|
|
|
|
|
BusinessWeek: January 11, 1993 |
|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
The Auto Beat
Byte of the Apple
Europe Insight
Eye on Asia
Getting In
Investing Insights
The New Entrepreneur
NEXT: Innovation Tools & Trends
On Media
Technology at Work
The Tech Beat
Traveler's Check
TECHNOLOGY
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Hands On
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Car Care & Safety
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip FINANCE Investing: Europe Annual Reports Bloomberg BW50 SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth Companies: 2008 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs Rankings & Profiles |
Readers Report
AN OBSCURE BANK LAW COULD BRING A BONANZA Deep in the article "Money with strings attached" (Finance, Dec. 21) is an essential point concerning alleged bank tie-ins that should not be missed. Tying by banks is subject to a unique legal prohibition that gives any corporate bond issuer or borrower that feels victimized the right to sue for treble damages. Investment banks and others that compete directly with commercial banks can tie identical packages of services but are not covered by this prohibition or its treble-damage provision. It is noteworthy that these allegations against banks come primarily from a few companies involved in legal disputes with banks, either for nonpayment of fees or loans, or from Morgan Stanley and its trade association. The latter is motivated to protect the oligopolistic position of a handful of securities firms from legitimate bank competition. William H. Brandon Jr. President American Bankers Assn. Washington |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |