The Limited, Inc., and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         

               The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHCA), ch. 240, 70               
          Stat. 133, currently codified at 12 U.S.C. secs. 1841-1850                  
          (1994), concerns the ownership of banks.  In general, BHCA                  
          prohibits companies that own banks from engaging in any business            
          other than banking or a business closely related to banking.  See           
          12 U.S.C. sec. 1841 (1994).  In 1987, in part to deal with the              
          problem of “nonbank banks” (institutions regulated as banks but             
          exempt from key provisions of BHCA because of their failure to              
          meet the definition of a bank under BHCA), Congress amended BHCA.           
          See the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (CEBA), Pub. L.            
          100-86, sec. 1004(b), 101 Stat. 552, 659.3  CEBA broadened the              


          3    S. Rept. 100-19 (1987) accompanied S. 790, 100th Cong. 1st             
          Sess. (1987), which, substantially as passed by the Senate,                 
          became Pub. L. 100-86, 101 Stat. 552 (Competitive Equality                  
          Banking Act of 1987 (CEBA)).  See H. Conf. Rept. 100-261 (1987).            
          Immediately prior to CEBA, the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956             
          (BHCA), ch. 240, 70 Stat. 133, currently codified at 12 U.S.C.              
          secs. 1841-1850 (1994), defined a “bank” as an institution that             
          both accepted demand deposits and made commercial loans.  12                
          U.S.C. 1841(c)(1) and (2) (1982).  The Senate Comm. on Banking,             
          Housing, and Urban Affairs (the Committee) believed that that               
          definition created a loophole (the “nonbank loophole”) for a bank           
          that refrained from one of those two activities and, thus, was              
          not considered a bank for purposes of BHCA.  For instance, the              
          Committee believed that a nonbank bank could offer interest                 
          bearing NOW accounts rather than demand deposits and escape                 
          regulation under BHCA.  S. Rept. 100-19, supra at 5-6.  The                 
          Committee found:                                                            
                    The impetus for nonbank banks stems primarily from                
               large diversified companies wanting to invade the                      
               banking business while avoiding the regulatory                         
               restraints of the Bank Holding Company Act.  Thus some                 
               of the nation’s largest retailing, securities, and                     
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011