|
|
|
|
 |
BusinessWeek: January 11, 1993 |
|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads |
|
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 | |
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1991-2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
