CITI and Wells call legal hiatus over Wachovia
NEW YORK, SAN FRANSISCO, CA & CHARLOTTE, NC - The two rival bidders for Wachovia have called a temporary ceasefire in their legal struggle, after Wells Fargo announced it had won the competition for the troubled US bank. Citigroup had been reported as the preferred bidder and gained approval from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) until the surprise $15.1 billion deal between Wells and Wachovia.
Citi has promised legal action against the other two banks involved.
The FDIC-approved deal with Citi was for Wachovia's banking business but excluded the bank's securities brokerage and mutual funds units.
It is understood the deal with Wells was favoured by Wachovia because it covered all operations, allowing the bank's structure to remain intact.
Ongoing talks with the Federal Reserve have since resulted in separate statements from both Wells and Citi claiming a "litigation standstill" over the future of Wachovia's assets.
Wells has said it expects to incur merger integration costs of $10 billion with Wachovia, which has itself reported a $23.9 billion Q3 loss. The legal ceasefire agreement seems confirmation of a necessary compromise deal between the two rivals.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Review of 2024: as markets took a breather, firms switched focus
In the absence of major crises and rules deadlines, financial firms revamped strategy, services and practices
Dora flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk
Critics warn against softening risk transfer rules for insurers
Proposal to cut capital for unfunded protection of loan books would create systemic risk, investors say
