Mergers, Conversion From Credit Union Charter, and Account Insurance Termination, 5461-5466 [E8-1572]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
exemptions may be waived on a case by
case basis.
A notice of system of records for the
Department’s ICE Pattern Analysis and
Information Collection (ICEPIC) System
is also published in this issue of the
Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DHS proposes to amend
Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS
AND INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for part 5
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135,
6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. Add at the end of Appendix C to
part 5 a new paragraph 6 to read as
follows:
Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of
Records Exempt From the Privacy Act
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
6. The Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Pattern Analysis and
Information Collection (ICEPIC) System
consists of electronic and paper records and
will be used by DHS and its components.
ICEPIC is a repository of information held by
DHS in connection with its several and
varied missions and functions, including, but
not limited to: the enforcement of civil and
criminal laws (including the immigration
law); investigations, inquiries, and
proceedings there under; and national
security and intelligence activities. ICEPIC
contains information that is collected by, on
behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation
with DHS and its components and may
contain personally identifiable information
collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal,
foreign, or international government
agencies.
Pursuant to exemption 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2)
of the Privacy Act, portions of this system are
exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d);
(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5)
and (e)(8); (f), and (g). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2), this system is exempt from the
following provisions of the Privacy Act,
subject to the limitations set forth in those
subsections: 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d), (e)(1),
(e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (f). Exemptions from
these particular subsections are justified, on
a case-by-case basis to be determined at the
time a request is made, for the following
reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4)
(Accounting for Disclosures) because release
of the accounting of disclosures could alert
the subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory
violation to the existence of the investigation,
and reveal investigative interest on the part
of DHS as well as the recipient agency.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:39 Jan 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
Disclosure of the accounting would therefore
present a serious impediment to law
enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve
national security. Disclosure of the
accounting would also permit the individual
who is the subject of a record to impede the
investigation, to tamper with witnesses or
evidence, and to avoid detection or
apprehension, which would undermine the
entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records)
because access to the records contained in
this system of records could inform the
subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory
violation, to the existence of the
investigation, and reveal investigative
interest on the part of DHS or another agency.
Access to the records could permit the
individual who is the subject of a record to
impede the investigation, to tamper with
witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection
or apprehension. Amendment of the records
could interfere with ongoing investigations
and law enforcement activities and would
impose an impossible administrative burden
by requiring investigations to be
continuously reinvestigated. In addition,
permitting access and amendment to such
information could disclose security-sensitive
information that could be detrimental to
homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and
Necessity of Information) because in the
course of investigations into potential
violations of Federal law, the accuracy of
information obtained or introduced
occasionally may be unclear or the
information may not be strictly relevant or
necessary to a specific investigation. In the
interests of effective law enforcement, it is
appropriate to retain all information that may
aid in establishing patterns of unlawful
activity.
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of
Information from Individuals) because
requiring that information be collected from
the subject of an investigation would alert the
subject to the nature or existence of an
investigation, thereby interfering with the
related investigation and law enforcement
activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to
Subjects) because providing such detailed
information would impede law enforcement
in that it could compromise investigations
by: revealing the existence of an otherwise
confidential investigation and thereby
provide an opportunity for the subject of an
investigation to conceal evidence, alter
patterns of behavior, or take other actions
that could thwart investigative efforts; reveal
the identity of witnesses in investigations,
thereby providing an opportunity for the
subjects of the investigations or others to
harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere
with the collection of evidence or other
information from such witnesses; or reveal
the identity of confidential informants,
which would negatively affect the
informant’s usefulness in any ongoing or
future investigations and discourage
members of the public from cooperating as
confidential informants in any future
investigations.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H)
(Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5461
Rules) because portions of this system are
exempt from the individual access provisions
of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above,
and therefore DHS is not required to establish
requirements, rules, or procedures with
respect to such access. Providing notice to
individuals with respect to existence of
records pertaining to them in the system of
records or otherwise setting up procedures
pursuant to which individuals may access
and view records pertaining to themselves in
the system would undermine investigative
efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses,
and potential witnesses, and confidential
informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of
Information) because in the collection of
information for law enforcement purposes it
is impossible to determine in advance what
information is accurate, relevant, timely, and
complete. Compliance with (e)(5) would
preclude DHS agents from using their
investigative training and exercise of good
judgment to both conduct and report on
investigations.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on
Individuals) because compliance would
interfere with DHS’ ability to obtain, serve,
and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law
enforcement mechanisms that may be filed
under seal, and could result in disclosure of
investigative techniques, procedures, and
evidence.
(i) From subsection (g) to the extent that
the system is exempt from other specific
subsections of the Privacy Act relating to
individuals’ rights to access and amend their
records contained in the system. Therefore
DHS is not required to establish rules or
procedures pursuant to which individuals
may seek a civil remedy for the agency’s:
Refusal to amend a record; refusal to comply
with a request for access to records; failure
to maintain accurate, relevant timely and
complete records; or failure to otherwise
comply with an individual’s right to access
or amend records.
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8–1554 Filed 1–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Parts 708a and 708b
RIN 3133–AD40
Mergers, Conversion From Credit
Union Charter, and Account Insurance
Termination
National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking and request for comment
(ANPR).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NCUA is considering whether
to issue regulations to govern merger of
a federally insured credit union (FICU)
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
5462
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
into or a FICU’s conversion to a
financial institution other than a mutual
savings bank (MSB). NCUA currently
does not have regulations governing
these transactions. Also, NCUA is
considering amending its regulations
regarding mergers, charter conversions,
and changes in account insurance to
address various issues these
transactions present that affect member
rights and ownership interests. These
issues include accuracy of
communications to members, voting
integrity, fiduciary duty obligations for
insiders, and member interest in credit
union equity, for example, through
merger dividends. NCUA seeks
comment on the necessity of amending
its current regulations to address these
issues, any additional issues relevant to
these transactions not noted in this
ANPR, and, if commenters believe
regulatory amendments are needed,
suggestions on how to address these
issues.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (Please
send comments by one method only):
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• NCUA Web Site: https://
www.ncua.gov/
RegulationsOpinionsLaws/
proposed_regs/proposed_regs.html.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Address to
regcomments@ncua.gov. Include ‘‘[Your
name]—Comments on Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking for Parts 708a
and 708b’’ in the e-mail subject line.
• Fax: (703) 518–6319. Use the
subject line described above for e-mail.
• Mail: Address to Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board, National Credit
Union Administration, 1775 Duke
Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–
3428.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as
mail address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Kressman, Staff Attorney, Office
of General Counsel, at the above address
or telephone: (703) 518–6540.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The primary focus of this ANPR is
protection of member interests in
transactions where members have a
great deal at stake because the
transactions involve fundamental
changes in their ownership or the
structure of their credit union,
including, in some cases, termination of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:39 Jan 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
a credit union charter or termination of
federal account insurance. This ANPR
concerns six types of transactions:
Merger of a FICU into a FICU; merger of
a FICU into a privately insured credit
union (PICU); conversion of a federallyinsured state credit union (FISCU) into
a PICU; conversion of a FICU to an
MSB; merger of a FICU into a financial
institution other than an MSB; and
conversion of a FICU into a financial
institution other than an MSB.
While these transactions are legally
permissible, member ownership can be
extinguished or diluted and members
may have lesser voting rights or be
deprived of the security of federal share
insurance. These transactions raise
various issues, as discussed below, that
NCUA believes its current regulations
may not adequately address. NCUA is
considering amendments to make
certain member interests are adequately
protected, including helping members
understand the risks and rewards
associated with these transactions. In
addition, NCUA has not promulgated
rules on the merger of a FICU or
conversion of a FICU into a financial
institution other than an MSB and
NCUA is considering the necessity of
issuing rules to govern these
transactions. As in all rulemaking it
undertakes, NCUA’s focus is on
providing flexibility and fairness,
imposing minimal regulatory burden on
credit unions whose members choose to
pursue any of these transactions, and
protecting the National Credit Union
Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF).
NCUA’s legal authority to regulate
these transactions derives from the
Federal Credit Union Act (Act). The Act
specifically authorizes the NCUA Board
to prescribe rules governing mergers of
FICUs, including mergers or
consolidations with any noninsured
credit union or institution. 12 U.S.C.
1766(a), 1785(b), 1785(c), and 1789(a).
By definition, ‘‘noninsured’’ means not
insured by the NCUSIF, 12 U.S.C.
1752(7), and, therefore, NCUA may
prescribe rules governing mergers,
conversions, or consolidations with
PICUs or other financial institutions, for
example, banks or thrifts insured by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Part 708b of NCUA’s regulations,
which is limited to ‘‘credit union into
credit union’’ mergers, generally
requires: (1) Approval of a merger plan
by the boards of directors of each credit
union; (2) submission of a written plan
and other documents to NCUA; and (3)
approval of a plan or proposal by NCUA
and, for federal credit unions, by
members. 12 CFR Part 708b. If a federal
credit union is in danger of insolvency,
member approval is not required. 12
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CFR 708b.105(b). NCUA considers
various factors in approving or
disapproving a merger including
protecting member interests and effects
on the NCUSIF.
Similar to FICU to FICU mergers,
NCUA broadly regulates the procedures
and substance of FICU to PICU mergers
including: (1) Approval of a merger plan
by the boards of directors of each credit
union; (2) submission of a written plan
and other documents to NCUA; and (3)
approval of plan or proposal by NCUA
and, for federal credit unions, by
members. NCUA imposes additional
notice, voting, and approval
requirements on this type of transaction,
including the use of form documents. 12
CFR Part 708b, Subpart B–Voluntary
Termination or Conversion of Insured
Status, and Subpart C–Forms. These
requirements apply as well where a
FISCU converts to a PICU.
The Act specifically addresses FICU
to MSB conversions. 12 U.S.C.
1785(b)(2). While a FICU may convert to
an MSB without the prior approval of
the NCUA Board, 12 U.S.C.
1785(b)(2)(A), it must provide notice to
each of its members who is eligible to
vote on the matter of its intent to
convert 90, 60, and 30 days before the
date of the member vote on the
conversion. 12 U.S.C. 1785(b)(2)(C). In
this context, the Act requires NCUA’s
regulations to be consistent with rules
promulgated by other federal financial
regulators and must be no more or less
restrictive than those applicable to
charter conversions by other financial
institutions. 12 U.S.C. 1785(b)(2)(G)(i).
NCUA administers the member vote,
which is verified by the federal or state
regulatory agency that would have
jurisdiction over the institution after the
conversion. If either NCUA or that
regulatory agency disapproves of the
methods by which the member vote was
taken or procedures applicable to the
member vote, the member vote shall be
taken again, as directed by NCUA or the
other agency. 12 U.S.C. 1785
(b)(2)(G)(ii). Additionally, the Act
specifically provides that no director or
senior management official may receive
any economic benefit in connection
with a conversion of the credit union
other than director fees and other
compensation and benefits paid in the
ordinary course of business. 12 U.S.C.
1785(b)(2)(F).
NCUA has implemented its statutory
authority to administer FICU to MSB
conversions. 12 CFR Part 708a. While
the decision to convert belongs to
members, to make this decision,
members must be fully informed as to
the reasons for the conversion and be
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
able to consider the advantages and
disadvantages.
In 2006, NCUA revised Part 708a to
improve the information available to
members and the board of directors as
they consider a possible conversion. 71
FR 77150 (December 22, 2006). The
revisions included amended
disclosures, revised voting procedures,
procedures to facilitate communications
among members, and procedures for
members to provide their comments to
directors before the credit union board
votes on a conversion plan.
NCUA has not issued regulations
regarding the merger or conversion of a
FICU into a financial institution other
than an MSB. The NCUA Board has
statutory authority to approve or
disapprove these two kinds of
transactions and authority to
promulgate rules to regulate the
substance and procedures of them. 12
U.S.C. 1766(a), 1785(b)(1)(A),
1785(b)(1)(D), 1789(a)(11). In approving
or disapproving these transactions, the
NCUA Board must consider a number of
criteria including: (1) The history,
financial condition, and management
policies of the credit union; (2) the
adequacy of the credit union’s reserves;
(3) the economic advisability of the
transaction; (4) the general character
and fitness of the credit union’s
management; (5) the convenience and
needs of the members to be served by
the credit union; and (6) whether the
credit union is a cooperative association
organized for the purpose of promoting
thrift among its members and creating a
source of credit for provident or
productive purposes. 12 U.S.C. 1785(c).
NCUA has not issued regulations
regarding these transactions because
there have been only a handful of these
transactions; in those instances, credit
unions sought Board approval by
petition, fashioning a submission and
following procedures generally in line
with the requirements of Part 708a.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
B. Discussion
1. Credit Union Merger or Conversion
Into a Financial Institution Other Than
an MSB
NCUA seeks comment on whether
issuing rules to govern credit union
mergers or conversions into a financial
institution other than an MSB would be
beneficial for credit union members.
NCUA is considering establishing an
administrative framework and
procedures rather than the case-by-case
approach that has been used. Potential
downsides to issuing a rule are that,
having a rule in place, might encourage
these transactions and many observers
believe they are, only in unusual
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:39 Jan 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
circumstances, in the best interests of
members. Nevertheless, having a rule in
place, with appropriate safeguards for
member interests, could assist all
parties, including the NCUA Board, in
protecting protect member interests in
their credit unions.
If it is determined a new rule would
be beneficial, NCUA believes the rule,
in brief, would establish a
comprehensive administrative
framework to process these transactions,
while including provisions to ensure the
protection of member rights and
interests. In addition, NCUA would
consider clarifying in a rule the criteria
it would apply in approving these
transactions. Procedurally, a new rule
could be modeled after part 708b,
including the use of form
documentation and, in addition to
borrowing the certain provisions of part
708b, it could address the issues
discussed below that the Board believes
would also be present in these
transactions.
Some observers have argued that
direct merger or conversion of a FICU
into a stock issuing bank may have
potential advantages. For example, it
would enable a FICU that anticipates
the need to eventually issue stock as a
bank to accomplish this goal in a more
efficient one-step process as opposed to
the typical two-step process (FICU to
MSB then MSB to stock bank) that has
been the pattern in recent years in the
FICU to MSB conversion scenario.
Another advantage of a rule permitting
these types of transactions is that it
could be structured in a manner to give
economic protection to members by
making certain they share in the
distribution of cash, free stock, or
transferable stock subscription rights as
compensation for their equity interest in
their credit union.
A potential issue with a rule for these
transactions is that the rule would likely
be complex because it would need to
cover: (1) Both mergers and conversions;
(2) charter changes to federal and state
banks; and (3) charter changes to
freestanding stock banks and those
within a mutual holding company
structure or stock holding company
structure.
NCUA requests comment on whether
it should issue a rule regulating these
transactions or continue to address them
under NCUA’s statutory authority on an
as-needed basis. If a commenter is in
favor of NCUA issuing a rule, the
commenter should also suggest how the
rule could be structured, how NCUA
should address the four issues discussed
in B.2. below in the context of the rule,
and what other issues should be
addressed.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5463
2. Issues
NCUA believes there are significant
issues affecting member interests arising
across the spectrum of the restructuring
transactions contemplated in this
ANPR, including those for which NCUA
currently has regulations in place and
those, discussed above, for which it
does not. This ANPR sets out the issues
for comment in four categories:
Management’s Duties, Member Right to
Equity, Communications to Members,
and Member Voting. NCUA is interested
in receiving comments on how its
regulations should best address these
issues. A discussion of the issues
follows.
(a) Management’s Duties. In this
category, the ANPR seeks comment on
two issues: the need for a regulation to
address the fiduciary duty credit union
directors owe to members and the need
for additional regulatory provisions to
guard against insider enrichment.
(i) Fiduciary Duty
A credit union’s board of directors has
a fiduciary duty to act in the best
interests of its members.1 The Act
makes numerous references to the
NCUA Board’s responsibility to act in
the best interests of credit union
members, including:
• The NCUA Board may act to
remove or prohibit any institutionaffiliated party at a FICU if that action
meets certain requirements, including
that the ‘‘interests of the insured credit
union’s members have been or could be
prejudiced.’’ 12 U.S.C. 1787(g)(1)(B).
• Credit unions applying for federal
account insurance must agree to
maintain such special reserves as the
NCUA Board may require ‘‘for
protecting the interests of the
members.’’ 12 U.S.C. 1781(b)(6).
• The NCUA Board must review the
application of any individual to become
a director or senior manager at a newly
chartered or troubled FICU, and
disapprove that application, if
acceptance of the applicant would not
be in the best interests of the depositors
(members). 12 U.S.C. 1790a.
• When acting as the conservator or
liquidating agent of a FICU, the NCUA
Board may take any action it determines
is in the best interests of the credit
union’s account holders (members). 12
U.S.C. 1787(b)(2)(J)(2).
As discussed in a previous
rulemaking, although referring
1 This duty is based on the relationship of trust
and confidence between the members and directors
and arises because members’ property is entrusted
to the entity to be managed for the members benefit.
Jean E. Maess, J.D., Corpus Juris Secundum 47
(2007).
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
5464
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
specifically to the NCUA Board, these
provisions support the conclusion that
credit union directors have a fiduciary
obligation to credit union members. 71
FR 77150 (December 22, 2006).
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
A closer look at how the cited provisions
function, however, connects them to the
[credit union’s board of] directors.
Specifically, the best interests of the
members will dictate the [NCUA] Board’s
actions when removing or prohibiting a
director, approving the appointment of a
director, operating a conserved credit union
in the role of the board of directors, and
reviewing the propriety of a board of
directors’ decision to pursue a voluntary
liquidation. If the best interests of the
members standard guides the conduct of the
[NCUA] Board, it must also guide the
conduct of [the credit union’s board of]
directors.
Id.
While it is important for a credit
union’s board of directors to understand
its duty to act in the best interests of the
members in the ordinary course of
business, NCUA believes it is especially
important when the board is
considering a proposal to change the
credit union’s charter or insurance
status. These extraordinary transactions
not only result in a fundamental shift in
the credit union, but tend to present
more conflicts between member
interests and the personal financial
interests of credit union management.
While the existence of a fiduciary
duty owed by directors to members is
clear, neither the Act nor NCUA
regulations establish or provide any
guidance as to what that standard of
care is for directors. NCUA is
considering establishing a regulatory
standard of care for directors that will
help ensure they meet their fiduciary
duty to their members when directors
are making decisions in connection with
the transactions discussed in this ANPR.
NCUA has considered the standards
of care that have developed in this area
of the law, which, to a great extent, have
developed in case law, applying
fiduciary principles not only to
situations involving trusts, but also in
the corporate context. The result is that
a credit union board currently must look
to state law and case law to understand
the scope of its fiduciary duties to
members and the standard of care
required as articulated by its particular
state. Unfortunately, case law and state
law can vary widely from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction causing confusion for credit
unions and a lack of uniformity between
credit unions in one state and others in
other states. As a result, the standard of
care applying to these transactions can
span a broad spectrum ranging from
only requiring a board of directors to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:39 Jan 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
have a rational basis for making a
decision to requiring the board to
demonstrate that its decisions are made
in the best interests of its members and
based on a full consideration and
documented analysis of all the
alternatives.
Considering the unique interests,
concerns, and structure of credit unions
as financial cooperatives, NCUA
believes having a uniform federal
standard may be useful to eliminate
confusion resulting from differences in
state law and may make it easier for
credit union boards to fulfill their duties
to members. NCUA solicits comment on
whether it should establish, by
regulation, a uniform federal standard of
care for the transactions discussed in
this ANPR, including specific
suggestions on the standard that should
be applied and if there should be a
separate standard of care for
transactions where the credit union
member will no longer be a member of
a credit union.
(ii) Insider Enrichment
NCUA’s experience with FICU to
MSB conversions suggests that in some
cases credit union officials have
pursued personal enrichment to the
detriment of members, and NCUA has
issued disclosure requirements to make
members aware of the potential for this.
NCUA is aware of conversion
transactions where family members of
credit union officials had joined the
credit union in noticeable numbers
prior to the conversion. These new
members, who may be motivated to
share in the profits from an eventual
sale of stock, can also skew the member
vote on conversion in some instances,
especially in a close vote.
NCUA is considering specific
regulatory requirements regarding the
record date for members voting on a
conversion proposal or other transaction
to prevent this problem. NCUA is
interested in comments on any aspect of
this issue.
(b) Member Right to Equity.
NCUA is broadly considering the
issue of how to deal with unequal net
worth ratios among merging credit
unions. This imbalance may result in
unfair treatment of members of a credit
union with a higher net worth. One
method NCUA is considering to address
this issue is to require a merger
dividend. Another option could be to
simply require the board of directors of
a merging credit union to consider this
issue as part of its due diligence, come
to its own conclusion, and then justify
that decision to its members.
Generally, federal credit unions may
only return net worth to members in the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
form of dividends or a return of interest.
12 U.S.C. 1761b, 1763. Dividends must
be based on an account balance as of a
specific date or calculated over a period
of time, whether a month, a quarter, or
several years. 12 CFR 707.7(a),
Appendix B (b). Often, credit unions
undertake a calculation of a dividend
going back for a period of years to
permit a credit union to reward longtime members.
As noted, a merging credit union
often has a higher net worth ratio than
the continuing credit union. Also, a
merging credit union may have other
valuable characteristics for which the
continuing credit union is willing to pay
a premium, such as a complementary
field of membership, thus increasing the
net worth of the merging credit union in
the context of the merger. In recent
merger transactions, issues about merger
dividends, also sometimes called a
‘‘share adjustment’’ and ‘‘capital
equalization,’’ have arisen because of
the nature of dividends in credit unions.
NCUA’s Office of General Counsel has
addressed this issue and concluded that
so-called ‘‘per capita’’ dividends (a flat
amount paid to all members) are legally
impermissible. OGC Op. 07–0410 (April
13, 2007), OGC Op. 97–0813 (September
29, 1997).
NCUA recognizes that requiring a
merger dividend or other return of
interest in certain circumstances could
include the following advantages: (1)
Rewarding the merging credit union’s
members; (2) equalizing an imbalance in
net worth between the credit unions,
although this could lessen the merging
credit union’s value to the continuing
credit union; and (3) establishing a
consistent approach (e.g., setting a
record date or dividend period,
identifying the kinds of accounts to
receive the merger dividend, and so
forth).
On the other hand, NCUA recognizes
that not imposing a merger dividend
requirement in this area allows credit
unions the flexibility to decide for
themselves whether to include a merger
dividend as part of their due diligence
and negotiations and leaves calculation
of any dividend to the merging credit
unions, essentially allowing market
forces and the wishes of the members to
determine if a dividend is appropriate.
The Board notes that, in a recent FICU
to stock bank merger, the merging FICU
returned to its members their equity
interest in the credit union plus a
premium, and the Board believes a
return of equity can be a fair way to
compensate members for the loss of the
credit union they own. In other
transactions, such as FICU to MSB
conversions, NCUA has noticed that
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
many of the converting credit unions
seek to convert at a time when their net
worth is high. In some instances, the
conversion appears timed to occur after
a period where the credit union has
purposefully acted to increase its net
worth. NCUA believes that, in those
instances where excess equity has been
built up, fairness to members may
dictate payment of some equity to
members of a merging or converting
credit union instead of transferring it to
a new institution where the credit union
members will have less control and
have diluted or no ownership interests.
NCUA seeks comment on all possible
options for dealing with this issue either
as an amendment to current regulations
or by issuing a new regulation.
(c) Communications to Members:
Improper or Misleading
Communications to Members.
NCUA fully supports members’ rights
to vote, in accordance with the Act, to
make changes to their charter or account
insurance but believes the linchpin in
these transactions is that
communications to members regarding
the risks and benefits of the transactions
must be accurate, sufficiently
comprehensive, and not misleading.
NCUA encourages a FICU converting
to an MSB to communicate freely with
its members. There are no limits or
restrictions on the number or kind of
communications, provided the
communications are accurate and not
misleading and otherwise comply with
NCUA’s rules for written member
communications. An example of an
improper, conversion-related
communication is one that implies
NCUA endorses the conversion or
conversion-related materials. In a recent
conversion transaction, NCUA
discovered a credit union made this
kind of improper communication to its
members. Although the instances in
which this issue has been most
prevalent are FICU to MSB conversions,
it also could arise in any transaction in
which a credit union sends materials to
its members, such as federal to private
insurance conversions and FICU to bank
mergers.
NCUA is considering the need for a
regulatory provision that specifically
prohibits communications from credit
union officials that state or imply that
NCUA has endorsed the charter change
transaction or accompanying credit
union materials. NCUA is also
considering requiring a credit union to
include a statement in its materials to
that effect, namely, that NCUA has not
endorsed the transaction. NCUA
requests comment in this regard.
In a charter change transaction, a
credit union may communicate with its
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:39 Jan 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
members about the kind and quality of
services it will provide after completion
of the transaction. For example, a credit
union may close or move branch offices
or modify other services available to
members, such as ATM services. It may
choose to do this as a cost savings
measure, to achieve better compatibility
with the continuing financial
institution, or for other reasons. In the
FICU to MSB conversion context, a
converting credit union may be legally
required to close or move a branch
located in a federal building that has
been provided by a federal agency on a
rent-free and utility-free basis.2 Under
any of these circumstances, members
may face the diminution of services or
have less convenient access to them.
An issue in a past FICU to MSB
conversion was whether the credit
union would be legally required to close
or move a number of its rent-free
branches located in federal buildings. In
that transaction, the credit union made
what appeared to be potentially
inaccurate statements about its ability to
continue to operate the branches in the
same locations following conversion to
an MSB.
In another FICU to MSB conversion,
the credit union made arguably
misleading statements to members about
its ability to continue to participate in
a shared branch/shared service center
network after conversion. In that
transaction, the credit union told its
members it was seeking approval to
obtain post-conversion access to the
network but failed to disclose that its
request could be denied resulting in the
members not having access to the
network.
Members need full and accurate
information about a conversion to cast
an informed vote, including if the
transaction will result in the credit
union closing or moving branches,
losing access to shared branch/shared
service center networks, or modifying
other services available to members.
NCUA is considering requiring
converting credit unions to research this
aspect of a transaction and disclose their
findings to members. Alternatively,
NCUA could issue a more general rule
2 The Act authorizes federal agencies to provide
federal credit unions space in federal buildings on
a rent-free and utility-free basis if certain conditions
are met. 12 U.S.C. 1770. The key condition is that
‘‘at least 95 percent of the membership of the credit
union to be served by the allotment of space * * *
is composed of persons who either are presently
federal employees or were federal employees at the
time of their admission into the credit union, and
members of their families * * *’’ See also 41 CFR
102–79.40. MSBs do not have any similar authority,
although it appears that, under General Service
Administration regulations, commercial entities,
including banks, can lease space on a rental basis
in publicly-accessible areas of federal buildings.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5465
to address the need for full and accurate
information. NCUA solicits comments
on all aspects of this issue.
Another communications issue,
which NCUA’s rules do not specifically
address, is the so-called ‘‘hostile
takeover’’ scenario, where an institution
communicates directly with the
members of a target credit union to
encourage a merger or other
consolidation.3 In the credit union
context, the term ‘‘hostile takeover’’ may
be a misnomer because there is no
saleable stock. Generally, a hostile
takeover refers to a takeover of a target
company against the wishes of the
target’s management and board of
directors through the purchase of a
controlling interest in the target’s stock.
Failed merger negotiations between two
federal credit unions recently resulted
in the potential acquiring credit union
communicating directly with the
potentially merging credit union’s
members in a fashion that was deemed
hostile by the management of the target
credit union.
NCUA could consider addressing
third party merger communications by
relying on current regulations or issuing
a new regulation. As noted above,
NCUA regulations do not directly
address this situation, although part 740
prohibits a FICU from using any
advertising or making any
representation that is inaccurate or
deceptive or in any way misrepresents
its services, contracts, or financial
condition. 12 CFR Part 740. The
limitations of current regulations such
as Part 708b and Part 740 are also, in
part, that they only extend to insured
credit unions. While a new regulation
addressing mergers by a hostile
institution may be more effective than
the status quo, it would not be without
its own limitations. Specifically, NCUA
has no direct jurisdiction over
communications by non-credit union
institutions with credit union members.
Alternatively, an approach could be to
establish communication standards that
would have to be met as a condition of
NCUA approval of a merger.
NCUA seeks comment on this topic in
general and regulatory approaches to
3 Outside of the credit union context, where there
is a tender offer for stock of a public company (the
mechanism by which a hostile bidder solicits the
stockholders of the target), it triggers the provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules.
These provisions address communications by third
parties to stockholders and, as noted in OGC Op
07–0342 (April 6, 2007), those SEC provisions
provide detailed requirements regarding
disclosures, tender offers, and other matters. SEC
oversight in this regard helps protect stockholders
by ensuring they are informed with accurate
information about the transaction.
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
5466
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules
protecting the interests of credit union
members in this context.
(d) Member Voting: Right to Request
a Recount and Use of Interim Tallies.
For the transactions that are the
subject of this ANPR, NCUA is
considering permitting any member of a
credit union to request a formal recount
of the vote in any situation in which the
margin of decision is less than a certain
percentage of the total votes cast. NCUA
has not determined the appropriate
margin for triggering recount rights and
believes examining state law on
political vote recounts in this regard
could be appropriate and useful. NCUA
is also considering a recount provision
if sufficient evidence exists that the
original vote tabulation is unreliable.
NCUA has reviewed the voting
procedures of a number of close votes in
recent years. In those cases, NCUA
found irregularities and improprieties
that called into question the reliability
of the vote. Examples of problems found
include the credit union or its agent:
Failing to compile a proper membership
list thereby excluding some members
from the vote; improperly excluding
members from voting for causing a loss
to the credit union; allowing individuals
not fully qualified as members to vote;
improperly handling mail ballots
returned as undeliverable; employing
poor internal controls in securing,
counting, and recording votes; using
inconsistent procedures for determining
if a vote cast was invalid; and being
generally unable to reconcile the tally.
An unreliable voting process, whether
intentionally manipulated or the result
of incompetence, deprives members of
their right to choose the fate of their
credit union. NCUA requests comment
on providing members the right to
request a recount, under what
circumstances and criteria a recount
should be undertaken, and procedures
for exercising such a right.
The use by management of an interim
vote tally presently is primarily an issue
in the FICU to MSB conversion context
but could be an issue anytime
management has an interest in
influencing the outcome of a
membership vote. NCUA has observed
in the voting procedures in some FICU
to MSB conversions that credit union
management seek periodic running
tallies from the election teller as to how
many members have voted yes and no
and which members have not voted.
Credit union management has justified
this practice by stating they only use the
information for the purpose of
encouraging members to vote. In
investigations of recent conversions,
NCUA has discovered that, in practice,
some credit unions use this information
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:39 Jan 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
only for encouraging votes in favor of
the conversion. This violates both Part
708a and typical credit union policies
aimed at neutrality in this regard. For
example, some credit unions have
pressured, required, or paid employees
to encourage members to vote in favor
of conversion even where the employees
did not wish to do so or did not believe
conversion was in the members’ best
interests. NCUA has learned that some
credit unions have targeted likely ‘‘yes’’
voters in an attempt to sway the vote in
favor of conversion. Other tactics
include determining how a member
voted in violation of the voting secrecy
requirement, using periodic voting
tallies to management’s advantage and
to the disadvantage of those members
opposed to the conversion by not
sharing that information with members,
and improperly handling ballots for
members instead of having members
mail them directly to the independent
election teller.
NCUA is considering: (1) Prohibiting
credit union management from
obtaining interim voting tallies from the
election teller; (2) prohibiting credit
union management from obtaining lists
of members who have not voted from
the election teller; (3) prohibiting credit
union employees from soliciting
members to vote; and (4) prohibiting
credit union employees from
completing member ballots or otherwise
handling ballots. NCUA would
appreciate comments on these means for
ensuring the integrity of the voting
process.
Request for Comments
The NCUA Board invites comment on
any of the issues discussed above
including: (1) If NCUA’s regulations
should be amended to address the
issues discussed in this ANPR; (2) if
NCUA should promulgate new
regulations for credit union merger or
conversion into a financial institution
other than an MSB and, if so, what those
regulations should cover; and (3) any
other relevant issues NCUA has not
considered.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
37 CFR Part 384
[Docket No. 2007–1 CRB DTRA–BE]
Determination of Rates and Terms for
Business Establishment Services
Copyright Royalty Board,
Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges
are publishing for comment proposed
regulations that set the rates and terms
for the making of an ephemeral
recording of a sound recording by a
business establishment service for the
period 2009–2013.
DATES: Comments and objections, if any,
are due no later than February 29, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments and objections
may be sent electronically to
crb@loc.gov. In the alternative, send an
original, five copies and an electronic
copy on a CD either by mail or hand
delivery. Please do not use multiple
means of transmission. Comments and
objections may not be delivered by an
overnight delivery service other than the
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail. If by
mail (including overnight delivery),
comments and objections must be
addressed to: Copyright Royalty Board,
P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024–
0977. If hand delivered by a private
party, comments and objections must be
brought to the Copyright Office Public
Information Office, Library of Congress,
James Madison Memorial Building,
Room LM–401, 101 Independence
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559–
6000. If delivered by a commercial
courier, comments and objections must
be delivered between 8:30 a.m. and 4
p.m. to the Congressional Courier
Acceptance Site located at 2nd and D
Street, NE., Washington, DC, and the
envelope must be addressed to:
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of
Congress, James Madison Memorial
Building, LM–403, 101 Independence
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559–
6000.
By the National Credit Union
Administration Board on January 24, 2008.
Mary F. Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8–1572 Filed 1–29–08; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or
Gina Giuffreda, Attorney-Advisor, by
telephone at (202) 707–7658 or e-mail at
crb@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 7535–01–P
Background
PO 00000
In 1995, Congress enacted the Digital
Performance in Sound Recordings Act,
Public Law No. 104–39, which created
an exclusive right for copyright owners
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5461-5466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1572]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Parts 708a and 708b
RIN 3133-AD40
Mergers, Conversion From Credit Union Charter, and Account
Insurance Termination
AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment
(ANPR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NCUA is considering whether to issue regulations to govern
merger of a federally insured credit union (FICU)
[[Page 5462]]
into or a FICU's conversion to a financial institution other than a
mutual savings bank (MSB). NCUA currently does not have regulations
governing these transactions. Also, NCUA is considering amending its
regulations regarding mergers, charter conversions, and changes in
account insurance to address various issues these transactions present
that affect member rights and ownership interests. These issues include
accuracy of communications to members, voting integrity, fiduciary duty
obligations for insiders, and member interest in credit union equity,
for example, through merger dividends. NCUA seeks comment on the
necessity of amending its current regulations to address these issues,
any additional issues relevant to these transactions not noted in this
ANPR, and, if commenters believe regulatory amendments are needed,
suggestions on how to address these issues.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(Please send comments by one method only):
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
NCUA Web Site: https://www.ncua.gov/
RegulationsOpinionsLaws/proposed_regs/proposed_regs.html. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Address to regcomments@ncua.gov. Include ``[Your
name]--Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Parts
708a and 708b'' in the e-mail subject line.
Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above
for e-mail.
Mail: Address to Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board,
National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314-3428.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Kressman, Staff Attorney, Office
of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone: (703) 518-6540.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The primary focus of this ANPR is protection of member interests in
transactions where members have a great deal at stake because the
transactions involve fundamental changes in their ownership or the
structure of their credit union, including, in some cases, termination
of a credit union charter or termination of federal account insurance.
This ANPR concerns six types of transactions: Merger of a FICU into a
FICU; merger of a FICU into a privately insured credit union (PICU);
conversion of a federally-insured state credit union (FISCU) into a
PICU; conversion of a FICU to an MSB; merger of a FICU into a financial
institution other than an MSB; and conversion of a FICU into a
financial institution other than an MSB.
While these transactions are legally permissible, member ownership
can be extinguished or diluted and members may have lesser voting
rights or be deprived of the security of federal share insurance. These
transactions raise various issues, as discussed below, that NCUA
believes its current regulations may not adequately address. NCUA is
considering amendments to make certain member interests are adequately
protected, including helping members understand the risks and rewards
associated with these transactions. In addition, NCUA has not
promulgated rules on the merger of a FICU or conversion of a FICU into
a financial institution other than an MSB and NCUA is considering the
necessity of issuing rules to govern these transactions. As in all
rulemaking it undertakes, NCUA's focus is on providing flexibility and
fairness, imposing minimal regulatory burden on credit unions whose
members choose to pursue any of these transactions, and protecting the
National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF).
NCUA's legal authority to regulate these transactions derives from
the Federal Credit Union Act (Act). The Act specifically authorizes the
NCUA Board to prescribe rules governing mergers of FICUs, including
mergers or consolidations with any noninsured credit union or
institution. 12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1785(b), 1785(c), and 1789(a). By
definition, ``noninsured'' means not insured by the NCUSIF, 12 U.S.C.
1752(7), and, therefore, NCUA may prescribe rules governing mergers,
conversions, or consolidations with PICUs or other financial
institutions, for example, banks or thrifts insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Part 708b of NCUA's regulations, which is limited to ``credit union
into credit union'' mergers, generally requires: (1) Approval of a
merger plan by the boards of directors of each credit union; (2)
submission of a written plan and other documents to NCUA; and (3)
approval of a plan or proposal by NCUA and, for federal credit unions,
by members. 12 CFR Part 708b. If a federal credit union is in danger of
insolvency, member approval is not required. 12 CFR 708b.105(b). NCUA
considers various factors in approving or disapproving a merger
including protecting member interests and effects on the NCUSIF.
Similar to FICU to FICU mergers, NCUA broadly regulates the
procedures and substance of FICU to PICU mergers including: (1)
Approval of a merger plan by the boards of directors of each credit
union; (2) submission of a written plan and other documents to NCUA;
and (3) approval of plan or proposal by NCUA and, for federal credit
unions, by members. NCUA imposes additional notice, voting, and
approval requirements on this type of transaction, including the use of
form documents. 12 CFR Part 708b, Subpart B-Voluntary Termination or
Conversion of Insured Status, and Subpart C-Forms. These requirements
apply as well where a FISCU converts to a PICU.
The Act specifically addresses FICU to MSB conversions. 12 U.S.C.
1785(b)(2). While a FICU may convert to an MSB without the prior
approval of the NCUA Board, 12 U.S.C. 1785(b)(2)(A), it must provide
notice to each of its members who is eligible to vote on the matter of
its intent to convert 90, 60, and 30 days before the date of the member
vote on the conversion. 12 U.S.C. 1785(b)(2)(C). In this context, the
Act requires NCUA's regulations to be consistent with rules promulgated
by other federal financial regulators and must be no more or less
restrictive than those applicable to charter conversions by other
financial institutions. 12 U.S.C. 1785(b)(2)(G)(i). NCUA administers
the member vote, which is verified by the federal or state regulatory
agency that would have jurisdiction over the institution after the
conversion. If either NCUA or that regulatory agency disapproves of the
methods by which the member vote was taken or procedures applicable to
the member vote, the member vote shall be taken again, as directed by
NCUA or the other agency. 12 U.S.C. 1785 (b)(2)(G)(ii). Additionally,
the Act specifically provides that no director or senior management
official may receive any economic benefit in connection with a
conversion of the credit union other than director fees and other
compensation and benefits paid in the ordinary course of business. 12
U.S.C. 1785(b)(2)(F).
NCUA has implemented its statutory authority to administer FICU to
MSB conversions. 12 CFR Part 708a. While the decision to convert
belongs to members, to make this decision, members must be fully
informed as to the reasons for the conversion and be
[[Page 5463]]
able to consider the advantages and disadvantages.
In 2006, NCUA revised Part 708a to improve the information
available to members and the board of directors as they consider a
possible conversion. 71 FR 77150 (December 22, 2006). The revisions
included amended disclosures, revised voting procedures, procedures to
facilitate communications among members, and procedures for members to
provide their comments to directors before the credit union board votes
on a conversion plan.
NCUA has not issued regulations regarding the merger or conversion
of a FICU into a financial institution other than an MSB. The NCUA
Board has statutory authority to approve or disapprove these two kinds
of transactions and authority to promulgate rules to regulate the
substance and procedures of them. 12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1785(b)(1)(A),
1785(b)(1)(D), 1789(a)(11). In approving or disapproving these
transactions, the NCUA Board must consider a number of criteria
including: (1) The history, financial condition, and management
policies of the credit union; (2) the adequacy of the credit union's
reserves; (3) the economic advisability of the transaction; (4) the
general character and fitness of the credit union's management; (5) the
convenience and needs of the members to be served by the credit union;
and (6) whether the credit union is a cooperative association organized
for the purpose of promoting thrift among its members and creating a
source of credit for provident or productive purposes. 12 U.S.C.
1785(c). NCUA has not issued regulations regarding these transactions
because there have been only a handful of these transactions; in those
instances, credit unions sought Board approval by petition, fashioning
a submission and following procedures generally in line with the
requirements of Part 708a.
B. Discussion
1. Credit Union Merger or Conversion Into a Financial Institution Other
Than an MSB
NCUA seeks comment on whether issuing rules to govern credit union
mergers or conversions into a financial institution other than an MSB
would be beneficial for credit union members. NCUA is considering
establishing an administrative framework and procedures rather than the
case-by-case approach that has been used. Potential downsides to
issuing a rule are that, having a rule in place, might encourage these
transactions and many observers believe they are, only in unusual
circumstances, in the best interests of members. Nevertheless, having a
rule in place, with appropriate safeguards for member interests, could
assist all parties, including the NCUA Board, in protecting protect
member interests in their credit unions.
If it is determined a new rule would be beneficial, NCUA believes
the rule, in brief, would establish a comprehensive administrative
framework to process these transactions, while including provisions to
ensure the protection of member rights and interests. In addition, NCUA
would consider clarifying in a rule the criteria it would apply in
approving these transactions. Procedurally, a new rule could be modeled
after part 708b, including the use of form documentation and, in
addition to borrowing the certain provisions of part 708b, it could
address the issues discussed below that the Board believes would also
be present in these transactions.
Some observers have argued that direct merger or conversion of a
FICU into a stock issuing bank may have potential advantages. For
example, it would enable a FICU that anticipates the need to eventually
issue stock as a bank to accomplish this goal in a more efficient one-
step process as opposed to the typical two-step process (FICU to MSB
then MSB to stock bank) that has been the pattern in recent years in
the FICU to MSB conversion scenario. Another advantage of a rule
permitting these types of transactions is that it could be structured
in a manner to give economic protection to members by making certain
they share in the distribution of cash, free stock, or transferable
stock subscription rights as compensation for their equity interest in
their credit union.
A potential issue with a rule for these transactions is that the
rule would likely be complex because it would need to cover: (1) Both
mergers and conversions; (2) charter changes to federal and state
banks; and (3) charter changes to freestanding stock banks and those
within a mutual holding company structure or stock holding company
structure.
NCUA requests comment on whether it should issue a rule regulating
these transactions or continue to address them under NCUA's statutory
authority on an as-needed basis. If a commenter is in favor of NCUA
issuing a rule, the commenter should also suggest how the rule could be
structured, how NCUA should address the four issues discussed in B.2.
below in the context of the rule, and what other issues should be
addressed.
2. Issues
NCUA believes there are significant issues affecting member
interests arising across the spectrum of the restructuring transactions
contemplated in this ANPR, including those for which NCUA currently has
regulations in place and those, discussed above, for which it does not.
This ANPR sets out the issues for comment in four categories:
Management's Duties, Member Right to Equity, Communications to Members,
and Member Voting. NCUA is interested in receiving comments on how its
regulations should best address these issues. A discussion of the
issues follows.
(a) Management's Duties. In this category, the ANPR seeks comment
on two issues: the need for a regulation to address the fiduciary duty
credit union directors owe to members and the need for additional
regulatory provisions to guard against insider enrichment.
(i) Fiduciary Duty
A credit union's board of directors has a fiduciary duty to act in
the best interests of its members.\1\ The Act makes numerous references
to the NCUA Board's responsibility to act in the best interests of
credit union members, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This duty is based on the relationship of trust and
confidence between the members and directors and arises because
members' property is entrusted to the entity to be managed for the
members benefit. Jean E. Maess, J.D., Corpus Juris Secundum 47
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUA Board may act to remove or prohibit any
institution-affiliated party at a FICU if that action meets certain
requirements, including that the ``interests of the insured credit
union's members have been or could be prejudiced.'' 12 U.S.C.
1787(g)(1)(B).
Credit unions applying for federal account insurance must
agree to maintain such special reserves as the NCUA Board may require
``for protecting the interests of the members.'' 12 U.S.C. 1781(b)(6).
The NCUA Board must review the application of any
individual to become a director or senior manager at a newly chartered
or troubled FICU, and disapprove that application, if acceptance of the
applicant would not be in the best interests of the depositors
(members). 12 U.S.C. 1790a.
When acting as the conservator or liquidating agent of a
FICU, the NCUA Board may take any action it determines is in the best
interests of the credit union's account holders (members). 12 U.S.C.
1787(b)(2)(J)(2).
As discussed in a previous rulemaking, although referring
[[Page 5464]]
specifically to the NCUA Board, these provisions support the conclusion
that credit union directors have a fiduciary obligation to credit union
members. 71 FR 77150 (December 22, 2006).
A closer look at how the cited provisions function, however,
connects them to the [credit union's board of] directors.
Specifically, the best interests of the members will dictate the
[NCUA] Board's actions when removing or prohibiting a director,
approving the appointment of a director, operating a conserved
credit union in the role of the board of directors, and reviewing
the propriety of a board of directors' decision to pursue a
voluntary liquidation. If the best interests of the members standard
guides the conduct of the [NCUA] Board, it must also guide the
conduct of [the credit union's board of] directors.
Id.
While it is important for a credit union's board of directors to
understand its duty to act in the best interests of the members in the
ordinary course of business, NCUA believes it is especially important
when the board is considering a proposal to change the credit union's
charter or insurance status. These extraordinary transactions not only
result in a fundamental shift in the credit union, but tend to present
more conflicts between member interests and the personal financial
interests of credit union management.
While the existence of a fiduciary duty owed by directors to
members is clear, neither the Act nor NCUA regulations establish or
provide any guidance as to what that standard of care is for directors.
NCUA is considering establishing a regulatory standard of care for
directors that will help ensure they meet their fiduciary duty to their
members when directors are making decisions in connection with the
transactions discussed in this ANPR.
NCUA has considered the standards of care that have developed in
this area of the law, which, to a great extent, have developed in case
law, applying fiduciary principles not only to situations involving
trusts, but also in the corporate context. The result is that a credit
union board currently must look to state law and case law to understand
the scope of its fiduciary duties to members and the standard of care
required as articulated by its particular state. Unfortunately, case
law and state law can vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
causing confusion for credit unions and a lack of uniformity between
credit unions in one state and others in other states. As a result, the
standard of care applying to these transactions can span a broad
spectrum ranging from only requiring a board of directors to have a
rational basis for making a decision to requiring the board to
demonstrate that its decisions are made in the best interests of its
members and based on a full consideration and documented analysis of
all the alternatives.
Considering the unique interests, concerns, and structure of credit
unions as financial cooperatives, NCUA believes having a uniform
federal standard may be useful to eliminate confusion resulting from
differences in state law and may make it easier for credit union boards
to fulfill their duties to members. NCUA solicits comment on whether it
should establish, by regulation, a uniform federal standard of care for
the transactions discussed in this ANPR, including specific suggestions
on the standard that should be applied and if there should be a
separate standard of care for transactions where the credit union
member will no longer be a member of a credit union.
(ii) Insider Enrichment
NCUA's experience with FICU to MSB conversions suggests that in
some cases credit union officials have pursued personal enrichment to
the detriment of members, and NCUA has issued disclosure requirements
to make members aware of the potential for this. NCUA is aware of
conversion transactions where family members of credit union officials
had joined the credit union in noticeable numbers prior to the
conversion. These new members, who may be motivated to share in the
profits from an eventual sale of stock, can also skew the member vote
on conversion in some instances, especially in a close vote.
NCUA is considering specific regulatory requirements regarding the
record date for members voting on a conversion proposal or other
transaction to prevent this problem. NCUA is interested in comments on
any aspect of this issue.
(b) Member Right to Equity.
NCUA is broadly considering the issue of how to deal with unequal
net worth ratios among merging credit unions. This imbalance may result
in unfair treatment of members of a credit union with a higher net
worth. One method NCUA is considering to address this issue is to
require a merger dividend. Another option could be to simply require
the board of directors of a merging credit union to consider this issue
as part of its due diligence, come to its own conclusion, and then
justify that decision to its members.
Generally, federal credit unions may only return net worth to
members in the form of dividends or a return of interest. 12 U.S.C.
1761b, 1763. Dividends must be based on an account balance as of a
specific date or calculated over a period of time, whether a month, a
quarter, or several years. 12 CFR 707.7(a), Appendix B (b). Often,
credit unions undertake a calculation of a dividend going back for a
period of years to permit a credit union to reward long-time members.
As noted, a merging credit union often has a higher net worth ratio
than the continuing credit union. Also, a merging credit union may have
other valuable characteristics for which the continuing credit union is
willing to pay a premium, such as a complementary field of membership,
thus increasing the net worth of the merging credit union in the
context of the merger. In recent merger transactions, issues about
merger dividends, also sometimes called a ``share adjustment'' and
``capital equalization,'' have arisen because of the nature of
dividends in credit unions. NCUA's Office of General Counsel has
addressed this issue and concluded that so-called ``per capita''
dividends (a flat amount paid to all members) are legally
impermissible. OGC Op. 07-0410 (April 13, 2007), OGC Op. 97-0813
(September 29, 1997).
NCUA recognizes that requiring a merger dividend or other return of
interest in certain circumstances could include the following
advantages: (1) Rewarding the merging credit union's members; (2)
equalizing an imbalance in net worth between the credit unions,
although this could lessen the merging credit union's value to the
continuing credit union; and (3) establishing a consistent approach
(e.g., setting a record date or dividend period, identifying the kinds
of accounts to receive the merger dividend, and so forth).
On the other hand, NCUA recognizes that not imposing a merger
dividend requirement in this area allows credit unions the flexibility
to decide for themselves whether to include a merger dividend as part
of their due diligence and negotiations and leaves calculation of any
dividend to the merging credit unions, essentially allowing market
forces and the wishes of the members to determine if a dividend is
appropriate.
The Board notes that, in a recent FICU to stock bank merger, the
merging FICU returned to its members their equity interest in the
credit union plus a premium, and the Board believes a return of equity
can be a fair way to compensate members for the loss of the credit
union they own. In other transactions, such as FICU to MSB conversions,
NCUA has noticed that
[[Page 5465]]
many of the converting credit unions seek to convert at a time when
their net worth is high. In some instances, the conversion appears
timed to occur after a period where the credit union has purposefully
acted to increase its net worth. NCUA believes that, in those instances
where excess equity has been built up, fairness to members may dictate
payment of some equity to members of a merging or converting credit
union instead of transferring it to a new institution where the credit
union members will have less control and have diluted or no ownership
interests.
NCUA seeks comment on all possible options for dealing with this
issue either as an amendment to current regulations or by issuing a new
regulation.
(c) Communications to Members: Improper or Misleading
Communications to Members.
NCUA fully supports members' rights to vote, in accordance with the
Act, to make changes to their charter or account insurance but believes
the linchpin in these transactions is that communications to members
regarding the risks and benefits of the transactions must be accurate,
sufficiently comprehensive, and not misleading.
NCUA encourages a FICU converting to an MSB to communicate freely
with its members. There are no limits or restrictions on the number or
kind of communications, provided the communications are accurate and
not misleading and otherwise comply with NCUA's rules for written
member communications. An example of an improper, conversion-related
communication is one that implies NCUA endorses the conversion or
conversion-related materials. In a recent conversion transaction, NCUA
discovered a credit union made this kind of improper communication to
its members. Although the instances in which this issue has been most
prevalent are FICU to MSB conversions, it also could arise in any
transaction in which a credit union sends materials to its members,
such as federal to private insurance conversions and FICU to bank
mergers.
NCUA is considering the need for a regulatory provision that
specifically prohibits communications from credit union officials that
state or imply that NCUA has endorsed the charter change transaction or
accompanying credit union materials. NCUA is also considering requiring
a credit union to include a statement in its materials to that effect,
namely, that NCUA has not endorsed the transaction. NCUA requests
comment in this regard.
In a charter change transaction, a credit union may communicate
with its members about the kind and quality of services it will provide
after completion of the transaction. For example, a credit union may
close or move branch offices or modify other services available to
members, such as ATM services. It may choose to do this as a cost
savings measure, to achieve better compatibility with the continuing
financial institution, or for other reasons. In the FICU to MSB
conversion context, a converting credit union may be legally required
to close or move a branch located in a federal building that has been
provided by a federal agency on a rent-free and utility-free basis.\2\
Under any of these circumstances, members may face the diminution of
services or have less convenient access to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Act authorizes federal agencies to provide federal
credit unions space in federal buildings on a rent-free and utility-
free basis if certain conditions are met. 12 U.S.C. 1770. The key
condition is that ``at least 95 percent of the membership of the
credit union to be served by the allotment of space * * * is
composed of persons who either are presently federal employees or
were federal employees at the time of their admission into the
credit union, and members of their families * * *'' See also 41 CFR
102-79.40. MSBs do not have any similar authority, although it
appears that, under General Service Administration regulations,
commercial entities, including banks, can lease space on a rental
basis in publicly-accessible areas of federal buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An issue in a past FICU to MSB conversion was whether the credit
union would be legally required to close or move a number of its rent-
free branches located in federal buildings. In that transaction, the
credit union made what appeared to be potentially inaccurate statements
about its ability to continue to operate the branches in the same
locations following conversion to an MSB.
In another FICU to MSB conversion, the credit union made arguably
misleading statements to members about its ability to continue to
participate in a shared branch/shared service center network after
conversion. In that transaction, the credit union told its members it
was seeking approval to obtain post-conversion access to the network
but failed to disclose that its request could be denied resulting in
the members not having access to the network.
Members need full and accurate information about a conversion to
cast an informed vote, including if the transaction will result in the
credit union closing or moving branches, losing access to shared
branch/shared service center networks, or modifying other services
available to members. NCUA is considering requiring converting credit
unions to research this aspect of a transaction and disclose their
findings to members. Alternatively, NCUA could issue a more general
rule to address the need for full and accurate information. NCUA
solicits comments on all aspects of this issue.
Another communications issue, which NCUA's rules do not
specifically address, is the so-called ``hostile takeover'' scenario,
where an institution communicates directly with the members of a target
credit union to encourage a merger or other consolidation.\3\ In the
credit union context, the term ``hostile takeover'' may be a misnomer
because there is no saleable stock. Generally, a hostile takeover
refers to a takeover of a target company against the wishes of the
target's management and board of directors through the purchase of a
controlling interest in the target's stock. Failed merger negotiations
between two federal credit unions recently resulted in the potential
acquiring credit union communicating directly with the potentially
merging credit union's members in a fashion that was deemed hostile by
the management of the target credit union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Outside of the credit union context, where there is a tender
offer for stock of a public company (the mechanism by which a
hostile bidder solicits the stockholders of the target), it triggers
the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules. These provisions address
communications by third parties to stockholders and, as noted in OGC
Op 07-0342 (April 6, 2007), those SEC provisions provide detailed
requirements regarding disclosures, tender offers, and other
matters. SEC oversight in this regard helps protect stockholders by
ensuring they are informed with accurate information about the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCUA could consider addressing third party merger communications by
relying on current regulations or issuing a new regulation. As noted
above, NCUA regulations do not directly address this situation,
although part 740 prohibits a FICU from using any advertising or making
any representation that is inaccurate or deceptive or in any way
misrepresents its services, contracts, or financial condition. 12 CFR
Part 740. The limitations of current regulations such as Part 708b and
Part 740 are also, in part, that they only extend to insured credit
unions. While a new regulation addressing mergers by a hostile
institution may be more effective than the status quo, it would not be
without its own limitations. Specifically, NCUA has no direct
jurisdiction over communications by non-credit union institutions with
credit union members. Alternatively, an approach could be to establish
communication standards that would have to be met as a condition of
NCUA approval of a merger.
NCUA seeks comment on this topic in general and regulatory
approaches to
[[Page 5466]]
protecting the interests of credit union members in this context.
(d) Member Voting: Right to Request a Recount and Use of Interim
Tallies.
For the transactions that are the subject of this ANPR, NCUA is
considering permitting any member of a credit union to request a formal
recount of the vote in any situation in which the margin of decision is
less than a certain percentage of the total votes cast. NCUA has not
determined the appropriate margin for triggering recount rights and
believes examining state law on political vote recounts in this regard
could be appropriate and useful. NCUA is also considering a recount
provision if sufficient evidence exists that the original vote
tabulation is unreliable.
NCUA has reviewed the voting procedures of a number of close votes
in recent years. In those cases, NCUA found irregularities and
improprieties that called into question the reliability of the vote.
Examples of problems found include the credit union or its agent:
Failing to compile a proper membership list thereby excluding some
members from the vote; improperly excluding members from voting for
causing a loss to the credit union; allowing individuals not fully
qualified as members to vote; improperly handling mail ballots returned
as undeliverable; employing poor internal controls in securing,
counting, and recording votes; using inconsistent procedures for
determining if a vote cast was invalid; and being generally unable to
reconcile the tally.
An unreliable voting process, whether intentionally manipulated or
the result of incompetence, deprives members of their right to choose
the fate of their credit union. NCUA requests comment on providing
members the right to request a recount, under what circumstances and
criteria a recount should be undertaken, and procedures for exercising
such a right.
The use by management of an interim vote tally presently is
primarily an issue in the FICU to MSB conversion context but could be
an issue anytime management has an interest in influencing the outcome
of a membership vote. NCUA has observed in the voting procedures in
some FICU to MSB conversions that credit union management seek periodic
running tallies from the election teller as to how many members have
voted yes and no and which members have not voted. Credit union
management has justified this practice by stating they only use the
information for the purpose of encouraging members to vote. In
investigations of recent conversions, NCUA has discovered that, in
practice, some credit unions use this information only for encouraging
votes in favor of the conversion. This violates both Part 708a and
typical credit union policies aimed at neutrality in this regard. For
example, some credit unions have pressured, required, or paid employees
to encourage members to vote in favor of conversion even where the
employees did not wish to do so or did not believe conversion was in
the members' best interests. NCUA has learned that some credit unions
have targeted likely ``yes'' voters in an attempt to sway the vote in
favor of conversion. Other tactics include determining how a member
voted in violation of the voting secrecy requirement, using periodic
voting tallies to management's advantage and to the disadvantage of
those members opposed to the conversion by not sharing that information
with members, and improperly handling ballots for members instead of
having members mail them directly to the independent election teller.
NCUA is considering: (1) Prohibiting credit union management from
obtaining interim voting tallies from the election teller; (2)
prohibiting credit union management from obtaining lists of members who
have not voted from the election teller; (3) prohibiting credit union
employees from soliciting members to vote; and (4) prohibiting credit
union employees from completing member ballots or otherwise handling
ballots. NCUA would appreciate comments on these means for ensuring the
integrity of the voting process.
Request for Comments
The NCUA Board invites comment on any of the issues discussed above
including: (1) If NCUA's regulations should be amended to address the
issues discussed in this ANPR; (2) if NCUA should promulgate new
regulations for credit union merger or conversion into a financial
institution other than an MSB and, if so, what those regulations should
cover; and (3) any other relevant issues NCUA has not considered.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board on January 24,
2008.
Mary F. Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-1572 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P