PDA

View Full Version : OC in Fed-Funded Banks?


aemergin
02-24-2009, 12:11 AM
So this might be a silly question but after watching news today about how the government might be taking a 40% stake in Citigroup, it got me thinking - would that make a Citibank branch a "Federal facility"?

U.S. Code Title 18,930 paragraph 1 of subsection g states -
The term "Federal facility" means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

If the government does take that 40% stake in Citigroup (or any amount stake in any business for that matter) would that make the employees Federal? Would it be considered to be "owned or leased by the Federal Government"?

A large stake in a company usually comes with a seat on the board of directors .. if that seat is filled by a government official would that make it any more Federal?

Like I said, maybe this is a simple "no" and I just don't know enough about how it all works, but I'm sure someone here does know and is willing to explain it for me.

Aemergin / Erik

yellowfin
02-24-2009, 12:19 AM
I will be switching banks in the future if that's the case. I don't want my money in any bailout receiving institution.

hoffmang
02-24-2009, 12:27 AM
The short answer is no.

Having the US Treasury even be a majority shareholder (though the analysis may be different for a 100% stake) doesn't make the Federal government the property owner/landlord. Citibank remains a private entity unless and until they are acquired out right. At 40% the US is just a shareholder like everyone else. They have the same rights to control the grounds that you would if you bought a share of Citibank stock on the open market.

Citibank employees are not Federal Employees as long as the equity owners are diverse. They are Citibank employees.

-Gene

aemergin
02-24-2009, 12:36 AM
I will be switching banks in the future if that's the case. I don't want my money in any bailout receiving institution.

Too late .. Citigroup has already received bailout money.

Aemergin / Erik

Cypren
02-24-2009, 12:50 AM
Citibank employees are not Federal Employees as long as the equity owners are diverse. They are Citibank employees.

This can even be true in cases where the government is the whole owner, such as Amtrak. Generally speaking, for property to be considered "federally owned" for purposes such as the law the OP cited, it must be directly owned by a governmental agency and not by a corporation. My memory is failing at the moment but there is existing case law on this that I'm too tired to go look up the cite for at the moment. :sleeping:

aemergin
02-24-2009, 1:17 AM
Thank you both for the clarification on this. Its what I assumed to be true but thought I should check myself just in case.

Aemergin / Erik

Gray Peterson
02-24-2009, 1:18 AM
This is one reason why I like Credit Unions. They haven't been begging with their hands out for TARP money.

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 2:56 AM
I will be switching banks in the future if that's the case. I don't want my money in any bailout receiving institution.

Good luck with that. With TARP1 they *forced* the banks to take money even when they didnt want it to avoid the stigma of the ones that got it and the ones that didnt. I would expect that will happen with TARP2 so they can impose all these new rules on the banks.

Granted they didnt spend that much money, a secret about TARP1 was that a lot of the money was never spent, and what is has resulted in lawsuits against the US Treasury for not complying with FOIA requests to identify where and how much of the money was actually disbursed. The new mortgage plan which is a couple hundred billion is all TARP1 money.

If they can force entities to take the money, and then attach a bunch of rules on the money (sans the rules that was what TARP1 was) then in theory they can try to force the states to take money in exchange for changing some laws, they can force other industries to take money in exchange for greater regulation, and yay it will be like just after hte new deal was passed and the NRA (not the rifle assn but the national recovery act) which caused prices to go up, jobs to go down, and all sorts of bad things - the new deal increased unemployment nationally and made things worse, until WWII came along and allowed manufacturing to kick up enough so the US could produce its way out of the problem.

I wonder why local gun shops have 0 ammo, 0 reloading supplies, 0 guns on the shelves, and will not take special orders due to a backlog... Coincidence?