NYLIB Submits Letter to President Joseph Biden

On June 12, 2024, NYLIB submitted a letter to President Joseph Biden recommending that the President immediately nominate a new FDIC Chairman and that FDIC Chairman Gruenberg immediately resign. Please read the full letter below.

Advocacy

NYLIB Submits Letter to Congress

On March 29, 2023, NYLIB submitted a letter to Congress recommending that all deposits be temporarily guaranteed while a more fair and equitable system of deposit insurance is developed.

Advocacy

NYLIB Submits Second Letter to Federal Reserve Board Regarding Master Accounts

On May 6, 2022, NYLIB submitted a letter to the Federal Reserve Board concerning the issuance of master accounts by the Federal Reserve Banks. NYLIB’s May 6th letter follows up on NYLIB’s earlier letter to the Board dated February 17, 2022. NYLIB’s May 6th letter notes that eligibility for FDIC insurance is limited to depository institutions with at least $500,000 in non-trust deposits and recommends that the Board promulgate a regulation clarifying that master accounts can only be issued to depository institutions with at least $500,000 in non-trust deposits.

Pinchus Raice and Dustin Nofziger of Pryor Cashman LLP assisted NYLIB President Edward Lutz with the organization’s letter.

Advocacy

FDIC Incorporates NYLIB’s Recommendations in Appeals Guidelines

NYLIB submitted a comment letter to the FDIC on October 20, 2020, regarding proposed changes to the FDIC’s appeals guidelines. These guidelines allow financial institutions to appeal material supervisory determinations, including but not limited to examination ratings and MRAs. After reviewing the comments received on its proposal, the FDIC adopted revised appeals guidelines on January 19, 2021. The FDIC incorporated several of NYLIB’s recommendations in its revised appeals guidelines:

• NYLIB recommended that decisions of the new Office of Supervisory Appeals (Office) not be subject to review by the FDIC Board or Chairperson before issuance to promote confidence in the independence of the Office. The FDIC adopted this recommendation.

• NYLIB recommended that members of the Office who will serve as reviewing officials should not have been employed by the FDIC for at least two years prior to joining the Office. The FDIC partially adopted this recommendation. While the FDIC did not adopt NYLIB’s recommendation for a two-year cooling-off period, the revised guidelines do provide that only former (rather than current) government officials will be eligible to serve as reviewing officials. In addition, the FDIC noted in its commentary accompanying the revised guidelines that it may continue to consider the comments it received regarding staffing the Office, such as NYLIB’s two-year cooling-off period recommendation.

• NYLIB recommended that each of the Office’s review panels include at least one banker. While the FDIC did not adopt this recommendation, the FDIC did note that it “appreciates that industry perspective can be valuable and accordingly will generally view relevant industry experience favorably” when staffing the Office.

• NYLIB recommended that measures be taken to prevent reviewing officials from being retaliated against for issuing decisions in favor of banks, for example, by hiring reviewing officials for time-limited, non-renewable terms. The FDIC partially adopted this recommendation. The revised guidelines provide that the Office’s “[r]eviewing officials will be hired for terms.” The FDIC further noted, in direct response to NYLIB’s comment letter, that it has “structured the Office to minimize the risk that a fear of retaliation could impact decisions by reviewing officials” – for example, by providing that decisions regarding which reviewing officials will serve on which review panels will be decided by the Office rather than by FDIC officials outside of the Office.

• NYLIB recommended that when a bank’s appeals deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the bank’s deadline be extended to the next business day. The FDIC adopted this recommendation, which it described as “helpful.”

• NYLIB recommended that the revised guidelines acknowledge that banks can submit requests for extensions of deadlines. The FDIC adopted this recommendation, noting that “it is reasonable to permit institutions to request extensions under appropriate circumstances.”

• NYLIB recommended that a bank that is appealing from a decision of the appropriate Division Director (the first level of review) to the Office (the second and final level of review) “should have the right to review and respond to any written comments, briefs, or materials submitted by the Division Director or the Ombudsman to the Office in connection with the appeal.” The FDIC adopted this recommendation, with a caveat. The revised guidelines provide: “Any communications between the Office and either supervisory staff or the appealing institution will be shared with the other party to the appeal, subject to limitations on disclosure.”

• NYLIB recommended that the FDIC publish statistical data on appeals that are resolved at the first level of appeal or outside of the appeals process. NYLIB noted that publishing only final, second-level appeals decisions may create an inaccurate impression of the success of appeals if banks are successful at the first level of appeal or without a formal appeals decision ever being issued (e.g., if the FDIC responds to an appeal by withdrawing an examination report). The FDIC adopted this recommendation, at least in part. The revised guidelines provide that the FDIC will publish annual reports on Division Director (first-level) and Office (second-level) appeals decisions. The FDIC’s commentary to the revised guidelines notes: “The FDIC agrees [with NYLIB] that the transparency of the appeals process could be enhanced by providing summary statistics on the outcomes of appeals.”

Pinchus Raice and Dustin Nofziger of Pryor Cashman LLP assisted NYLIB President Edward Lutz with the organization’s comment letter.

NYLIB Comments on Proposed Changes to FDIC Appeals Process

NYLIB submitted a comment letter to the FDIC on October 20, 2020, regarding proposed changes to the FDIC’s appeals process. The appeals process allows financial institutions to appeal material supervisory determinations such as examination ratings and MRAs. Our letter advocates for bank-friendly changes to the appeals process, such as including bankers and outside counsel to banks on appeals panels and allowing banks to request deadline extensions. The letter also recommends the FDIC provide banks with draft reports of examination prior to finalization to facilitate the correction of factual inaccuracies in final reports and thereby reduce the need for appeals.