[Federal Register: June 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 107)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26941-26945]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05jn09-2]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 370
RIN 3064-AD37
Modification of Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FDIC is issuing this Final Rule to make permanent a minor
modification to the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) to
include certain issuances of mandatory convertible debt (MCD) under the
TLGP debt guarantee program (DGP).
DATES: The final rule becomes effective on June 5, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Burton, Senior Financial
Analyst, Bank and Regulatory Policy Section, Division of Insurance and
Research, (202) 898-3539 or sburton@fdic.gov; Robert C. Fick, Counsel,
Legal Division, (202) 898-8962 or rfick@fdic.gov; A. Ann Johnson,
Counsel, Legal Division (202) 898-3573 or aajohnson@fdic.gov; Mark L.
Handzlik, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898-3990 or
mhandzlik@fdic.gov; Gail Patelunas, Deputy Director, Division of
Resolutions
[[Page 26942]]
and Receiverships, (202) 898-6779 or gpatelunas@fdic.gov; (for
questions or comments related to MCD applications): Lisa D Arquette,
Associate Director, Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection,
(202) 898-8633 or larquette@fdic.gov; or Donna Saulnier, Manager,
Assessment Policy Section, Division of Finance, (703) 562-6167 or
dsaulnier@fdic.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 23, 2008 the FDIC's Board of Directors (Board) adopted
the TLGP as part of a coordinated effort by the FDIC, the U.S.
Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) to address unprecedented
disruptions in credit markets and the resultant effects on the ability
of financial institutions to fund themselves and make loans to
creditworthy borrowers. The TLGP and other government programs have had
favorable effects thus far; however the FDIC continues to evaluate ways
to make the TLGP more effective.
On February 27, 2009 the Board adopted an Interim Rule that
modified the then-existing DGP by extending the FDIC guarantee to
certain new issues of MCD.\1\ The purpose of the Interim Rule was to
provide a mechanism for entities participating in the DGP to obtain
funding from investors that may have a longer-term investment horizon.
By providing a guarantee for senior unsecured debt that converts into
common shares of the issuer, the FDIC expects the Interim Rule to
moderate the potential funding needs that could result from
concentrations of FDIC-guaranteed debt maturing in mid-2012.\2\ The
FDIC solicited public comment on all aspects of the Interim Rule for a
15-day comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 74 FR 9522 (March 4, 2009).
\2\ This modification of the TLGP is supported by the rationale
for establishing the existing TLGP and is consistent with the
determination of systemic risk made on October 14, 2008, pursuant to
12 U.S.C. section 1823(c)(4)(G), by the Secretary of the Treasury
(after consultation with the President) following receipt of the
written recommendation dated October 13, 2008, of the FDIC's Board
of Directors (Board) and the similar written recommendation of the
Federal Reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 17, 2009, the Board adopted an interim rule entitled
Amendment Of The Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program To Extend The
Debt Guarantee Program And To Impose Surcharges On Assessments For
Certain Debt Issued On Or After April 1, 2009 \3\ (Extension Interim
Rule), which further amended the DGP by, among other things, extending
the duration of the DGP for certain participating entities, imposing
surcharges on the issuance of certain FDIC-guaranteed debt, and
providing for the issuance of non-guaranteed debt prior to the
expiration of the DGP. On May 19, 2009 the Board adopted the Extension
Interim Rule as a final rule without change. That final rule (Extension
Final Rule) is being published simultaneously today elsewhere in the
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 74 FR 12078 (March 23, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Interim Rule
The Interim Rule amended section 370.2(e)(5) to permit entities
participating in the DGP to issue certain MCD upon application to and
approval from the FDIC. The Interim Rule did not affect an entity's
existing debt guarantee limit.
As provided in section 370.2(e) of the Interim Rule, FDIC-
guaranteed MCD must be newly issued on or after February 27, 2009 and
provide, in the debt instrument, for the mandatory conversion of the
debt into common shares of the issuing entity on a specified date
(unless the issuing entity fails to timely make any payment required
under the debt instrument, or merges or consolidates with any other
entity and is not the surviving or resulting entity). The Interim Rule
also required an entity issuing MCD to provide certain disclosures to
investors.
As indicated in the Interim Rule, a participating entity must file
a written application with the FDIC and its appropriate Federal banking
agency, and obtain the FDIC's prior written approval, before issuing
MCD. Like other applications required for purposes of the DGP, an
entity seeking to issue MCD must include the details of the request, a
summary of the applicant's strategic operating plan, and a description
of the proposed use of the debt proceeds. The application also must
provide the proposed date of issuance, the amount of MCD to be issued,
the mandatory conversion date, and the conversion rate (as described in
Section 370.3(h)). Where the issuance of MCD could potentially raise
control issues, the applicant must provide written confirmation that
all applications and all notices required under the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956 (as amended), the Home Owners' Loan Act (as
amended), or the Change in Bank Control Act (as amended) have been
submitted to the appropriate Federal banking agency prior to issuing
MCD.
Assessments for FDIC-guaranteed MCD are based on the time period
from the issue date of the MCD until its mandatory conversion date.
III. Summary of Comments
The FDIC received eight comments on the Interim Rule from banking
organizations, trade and industry groups, and certain individuals. The
commenters generally supported the Interim Rule in that it would
provide participating entities the flexibility needed to attract a
broader group of investors, including those with longer-term investment
horizons.
Several commenters encouraged the FDIC to revise the Interim Rule
by making structural enhancements to MCD so that it would qualify for
the Federal interest rate tax deduction, as provided under the Internal
Revenue Code.\4\ For example, the commenters suggested revising the
Rule to provide for a mandatory unit structure, where remarketed debt
proceeds are used to fund share purchases under a separate forward-
purchase contract, and senior unsecured debt that converts to equity at
the option of the investor. However, these structures contain certain
features (such as the bundling of debt with a futures contract, the
pledge of debt against the forward contract, possible contingencies
related to debt remarketing efforts, and optionality pertaining to the
conversion of debt to common shares of the issuer) that would make them
ineligible for an FDIC guarantee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 26 U.S.C. 163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Interim Rule, the underlying debt instrument must,
by its terms, provide for the conversion of the debt into the common
shares of the issuing entity on a specified date. This modification of
the DGP was intended to attract investors with longer-term investment
horizons and reduce potential refinancing risks, and not to expand the
definition of senior unsecured debt to include hybrid debt and equity
securities with complex structures.
Some commenters encouraged the FDIC to coordinate with the Federal
Reserve to permit MCD to qualify as Tier 1 capital. MCD issued under
the DGP is not includable in the regulatory capital of a participating
entity until such MCD converts to the common stock of such entity. The
FDIC does not wish to consider or pursue exceptions to the existing
regulatory capital framework for purposes of the TLGP. Notwithstanding
the regulatory capital treatment for MCD, however, the FDIC believes
that FDIC-guaranteed MCD provides significant benefits to issuers and
investors in that such debt can be expected to offer higher coupon
rates than other senior unsecured debt issues
[[Page 26943]]
without a mandatory conversion feature. Also, for participating
entities, the ability to issue MCD should facilitate liquidity and
capital planning to the extent the conversion feature offsets the need
to obtain new financing upon the expiration of the FDIC's guarantee.
Several commenters sought clarification on the scope of the FDIC
guarantee with respect to MCD, and urged the FDIC to confirm (i) that
the guarantee would cover scheduled payments of principal and interest
through maturity even in the event of a bankruptcy, conservatorship, or
receivership, and (ii) that investors would be made whole in the event
they do not receive equity shares on the date of conversion.
The FDIC's obligation under the guarantee for MCD is basically the
same as it is for any other FDIC-guaranteed debt. Generally, the FDIC
will make scheduled payments of principal and interest pursuant to the
terms of the debt instrument upon a ``payment default'' which is
defined as the uncured failure of the issuing entity to make a timely
payment of principal or interest required under the debt instrument.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the payment default results from
bankruptcy, conservatorship, receivership or some other event. The
FDIC's guarantee protects investors when there has been a payment
default whether or not there has been a bankruptcy, a conservatorship,
or a receivership of the issuing entity.
The Interim Rule states that the FDIC will make scheduled payments
of principal and interest ``through maturity.'' Since MCD does not
necessarily have a stated ``maturity'' date, the Final Rule makes clear
that in the event of a payment default on MCD, the FDIC will make
scheduled payments of principal and interest pursuant to the terms of
the debt instrument through the mandatory conversion date.
With regard to the comment suggesting that the FDIC clarify that
investors would be made whole in the event they do not receive equity
shares on the date of conversion, the FDIC believes that the Interim
Rule adequately describes the operation of the FDIC's guarantee
obligation in the event of a payment default. Specifically, upon a
payment default, the FDIC will make scheduled payments of principal and
interest pursuant to the terms of the debt instrument through the
mandatory conversion date. Failure to deliver shares on the conversion
date would not necessarily constitute a ``payment default.'' However,
the FDIC anticipates that the debt instrument for MCD will require a
payment of the unpaid principal on the conversion date in the event of
a payment default. To the extent that the debt instrument provides that
a principal payment is due on the conversion date in the event of a
payment default, the FDIC would make that principal payment subject to
the limitation that the principal payment cannot exceed the amount paid
by holders of the MCD under the issuance. As a result, the Final Rule
does not make any changes to the Interim Rule with respect to that
issue.
The following example illustrates how the Final Rule would operate
in the event of a payment default on FDIC-guaranteed MCD after the
bankruptcy of the issuer. Assume that a bank holding company (with the
prior approval of the FDIC) issues MCD in which the note provides for
monthly payments of interest for each of the seventeen months after the
issue date. Assume also that the note provides that upon the eighteenth
month the principal amount of the note shall convert to the common
stock of the issuer unless there is a payment default. Finally, assume
that in the event of a payment default the note requires that the
issuer pay the debt holder the unpaid principal on the conversion date.
If a petition in bankruptcy is filed against the issuer just prior to
the twelfth month, but no payment default occurs until the fourteenth
month, the FDIC would satisfy its guarantee obligation by making all
payments of interest scheduled for months fourteen through seventeen.
The FDIC also would pay to the holder of the note the unpaid principal
amount, not to exceed the amount paid for the debt by the holder, on
the conversion date (the eighteenth month).
One of the commenters also asked the FDIC to protect investors
against losses resulting from government interventions short of placing
issuing institutions into receivership. As described by the commenter,
an example would include a situation where a federal agency directly
acquired, or acquired the right to receive (through warrants or other
convertible securities) more than one-third of the common stock of an
entity that has received approval to issue MCD. Several commenters also
asked the FDIC to consider expanding the guarantee to cover any amount
of the original investment (of principal) that is not recovered upon
conversion. The FDIC does not wish to extend its guarantee to cover
situations that do not involve payment default by the issuer. Such a
change would protect investors against investment losses attributable
to declines in the value of the convertible debt instrument, as opposed
to losses related to an actual default on the underlying obligation.
Two commenters urged the FDIC to revise the Interim Rule by
eliminating the prior application requirement for issuing MCD, thereby
allowing participating entities to issue MCD at their own discretion.
As provided in the Interim Rule and under the Final Rule, the FDIC will
review applications to issue MCD on a case-by-case basis to ensure that
the transaction will meet the requirements of the DGP, and confirm that
all applicable applications and notices have been submitted to the
appropriate Federal banking agency where the transaction could present
a change in control issue.
Several commenters encouraged the FDIC to allow entities that issue
MCD to use the proceeds of the issuance to replace other non-FDIC
guaranteed debt and other regulatory capital instruments, such as
Capital Purchase Program (CPP) obligations. The FDIC does not believe
it is appropriate to allow participating entities to use the proceeds
of FDIC-guaranteed debt to prepay non-FDIC guaranteed obligations
because such prepayments would be inconsistent with one of the primary
objectives of the DGP, which is to encourage participating entities to
lend to creditworthy borrowers.
One commenter urged the FDIC to revise the Interim Rule to permit
subsidiaries of holding companies to issue MCD that, under the terms of
the debt instrument, converts to the common stock of an affiliate. Such
a provision would allow holding companies to effectively use the debt
guarantee limit of an insured depository institution subsidiary for the
holding company's own capital planning purposes. The FDIC is concerned
that this type of funding arrangement could ultimately benefit the
holding company at the expense of the insured depository institution
subsidiary, where the depository institution could be forced to seek
replacement funding once the debt converts to the common stock of the
holding company. Accordingly, the FDIC will only approve applications
to issue MCD that, by its terms, requires conversion of the debt into
common stock of the issuing entity on a specified conversion date.
Commenters also sought additional flexibility in determining the
debt guarantee limit for bank holding companies. Specifically, the
commenters suggested revising the Interim Rule to permit a bank holding
company to issue senior unsecured debt up to the amount that is
permissible for an insured depository institution subsidiary, or
provide a separate debt
[[Page 26944]]
guarantee limit for bank holding companies based on a delineated
percentage of liabilities or risk-weighted assets. Two other commenters
encouraged the FDIC to modify the TLGP in a way that would permit
eligible entities to use the TLGP for purposes of raising capital. One
of these commenters suggested revising the definition of senior
unsecured debt to include trust preferred securities and subordinated
debentures.
Under the TLGP, debt guarantee limits are based on the liquidity
needs of an entity as determined by senior unsecured debt outstanding
on September 30, 2008 (or 2 percent of liabilities for insured
depository institutions without any outstanding senior unsecured debt
on September 30, 2008). Although the Interim Rule provides an
opportunity to attract future capital in the form of common equity, the
purpose of the TLGP is not to recapitalize the banking industry. The
FDIC notes that capital deficiencies are being addressed by other
government programs and initiatives, such as the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP) and the CPP.
Another commenter requested a second opportunity to opt-into the
TLGP, in light of the modifications to the DGP provided under the
Interim Rule. The FDIC notes that on March 17, 2009, the Board approved
an Interim Rule that extends the DGP and imposes surcharges on
assessments for certain debt issued on or after April 1, 2009 (the
Extension Rule).\5\ One of the purposes of the DGP extension is to
ensure an orderly phase-out of the TLGP. Providing a second opportunity
to opt-into the DGP would be contrary to that effort. Further, the FDIC
believes the TLGP has provided reliable and cost-efficient liquidity
support to financial institutions with demonstrated funding needs.
Institutions that have elected to opt-out of the TLGP are less likely
to have such funding needs and, therefore, the FDIC believes that
providing a second opportunity to opt-into the DGP would be of marginal
benefit to the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 74 FR 12078 (March 23, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, one commenter suggested revising the DGP to permit mutual
banking organizations to issue MCD, on the condition that such
organizations would convert to stock form on or before the conversion
date. According to the commenter, this would allow mutual banks to
raise capital now while they convert to stock form. The FDIC notes that
mutual banking organizations must obtain regulatory approval to convert
to a stock form of ownership, and that FDIC-guaranteed MCD is not
recognized as regulatory capital until the debt converts into common
equity of the issuer. In addition, the purpose of the TLGP is not to
create incentives that would promote one form of ownership structure
over another.
Although the FDIC received a few other comments in connection with
the Interim Rule, they were either unrelated to the substance of the
Interim Rule or applicable to the Extension Rule approved by the Board
on March 17, 2009, which provides for a limited, four-month extension
of the DGP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Rule
The Interim Rule generally permits entities participating in the
DGP to issue FDIC-guaranteed MCD upon application to and approval from
the FDIC. FDIC-guaranteed MCD must, in the debt instrument, provide for
the mandatory conversion of the debt into the common equity of the
issuer on a specified date, which must be on or before the expiration
of the FDIC's guarantee.
This Final Rule adopts the Interim Rule (as amended by the final
rule entitled Amendment Of The Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program To
Extend The Debt Guarantee Program And To Impose Surcharges On
Assessments For Certain Debt Issued On Or After April 1, 2009 which was
issued by the Board on May 19, 2009) with one change.\7\ Because MCD
does not have a maturity date as such, this Final Rule clarifies that,
with respect to MCD, the FDIC guarantee covers scheduled payments of
principal and interest through the date of conversion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Section I. Background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The process of amending Part 370 by means of this Final Rule is
governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pursuant to Section
553(b)(B) of the APA, general notice and opportunity for public comment
are not required with respect to a rule making when an agency for good
cause finds that ``notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Similarly, Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that an agency, for
good cause found and published with the rule, does not have to comply
with the requirement that a substantive rule be published not less than
30 days before its effective date. When it issued the Interim Rule, the
FDIC invoked these good cause exceptions based on the unprecedented
disruption of the credit markets that has occurred as a result of the
severe financial conditions that threaten the nation's economy and the
stability of the banking system. For this same reason, the FDIC invokes
the good cause exceptions with respect to the Final Rule.
B. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act
provides that any new regulations or amendments to regulations
prescribed by a Federal banking agency that impose additional
reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository
institutions shall take effect on the first day of the calendar quarter
which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are
published in final form, unless the agency determines, for good cause
published with the rule, that the rule should become effective before
such time.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 12 U.S.C. 4802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC invoked the good cause exception for purposes of the
Interim Rule because of the unprecedented disruption of the credit
markets that has occurred as a result of the severe financial
conditions that threaten the nation's economy and the stability of the
banking system. The FDIC had determined that any delay of the effective
date for the Interim Rule would have had serious adverse effects on the
economy and the stability of the financial system. For these same
reasons, the FDIC invokes the good cause exception for purposes of the
Final Rule.
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously determined
that the Interim Rule is not a ``major rule'' within the meaning of the
relevant sections of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of
1996 (SBREFA).\9\ The OMB also has determined that this Final Rule is
not a ``major rule'' within the meaning of the SBREFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)\10\ requires an agency to
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency
promulgates a final rule under section 553 of the APA, after being
required by that section to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
Because the FDIC has invoked the good
[[Page 26945]]
cause exception provided for in section 553(b)(B) of the APA, with
respect to this Final Rule, the RFA's requirement to prepare a final
regulatory analysis does not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pub. L. 96-354, Sept. 19, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,\11\ an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The Final Rule, as did the Interim Rule,
includes in sections 370.3(h)(1)(v) and 370.3(h)(2) a requirement for
submission of an application setting forth certain specific items of
information for institutions seeking to issue FDIC-guaranteed MCD. On
February 27, 2009, the FDIC requested and received approval under OMB's
emergency clearance procedures to revise its existing collection of
information entitled, ``Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program'' (OMB
Control No. 3064-0166), to incorporate the paperwork burden associated
with applications to issue MCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interim Rule requested comments on the paperwork burden
associated with applications to issue MCD, and only one such comment
was received. The commenter suggested that in lieu of the extra
paperwork burden created by the application requirement, the FDIC
should allow institutions to issue MCD at their own discretion, limited
only by their debt issuance caps. As noted in the Summary of Comments
section of the preamble, the information submitted in applications
allows the FDIC to ensure that proposed transactions will meet the
requirements of the DGP and confirm that all applicable applications
and notices have been submitted to the appropriate Federal banking
agency in cases where the transaction could present a change in control
issue. Accordingly, the FDIC declines to adopt that suggestion.
On March 11, 2009, the FDIC began the process for normal clearance
of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program information collection,
including applications to issue MCD, with publication of an initial 60-
day notice requesting comment on: (1) Whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's
functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2)
the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information
collection, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
information collection on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology; and (5) estimates of capital or start up costs, and costs
of operation, maintenance and purchase of services to provide the
information. The comment period ended on May 11, 2009, and no comments
were received. It will be followed by publication of a second Federal
Register notice, with a 30-day comment period, of the FDIC's submission
to OMB of its request for full clearance the collection. Interested
parties are invited to submit written comments during the 30-day period
on the estimated burden for applications to issue MCD or any other
aspect of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program information
collection by any of the following methods: http://www.FDIC.gov/
regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.
E-mail: comments@fdic.gov. Include the name and number of
the collection in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Leneta Gregorie (202-898-3719), Counsel, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20429.
Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F
Street), on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
A copy of the comment may also be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer for
the FDIC, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3208,
Washington, DC 20503. All comments should refer to the name and number
of the collection.
The burden estimate for the application to issue FDIC-guaranteed
mandatory convertible debt is as follows:
Title: Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.
OMB Number: 3064-0166.
Frequency of Response: 5.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.
Average Time for Response: 1 hour.
Estimated Annual Burden: 125 hours.
Previous Annual Burden: 2,201,550 hours.
Total New Burden: 2,201,675 hours.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 370
Banks, Banking, Bank deposit insurance, Holding companies, National
banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
0
Accordingly, the Interim Rule amending 12 CFR part 370 which was
published at 74 FR 9522 on March 4, 2009 is adopted as a final rule
with the following change:
PART 370--TEMPORARY LIQUIDITY GUARANTEE PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 370 shall continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1813(l), 1813(m), 1817(i), 1818,
1819(a)(Tenth), 1820(f), 1821(a), 1821(c), 1821(d), 1823(c)(4).
0
2. In part 370, amend section 370.12 by revising paragraph (b)(2) as
follows:
Sec. 370.12 Payment on the guarantee.
* * * * *
(b) Payments on Guaranteed Debt of participating entities in
default.
(1) * * *
(2) Method of payment. Upon the occurrence of a payment default,
the FDIC shall satisfy its guarantee obligation by making scheduled
payments of principal and interest pursuant to the terms of the debt
instrument through maturity, or in the case of mandatory convertible
debt, through the mandatory conversion date (without regard to default
or penalty provisions). Any principal payment on mandatory convertible
debt shall be limited to amounts paid by holders under the issuance.
The FDIC may in its discretion, at any time after the expiration of the
guarantee period, elect to make a final payment of all outstanding
principal and interest due under a guaranteed debt instrument whose
maturity extends beyond that date. In such case, the FDIC shall not be
liable for any prepayment penalty.
* * * * *
By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2009.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13083 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P