Merger Application by Misnamed Bank of Hope Challenged by Fair Finance Watch Withheld by FDIC

Merger Application by Misnamed Bank of Hope Challenged by Fair Finance Watch Withheld by FDIC by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack FEDERAL COURT, June 9 – How automatic do banks now think merger approvals are? How automatic does the FDIC make them? There is a new test case, before the FDIC, to which Fair Finance Watch has filed: a timely first comment opposing and requesting an extension of the FDIC's public comment period on the Application by Bank of Hope to acquire SMBC Manubank. The application is on the FDIC's website where a public comment period running through March 27 . These comment, and supplements to come, are timely.        Fair Finance Watch, which commented to the FDIC that its proposal to eliminate public notice of branch applications violates the CRA, noting the FDIC's rationale that it receives few public comments, hereby timely informs the FDIC that it is troubled by Bank of Hope's lending record and is requesting public hearings and denial of this application.    In 2024 Bank of Hope in New York made 12 mortgage loans to whites - but NONE to African Americans. Meanwhile it mad 315 loans to Asians.     Nationwide in 2024 Bank of Hope made 33 mortgage loans to whites, none to African Americans, and 533 loans to Asians.     More than half of Bank of Hope's loans to Asians nationwide were in New York, versus one third of its loans to whites - and nowhere did it lend to African Americans. Can this comply with CRA and the fair lending laws?   As it turns out, the FDIC cannot even comply with FOIA. As Fair Finance Watch filed its challenge, Inner City Press submitted a FOIA request to the FDIC seeking the full application and related communications.    The FDIC's response was telling: rather than produce a single document, it sent an interim letter claiming the request for the application itself was "premature" and deflecting to its San Francisco Regional Office, while demanding more specificity on the communications request or it would close the file entirely. The FDIC's "premature" dodge is legally dubious. The agency's own regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 303.8(a), concerns records available after "final disposition" of an application — but this application is still pending. More fundamentally, FOIA provides an independent statutory right of access that no internal agency regulation can eliminate. The FDIC used to allow simple requests for public portions of application by clicking a button on its website. They eliminated that, and now this. It is a race to the bottom. Inner City Press has responded to the FDIC - watch this site.  FFW notes again in the FDIC's  RIN 3064-AG10: "the FDIC has received a limited number of public comments in response to subpart C applications.... Therefore, the FDIC is proposing to eliminate the public notice and related public comment period from subpart C and to make conforming changes to subpart A of 12 CFR part 303 of the FDIC Rules."    See, e.g., Sept 10, 2025: https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/the-fdic-is-undercutting-a-key-element-of-the-cra    The Community Reinvestment Act specifies that "the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall (1) assess the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution; and (2) take such record into account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution."     That is, the only enforcement mechanism of CRA is its consideration on applications for deposit facilities: branches, and proposed mergers like this one.     But now the FDIC has moved to eliminate public notice and public comment on banks' proposals to expand.  The above-quoted reasoning is that few comments are filed. So, that is now changing. And so is the FDIC - get worse, daily, on not only CRA but also FOIA. There will be more coming. *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com SDNY Press Room 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com