UN Human Rights Chief Prince Zeid In US To Meet Only Government Officials and Legislators, Issues Like Police Brutality and Predatory Lending Ignored?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- The official visit to the US of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid features today a meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken. According to Zeid's Office, he will

“hold meetings with State Department and other U.S. Government officials, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, to discuss a wide range of overseas and domestic issues. He will also meet with around eight senior members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

   One is left wondering: what kind of human rights visit is it, not meeting with civil society representatives but only the government?

  Zeid's announcement emphasizes that his is "the first official visit by a UN Human Rights Chief to Washington D.C. to meet senior  U.S administration officials and Members of Congress since 2007, when former High Commissioner Louise Arbour made a similar visit."

  The Commissioner in between, of course, was Navi Pillay, to whom US Secretary General Ban Ki-moon only gave half of a second term. But Pillay on her visits met with civil society. How should this lack on Zeid's official visit be viewed? 

  What about, just for example, the issues of police brutality as raised in the UN Committee on Torture andpredatory and discriminatory lending, raised for example in the UN Committee on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination? What of human rights issues like tortureand spying? There are non-governmental experts -- and victims -- a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should meet with, and elsewhere would, if the past is any guide. We'll have more on this.

  Back on November 21, Inner City Press which has previously praised Zeid for example on Sri Lanka and other issues reported that, protesting layoffs and lack of transparency, staff at the UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights were petitioning then-new High Commissioner Prince Zeid for due process and accountability. Inner City Press obtained the petition andexclusively put it online here.

In it, the OHCHR staff call for “transparent and comprehensive information on prospective cuts and restructuring, detailing their impact on savings and OHCHR’s overall financial situation... tangible accountability measures by attributing responsibility for the present crisis and taking the requisite action to prevent another financial crisis of this magnitude in the future and a meaningful dialogue and truly consultative decision-making on ongoing financial including putting decisions on hold.”

The staff complain to Zeid that “the lack of transparency, consultation and information on who, where or how, not to mention why, some of us are affected is deplorable and unacceptable.”

The lack of transparency in the current OHCHR extends from Geneva to New York, where the Office anonymously spun its Ukraine report to hand-picked scribes then refused when asked to explain the basis. 

 Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked at the November 20 UN noon briefing that the New York representative of Prince Zeid hold a press availability about the report, including incongruities in report on labor issues such as the cut-off of pensions, click here for that.

  On accountability, the staff complain that the “senior management level evidently bears much more responsibility. Yet, it is other individuals at lower levels who are paying the price for this mismanagement.”

Also on accountability at the OHCHR, as Inner City Press has twice reported, document leaks from inside the UN have identified improper service of Morocco, on the question of Western Sahara, by a current staffer at the OHCHR, Anders Kompass, and by another who has recently left.

 Prince Zeid still not publicly addressed this scandal, though Inner City Press understands that no only is their an investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, but also inquiry from member states such as Sweden. Inquiry on them was not permitted at Zeid's one press availability that week in New York. Zeid's spokesman has indicated there will be no comment at all until OIOS' "investigation is completed." Since the OIOS process is far from transparent -- it has become even less so -- this is the way the UN system tries to make issues go away, but it is even less appropriate at the UN's human rights office.

   Zeid should address this scandal - and his Office's staff. Watch this site.

   

As CIT Group Tells Federal Reserve Don't Worry About OneWest Loss Share Agreements, BB&T, Susquehanna Next?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 18 -- The US government's ongoing corporate bailout following the 2008 meltdown triggered by predatory lending continues to reverberate in one of the largest proposed mergers of 2014.

 On December 18 the CIT Group submitted to the Federal Reserve statements from the FDIC, in essence not to worry about the Loss Share Agreements OneWest has won from the FDIC:

"OWB acquired assets from three failed banks — IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB ('IMFB'), First Federal Bank of California, and La Jolla Bank, FSB (the 'Failed Banks'). The FDIC entered into Shared-Loss Agreements with OWB in these acquisitions with respect to certain of the acquired assets."

  Now the regulators say, don't worry as CIT seeks to take these loss-shares over, although their value will not for now be disclosed:

“The FDIC's Division of Resolutions and Receiverships does not release shared-loss payment information on individual acquirers or assets because those records often contain material, non-public information, and their release could harm the negotiating posture of the acquirer with respect to a particular borrower or asset, thereby potentially increasing the amount of a covered loss to the FDIC.”

  This is called stonewalling, or a cover-up. We'll have more on this.

* * *

  Back on November 17, four days before a rare Senate hearing on the regulatory capture of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York posed a series of questions to CIT Group, trying to buy OneWest. 

  CIT provided Inner City Press with a copy of its answer to the Fed's November 17 questions (answers to the Fed's November 25 questions have not yet been provided.)

  CIT says "OneWest has discussed the Transaction with staff of each of FannieMae and FreddieMac (the 'GSEs') and will be filing an application in connection with the change of control of OWB in order for OWB to continue as a seller/servicer for the respective GSE. OneWest is now in the process of preparing the appropriate applications, which it expects to submit as soon as possible, and no later than year-end."

  But will OneWest provide notice of these applications to the GSEs to the groups which have timely protested its applications to the Fed and OCC? The OCC heard much about OneWest, and CIT, at a December 2 EGRPRA hearing in Los Angeles. Why not just hold public hearings on this proposed mega-merger? And on another one, announced but not yet applied for?

  Here are the still-outstanding Fed questions of November 25:

Based on staff’s review of the applications, the following information is requested. Please provide a complete, detailed response to each of the following questions. Provide
supporting documentation as appropriate.

1. From the following activities, identify those in which either CIT Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries (“CIT”) or IMB Holdco LLC or its subsidiaries (“IMB”) is involved. To the extent not already provided in the applications, describe the nature of the activities and provide dollar volumes for CIT and IMB, and include any available information relating to the national market share of CIT and IMB, along with a brief description of other firms that engage in the same activity in the United States. You may confine your responses to information that is maintained in the regular course of business.

a. Holding assets under custody;
b. Provision of short-term funding through bilateral repurchase
agreements;
c. Provision of short-term funding in the tri-party repo market;
d. Provision of prime brokerage services;
e. Provision of short-term lines of credit to financial firms;
f. Securities lending;
g. Lending in the Fed funds market;

h. Provision of bond and equity underwriting services in any of the following markets:
i. Commercial paper;
ii. Asset-backed commercial paper;
iii. Corporate bonds;
iv. High-yield bonds;
v. Municipal bonds;
vi. U.S. Agency debt;
vii. U.S. Agency mortgage backed securities;
viii. Private label asset backed securities;
ix. Seasoned offerings; or
x. Initial public offerings;
i. Tri-party repo dealing;
j. Clearing and settlement;
k. Provision of business credit in any of the following markets:
i. Commercial and industrial lending;
ii. Commercial real estate lending;
iii. Construction loans;
iv. Middle market lending;
v. Small business lending;
vi. Receivables factoring;
vii. Equipment financing/leasing; or
viii. Syndicated lending;

l. Direct dollar lending to foreign institutions and dollar lending
through foreign exchange swaps;
m. Trade letters of credit;
n. Interest rate and credit derivatives trading;
o. Commodities trading;
p. Credit card lending;
q. Mortgage servicing;
r. Corporate trust;
s. Correspondent banking; and
t. Reinsurance.

2. Describe any financial markets (trading-type activities) in which either CIT or IMB is a “market-maker.”

3. Report the current market value, gross and net of collateral, and other risk mitigants for the three largest OTC derivatives counterparties of each of CIT and IMB as measured by the following metrics:

a. by positive current market value (after netting arrangements); and

b. by negative current market value (after netting arrangements).

  We'll see.

 On November 21, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Dudley described anti revolving door safeguards and a desire for "good culture" at banks.

  Good culture? How then did the predatory lending meltdown take place? And anti-revolving door? How can it be, then, that a former Federal Reserve Legal Division supervisor is writing for BB&T's deals to those who used to work under her?

  As soon as Dudley left the stand, a more serious anti revolving door protection was proposed.

  Dudley was asked about Goldman Sachs' warehouses, and JPM Chase's abuse of the energy markets, but didn't directly answer.  Since then he has toured The Bronx - we'll see what if any difference it makes.

  The Fed on November 17 asked for answers to four questions it sent to the CIT Group, with a copy to Inner City Press.

  Inner City Press and others have challenged CIT's application to acquire OneWest; as set forth below, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has been challenging BB&T even before its November 12 proposal to acquire Susquehanna Bank for $2.5 billion.  What questions will the Federal Reserve have on that one?  

 Here's a new one that we have: in the December 4 presentation by BB&T CFO Daryl N. Bible, there's reference to BB&T and the Pennsylvania energy market. Does that mean fracking? We'll have more on this.

  As to CIT - OneWest, the Fed on November 17 asked:

Based on staff’s review of the applications, the following information is requested. Please provide a complete, detailed response to each of the following questions. Provide supporting documentation as appropriate.

1. Provide a pro forma shareholders list that identifies any shareholder or group of shareholders that would own or control, directly or indirectly, five percent or more of any class of voting securities, or 10 percent or more of the total equity, of the combined organization. Your response should indicate whether any identified shareholder is a bank or bank holding company. In calculating the voting ownership, include any warrants, options, and other convertible instruments, and show all levels of voting ownership on both a fully diluted and an individually diluted
basis. Aggregate the interests of any related shareholders, including, for example, shareholders that are acting in concert (pursuant to definitions and presumptions in 12 CFR 225.41) and shareholders that are commonly controlled or advised.

2. Your October 8, 2014, letter responding to staff’s request for additional information (the “Response”) states that while “CIT and OneWest do not believe the proposed Transaction requires the consent of the GSEs . . . [t]he parties will provide the GSEs with formal notice of the transaction and engage with them as appropriate.” Provide the specific timeframes in which the parties will file a formal notice and consult with the GSEs about this proposed transaction.

3. The Response indicates that several integration planning decisions and actions have already been made or taken with respect to the integration of the CIT and IMB organizations. Confirm or clarify our understandin that the decisions and actions identified in the Response will not apply to the companies and their operations prior to the Board’s approval of the proposed transactions.

4. The Response also indicates that the parties will execute a number of actions prior to the closing of the proposed transaction “to ensure that, on ‘Legal Day One’, the combined institution operates in manner consistent with . . . expectations.” To the extent not already provided, identify all pre-closing actions that will be executed in connection with the integration of the CIT and IMB organizations. 

  We will report on the responses, upon receipt.

  On BB&T, well before the bank's November 12 mega-merger announcement seeking to buy Susquehanna Bancshares for $2.5 billion, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has been showing the disparities in BB&T's lending record.

  On BB&T's application to acquire 41 branches in Texas from Citibank, Fair Finance Watch showed the FDIC for example that for conventional home purchase loans in the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2013, BB&T made 65 such loans to whites, and NONE to African Americans.

  The FDIC's Acting Deputy Regional Director for Compliance replied that "the FDIC deems your correspondence to constitute a protest."

  BB&T through law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz submitted a response which admitted that in Houston “the percentage of Mortgage Loans made to low and moderate income borrowers during the first six months of 2014 was also below the 2013 aggregate industry average.” BB&T Response at Page 11, which also notes at 10 that at least one of the Citibank branches BB&T seeks to acquire, it would shutter.

  And so on November 10 Fair Finance Watch submitted more extensive comment opposing BB&T's application to acquire Bank of Kentucky, including that bank's disparities in the Cincinnati regional area and BB&T's in the Louisville MSA, where in 2013 BB&T made 229 conventional home purchase loans to whites, and only 12 to African Americans and only six to Latinos, while denying 41.7% of applications from Latinos versus only 17.5 of application from whites, a disparity of 2.38 to 1.

   Now BB&T announces a much larger proposal, to buy Susquehanna and its 245 branches in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and West Virginia. Such an application requires approval, after a comment period and possible public hearings, by the Federal Reserve. We'll have more on this.

 For now, here's the absurd line of the week: “analysts at BB&T Corp. downgraded shares of Susquehanna to a “market perform” rating in a research note on Wednesday, November 12th." How can BB&T objectively rate Susquehanna?

  The secret recordings of then Federal Reserve examinerCarmen Segarra about Goldman Sachs and regulatory capture have given rise to calls for oversight hearings by at least two US Senators. Their hearing will now occur on November 21. Relatedly, BB&T's response from the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz is penned by a former Federal Reserve Board Legal Division supervisor.

 On November 7, Inner City Press was sent a redacted copy of CIT Group's "Cash Flow Projections" and "Risk Management" from its application to acquire OneWest and go above the $50 billion, Too Big Too Fail threshold. Inner City Press immediately put the partially redacted document online on its website, here.

  First, how could such information be withheld for a bank seeking to become Too Big To Fail?

  Second, how could the Federal Reserve insist that the comment period is closed, while information that was improperly withheld is belatedly released?

  On October 10, Inner City Press was sent heavily redacted copies of two letters from the CIT Group concerning its proposed acquisition of OneWest to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, supposedly in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act - nowuploaded to Scribd here and here. 

   On October 18, Inner City Press & Fair Finance Watch challenged these redactions under FOIA, and submitted  comments on CIT's mockery of the Community Reinvestment Act to both the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

  CIT sought to withhold even its CRA plan. Inner City Press raised the issue to Fed Chair Yellen in Washington - and on October 15, the Federal Reserve called Inner City Press and left a voice mail to say its request for extension of the comment period, because of the incorrectly withheld CIT documents, has been granted until October 22. 

   While appreciating the Fed's comment period extension, the context and public policy questions recently raised must be noted.

  For now, on October 18 Inner City Press & Fair Finance Watch submitted a fourth timely comment to the Fed, critiquing the belatedly released CRA Plan, and demanding release of still - withheld information:

   The CIT CRA Plan which CIT improperly withheld states, in Section III, that “the Bank has lending and support operations primarily located in Florida, New York and New Jersey” -- then states its CRA Program is in Salt Lake City, Utah and “the western United States.”

  This is makes a mockery of CRA, explicitly separating the bank's lending operations from its “CRA” operations.

  In Section IV, CIT makes claims about outreach and “public participation” in its CRA Plan - but in outreach and participation excluded the communities in which CIT has its lending operations (FLA, NY and NJ) and from which, on information and belief, it collects insured deposits.  

  This is makes a mockery of CRA, explicitly separating the bank's deposit taking from its “CRA” operations and outreach. See limited list of contacts in Appendix C, and proof of publication in (only) the Salt Lake Tribute and Deseret News.

  Even in its artificial limited assessment area, CIT's “New CRA Assets” are less than 1% of its Assets.

  While still improper, the above provide a motive for CIT's attempt to withhold its CRA Plan from the public...

  As to CIT's October 8 letter, ICP has already timely commented “there is also the question of the agreement the FDIC reached with IndyMac / OneWest, and whether wannabe SIFI CIT would assume it, as a windfall. These are important questions militating for both the required extension of the comment period, and for public hearings.”

  In the October 8 letter, CIT begins a sentence on page 3 “Clawback provisions exist for the First Fed and La Jolla portfolios [REDACTED.]” CIT also redacts, on page 6, information related to the OnWest / IndyMac Consent Order; HAMP (Page 7); deposits collected over the Internet (Page 8); Lending (Page 9); Governance and Risk Management (page 10-12); and Resolution Plan (Page 12). CIT also heavily redacts what it calls “confidential questions” (pages 14-16), and exhibits. This information must be released, and the comment period extended.  In an abundance of caution, ICP has submitted a FOIA request to this effect.

  The Fed's secrecy is endemic.  The head of the FRBNY since 2009, William Dudley, has insisted that supervision by the Fed and its regional banks is "completely in the public interest." He cites, in support of this, something he calls "horizontal" supervision, which to many has the context of being supine. 

  And the Federal Reserve Banks are, in fact, owned by the banks they ostensibly regulate. And as Inner City Press has previously reported, while merger applications go in the first instance to the Federal Reserve Bank, they have only the power to approve, not deny or even impose conditions, the applications.

  Horizontal, indeed.

  This horizontal position is the rule, not the exception. Inner City Press routinely submits Freedom of Information Act requests for communication between the Fed and banks applying for mergers.

  Most recently, the Fed has extended its deadline for responding to Inner City Press' request on CIT - OneWest, on which it purported to close its public comment period on September 24:

FOIA Request No. F-2014-00380

Dear Mr. Lee,

On August 27, 2014, the Board of Governors ("Board") received your electronic message dated August 26, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552... On August 28, 2014, the Board’s Freedom of Information Office made an interim production of responsive documents consisting of the public portion of the application by CIT Group Inc. and Carbon Merger Sub LLC to acquire and merge with IMB HoldCo LLC, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of OneWest Bank... Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until October 9, 2014, in order to consult with two or more components of the Board having a substantial interest in the determination of the request. If a determination can be made before October 9, 2014, we will respond to you promptly.

How can the public be shut out before it has the basic information it has requested? Now, only because CIT mis-published public notice, the Fed's comment period has been extended to October 10. (A new Office of the Comptroller of the Currency comment period has opened, through October 24.)

  The Federal Reserve Board has asked CIT some questions, including “discuss CIT Group's plans to manage OneWest Bank's mortgage servicing assets and nontraditional mortgage loan portfolio." Nontraditional mortgages - that would be, subprime.

Tellingly, when lawyers leave the Federal Reserve's Legal Division, many go to white shoe law firms that submit bank merger applications to the same people they until recently worked with or supervised.

  Inner City Press, Bronx-based Fair Finance Watch and NCRC have repeatedly raised this to the Fed, without meaningful response.

So here's hoping that Carmen Segarra's courage, in secretly making the recordings and then releasing them, leads to increased oversight of and reform at the Fed. 

 The problem is, while some in Congress are willing to criticize the Fed, the real parties in interest here are the largest banks and investment banks in the country. Who in Congress will directly challenge those? Watch this site.

   

Citigroup's Subprime Settlement on the Cheap A New Predatory Stage, Redlining Like Valley National Bank's Allowed

By Matthew R. Lee

NEW YORK, July 14 -- As Citigroup settles charges for its subprime lending for $7 billion dollars, the amount and the how the settlement is divided is but a new predatory stage.

  Less than 40% of the settlement even arguably goes to consumers who were wronged. The US government itself takes more than half of the money, an even higher percentage than in JPMorgan Chase's $13 billion settlement (in which the $4 million for consumer relief was double the $2 billion the Justice Department took).

  As Inner City Press and Fair Finance Watch repeatedly showed, including to the Federal Reserve, the moment Citicorp and Travelers merged, Citi became a predator. CitiFinancial based compensation on how badly consumers could be gouged, including selling credit insurance of no possible value to the purchaser.

  The Federal Reserve, based on this, imposed a $75 million fine which did nothing to stop Citi's behavior. After the meltdown and bailout, now this is a scam settlement meant to give the impression of a government crack-down. It is not.

   Even while the mega-banks take a pause from acquisitions, needed watchdog work continues on mid-sized banks like Valley National, whose attempt to buy into affluent Florida markets through 1st United Bank is subject to a Community Reinvestment Act challenge and pending Freedom of Information Act appeal by Inner City Press.

  Why were and are communities of color susceptible to predatory lending? Because they are redlined by FDIC-insured banks like Valley National Bank. 

  In the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2012, the most recent year for which Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data is publicly available, for refinance loans, Valley National made 2152 such loans to whites and only 38 to African Americans -- entirely of keeping with the demographics and demographics of home ownership in the New York City MSA. Valley National denied 67% of such applications from African Americans, versus only 34.5% of such application from white.

   Valley National Bank's branch pattern in New York City is indicative of redlining: in Manhattan, nothing 88th Street, no branches in Harlem, Washington Heights or The Bronx, predominantly African American and Latinos, low and moderate income areas. In Queens, it's Middle Village and Kew Gardens. In Brooklyn, Valley National's branches are along Ocean Parkway and in Bay Ridge. What about East New York, Brownsville, Bushwick and Bedford Stuyvesant?

  Along with groups in NCRC, Fair Finance Watch has shown a similar pattern in New Jersey, where in the Newark MSA for refinance loans in 2012, Valley National Bank made 2338 such loans to whites and only 44 to African Americans.

  But these patterns are not acted on -- rather, longstanding predatory lending like Citigroup's is laundered into a smoke and mirror settlement that is, in context, impunity. Watch this site.

   

IMF's Lagarde Lauds Janet Yellen, After Urging US Federal Reserve to Communicate More, FOIA Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 2 -- When the International Monetary Fund's Christine Lagarde introduced Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen to give the first Michel Camdessus Central Banking Lecture on July 2, she did not repeated whatshe said only two weeks earlier, that the Fed should communicate more frequently. 

  In laying out lessons learned from the subprime financial meltdown of 2008, Lagarde did not question the role of the Federal Reserve in failing to take action on the predatory lending by the Big Four banks, or the pooling and pitching by investment banks of predatory mortgages by Ameriquest, New Century, et al.

  So what, really, was learned?

 On July 2, Lagarde compared central bankers to mountaineers, and told Yellen, "Janet, you may not be surprised to know that when you give your press conferences a group of passionate staff here at the IMF get together to watch you live on screen. I am told they even bring pop corn to the meetings!"

  Back on June 16 the IMF assessment was that

"Enhancing the Fed’s communication toolkit would be a natural evolution that could help temper the likelihood of market volatility along the exit path. This could include scheduling press conferences by the Fed Chair after each FOMC meeting (to provide a more frequent, structured environment to explain the committee’s evolving thinking). It could also involve publishing a quarterly monetary policy report, that is endorsed by the FOMC and which conveys more detail about the majority view of the FOMC on the outlook, policies, and the nature of uncertainties around the baseline. Such a report may also convey dissenting views on the FOMC as well as broader information on how the FOMC thinks about policy reactions in plausible, non-baseline scenarios. Finally, the FOMC could provide greater clarity about how financial stability considerations figure into its monetary policy calculus."

  She might have added: the Fed can and should do better under the Freedom of Information Act, on which in full disclosure Inner City Press has litigated with the Fed. Then again, at least the Fed accepts that it is covered by FOIA - the United Nations doesn't (see below).

  While the IMF is more frequently taking Press questions online, we note for example that a repeatedly asked question about whether the IMF includes Western Sahara in Morocco's data has been stonewalled, including the days Lagarde was in Rabat.

  Lagarde was asked who she favors in the World Cup and said she was "delighted to see French team did as it did." Well, that's some transparency.

The UN also has a position on the US Federal Reserve, it emerged on May 21, at least a position favoring new Fed chair Janet Yellen over her predecessor Ben Bernanke.

  Inner City Press asked Pingfan Hong of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs about DESA's mid-year update of the UN World Economic Situation and Prospects, which called on the Fed to communicate more clearly as it tapers away from quantitative easing -- does the UN favor an audit of the Fed, and what of the impact on tapering QE on emerging markets? Video here.

  Pingfan Hong recounted that an IMFC meeting he attended, Yellen admitted to negative impacts on emerging markets, which he said Bernanke obfuscated by claiming positive impacts too. (Bernanke now is speaking at $250,000 dinners, so criticism from DESA may not concern him.)

  Inner City Press also asked Pingfan Hong about the WESP's call for the implementation of IMF quota reform -- was this really related to the IMF's ability to lend to Ukraine, and what are its economic impacts?

  Pingfan Hong replied that it is more of a “long term” issue, but that countries should follow through on what they commit to. What about democracy, though? And what about democratizing the Federal Reserve? We'll have more on that. Watch this site.

   

At UN, JPMorgan Chase Closed Accounts, Now Fight Back in G77 Resolution, Full Text Here

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 11 -- Back on March 18 JPMorgan Chase came up as a topic, and target, in a closed door meeting at the UN of the Group of 77 and China on March 18, several Permanent Representative then exclusively told Inner City Press. They marveled that the UN does business with JPM Chase while the bank cuts off many of the member states of the UN.

  Now a G77-agreed draft resolution has emerged, including a review of the UN's relations with JPM Chase, and has the votes to be adopted in the General Assembly, as reported byIPS. Inner City Press is publishing the full text, below.

  In the half-light of the UN Conference Building's second floor on March 18, ambassadors complained that while JPMorgan Chase is moving to deny many of their missions bank accounts, the bank also overcharges them when for example they pay or get paid by UN Peacekeeping.

  The idea discussed was to draft and vote on a General Assembly resolution on the topic. The US government is required, under the UN Host Country Agreement, to try to ensure banking services for countries' diplomatic missions. Here is the G77-agreed language, on which for now the UN Secretariat has declined comment:

7 April 2014 Group of 77 and China DRAFT RESOLUTION General Assembly Sixty-eighth session

Agenda item 124 Strengthening of the United Nations system

Agenda item 125 United Nations reform: measures and proposals

Enhancement of the administration and financial functioning of the United Nations

The General Assembly,

PP1 Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and its relevant provisions,

PP2 Considering the agreement established by the United Nations, the host country, and the City of New York, in order to guarantee the rights, obligations and the fulfillment of responsibilities by Member States towards the United Nations, under the United Nations Charter and international law,

PP3 Taking into consideration also that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the host country agreement of 26 June 1947 approved by General Assembly resolution A/RES/169(II), are the regulatory framework for States and international organizations, in particular the relations for the United Nations headquarters in the City of New York and the Member and Observer States,

PP4 Expressing its deep concern over the decisions made on a number of occasions by several banking institutions, including JP Morgan Chase Bank (the United States consumer and commercial banking business of JPMorgan Chase & Co.) in relation to the closing of the Permanent Missions’ accounts and the accounts of their staff accredited to the United Nations and their relatives,

PP5 Regretting the notifications made by the host country to the Permanent Missions, indicating that the relations between the Permanent Missions of Member and Observer States and their staff with the banking institutions in the City of New York, as well as the financial relations between the United Nations Secretariat and the banking institutions, are both of a private nature and are not regulated, directed, or oriented in any way by the host country or any of its agencies,

PP6 Stressing that Governments of Members and Observers of the United Nations, the Permanent Missions and their staff, as well as the United Nations headquarters, UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes, ought to be guaranteed the normal functioning of their facilities in order to discharge their duties, and recalling the obligations of the Host Country under international law to accord full facilities for the performances of the functions of the Permanent Missions accredited to the United Nations;

PP7 Keeping in mind the need for Permanent Missions and the United Nations organization as a whole, to establish long-term business relations based on mutual trust and respect, especially in light of the latest actions taken by some banking institutions, including the JP Morgan Chase Bank in this regard,

OP1 Requests the Secretary General to review and report to the General Assembly, within the next 120 days following the adoption of the present resolution, of any obstacles or impediments observed in the accounts opened by the Permanent Missions of Member and Observer States or their staff at the JP Morgan Chase Bank in the City of New York, and the impact that these impediments have on the adequate functioning of their offices, and, to this end, invites Member and Observer States to provide the Secretary General with relevant information that will facilitate the elaboration of such report;

OP2 Also requests the Secretary General to submit to the General Assembly a set of recommendations and a proposal oriented to reviewing the U.N. Secretariat’s financial relations with the JP Morgan Chase Bank and considering alternatives to such financial institutions and to report thereon along with the information requested in OP1 above;

OP3 Further requests the Secretary General, as soon as possible but not later than 30 days from the adoption of the present resolution, to provide Member and Observer States with alternative options regarding banking services in the City of New York, to allow them to adequately manage and maintain their accounts, assessed budgetary contributions, voluntary contributions, transfers and other financial activities directly related to their membership to the United Nations, and their Permanent Missions, while reassuring, by holding proper negotiations on this matter in his capacity as UN chief administrative officer, including with the host country, that all Permanent and Observer Missions and their staff and their family members will be granted equal, fair, and non-discriminatory treatment from the referred institutions when conducting their respective accounts;

OP4 Requests the host country, in light of its obligations under international law including the host country agreement, in particular sections 1, 2(b) and 27 and especially stressing the provisions as outlined in section 25, and the Vienna Convention, to take, as soon as possible, all the necessary measures to ensure Permanent Missions accredited to the United Nations and their staff are granted equal, fair and non-discriminatory treatment by the banking system;

OP5 Underscores the importance of the host country taking the necessary measures to ensure that personal data and information of persons affected by the closure of accounts is kept confidential by banking institutions, including the JP Morgan Chase Bank and the possible successors of those institutions, and requests the Secretary-General to work with the host country in that regard and to report to the General Assembly within 90 days;

OP6. Decides to keep this matter under review during the 68th session of the General Assembly as well as the following sessions.

  JPMorgan Chase was centrally involved in the 2008 predatory lending meltdown that hurt the economies of countries around the world, as Inner City Press has covered in depth. Now, belatedly, there is fight back in the UN General Assembly, on the issue of bank accounts and fees. Watch this site.