Citi pulls out of Wachovia deal
The bank said it broke off negotiations due to "dramatic differences" with Wells Fargo "in the parties' transaction structures and views of the risks involved". It now plans to launch a lawsuit against both Wachovia and Wells Fargo for breach of contract, but will not attempt to block the merger.
"Our shareholders have been unjustly and illegally deprived of the opportunity the transaction created," Citi said. Citi argues it had an exclusive agreement to take over Wachovia, which was broken when the other bank started negotiating with Wells Fargo.
Unlike the proposed merger with Citi, the $11.7 billion all-share Wachovia-Wells Fargo merger will not require any support from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Wachovia said. The Citi deal would have seen FDIC take $12 billion in stock and warrants in return for guaranteeing all but the first $42 billion of losses on a $312 billion loan pool, the first time FDIC has used its "systemic risk" powers to guarantee bank debt.
See also: Citigroup to acquire Wachovia
Wachovia appoints Phelan as CRO
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Europe’s lenders sail into uncharted waters of the banking book
Regulators are pushing banks to map their credit spread risk. Here be dragons?
SEC may lack legal clout to impose new dealer rule – Citadel
Adoption of quantitative dealer definition may require congressional changes to US Securities Exchange Act
US Basel endgame hits clearing with op risk capital charges
Dealers also fret about unlevel playing field compared with requirements in the EU
CFTC’s clearing house recovery rule splits industry
Some fear CCPs will fast-track recovery, others say any rule book will be ignored in emergency
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether
