio Branch Intrastate (800) 292-5810.
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
MORE INFORMATION
For more information, please contact Howard Edmonds at (214) 922-6278.
For additional copies of this Bank’s notice, please contact the Public Affairs Department
at (214) 922-5254.
Sincerely yours,
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 211
{R egulation K; D ocket No. R -0896]
Jnternational Operations of United
States Banking Organizations
.AGENCY: Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
ACTION:
This final rule amends
Subpart A of Regulation K (International
Operations of U.S. Banking
Organizations) to provide expanded
general consent authority for
investments in foreign companies by
SUMMARY:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 249 / Thursday, December 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 67051
U.S. banking organizations that are
strongly capitalized and well managed.
This expanded authority is designed to
permit U.S. banking organizations
meeting these requirements to make
larger investments without the need for
prior approval or review. Certain
investments or activities, however, are
not eligible for the expanded authority.
The final rule requires an investor
making use of the expanded authority to
provide the Board with certain
information after an investment has
been made. In addition, for those
investments requiring prior notice to the
Board, the rule would streamline the
processing of such notices.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21,1995.
On September 25,1995, the Board
requested public comment on a
proposed rule that would expand the
general consent authority for strongly
capitalized and well-managed banking
organizations. 60 FR 49350. The
expanded general consent authority
(expanded authority) was intended to
reduce the burden associated with
obtaining approval for such investments
for U.S. banking organizations meeting
these requirements. The comment
period ended on October 30,1995. The
Board received nine public comments
on the proposal. Comments were
submitted by six banking organizations
and three trade associations. The Board
has considered the comments and, as a
result of its further review, has made
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
several changes to address these
Kathleen M. O’Day, Associate General
comments in the final rule.
Counsel (202/452-3786), Sandra L.
The final rule removes the current $25
Richardson, Managing Senior Counsel
million cap on general consent
(202/452-6406), Jonathan D. Stoloff,
investments, which is currently the
Senior Attorney (202/452-3269), or
binding constraint on such investment
Andres L. Navarrete, Attorney (202/
in almost all cases, and instead ties the
452-2300), Legal Division; William A.
expanded general consent limits to the
Ryback, Associate Director (202/452capital of the investor. An aggregate
2722), Michael G. Martinson, Assistant
Director (202/452-2798), or Betsy Cross, limit on investments made in any 12month period under the expanded
Manager (202/452-2574), Division of
authority is established. The final rule
Banking Supervision and Regulation,
•also specifies the nature of investments
Board of Governors of the Federal
eligible for the expanded authority, as
Reserve System. For the users of
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf well as the types of activities that may
be conducted by the organization in
(TDD) only, please contact Dorothea
which the investment is to be made.
Thompson (202/452-3544), Board of
Comments received regarding each of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
these areas are discussed below.
System, 20th and C Streets, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20551.
Investor Eligibility for Expanded
General Consent
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Subpart A
of the Board’s Regulation K sets out the
The final rule limits the expanded
rules governing the foreign activities of
general consent authority to those
U.S. banking organizations, including
investors that are strongly capitalized
procedures for making investments in
and well managed. The expanded
foreign banking and non-banking
authority is available for investments by
organizations. Under section 211.5(c),
member banks, bank holding
all such investments, whether made
companies, Edge corporations that are
directly or indirectly, are required to be not engaged in banking, and agreement
made in accordance with the general
corporations. The expanded authority is
consent, prior notice, or specific consent available only where the investor, its
procedures contained in that paragraph. parent member bank, if any, and the
12 CFR 211.5(c). No prior notice or
bank holding company are strongly
application is required for any
capitalized and well managed, as those
investment that falls within the general
terms are defined by the Board. Strongly
consent authority. Such authority at
capitalized, in relation to member
present is limited to investments where banks, is defined with reference to the
the total amount invested in any one
definition of “well capitalized” set out
organization, in one transaction or a
in the prompt corrective action
series of transactions, does not exceed
standards, which requires, at a
the lesser of $25 million or 5 percent of minimum, a 6 percent tier 1 and 10
the investor’s Tier 1 capital where the
percent total risk-based capital ratio and
investor is a member bank, bank holding a leverage ratio of 5 percent.2 12 CFR
company, or Edge corporation engaged
208.33(b)(1). Edge or agreement
in banking.1
• In the case of an Edge corporation not engaged
in banking, the relevant general consent limit is the
lesser of $25 m illion or 25 percent of its Tier 1
capital.
2The member bank also may not be subject to any
written agreement, order, capital directive, or
prompt corrective action directive issued by the
Board to meet and maintain a specific capital level
for any capital measure. 12 CFR 208.33(b)(1).
corporations and bank holding
companies are required to have a total
risk-based capital ratio of 10 percent or
more in order to be considered strongly
capitalized for purposes of the
expanded authority.
One commenter asked for clarification
with respect to the applicability of the
capital tests, maintaining that the
capital requirement should apply only
to the investor and entities that control
the investor. Section 211.5(c)(2)(i)(F) of
the proposed rule indicates that this is
in fact the requirement.
Another commenter pointed out that
risk-based capital ratios have not been
applicable previously to Edge
corporations not engaged in banking.
The Board notes this comment but
considers that calculating such a ratio
would not impose an undue burden on
those investors seeking to utilize the
expanded authority.
The definition of well managed
included in the proposed rule provided
that, in order to be considered well
managed, the Edge or agreement
corporation, its parent member bank, if
any, and the bank holding company
must each have received a composite
rating of at least 1 or 2, with no
component below 3, at its most recent
examination or review. Comments
submitted advocated relying solely
upon the composite rating for purposes
of the “well managed” definition. The
final rule incorporates this change.
However, an additional element also has
been incorporated in the definition to
clarify that any investor that is under a
formal supervisory action would be
ineligible to take advantage of the
expanded authority. The Board believes
the existence of any such supervisory
action would be indicative of
managerial deficiencies such that the
expanded authority should not be
available.
Individual Investment Limit
Limits were proposed on the
expanded authority that were tied to the
level of capital of the investor. For Edge
or agreement corporations, the relevant
limits were proposed to be no more than
the lesser of 20 percent of the Edge or
agreement corporation’s tier 1 capital or
2 percent of the tier 1 capital of its
parent member bank. For member banks
and bank holding companies, the
proposed limit was no more than 2
percent of tier 1 capital.
One commenter proposed that the
limit be raised to at least 2.5 percent of
total capital. Several commenters noted
that the existing general consent
authority in Regulation K sets the limit
at 5 percent of tier 1 capital, and
advocated retention of the higher limit.
67052 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 249 / Thursday, December 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
The Board notes, however, that the
investments and not to investments
current limit is expressed as the lesser
made pursuant to prior notice or
o f $25 million or 5 percent of tier 1
specific consent.
capital; the $25 million limit on general
However, one commenter argued that
consent investments has proved to be
investments made under existing
the constraining factor, particularly for
general consent authority should not
U.S. banking organizations that would
count toward the aggregate limit
meet the strongly capitalized standard.
because
once the aggregate limit is
The Board believes that a general
reached, prior notice would be required
consent limit of 5 percent of tier 1
for small investments representing little
capital, in the absence of an absolute
risk to the investor. The Board agrees
dollar cap, would be too high even for
that the additional regulatory burden
organizations that are strongly
associated with including investments
capitalized and well managed because
made under the existing general consent
an initial capital investment in, for
example, a subsidiary, may be leveraged authority in calculating the aggregate
many times resulting in a potential total limits outweighs any supervisory
benefits. Accordingly, the aggregate
exposure far in excess of the initial 5%
limit shall apply only to investments
of capital. The Board has therefore
decided to retain the proposed 2 percent made under the expanded general
consent authority.
limit in the final rule.
In response to a comment seeking
The proposal also provided that, in
clarification that the existing
determining compliance with the
authorization for general consent
aggregate limits and in order to avoid
investments will continue to be
double counting of investments, an
available, the Board notes that the
investment in a subsidiary shall be
expanded authority is parallel authority counted only once notwithstanding that
for making investments by banking
such subsidiary may, within the next 12
organizations that meet the strongly
months, downstream all or part of such
capitalized and well managed
investment to another subsidiary.
standards. As is clear from section
211.5(c)(2)(i)(B) and (C) of Regulation K, Several commenters argued for a longer
time period in which to make
however, the limits on investment in
downstream investments or that no time
any one organization apply on a
limit
should be imposed. Tha Board
cumulative basis over time and include
investments made under the existing as believes the 12 month time limit should
be retained as it strikes an appropriate
well as the expanded authority.
balance between easing regulatory
Several commenters argued that
expanded authority should be available burden and maintaining adequate
oversight, given that the condition of a
for additional investments in existing
banking organization may change over
subsidiaries. The Board notes that, as
indicated in section 211.5(c)(2)(iv)(D) of time. Supervisory views regarding
downstreaming investments also may
the final rule, using the expanded
change over time in light of changed
authority for making additional
investments in existing subsidiaries and circumstances.
joint ventures is permissible under the
One commenter argued that
terms of the final rule, subject to the
downstream investments should not be
investment limits and the other
subject to the individual investment
investment restrictions.
limits as well as the aggregate
investment limits. However, the Board
Aggregate Investment Limit
believes that supervisory concerns
The proposed rule provided for an
overall aggregate investment limit on all regarding the need to monitor
diversification of investments in view of
investments made during the previous
12-month period under the existing and any changed circumstances relating to
the investor means that the limits on
the expanded authority. Under this
investments in one organization should
limit, all such investments, when
include downstream investments.
aggregated with the proposed
Finally, a commenter argued that
investment, may not exceed the lesser of
restructurings (through the contribution
50 percent of the Edge or agreement
of an investment from one affiliate to
corporation’s total capital or 5 percent
another) should also be encompassed
of the parent member bank’s total
within the same exclusion as that
capital, in the case of an Edge or
provided for downstream investments.
agreement corporation, or 5 percent of
its total capital, in the case of a member The Board notes in response to this
bank or a bank holding company. A
comment that Regulation K already
number of commenters supported the
provides general consent authority for
Board’s position that the aggregate
transfers among affiliates at net asset
limits apply only to general consent
value.
Eligible Investments
The proposal limited the types of
investments eligible for the expanded
authority, as well as the types of
activities that may be conducted by the
organization in which the investment is
to be made. Ineligible investments
included an investor’s initial entry into
a foreign country, the establishment or
acquisition of an initial subsidiary bank
in a foreign country, investments in
general partnerships or unlimited
liability companies, and an acquisition
of shares or assets of a corporation that
is not an affiliate of the investor.
Exclusion of the latter type of
acquisition was intended to limit the
expanded authority to investments in de
novo subsidiaries (including subsequent
investments in such subsidiaries) by
excluding the acquisition of going
concerns.
Commenters requested clarification as
to whether additional investments made
in existing subsidiaries and joint
ventures would be eligible investments
under the expanded authority. The final
rule authorizes investments in existing
subsidiaries and joint ventures,
provided they meet the remaining
criteria for eligible investments and the
criteria for eligible activities.
Several commenters opposed the
proposal’s exclusion of initial
acquisitions of going concerns from the
expanded investment authority.
However, the Board continues to believe
such exclusion is appropriate in light of
the potential additional risk associated
with such investments. These risks are
greater than simply the amount of
capital invested, extending also, for
example, to the value and quality of the
acquired organization’s assets. The
Board therefore considers that prior
notice of such an investment is
appropriate.
Several commenters argued that the
acquisition or establishment of an initial
bank subsidiary in a foreign country
should be permissible without prior
notice to the Board where the investor
already has a branch in that country.
The Board believes that such a change
may be inconsistent with its
responsibility as home country
supervisor under the Minimum
Standards for Supervision of
Internationally Active Banks established
by the Basle Supervisors Committee, in
those cases where the Board has not
previously approved or reviewed the
establishment of a significant subsidiary
bank in that country. The Minimum
Standards contemplate that the home
country supervisor should specifically
authorize any outward expansion by a
bank, both to inform the home country
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 249 / Thursday, December 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 67053
(44 U.S.C. Ch. 35; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix
A.l), the Board reviewed the rule under
the authority delegated to the Board by
the Office of Management and Budget.
The collection of information
requirements in this regulation are
found in 12 CFR 211.5(c). The
submission of this information is
mandatory under sections 25 and 25A of
the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601604(a) and 611-631) and sections
4(c)(13), 4(u)(14), and 5(c) of the Bank
Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
Post-investment Notice
1843(c)(13), 1843(c)(14) and 1844(c)) to
The proposal required an investor
evidence compliance with the
making use of the expanded authority to
requirements of Regulation K. The
provide the Board with a post
Federal Reserve uses the information to
investment notice within 10 business
monitor the international operations of
days of making the investment.
U.S. banking organizations, and to fulfill
However, the Board requested comment
its supervisory responsibilities under
on whether the requirements relating to
Regulation K. The respondents are
the post-investment notice could be
banks, bank holding companies, and
incorporated into existing reporting
Edge and agreement corporations.
The Federal Reserve may not conduct
requirements.
Several commenters argued the post
or sponsor, and an organization is not
Processing Procedures
investment notice would be
required to respond to, this information
unnecessary and inconsistent with the
The final rule incorporates the change collection unless it displays a currently
goal of reducing regulatory burden,
in processing procedures indicating that valid OMB control number. The OMB
particularly since investors are required the 45 day period commences upon
control number is 7100-0107.
No comments specifically addressing
to report acquisitions of shares in
receipt of the notice or application to
foreign organizations on an existing
the estimate burden were received.
invest in a foreign company.
The Federal Reserve estimates that,
Federal Reserve form (F.R. 2064) by the
Commenters generally supported this
based on 1995 data, 10 responses per
end of the month following the month
change in processing procedures.
year will be filed by U.S. banking
in which the investment was made.
Finally, one commenter noted
organizations under the expanded
Commenters maintained that the Board
generally that Regulation K is a
general consent authority. Currently, the
already has sufficient information to
technically difficult regulation and
investments that will be permitted
monitor investments in foreign
expressed concern that the proposed
under expanded general consent require
subsidiaries through existing reporting
revisions, by incorporating additional
and examination authority. Based upon
technical language, would have the side prior notification on the form for
International Applications and Prior
the comments, the Board has decided to effect of further diminishing the
Notifications under Subparts A and C of
eliminate the 10 business day notice
readability of the regulation. The Board
Regulation K (FR K—1; OMB No. 7100requirement. However, the Board has
notes that the five year review of
0107). The estimated burden for each
determined that certain limited
Regulation K mandated by the
prior notification can range from 1 to 10
additional information that is not at
International Banking Act of 1978 is
present provided in the FR 2064 is
hours, depending on its complexity.
now underway. Ways in which
Under the revised rule, an investor will
required to be submitted; such
Regulation K may be simplified will be
information may be submitted on the
ho
longer submit information prior to
considered during the course of that
same schedule as the FR 2064, namely,
the investment; instead, it will submit
review.
by the end of the month following the
limited information regarding specific
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
month in which the investment was
areas of potential risks of the investment
made.
after the investment is made. The
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the
The Board agrees with those
volume of this information will vary
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96commenters who argued that additional 354, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Board
depending on the type of investment;
information should be limited to cover
certifies that this final rule will not have the annual burden per respondent is
specific areas of potential risks
estimated to be .5 hours, on average.
a significant economic impact on a
regarding investments made under the
substantial number of small entities that Based on an hourly cost of $20, the
expanded general consent authority and are subject to the regulation.
annual cost to the public is estimated to
accordingly has narrowed the
be $100. There are no start up costs or
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), this
information that would be required to
capital costs.
amendment to Regulation K will
be submitted following exercise of the
The information collected is not
become effective immediately. This
expanded authority. More specifically,
deemed confidential. The applying
final rule grants an exemption for
the information that would be required
organization has the opportunity to
certain U.S. banking organizations, and
under the final rule is limited to: the
request confidentiality for information
therefore the Board waives the 30 day
respective responsibilities of the parties general requirement for publication of a that it believes will qualify for a
if the investment is a joint venture; one
Freedom of Information Act exemption:
substantive rule.
Send comments regarding the burden
year projections for the organization in
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
estimate, or any other aspect of this
which the investment is made; and,
collection of information, including
where the investment is to redress a
In accordance with section 3506 of
suggestions for reducing the burden, to:
loss, a description of the reasons for the the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
supervisor of the intention of the bank
to operate in another country and to
provide the host supervisor with the
comfort that the home supervisor does
not object to the expansion and takes
responsibility for the supervision of the
branch or subsidiary bank.
Consequently, the Board believes it is
appropriate to retain the prior notice
requirement for establishment of an
initial subsidiary bank in another
country under the expanded authority.
loss and the steps taken to address the
problem. This would provide to the
Board the minimum information
necessary to monitor any additional
risks posed by such investments.
One commenter requested
clarification as to whether or not the
post-investment notice is intended to
cover investments made pursuant to the
existing general consent authority,
which would make the proposal more
restrictive than the present requirements
for general consent investments. The
Board notes that the post-investment
notice would be required only in
relation to investments made under the
expanded authority.
In response to another comment, the
Board wishes to clarify that investments
in newly established companies are not
precluded by the restriction on the
acquisition of shares or assets of an
organization that is not an affiliate or
joint venture of the investor.
67054 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 249 / Thursday, December 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th and C
Streets, N.W., Washington, DC 20551;
and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project
(7100-0107), Washington, DC 20503.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 211
Exports, Federal Reserve System,
Foreign banking, Holding companies,
Investments, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in tlfe
preamble, the Board of Governors
amends 12 CFR Part 211 as set forth
below:
PART 211— INTERNATIONAL
BANKING OPERATIONS
(REGULATION K)
1. The authority citation for Part 211
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 221 et seq., 1818,
1841 et seq., 3101 et seq., 3901 et seq.
2. Section 211.2 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (u) and (v) as
paragraphs (v) and (w), respectively,
and by adding new paragraphs (u) and
(x) to read as follows:
§211.2
*
*
D efinitions.
*
*
*
(u) Strongly capitalized means:
(1) In relation to a parent member
bank, that the standards set out in 12
CFR 208.33(b)(1) are satisfied; and
(2) In relation to an Edge or
Agreement corporation or a bank
holding company, that it has a total riskbased capital ratio of 10.0 percent or
greater.
*
*
*
*
*
(x) Well managed means that the Edge
or Agreement corporation, its parent
member bank, if any, and the bank
holding company have each received a
composite rating of 1 or 2 at its most
recent examination or review and are
not subject to any supervisory
enforcement action.
3. Section 211.5 is amended by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3) as paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)
respectively and by adding a new
paragraph (c)(2); and
b. In newly designated paragraph
(c)(3), by removing the word “accepted”
in the third sentence and adding in its
place the word “received”.
The addition reads as follows:
§21 1.5
*
*
In v e stm e n ts a n d a ctiv ities a b ro a d .
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
*
(2)(i) Expanded general consent for de
novo investments. Notwithstanding the
amount limitations of paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, but subject to the other
limitations of this section, the Board
grants expanded general consent
authority for investments in an
organization by an investor that is
strongly capitalized and well managed
if:
(A) The activities of the organization
are limited to activities in which a
national bank may engage directly or in
which a subsidiary may engage under
paragraph (d) of this section;
(B) In the case of an investor that is
an Edge corporation that is not engaged
in banking or an Agreement corporation,
the total amount invested in such
organization (in one transaction or a
series of transactions) does not exceed
the lesser of 20 percent of the investor’s
Tier 1 capital or 2 percent of the Tier 1
capital of the parent member bank;
(C) In the case of a bank holding
company or member bank investor, the
total amount invested in such
organization (in one transaction or a
series of transactions) directly or
indirectly does not exceed 2 percent of
the investor’s Tier 1 capital;
(D) All investments made, directly or
indirectly, by an Edge corporation not
engaged in banking or an Agreement
corporation during the previous 12month period under paragraph (c)(2) of
this section, when aggregated with the
proposed investment, would not exceed
the lesser of 50 percent of the total
capital of the Edge or Agreement
corporation, or 5 percent of the total
capital of the parent member bank;
(E) All investments made, directly or
indirectly, by a member bank or a bank
holding company during the previous
12-month period under paragraph (c)(2)
of this section, when aggregated with
the proposed investment, would not
exceed 5 percent of its total capital; and
(F) Both before and immediately after
the proposed investment the investor,
its parent member bank, if any, and any
parent bank holding company are
strongly capitalized and well managed.
(ii) Determining aggregate investment
limits. For purposes of determining
compliance with the aggregate
investment limits set out in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i)(D) and (E) of this section, an
investment by an investor in a
subsidiary shall be counted only once
notwithstanding that such subsidiary
may, within 12 months of the date of
making the investment, downstream all
or any part of such investment to
another subsidiary.
(iii) Additional investments. An
investor that makes investments under
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section may
also make additional investments in an
organization under the standards set
forth in paragraphs (c)(l)(ii), (c)(l)(iii)
and (c)(l)(iv) of this section.
(iv) Ineligible investments. The
following investments are not eligible
for the general consent under paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section:
(A) An investment in a foreign
country where the investor does not
have an affiliate or a branch;
(B) The establishment or acquisition
of an initial subsidiary bank in a foreign
country;
(C) Investments in general
partnerships or unlimited liability
companies; and
(D) An acquisition of shares or assets
of an organization that is not an affiliate
or joint venture of the investor.
(v) Post-investment notice. By the end
of the month following the month in
which the investment is made, the
investor shall provide the Board with
the following information relating to the
investment:
(A) If the investment is in a joint
venture, the respective responsibilities
of the parties to the joint venture;
(B) Projections for the organization in
which the investment is made for the
first year following the investment; and
(C) Where the investment is made in
an organization that incurred a loss in
the last year, a description of the
reasons for the loss and the steps taken
to address the problem.
*
*
*
*
*
By order of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System , December 21, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-31362 Filed 1 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 6210-01-P
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
P.O. BOX 655906
DALLAS, TX 75265-5906
@FedFRASER