The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Minutes for
To:
Members of the Board
From:
Office of the Secretary
April 12, 1965
Attached is a copy of the minutes of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on
the above date.
It is not proposed to include a statement
with respect to any of the entries in this set of
minutes in the record of policy actions required to
be maintained pursuant to section 10 of the Federal
Reserve Act.
Should you have any question with regard to
the minutes, it will be appreciated if you will advise
the Secretary's Office. Otherwise, please initial
below. If you were present at the meeting, your
Initials will indicate approval of the minutes. If
You were not present, your initials will indicate
only that you have seen the minutes,___
Chm. Martin
Gov. Robertson
Gov. Balderston
Gov. Shepardson
Gov. Mitchell
Gov. Daane
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
"AL
Minutes of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System on Monday, April 12, 1965.
The Board met in the Board Room
at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Martin, Chairman
Balderston, Vice Chairman
Shepardson
Mitchell
Daane
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Sherman, Secretary
Kenyon, Assistant Secretary
Noyes, Adviser to the Board
Molony, Assistant to the Board
Fauver, Assistant to the Board
Spencer, General Assistant, Office
of the Secretary
Messrs. Brill, Holland, Koch, Garfield, Solomon,
Dembitz, Axilrod, Bernard, Eckert, Ettin,
Gehman, Keir, Osborne, Peret, Sigel, and
Wernick, and Miss Stockwell of the Division
of Research and Statistics
Messrs. Sammons, Irvine, Reynolds, Dahl, Gekker,
Hayes, and Maroni, and Mrs. Junz of the Division
of International Finance
Mr. Melnicoff, Vice President, Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia
Economic review.
A review of significant domestic and inter-
national business and financial developments was presented by the Divisions of International Finance and Research and Statistics.
Following
the review, which included a money market report and comments on the
Progress of the voluntary foreign credit restraint program, there was
4 general discussion based on the staff presentation.
Mr. Melnicoff and all members of the Board's staff who had been
Present except Messrs. Sherman, Kenyon, Noyes, Molony, Fauver, Sammons,
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-2-
and Spencer then withdrew from the meeting and the following entered
the room:
Hackley, General Counsel
Solomon, Director, Division of Examinations
O'Connell, Assistant General Counsel
Shay, Assistant General Counsel
Goodman, Assistant Director, Division of Examinations
Leavitt, Assistant Director, Division of Examinations
Thompson, Assistant Director, Division of Examinations
Plotkin, Senior Attorney, Legal Division
Shuter, Attorney, Legal Division
Egertson, Supervisory Review Examiner, Division of
Examinations
Messrs. Lyon and Rumbarger, Review Examiners, Division of
Examinations
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Bank of America branch application (Item No. 1).
..p.ptslayal was
Unanimous
given to a letter to Bank of America National Trust and
Savings Association, San Francisco, California, granting permission to
establish a branch in Lima, Peru.
A copy is attached as Item No. 1.
Report on competitive factors (Buffalo-Dunkirk, New York).
Agreement having been expressed with a minor change in the conclusion,
4 report
to the Comptroller of the Currency on the competitive factors
involved in the proposed merger of Dunkirk Trust Company, Dunkirk, New
York, into Liberty National Bank and Trust Company, Buffalo, New York,
was :approved unanimously for transmittal to the Comptroller.
The con-
c lusion, in the form approved for transmittal, read as follows:
While the proposed merger would eliminate the small amount
of existing competition between Liberty National Bank and Trust
Company, Buffalo, and Dunkirk Trust Company, Dunkirk, and all
potential competition, the overall effect of the proposal on
competition would not be adverse.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
'
4/12/65
-3Report on competitive factors (Brooklyn-Mineola, New York).
A
report to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on the competitive
factors involved in the proposed merger of County National Bank of Long
Island, Mineola, New York, into Kings County Trust Company, Brooklyn,
New York, was approved unanimously for transmittal to the Corporation.
The conclusion read as follows:
The proposed merger of County National Bank of Long Island,
Mineola, into Kings County Trust Company, Brooklyn, would have
no adverse effect on banking competition.
Applications of First Virginia Corporation (Items 2, 3, and 4).
Pursuant to the decisions reached at the meeting on March 15, 1965, there
had been distributed drafts of orders and a statement reflecting the
Board's approval of the applications of The First Virginia Corporation,
Arlington, Virginia, to acquire shares of Peoples Bank of Radford, Radford,
Virginia, and Bank of Chesapeake, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Following a discussion during which a minor change in the state'tent was agreed upon, the issuance of the orders and statement was
authorized.
Copies of the orders and statement, as issued, are attached
as Items 2, 3, and 4.
Messrs. Shay, Sammons, Goodman, Thompson, Egertson, Lyon, and
Rumbarger then withdrew from the meeting.
Extension of time to file registration statement (Items 5 and 6).
A distributed memorandum from the Legal Division dated April 7, 1965,
s ubmitted drafts of letters to Montgomery County Bank and Trust Company,
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-4-
Norristown, Pennsylvania, and Summit and Elizabeth Trust Company, Summit,
New Jersey, that would in each case grant an extension of time until
June 30, 1965, to file a registration statement pursuant to section 12(g)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation F, Securities of
Member State Banks.
The memorandum noted the requirement for each State member bank
With a class of equity security held of record by 750 or more persons
on December 31, 1964, to file with the Board a registration statement
With respect to such security by April 30, 1965.
However, the Board
was authorized by statute to extend the time for registration, with respect to classes of banks or individual banks.
The Legal Division recom-
mended that the Board grant the requests.
The requests of Montgomery County Bank and Trust Company and
Summit and Elizabeth Trust Company were approved unanimously.
Copies
of the letters sent to these two banking institutions are attached as
Items 5 and 6.
(In the case of Summit and Elizabeth Trust Company the Legal
Division had suggested that the Board might want to consider limiting
the extension of time to 30 days.
However, the Board decided that an
extension of 60 days would
be appropriate.)
Exemption from stock registration requirements (Item No. 7).
There had been distributed a memorandum from the Legal Division dated
April 8, 1965, discussing a request by The Annapolis Banking and Trust
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-5-
Company, Annapolis, Maryland, for exemption from the stock registration
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation F,
Securities of Member State Banks.
The memorandum indicated that a recom-
mendation with respect to the merits of the application would be made
at a later date.
A member State bank with 750 or more "holders of record" of
any class of equity security on December 31, 1964, must register that
security by April 30, 1965.
Unless exempted, Annapolis Banking and Trust
Company would have to register.
However, under section 12(h) of the
Securities Exchange Act, the Board was empowered to grant exemptions.
This section provided, in part, that the Board could, by rules and regulations, or upon application of an interested person, by order, after
notice and opportunity for hearing, exempt in whole or in part any issuer
or class of issuers.
This provision indicated that prior to granting
an application for exemption the Board should publish a notice of the
aPPlication for exemption and afford an opportunity to request a hearing.
Accordingly, there was attached to the Legal Division's memorandum
a draft of notice for publication in the Federal Register with respect
to the request by Annapolis Banking and Trust Company.
Following introductory comments by Mr. Plotkin based on the
April 8 memorandum, inquiry was made as to the procedure that was contemplated if a hearing should be requested.
Mr. Plotkin and Mr. O'Connell
replied that it was within the Board's discretion to decide whether or
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-6-
not to grant a request for a hearing.
If a request for hearing was
granted, testimony could be taken by a member of the staff designated
by the Board.
Mr. Plotkin then commented that Board staff members had met
with staff of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission on the matter of exemptions with a view to
trying to develop some criteria.
two requests for exemption.
However, there had been only one or
Accordingly, it was decided to meet again
later in order to pursue the matter of developing criteria.
Mr. Plotkin also said that the statute was clear in indicating
that notice of a request for exemption should be published, with an
°PPortunity extended to request a hearing.
The Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation had questioned the need for offering an opportunity to request
a hearing, possibly because the Corporation did not have an established
hearing procedure.
However, the Board did have such a procedure estab-
lished; there should be no problem as far as the Board was concerned if
a hearing was involved.
Governor Mitchell recalled that when Regulation F was under
c°nsideration there had been discussion of the possibility of devising
a short form of registration statement or a short procedure for use in
the case of smaller banks, but this was not done.
The hearing procedure
could be expensive and time-consuming for such banks, and it seemed rather
un necessary unless some substantive issue was involved.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
On the basis
4/12/65
-7-
of the limited facts available, it appeared that there might be no point
in not granting the requested exemption in the case currently before the
Board.
Mr. Hackley replied that the Legal Division was simply proposing at this point that notice be published and an opportunity to request
a hearing be provided.
If any such request should be received, the Board
Would not necessarily have to grant it; the Board could consider at that
stage whether a hearing should be ordered.
He assumed that as requests
for exemptions began to be received the Board could agree on general
criteria for granting exemptions.
This was the basis on which the Legal
Division had opposed the idea of a general exemption for smaller banks
from the usual requirements.
It had been felt that a better procedure
would be to act on specific requests against a background of general
criteria.
Mr. Plotkin said the staff had not made a sufficient study of
this particular case to come up with any criteria or recommendations.
Hwever, within the next few weeks the staff would have to develop criteria and recommendations for the Board's consideration.
At meetings
°n the subject, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission had
taken the position that where there was a large number of stockholders
they were entitled to a certain amount of protection.
But Annapolis
Banking and Trust Company apparently had a relatively large number of
st°ckholders because many persons received small numbers of shares in
lieu of deposits when the bank reopened following the bank holiday in
1933.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-8Mr. Hackley commented that the statute permitted exemptions
either by regulation or on the basis of specific applications after
opportunity for hearing.
In the light of experience with specific
applications, he assumed that later the Board might want to consider
adopting regulations for granting exemptions in general terms.
In reply to a question, Mr. Plotkin said that over the years
the Securities and Exchange Commission had had a minimum number of
requests for hearings.
Question was raised whether applications by State member banks
for exemption from the registration requirements should be included
in the Board's weekly H.2 release.
It was agreed to include notice
Of the receipt of such applications, together with announcement of the
d
isposition of such matters.
Unanimous approval then was given to the publication in the
Federal Register of notice of receipt of the application for exemption
by
Annapolis Banking and Trust Company.
A copy of the notice, as
tr ansmitted to the Federal Register, is attached as Item No. 7.
On the basis of a further recommendation in the Legal Division's
memorandum, the Board authorized publication in the Federal Register of
Other applications for exemption from the registration requirements that
might be received from State member banks, without specific Board approval
in each
individual instance.
Messrs. Plotkin and Shuter then withdrew from the meeting.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-9Whitney Holding Corporation (Items 8, 9, and 10).
There had
been distributed a memorandum dated April 6, 1965, from the Legal Division relating to the Whitney Holding Corporation proposal to form a
bank holding company in New Orleans, Louisiana.
The application, which
was approved by the Board's order of May 3, 1962, had been remanded to
the Board by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration
following a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in a
related case.
The memorandum pointed out, among other things, that following
the Court's remand, the Board had received letters from (1) Counsel for
Bank of New Orleans and Trust Company and Guaranty Bank and Trust Company,
Lafayette, Louisiana; (2) an attorney identifying himself as an Assistant
Attorney General for Louisiana and Special Attorney for the State Bank
Commissioner of Louisiana; and (3) Counsel for Whitney Holding Corporation.
Each party had requested that no decision be made upon reconsid-
eration of the matter without giving an opportunity to file briefs and
to present oral arguments before the Board.
Following a discussion of certain questions raised by the aforementioned requests, the memorandum indicated that if the Board was inclined to believe that Counsels' views would assist the Board in its
deli
berations, a letter could be addressed to each offering an opportunity
fOr
submission of views on the issues presented for Board decision and
setting a time within which such views must be received.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
However, the
,0
Lk3.1-
4/12/65
-10-
Legal Division believed that any letter sent to Counsel for Bank of New
Orleans and Guaranty Bank or to the Special Attorney for the State Bank
Commissioner should state that an opportunity for the submission of
briefs was not intended, and should not be construed, to indicate any
Change in the Board's earlier position as to (1) the lack of standing
on the part of the two banks either to have sought, as they had, Board
reconsideration of its approval of Whitney's proposal, or to take an
appeal from the Board's order, and (2) the lack of standing on the part
of the Commissioner to intervene before the Court of Appeals on review
of the Board's order.
Draft letters to Counsel for each of the parties concerned along
the lines discussed in the memorandum were attached.
The draft letters
also contained a statement to the effect that the Board's decision on
the requests
for oral argument would be deferred until after receipt of
briefs.
Mr. O'Connell summarized the information presented in the memorandum of April 6, after which the letters were approved unanimously
for transmittal in the form attached as Items 8, 9, and 10.
Pursuant
t° an indication on the part of the Board, the letters specified that
lritten views were to be submitted on or before April 26, 1965, rather
than the April 19 date suggested in the distributed draft letters.
Request for information.
Mr. O'Connell reported a telephone
call of April 9, 1965, from William O. Bittman, Special Attorney assigned
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
,)
t,.PAter
4/12/65
-11-
to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.
Mr. Bittman
advised that he was in charge of a special grand jury convened for the
Purpose of investigating Robert G. Baker, formerly secretary for the
majority party of the United States Senate.
Mr. Bittman stated that
the grand jury had been in continuous session since January of this year
and had received considerable evidence relating to Mr. Baker's several
business interests, some of which evidence touched upon the possibility
that Mr. Baker had been in contact with one or more Federal bank supervisory agencies.
Mr. Bittman indicated that the scope of the grand jury
investigation included the chartering, opening for business, and operations of the Redwood National Bank, San Rafael, California.
Mr. Bittman advised that he desired to review for possible use
before the grand jury:
(1) any and all records, including letters, memo-
randa, reports, and other communications addressed to, received from,
relating to, or bearing on the Redwood National Bank, and (2) materials
°f similar scope reflecting any contact by or with Mr. Baker by or with
any member of the Board of Governors or the Board's staff.
Mr. Bittman
Illade it clear that he could issue a subpoena calling for production of
all of
the foregoing materials or, in the alternative, he could and
would rely upon Mr. O'Connell to take whatever steps were necessary to
ascertain the existence of any of the aforementioned materials with
subsequent full disclosure to Mr. Bittman together with identification
Of the method and the scope of the search made.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-12Mr. O'Connell reported that immediately after the phone call
from Mr. Bittman, and following conversation with Messrs. Sherman and
Kenyon, two Records Section employees were designated to make a search
of the Board's files for any of the aforementioned materials.
It was
understood that the Records Section would use every available index
source that might identify materials touching upon or relating to (1)
Redwood National Bank, (2) the District of Columbia National Bank,
Washington, D. C., in which it was reported that Mr. Baker had shareholdings, and (3) Mr. Baker.
In addition, the Division of Personnel
Administration was requested to make a search of the Division's logbook
in which it was understood recordings were made of all incoming requests
regarding personnel, recommendations thereon, and any other form of
communication dealing with personnel matters.
The Division was requested
to conduct a search oriented to Mr. Baker's name.
Mr. O'Connell stated that another source of information or
material of the nature sought by Mr. Bittman would be the personal files
of the Board members.
Accordingly, he believed there was a need for a
response from the members of the Board regarding evidence of any such
materials or any contact by or with Mr. Baker or by or with persons
Stating
representation of Mr. Baker.
Mr. O'Connell then proceeded to summarize the results of the
searches initiated on the afternoon of April 9.
In general, it was found
hat the Board's records contained no materials relating to, mentioning,
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-13-
or touching upon the Redwood National Bank.
contain one letter involving Robert Baker.
The Board's records did
This was a letter dated
August 31, 1964, addressed to Mr. Baker at Suite 605, 2000 P Street,
N. W., Washington, D. C., and signed by Mr. Cardon, the Board's Legislative Counsel.
The letter responded to a request from Mr. Baker for
information on and material concerning Edge Act corporations.
Inquiry
of Mr. Cardon revealed that the August 31 letter had been written following a telephone conversation initiated by Mr. Baker at the suggestion
of Matthew Hale, staff member of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee.
Mr. Cardon confirmed that the letter was the only communication
that he had had with Mr. Baker and that no identification had been made
by Mr. Baker of his interest in making the phone call.
Mr. O'Connell went on to state that the Division of Personnel
Ad ministration had reported that the Division's logbook did not indicate
receipt of any communication from, or communication to, Mr. Baker.
Concluding his comments with respect to the search of the Board's
records, Mr. O'Connell requested authorization to meet with Mr. Bittman
and to make full disclosure of the nature and scope of the search that
had been made of the Board's records and the results thereof, including,
if necessary or appropriate, a showing to Mr. Bittman
of the August 31
letter from the Board's Legislative Counsel and any other material that
had been searched that Mr. Bittman might request.
Mr. O'Connell also
tequested an indication of the kind of response that he should make to
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4/12/65
-14-
Mr. Bittman regarding Board members' communications, if any, with Mr.
Baker.
The Board thereupon authorized the meeting with Mr. Bittman and
disclosure along the lines suggested by Mr. O'Connell.
Each Board member
present stated that he had had no contact whatsoever with Mr. Baker or
Persons stating representation of him and that his files contained no
written materials from, to, or in connection with Mr. Baker.
It was
understood that Mr. O'Connell would convey this information to Mr. Bittman.
Secretary's Note: Mr. Bittman and an associate,
Mr. Mittler, met with Mr. O'Connell at 2:30 p.m. on
April 13, 1965, and were given in detail the information authorized to be transmitted to them. They
were shown the August 31, 1964, letter from Mr. Cardon
to Mr. Baker and were extended the opportunity to
examine any and all files. Mr. Bittman replied that
he was satisfied with, and appreciative of, the search
that had been made of the Board's files and that such
search left nothing to be desired from the point of
view of the Justice Department. At this time there
would be no subpoena; the Department's representatives
would not themselves search the Board's files, and
they would contact Mr. O'Connell informally if any
further information was necessary.
At Mr. Bittman's request, Mr. O'Connell asked the
Records Section to search the Board's records for any
reference to, or material relating to, First National
Bank of Mann, National Bank of Mann, or Mann National
Bank. The organizers of the Redwood National Bank had
originally requested any one of the three names for the
bank; the Comptroller of the Currency had denied the
request. The Records Section advised that there was
nothing in the Board's records relating to any of the
three titles. This information was conveyed by telephone
to Mr. Mittler, who thanked Mr. O'Connell and expressed
the Department's appreciation for the Board's response
to the Department's request.
The substance of the foregoing was reported to the Board
by Mr. O'Connell at the meeting on April 14.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1-66
4/12/65
-15All members of the staff except Mr. Sherman then withdrew from
the meeting.
Appointment of President at Minneapolis Bank.
Chairman Martin
reported having been advised that the Board of Directors of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, at a meeting on Thursday of this week,
Probably would appoint, subject to the approval of the Board of Governors, Hugh D. Galusha, Jr., a lawyer and certified public accountant of
Helena, Montana, who was currently serving as a Class B director of the
Bank, as President of the Bank for the unexpired portion of the fiveyear term ending February 28, 1966.
After discussion, during which the salary reportedly under
consideration for Mr. Galusha was compared with salaries currently being
Paid to the Presidents of certain other Federal Reserve Banks, it was
14,4112.ts! that if advice should be received that the directors of the Minneapolis Bank had appointed Mr. Galusha as President, with salary at a rate
not higher than $40,000 per annum, the Board would approve the appointment and payment of the proposed salary.
The meeting then adjourned.
Secretary's Note: Governor Shepardson today
approved on behalf of the Board a memorandum
from the Division of Research and Statistics
recommending the appointment of Christian A.
Newman as Economist in that Division, with
basic annual salary at the rate of $9,535,
effective the date of entrance upon duty.
Secretary
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Item No.
4/12/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
, • ..
• c,OF Got,•.
4'4'4:•
() .
• If°
:0
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
April 12, 1965.
Bank of America National Trust
and Savings Association,
300 Montgomery Street,
San Francisco, California. 94120.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System grants
its permission to Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, San Francisco, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section
25 of the Federal Reserve Act, to establish a branch in the City of
Lima, Peru, and to operate and maintain such branch subject to the
Provisions of such Section and of Regulation M.
Unless the branch is actually established and opened for
business on or before April 1, 1966, all rights granted hereby shall
be deemed to have been abandoned and the authority hereby granted will
automatically terminate on that date.
With regard to the President's program for the voluntary
curtailment of foreign credit by banks, your letter of February 23,
1965, indicated that the branch will be required to have a capital of
$1,000,000. With respect to the establishment of foreign branches,
funds provided by home office (whether in the form of allocated capital, advances, or otherwise) should be regarded as foreign assets for
Purposes of the voluntary foreign credit restraint effort.
Please inform the Board of Governors, through the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco, when the branch is opened for business,
furnishing information as to the exact location of the branch. The
Board should also be promptly informed of any future change in location of the branch within the City of Lima.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Karl E. Bakke
Karl E. Bakke,
Assistant Secretary.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
UNITED STATES OF A17rICA
Item No, 2
4/12/65
BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASUINGTON, D. C,
In the Matter of the Application of
THE FIRST VIRGINIA CORPORATION,
Arlington, Virginia,
fOr approval of the acquisition of voting
shares of Peoples Bank of Radford,
Radford, Virginia.
ORDER APPROVING APPLICATION UNDER
BANK HOLDING COMPANY ACT
There has come before the Board of Governors, pursuant to
seeticm 3(a)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.
1842(a)(2)) and section 222.4(a)(2) of Federal Reserve Regulation Y
(12 CFR 222.4(a)(2)), an application by The First Virginia Corporation,
ktlington, Virginia, a registered bank holding company, for the Board's
P11.°r approval of the acquisition of 80 per cent or more of the voting
Shares of Peoples Bank of Radford, Radford, Virginia.
As required by section 3(b) of the Act, the Board notified
the c
°mmissioner of Banking of the Commonwealth of Virginia of receipt
t the
application and requested his views and recommendation.
Costaissioner expressed no objection to its approval.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The
9
-2-
Notice was published in the Federal Register of
December 18, 1964 (29 F.-R. 18025) providing an opportunity for
Interested persons to submit comments and views with respect to
the proposed acquisition.
The time for filing such comments and
views has expired, and all those received have been considered by
the Board.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the
Board's Statement of this date, that said application be and hereby
is approved, provided that the acquisition so approved shall not be
consummated (a) within seven calendar days after the date of this
Order or (b) later than three months after said date.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 12th day of April, 1965.
By order of the Board of Governors.
Voting for this action: Chairman Martin, and
Governors Robertson, Shepardson, Mitchell, and
Daane.
Absent and not voting:
Governor Balderston.
(Signed) Herritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Item No. 3
4/12/65
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. Ce
la the Matter of the Application of
IRE FIRST VIRGINIA CORPORATION,
Ar lington, Virginia,
f°r approval of the acquisition of voting
Shares of Bank of Chesapeake, Chesapeake,
ORDER APPROVING APPLICATION UNDER
BANK HOLDING COMPANY ACT
There has come before tha Board of Governors, pursuant to
section 3(a)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U0S.C.
1842(a)(2)) and section 222.4(a)(2) of Federal Reserve Regulation
(12 CFR 222.4(a)(2)), an application by The First Virginia Corporation,
41ington, Virginia, a registered bank holding company, for the Board's
PticT approval of the acquisition of 80 per cent or more of the voting
shares of Bank of Chesapeake, Chesapeake, Virginia.
As required by section 3(b) of the Act, the Board notified
the commissioner of Banking of the Commonwealth of Virginia of receipt
c) the application and requested his views and recommendation.
Com,
u'issloner expressed no objection to its approval.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The
-2-
Notice was published in the Federal Register of January 7,
1965 (30 F. R. 180) providing an opportunity for interested persons
to submit comments and views with respect to the proposed acquisition.
The time for filing such comments and views has expired, and all those
received have been considered by the Board.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the
Board's Statement of this date, that said application be and hereby
is approved, provided that the acquisition so approved shall not be
consummated (a) within seven calendar days after the date of this
Order or (b) later than three months after said date.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 12th day of April, 1965,
By order of the Board of Governors.
Voting for this action: Chairman Martin, and
Governors Shepardson, Mitchell, and Daane.
Present but not voting:
Governor Robertson.
Absent and not voting:
Governor Balderston.
(Signed) 1,erritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
(SEAL)
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Item No. 4
4/12/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
APPLICATIONS BY THE FIRST VIRGINIA CORPORATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA,
FOR APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES OF
PEOPLES BANK OF RADFORD AND BANK OF CHESAPEAKE
STATEMENT
The First Virginia Corporation ('Applicant"), Arlington,
Vitginia, a registered bank holding company, has filed applications,
Plirstiant to section 3(a)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956
("the Act"), with respect to the Peoples Bank of Radford, Radford,
tflia
and the Bank of Chesapeake, Chesapeake, Virginia, request-
itIg the Board's approval of the acquisition of 80 per cent or more
f the voting shares of each bank.
Views and recommendations of supervisory authority. - As
tequired by section 3(b) of the Act, notices of receipt of the applie4tions were sent to the Commissioner of Banking of the Commonwealth of
requesting his views and recommendations.
The Commissioner
Qxpr,
eased no objection to approval of either application.
Statutory factors. - With respect to each application,
slletiOn 3(c) of the Act requires the Board to take into consideration
the ,
4.°11wing five factors: (1) the financial history and condition
the holding company and the banks concerned; (2) their prospects;
(3) the
character of their management; (4) the convenience, needs, and
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
i 63
-2-
welfare of the communities and the area concerned; and (5) whether the
effect of the proposed acquisition would be to expand the size or extent
ef the bank holding company system involved beyond limits consistent
Ilith adequate and sound banking, the public iaterest, and the preservation
°f competition in the field of banking.
Although the applications have been acted upon separately,
the Board has determined that unnecessary repetition of facts and conclustens resulting from application of the foregoing statutory factors to
the holding company may be avoided through this combined Statement.
Accord-
i4C1Y, while separate Orders effecting the Board's determinations accompany
this Statement, the Board's findings, conclusions, and reasoning in reet to each application are combined in this Statement.
Financial history and condition, prospects, and management of
*4\-4-.
)licant and the Banks. - Applicant's system is composed of 9 banks
lecated in Virginia, operating 44 banking offices with combined deposits
1/
c) ePproximately $197 million as of June 30, 1964.
It also controls
4/0 .
insurance agencies, two bank premises companies, and a bank servicing
Qeil'Poration.
Applicant's financial history is satisfactory.
The appli-
eations reflect
that Applicant's proposed debt position involves a bank
1c)1.1 that is
of relatively short maturity and rather heavy in relation to
I7orth,
Although this tends to offset other relatively favorable aspects
tQlting to the financial condition and earnings records of Applicant's
Y
atiless otherwise indicated, banking
data used herein are as of this
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
164
-3Subsidiary banks, the Board concludes that Applicant's financial condition
and Prospects are reasonably satisfactory.
Applicant's management is
etrlerienced and well qualified.
Peoples Bank of Radford. - Bank, located in the independent City
°I Radford, about 40 miles west of Roanoke, was chartered and opened for
business in 1922.
ciffice.
It operates one in-town branch in addition to its main
With deposits of $2.8 million, it is one-quarter the size of the
Other bank in Radford, First and Merchants National Bank of Radford.
Bank's financial history is satisfactory and its financial
c°r1dition considered fair.
While Bank's earnings record and deposits growth
i4 the
Past several years have been good, its prospects for the future would
Q13 ttered under Applicant's control, particularly in respect to Applicant's
ability and stated intention to place or develop more experienced
atid qualified management in Bark than Bank, independently, can reasonably
be
'-4PeCted to attract or develop.
The likelihood of this result is a circumstance weighing in favor of approl/al of the application.
Ban!: of
originally chartered in 1955 as the
sa.coakeBank,
-
Cradock, assumed its present name in 19(34.
It operates its main
aLch offices in the independent City of Chesapeake, and an
4dditional
office in adjacent Portsmouth City. Both cities are part of
the m
"ortolk_ Portsmouth Standard Metropolitan Area. ileasured by deposits
($10
*5 million), Bank ranks eighth in size of the nine banks operating
ill this area.
Bank's financial history and condition are satisfactory.
()I1
While,
the
basis of its past earnings record and its location in a fastg area,
Bank's prospects appear reasonably favorable, its prospects
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-4-
would be bettered, it is believed, by the introduction of a more aggressive
management policy.
Bank's present management is sound but conservative.
This conservative operating policy is evidenced by Bank's lower than
average ratio of loans to deposits.
Applicant's proposal to foster in
Bank a more aggressive management attitude, particularly as related to
its lending policy, constitutes a consideration favoring approval of the
application.
Cchvenience
and welfare of the communities and areas concerned
2/
Peoples Bank of Radford. - Bank's primary service area
is
needs
the City of Radford, and contains an estimated population of 10,500.
Con-
siderable support to the area's economy is derived from Radford College,
a State-supported college for women.
Diversified manufacturing activities,
notably the operation of the Radford arsenal, have also contributed
sigicantly to the sustained economic growth of the area.
Bank of Chesapeake. - As earlier stated, Bank's offices are
be
ated in Chesapeake and Portsmouth.
The primary service areas of
these offices contain, in the aggregate, an estimated population of
4PT°Icimately 75,000, and generally encompass the most densely populated
sections of the City of Chesapeake and a portion of Portsmouth City.
Chesapeake, a port city, is located just inside the mouth of
the
"esapeake Bay, and has some nine miles of industrial waterfront.
44100
g the nearly
70 manufacturing concerns located in Chesapeake are
trtai
Oil terminals, chemical plants, including the world's largest
Zi Th
of i e area from
witich Applicant estimates 80 per cent of Bank's deposits
ndividuals, partnerships, and corporations originate.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
166
-5-
chemical plant, and commercial docking and stevedoring
facilities.
Chesapeake is also the site for the major repair facilities
nf the Norfolk and Western Railroad.
The benefits and advantages that Applicant asserts are inherent
14 each of the acquisitions proposed are substantially the same.
In the
tilain, these relate to increased lending limits through capital contributions by Applicant, greater facility in respect to loan participations,
alld greater diversification in loan portfolios;
a more readily available
sntirce of additional capital for whatever reason required; and improved
444 exPanded investment counseling and auditing services.
A review of
the records in these cases satisfies the Board that while Applicant's
c°4tt°1 of the Banks would produce in them certain operations, advantages,
'444 imProvements over existing conditions, in neither application has
tile
re been established the existence of an unserved demand or need for
1441nr banking services.
In respect to those services that Applicant states would enable
the b
usnks to serve better their trade areas, on the basis of the evidence
P4seated, the Board concludes that these services can be obtained from
(Iller banking outlets reasonably available to the areas involved.
As to
tilc'se services that would relate more directly to the Banks' operational
illcdures, their nature is such that they are, or could be, available
to
the Banks from sources other than Applicant. The fact, however, that
APR'
leant could provide the services mentioned more conveniently, more
"
1Y, and perhaps more economically than could others constitutes a
48814
c%lid"ation consistent with approval of the applications.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-6-
Effect of proposed acquisitions on adequate and sound banking,
.4112jic interest,
. and banking competition. - The banking offices and
deposits controlled by Applicant represent, respectively, 6.2 and
4.7 per cent of the banking offices and deposits in the State.
There
are operating in the State three other bank holding companies (two
registered and one nonregistered) and three independent banks, each of
141ich, measured by total deposits controlled, is larger than Applicant.
%royal of both of Applicant's proposed acquisitions would not change
its relative size position and would increase by only .4 its percentage
°f the deposits
of all banks in the State.
Approval would result in the
(311r bank holding companies' controlling, in the aggregate, 22 per cent of
the banking offices and 26 per cent of the deposits of all banks in the
State.
An additional 24 per cent of such deposits are held by the afore-
rselitioned three independent banks.
Applicant's ownership of Peoples Bank of Radford would give
APPlicant control of one of the city's two banks, two of the four banking
4ices, and 20 per cent of the deposits held by the two banks.
cant's
175 in
Appli-
subsidiary bank nearest Radfo-zd is located in Mount Jackson, some
distant.
The nearest office of a holding company bank, a sub-
"arY of Virginia Commonwealth Corporation, is located about 16 miles
sQuthwest of Radford
in adjoining Pulaski County, and holds deposits of
413°Ilt ?6
million. Considering the size of this bank and its distance
4°Irct the
City of Radford, it is reasonably concluded that it does not hold
4 significant
portion of deposits originating in Radford.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
!r)
-7-
If Applicant were to acquire Bank of Chesapeake, it would
control the only bank headquartered in that city. Its control of Bank's
three offices in Chesapeake would represent 54 per cent of the deposits
Of all banking offices in the city.
The one office of Virginia National
Bank, Norfolk, the city's only other banking office, holds deposits of
$6 million, or 46 per cent of the total deposits of the city's four bankOffices.
In the City of Portsmouth, adjoining Chesapeake, Bank operates
°ne office with deposits
of $4 million, representing about 6 per cent of
the deposits of the 12 banking outlets in that city. In the combined
Chesapeake-Portsmouth area, Apolicant would control 4 of 16 banking offices
(25%) and $10.5 million of the $30 million of deposits (137) held by these
qfices.
Within the Norfolk-Portsmouth Standard Metropolitan Area, in
hich Chesapeake and Portsmouth are located, Applicant's acquisition of
of Chesapeake would increase its control of banking offices from 9 to
13
fq
x43% of the area's 56 banking offices), and its control of deposits from
$30
m'alion to $40 million (9.27. of the deposits held by all banking
ffic-s).
In the Metropolitan Area, holding company subsidiaries presently
cotltrol
14 per cent of the total deposits.
Consummation of Applicant's
4cluisition of Bank would increase this percentage to 16. Considering
the f
oregoing
data, together with related evidence of record, the Board
ndes that approval of Applicant's two proposals would
not result in
44/14due concentration of banking resources, either in the State as a whole
or in
the areas directly involved in these applications. In this connec404
lt is noted that in each of the areas involved in these applications,
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.169
-8-
Or more independent banks several times larger than Applicant's
Proposed subsidiary bank have one or more o2fices.
None of Applicant's subsidiary banks presently competes with
Peoples Bank of Radford.
Accordingly, Applicant's acquisition of Bank
171-11 not eliminate any existing competition, nor will there result any
reduction
in the number of alternative banking sources in the City of
R
As to the effect on Bank's present competitors, the two banks
adford.
that appear to compete to any significant extent in Bank's primary service
area are both four times the size of Bank and each has as many or
m°re offices than Bank.
The Board finds no reasonable probability of
dyer _
se competitive effect from consummation of the proposed acquisition.
Regarding the competitive effects of Applicant's acquisition of
the
Bank of Chesapeake, no meaningful competition now exists between Bank
and Applicant's nearest subsidiary, Southern Bank of Norfolk.
The closest
°ffices of the two banks are five miles apart and are separated by the
tlizabeth River.
For these reasons, even absent the affiliation proposed,
4 increase in competition between these banks would appear unlikely.
Within Bank's primary service area, Bank's principal competitors
te six well-established banks ranging in deposit size from nearly
$10
million to $373 million.
In view of the considerable size advantage
held by five of these banks, and the fact that the sixth and smallest of
these
is comparable in size to the Bank of Chesapeake and has for some
time b_
en in competition with the five larger banks, there is no reason
'
to
believe that Applicant's ownership and operation of Bank will result
tankis
gaining any undue competitive advantage.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-9
Finally, in respect to both applications, the Board is satisfied
that within the communities and areas involved there will remain adequate
alternative sources of banking services following consummation of AppliearIt's proposals to assure that, as in the other respects heretofore considered, the public interest will not be adversely affected.
Summary and conclusion. - As herein found, considerations
I
'elating to the financial history of Applicant and of the Banks are consistent with approval of the applications.
The more convenient and more
assured nature of banking service likely to result from Applicant's control of the Banks weighs toward approval of the applications.
same
At the
time, the Board concludes that consummation of these proposals will
11(3t result in an expansion in the size or extent of Applicant's system
hat will be inconsistent with adequate and sound banking, the public
iaterest, or the preservation of banking competition.
Accordingly, on the basis of all the relevant facts as contained
14 the records before the Board, and in the light of the factors set forth
41 section 3(c) of the Act, it is the Board's judgment that the proposed
4equisitions would be consistent with the public interest and that the
4131/lications should therefore be approved.
APril 12,
1965.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 5
4/12/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
ADDRESS arriciAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE SOAR°
April 12, 1965.
Montgomery County Bank
and Trust Company,
Norristown, Pennsylvania.
Attention:
Mr. Merrill A. Bean,
Senior Vice President.
• Dear Sirs:
In accordance with your request of March 29, 1965, the
Board grants an extension of time, until June 30, 1965, for your
bank to file a registration statement pursuant to section 12(g)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If your bank is merged into another institution prior
to the specified date, no registration statement will be required
to be filed with respect to the stock of Montgomery County Bank
and Trust Company.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
.c;
Item No. 6
4/12/65
OF THE
0,
*
cr •
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
**St
RE.Se:4
:*..
`...•••
April 12, 1965.
Summit and Elizabeth Trust
Company,
Summit, New Jersey.
Attention:
Mr. Robert B. Speer,
Vice President.
.Dear Sirs:
In accordance with your request of March 31, 1965,
the Board of Governors grants an extension of time, until
June 30, 1965, for your bank to file a registration statement pursuant to section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
)
Item No. 7
4/12/65
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
THE ANNAPOLIS RANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
Notice of Receipt of Application
Notice is hereby given that The Annapolis Banking and Trust
Company, Annapolis, Maryland, a member State bank of the Federal
Reserve System, has applied to the Board of Governors, pursuant to
seCtions 12(h) and 12 (i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 781), for exemption from the registration requirements of
section 12(g) of said Act.
In determining whether to grant such exemption, the Board
18
required by section 12(h) to consider whether, by reason of the
number of public investors, amount of trading interest in the
securities, the nature and extent of the activities of the bank,
income or assets of the bank, or otherwise, such action will be
"naistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Any interested person may, not later than 15 days after the
Publication of this notice in the Federal Register, (i) submit written
comments and recommendations with respect to the application, (ii) re-
the holding of a hearing on the matter, stating the nature of
his
interest and the reason for such request, or (iii) request to be
notified if the Board should order a hearing thereon.
Such communica-
ticn should be addressed to the Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Pede
rel Reserve System, Washington, D. C. 20551. At any time after
the expiration of said 15 days, an order disposing of the application
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
t e'
-2-
may be issued by the Board upon the basis of the information stated
therein and other available information, unless an order for a hearing
thereon shall have been issued.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 12th day of April, 1965.
By order of the Board of Governors.
(SEAL)
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 8
4/12/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
April 12, 1965.
Edward L. Merrigan, Esq.,
425 _ 13th Street, N. W.,
Washington D. C. 20004
Re:
Bank of New Orleans and Trust Company et al. v.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(CCA-5, No. 19,788)
)
l ear Mr. Merrigan:
On March 1, 1965, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit entered an order in the above-captioned case remanding this
case to the Board "for reconsideration in the light of the opinion
!f the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Whitney
l ional Bank v. Bank of New Orleans Trust Company and Saxon v. Bank
1965t New Orleans Trust Company,
(1965) decided January 18,
U. S.
11.
By letter dated March 8, 1965, you requested, on behalf of
the
p
Bank of New Orleans and Trust Company and Guaranty Bank and Trust
,
111PanY, petitioners in the above-captioned Fifth Circuit case, that,
0
4.4-40r to
the Board's decision upon reconsideration of this matter, an
Portunity be afforded for you to file, on behalf of your clients,
in opposition to the application of Whitney Holding Corporation,
'""a to present oral argument thereon before the Board.
e
The Board has concluded that in view of the Supreme Court's
stated
reasons in suggesting remand of this matter to the Board, the
%sults apparently intended by the Court will be best achieved through
LociPt of briefs from your clients, the State Bank Commissioner of
th
ana, and Whitney Holding Corporation, the parties who were before
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals at the time that Court remanded the
er3-tueY Holding Corporation proposal to the Board for further considollai°11. For the same reasons, the Board will grant the request filed
eo be'f of the State of Louisiana, even though the State was not,
(
"
-Z1-25211.1 1aa, before the Court of Appeals. The Board's decision to reearv
!
i briefs in this matter does not constitute a change in the Board's
failler expressed position regarding the eifect that your clients'
'ure to take timely action had upon their right to seek reconsideration
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Edward L. Merrigan, Esq.
-2-
of the Board's action reflected in its May 3, 1962 order. The
Board's reasons for denying your clients' petition for reconsideration were set forth in its letter to you dated June 25, 1962.
Likewise, the Board's decision to receive briefs does not constitute
a change in the Board's position taken before the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals regarding the right of your clients to seek judicial
review of the Board's May 3, 1962 order.
Prior to the Board's issuance of an order for further
Proceedings, the Board will receive any written views that you may
wish to submit as to the issue or issues that the Board should consider in the light of the Supreme Court's opinion of January 18,
1965, as well as any suggestion of an appropriate time schedule
for the preparation and submission of briefs. Counsel for Whitney
Holding Corporation and for the State of Louisiana and the State
Bank Commissioner are, by letters of this date, being given similar
opportunity for the submission of views. It is requested that any
views be transmitted for receipt by the Board on or before April 26,
1965.
The Board's decision as to hearing oral argument will be
deferred until after receipt of briefs in this matter.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
CC:
Joseph H. Kavanaugh, Esq.
Malcolm L. Monroe, Esq.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1_7 :11,"
11.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
.....
(Jo OF Col,•.
Item No. 9
4/12/65
OF THE
k.,„ •
4,
0••
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
• •
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
,
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE EIDARD
41ii-s0;
April 12, 1965.
Joseph H. Kavanaugh, Esq.,
Attorney at Law,
I). 0. Box 480,
Baton Rouge 4, Louisiana.
Re:
Bank of New Orleans and Trust Company et al. v.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(CCA-5, No. 19,788)
bear Mr. Kavanaugh:
On March 1, 1965, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit entered an order in the above-captioned case remanding this
ease to the Board "for reconsideration in the light of the opinion
°f the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Whitney
Dnational Bank v. Bank of New Orleans Trust Company and Saxon v.
1 l , of New Orleans Trust Company,
U. S. (1965) decided January 18,
965
By letter dated March 15, 1965, you, as attorney for the
State of Louisiana and for the State Bank Commissioner of Louisiana,
Intervenor in the above-captioned Fifth Circuit case, requested that,
,!ior
15
to the Board's decision upon reconsideration of this matter, an
'
4_PPortunity be afforded the State of Louisiana and the Bank Commissioner
o file briefs in opposition to the application of Whitney Holding
_,rPoration to become a bank holding company, and that opportunity be
clzforded
your clients to present oral argument before the Board.
r
The Board has concluded that in view of the Supreme Court's
stated reasons in suggesting remand of this matter to the Board, the
esults apparently intended by the Court will be best achieved through
1,:ceipt of briefs from the Bank Commissioner, Bank of New Orleans and
coust Company and Guaranty Bank and Trust Company, and Whitney Holding
A rPoration, the parties who were before the Fifth Circuit Court of
1:11eals at the time that Court remanded the Whitney Holding Corporation
tb°P°sal to the Board for further consideration. For the same reasons,
toe Board will grant the request filed on behalf of the State of
ofuisiana, even though the State was not, eo nomine, before the Court
40,_APPeals. The Board's decision to receive briefs in this matter is
to be
construed as conferring status on any party from whom briefs
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD
OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
-2-
Joseph H. Kavanaugh, Esq.
are received, nor as constituting a change in the Board's position
taken before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the right
of the Bank Commissioner to seek judicial review of the Board's
May 3, 1962 order approving the proposed formation of Whitney
Holding Corporation.
Prior to the Board's issuance of an order for further
Proceedings, the Board will receive any written views that you may
wish to submit as to the issue or issues that the Board should consider in the light of the Supreme Court's opinion of January 18,
1965, as well as any suggestion of an appropriate time schedule for
the preparation and submission of briefs. Counsel for Whitney
Holding Corporation and for the Bank of New Orleans and Trust Company
and Guaranty Bank and Trust Company are, by letters of this date,
being given similar opportunity for the submission of views. It is
requested that any views be transmitted for receipt by the Board on
or before April 26, 1965.
The Board's decision as to hearing oral argument will be
deferred until after receipt of briefs in this matter.
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
ee: Edward L. Merrigan, Esq.
Malcolm L. Monroe, Esq.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 10
4/12/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
April 12, 1965.
Malcolm L. Monroe, Esq.,
Monroe & Lemann,
Whitney Building,
New Orleans, Louisiana. 70130
Re:
Bank of New Orleans and Trust Company et al. v.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(CCA-5, No. 19,788)
bear Mr. Monroe:
On March 1, 1965, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
n •
touit entered an order in the above-captioned case remanding this
e
oase to the Board "for reconsideration in the light of the opinion
the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Whitney
„ tional Bank v. Bank of New Orleans Trust Company and Saxon v. Bank
1965New Orleans Trust Company, U. S. (1965) decided
January 18,
11
By letter dated March 19, 1965, you advised of your receipt
a letter of March 8, 1965, addressed to the Board
by Mr. Edward L.
her).4
ci
'
4.gan as counsel for petitioners in the above-captioned Fifth
deteuit case, wherein Mr. Merrigan requests that, prior to the Board's
4,1-sion upon reconsideration of this matter, an opportunity be
his clients to file briefs and to present oral argument
the
yoereon before the Board. On behalf of Whitney Holding Corporation,
1141 advise that "without agreeing that Mr. Merrigan's clients are proper
to
sto these proceedings", should the Board grant the opportunity
do ile briefs, you join in the request that the matter be then set
814;" f°r oral argument. Further, you set forth a proposal that you
brigest the Board might wish to follow regarding the order in which
efs might be
filed.
of
The Board has concluded that in view of the Supreme Court's
state,
testily reasons in suggesting remand of
this matter to the Board, the
re e4ts aPParently intended by the Court will be best achieved through
Comm.7Pt of briefs from Whitney Holding Corporation, the State Bank
were-"sioner of Louisiana, and Mr. Merrigan's clients, the parties who
before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals at the time that Court
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Malcolm L. Monroe, Esq.
-2-
rem5nded the Whitney Holding Corporation proposal to the Board for
further consideration. For the same reasons, the Board will grant
the request filed on behalf of the State of Louisiana, even though
the State was not, eo nomine, before the Court of Appeals.
Prior to the Board's issuance of an order for further
Proceedings, the Board will receive any written views that you may
Wish to submit as to the issue or issues that the Board should consider in the light of the Supreme Court's opinion of January 18,
1965, as well as any suggestion of an appropriate time schedule far
the preparation and submission of briefs. Counsel for Bank of New
Orleans and Trust Company and Guaranty Bank and Trust Company, and
Counsel for the State of Louisiana and the State Bank Commissioner
are, by letters of this date, being given similar opportunity for
the submission of views. It is requested that any views be transmitted for receipt by the Board on or before April 26, 1965.
The Board's decision as to hearing oral argument will be
deferred until after receipt of briefs in this matter.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
ee: Joseph H. Kavanaugh, Esq.
Edward L. Merrigan, Esq.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER