Holding Credit Hostage for Underwriting Ransom: Rethinking Bank Antitying Rules

46 Pages Posted: 31 Jan 2006  

Christian A. Johnson

Widener University - Commonwealth Law School

Abstract

This article considers the importance of Congress's and the courts' consideration regarding the role antitying provisions have in light of the battle that exists between commercial banks and investment banks in the underwriting arena. Part I of this article discusses the history of commercial banks' powers to both lend and underwrite securities, focusing particularly on the enactment of the Glass-Steagall restrictions and their repeal by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Part I also focuses on the recent rise of commercial banks (or their affiliates) as securities underwriters. Part II examines the growing convergence of commercial banks and investment banks both offering credit and underwriting services. Part III discusses the elements of a tying claim under the Bank Holding Company Act ("BHCA") in light of dramatic restructuring of U.S. capital markets brought upon by the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Part III then analyzes whether, once the elements have been satisfied, such a tying claim can be sustained under the BHCA.

Keywords: Investment Banks, Antitying, Tying, Bank Holding Company Act, BHCA, Commercial Banks, Glass-Steagall, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, History, Underwriting, Statutes

JEL Classification: G2, G21, G28, G29

Suggested Citation

Johnson, Christian A., Holding Credit Hostage for Underwriting Ransom: Rethinking Bank Antitying Rules. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 64, p. 157, 2002. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=608621

Christian A. Johnson (Contact Author)

Widener University - Commonwealth Law School ( email )

3800 Vartan Way
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
United States
717.541.3902 (Phone)

Paper statistics

Downloads
93
Rank
224,751
Abstract Views
1,079