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
Credit spread risk: the cryptic peril on bank balance sheets
Some bankers fear EU regulatory push on CSRBB has done little to improve risk management
Credit spread risk approach differs among EU banks, survey finds
KPMG survey of more than 90 banks reveals disagreement on how to treat liabilities and loans
Bowman’s Fed may limp on by after cuts
New vice-chair seeks efficiency, but staff clear-out could hamper functions, say former regulators
Review of 2025: It’s the end of the world, and it feels fine
Markets proved resilient as Trump redefined US policies – but questions are piling up about 2026 and beyond
Hong Kong derivatives regime could drive more offshore booking
Industry warns new capital requirements for securities firms are higher than other jurisdictions
Will Iosco’s guidance solve pre-hedging puzzle?
Buy-siders doubt consent requirement will remove long-standing concerns
Responsible AI is about payoffs as much as principles
How one firm cut loan processing times and improved fraud detection without compromising on governance
Could one-off loan losses at US regional banks become systemic?
Investors bet Zions, Western Alliance are isolated problems, but credit risk managers are nervous