| |
| | Interpretations - Corporate Decision #96-48 -- Part 5 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22) |
 | | However, in the two OCC decisions, branch retention under section 30 was clearly presented as the primary argument, and the argument based upon grandfathered branches was an alternative, secondary argument. |
 | | Underlying the Commissioner's specific arguments is the general theme that it is inherently inconsistent with the interstate branching framework created in the Riegle-Neal Act for banks to be able to have interstate branches by other methods, such as a section 30 relocation, and that therefore Congress could not have intended other methods to be permitted. |
 | | And, under section 30 and the transition provisions of the Riegle-Neal Act, after the interstate relocation of its main office, a national bank may continue to operate its existing branches in its original state. |
| www.occ.treas.gov /interp/sept/cd48-4.htm (3618 words) |
|