Questions on Management - Essay Example

A case in point can be drawn from the lawsuit involving the Bank of America versus the City and County of San Francisco. In this case, the Bank of American seeks to annul ordinances passed by the city and county of San Francisco to protect consumers; the states are mandated by Congress to enact additional legislation especially with respect to consumer protection (Mitchell). The ordinances prohibit financial institutions (all banks, industrial loan companies and savings associations) from charging ATM fees to non-depositors.

According to the cities, an ATM charge on non-depositors is punitive to consumers and weakens competition in the banking industry at the local state level (Bank of America). In this case, congestion in smaller banks makes the smaller banks to lose clientele to bigger banks that operate many ATMs in the city. Conversely, the Bank of America argued that the above-mentioned ordinances were disadvantageous as they impaired its operations. Ultimately, the Bank of America disputed the city’s contention because the city’s characterization of the ATM market was faulty.

Unfortunately, the district court ruled in favor of the bank with the city falling on the losing end. According to the District Court, the savings clause in the Electronic Fund Transfer Act does not grant the cities permission to regulate fees charged on ATMs as a measure to protect the consumers. In addition, the court also ruled that Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) and Office of Thrift Supervision's (OTS) regulations gave savings banks the legal permission to charge ATM fees on consumers (Bank of America).

• Among the issues which have come to the fore are those concerning the attempts of states to enact laws which main purpose is to protect those who live within these states. The laws that have been enacted most often have tended to be overridden by the financial regulatory agencies in the name of implementing federal laws (Mitchell). Since the American Constitution states that all the laws that are passed at the federal level are supreme to those passed at the state level, many of the agencies have used these laws as an excuse to frustrate any laws that have been passed at the state level for the benefit of the citizens.

In contrast, these agencies have developed a culture of helping banks (especially national banks) to establish their dominance over their rivals at the state level. In fact, the lawsuit involving the Bank of America versus the City and County of San Francisco indicates clearly that the HOLA and OTS regulations override the ordinances. The District Court also ruled that the National Bank Act and the regulations of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are supreme to the ordinances passed by the city and county of San Francisco.

Federal law annuls state law both directly (by stating preemption in explicit terms) and indirectly (by leaving no room for state regulatory control). A state law may also be annulled if it is established that its execution is in contravention of a preexisting federal law. In such cases, the federal law normally preempts the state law as the application of both laws is always deemed inadvertently impossible under the provisions of the constitution; therefore, it is clear that the federal regulations