Group of professionals discuss finance

Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues

[Back To Home][Back To Archives]

From Banking and Finance Law Daily, September 10, 2013

FDIC adopts rule on deposits in foreign branches

By Andrew A. Turner, J.D.

In order to protect the Deposit Insurance Fund against the liability that it would otherwise face as a potential global deposit insurer, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has adopted a rule under which deposits in foreign branches of U.S. banks would not be covered by deposit insurance. The amendment clarifies that foreign branch deposits are not insured deposits, regardless of the location at which the deposit is payable. The amendment takes effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The FDIC, with a supporting staff memorandum, noted that a pending proposal by the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority has made it likely that large U.S. banks will change their U.K. foreign branch deposit agreements to make their U.K. branch deposits payable in both the United Kingdom and the United States. If these types of deposits were treated as insured, this could expose the DIF to expanded deposit insurance liability and created operational complexities.

Deposit liability. Some commenters suggested that the FDIC formally interpret “deposit liability” for purpose of the depositor preferences regime in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to include all deposits of a U.S. bank, wherever payable. However, this proposed alternative would contradict General Counsel Advisory Opinion 94-1, which raised the question whether the term deposit liability would include deposit obligations payable solely at a foreign branch of a U.S. bank. Under the interpretation set forth in the 1994 Advisory Opinion, an obligation in a foreign branch of a U.S. bank has not been considered a deposit liability for purposes of the national depositor preference provisions. The FDIC concluded that the interpretation of deposit liability suggested by the commenters was inconsistent with statutory language and refused to overturn the 1994 Advisory Opinion.

Dual payability. The amendment would not affect the ability of a U.S. bank to make a foreign deposit dually payable. Should a bank do so, its foreign branch deposits would be treated as deposit liabilities under the depository preference regime in the same way as, and on an equal footing with, domestic uninsured deposits.

Overseas Military Banking Facilities. The amendment does not affect the operation of Overseas Military Banking Facilities operated under Department of Defense regulations or similar facilities authorized under federal statute.

RegulatoryActivity: BankingOperations DepositInsurance

Banking and Finance Law Daily

Introducing Wolters Kluwer Banking and Finance Law Daily — a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys — providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.

A complete daily report of the news that affects your world

  • View full summaries of federal and state court decisions.
  • Access full text of legislative and regulatory developments.
  • Customize your daily email by topic and/or jurisdiction.
  • Search archives for stories of interest.

Not just news — the right news

  • Get expert analysis written by subject matter specialists—created by attorneys for attorneys.
  • Track law firms and organizations in the headlines with our new “Who’s in the News” feature.
  • Promote your firm with our new reprint policy.

24/7 access for a 24/7 world

  • Forward information with special copyright permissions, encouraging collaboration between counsel and colleagues.
  • Save time with mobile apps for your BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle.
  • Access all links from any mobile device without being prompted for user name and password.