# OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733: National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96)

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733

## Section

- **Citation:** OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733
- **Heading:** National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96)
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** OCC Interpretive Letters / National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96).

## Text

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Interpretive Letter #733
Published in Interpretations and Actions July 1996
12 U.S.C. 3101A
12 U.S.C. 192
June 19, 1996
[ ]
Re: Enforceability of Netting and Collateral Agreements with Federal Branches and Agencies
Dear [ ]:
This is in response to your recent letter to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") on
behalf of [ ]. [ ] is being organized as a [ ] limited purpose trust company to operate a multilateral foreign exchange
clearinghouse. [ ] will provide financial institutions dealing in foreign exchange with a means for netting
their transactions through the substitution of [ ] as the counterparty to each transaction.
You requested clarification of the enforceability of [ ] arrangements with participants that are uninsured
Federal branches or agencies of foreign banks in the event the OCC appoints a receiver for such a
Federal branch or agency. You represented that [ ]'s rules, which are incorporated into the participant
agreement, provide for netting payment obligations and entitlements among the participants, as well as
termination of transactions upon appointment of a receiver for a participant. Participants will also agree
to pledge collateral to secure their obligations under their netting contracts. To address the enforceability
of netting with each participant, [ ]'s structure requires a participant to be a "financial institution" as
defined in Title IV of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (Payment
System Risk Reduction Act), 12 U.S.C. 4401-07, or under the Federal Reserve's Regulation EE, 12
C.F.R. Part 231.
1
their obligations under their netting contracts. To address the enforceability
of netting with each participant, [ ]'s structure requires a participant to be a "financial institution" as
defined in Title IV of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (Payment
System Risk Reduction Act), 12 U.S.C. 4401-07, or under the Federal Reserve's Regulation EE, 12
C.F.R. Part 231.
1. Receivership Will Not Interfere With Rights of Secured Creditor Concerning Collateral
You asked us to confirm that a receiver appointed by the Comptroller under section 4(j) of the
International Banking Act ("IBA"), and acting under receivership authority of the National Bank Act,
would not have the right to stay, delay or hinder a secured party's remedies with respect to collateral
security under the following assumptions. The obligations of the branch or agency under a netting
contract, such as the rules of [ ] and the participant agreements, are secured pursuant to an agreement that
constitutes a valid and perfected security interest under applicable state law. In addition, the security
agreement was not entered into in contemplation of the foreign bank's insolvency, or that of the branch of
agency.
Interpretive Letter #733
(1 of 3)

We agree. The National Bank Act does not provide the receiver the right to stay, delay or hinder a
secured party's remedies with respect to collateral security in the described circumstances. There is no
automatic stay or other provision in the National Bank Act that authorizes such interference with the
rights of a secured creditor. In addition, there are no court cases or interpretations that would permit the
receiver to disregard the rights of a secured creditor in this situation. Rather, the cases and practice of
receivership under the National Bank Act instruct that a Comptroller-directed receivership is subject to
longstanding legal principles upholding the rights of secured creditors and creditors with setoff rights.
See Bell v. Hanover National Bank, 57 F
or interpretations that would permit the
receiver to disregard the rights of a secured creditor in this situation. Rather, the cases and practice of
receivership under the National Bank Act instruct that a Comptroller-directed receivership is subject to
longstanding legal principles upholding the rights of secured creditors and creditors with setoff rights.
See Bell v. Hanover National Bank, 57 F. 821, 822 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1893) ("It is only such balance of [the
collateral] as may be left after the lien upon it is satisfied that either the [bank] or the receiver is entitled
to ...."). See also Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U.S. 499, 510 (1892)(ratable payments by the receiver to
claimants are made only "from what belongs to the bank, and that which at the time of insolvency
belongs of right to [a creditor with setoff rights] does not belong to the bank.").
With regard to this question, you have also asked our opinion as to the effect of section 4(j)(2) of the
IBA, which provides that, with respect to the receivership of a branch or agency, the Comptroller shall
turn over the remainder of assets and proceeds to the head office of the foreign bank or its liquidator after
"there has been paid to each . . . creditor . . . the full amount of such claims arising out of transactions had
by them with any branch or agency ... and all expenses of the receivership." Section 4(j)(1) of the IBA
provides that a receiver appointed for a federal branch or agency shall take possession of all property and
assets of the foreign bank and "exercise the same rights, privileges, powers, and authorities with respect
thereto as are now exercised by receivers of national banks appointed by the Comptroller." However,
because nothing in section 4(j)(2) expressly limits or alters the law of secured transactions applicable to a
receivership conducted under the National Bank Act, as provided in section 4(j)(1), paragraph (1) and
paragraph (2) together yield a consistent result: the IBA does not provide authority for the receiver of a
federal branch to
ivers of national banks appointed by the Comptroller." However,
because nothing in section 4(j)(2) expressly limits or alters the law of secured transactions applicable to a
receivership conducted under the National Bank Act, as provided in section 4(j)(1), paragraph (1) and
paragraph (2) together yield a consistent result: the IBA does not provide authority for the receiver of a
federal branch to defeat the rights of a secured creditor. As noted above, under the National Bank Act
only the balance of collateral left over after satisfaction of the security interest would be an asset
available to the receiver for distribution to general creditors.
This conclusion is consistent with the legislative history of section 4(j) and the IBA, generally. On one
hand, the recognition of the rights of a secured creditor to the extent of its security interest in assets in the
U.S. would not give rise to the concerns that prompted section 4(j)(2). On the other hand, to interpret
section 4(j)(2) as prescribing different creditor priorities and elevating an unsecured creditor over a
secured creditor would be at odds with the principles of secured transactions widely recognized under
U.S. law. It would be virtually impossible for a foreign bank to operate branches and agencies in the U.S.
under such a standard because of the bank's inability to enter into the secured arrangements necessary for
market participation -- an absurd result that would violate the national treatment policy of the IBA.
The Comptroller's reasonable interpretation of section 4(j)(2), which he is responsible for administering,
is entitled to deference. See, e.g., Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 64 U.S.L.W. 4399 (1996).
Moreover, it should be noted that the receiver of a Federal branch or agency acts as the agent of, and
subject to direction and control by, the Comptroller of the Currency
policy of the IBA.
The Comptroller's reasonable interpretation of section 4(j)(2), which he is responsible for administering,
is entitled to deference. See, e.g., Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 64 U.S.L.W. 4399 (1996).
Moreover, it should be noted that the receiver of a Federal branch or agency acts as the agent of, and
subject to direction and control by, the Comptroller of the Currency. In our opinion, under the
circumstances outlined in your letter, the Comptroller should direct the receiver not to seek to stay,
hinder, delay or otherwise interfere with the exercise of rights of a secured party in collateral security and
not to interfere with the liquidation of such collateral by the secured party promptly following a default.
2. Receivership Will Not Prevent Secured Party from Applying Collateral Held in the U.S. to Obligations
of a Non-U.S. Office Or Otherwise Interfere With the Exercise of Rights
Interpretive Letter #733
(2 of 3)

You also asked us to confirm that the receiver would not have the right to prevent [ ] from applying the
collateral held in the United States to the obligations of a non-U.S. office or otherwise stay, delay or
hinder the exercise of remedies against the foreign bank and the collateral pledged to secure the foreign
bank's obligations, under the following assumptions. The netting contract, in the circumstances you
describe, is entered into by the head office or another non-U.S. office of the foreign bank. The non-U.S.
office secures its obligations under the contract by a pledge of collateral located in the United States
pursuant to a collateral security arrangement that would constitute a valid and perfected security interest
under applicable state law. The security agreement was not entered into in contemplation of the foreign
bank's insolvency, or that of the branch or agency.
We agree. As discussed above, the National Bank Act does not provide authority to a receiver appointed
by the Comptroller to interfere with the rights of a secured party. As noted, U.S
at would constitute a valid and perfected security interest
under applicable state law. The security agreement was not entered into in contemplation of the foreign
bank's insolvency, or that of the branch or agency.
We agree. As discussed above, the National Bank Act does not provide authority to a receiver appointed
by the Comptroller to interfere with the rights of a secured party. As noted, U.S. legal principles under
which a secured party may enforce its interests are fully applicable to a receivership of a Federal branch
or agency conducted under the National Bank Act. The direction to the receiver in section 4(j)(1) of the
IBA to "take possession" of all the property and assets of the foreign bank in the U.S., therefore, does not
supersede the applicable law of secured transactions. In our opinion, based upon the facts you described,
the Comptroller should direct the receiver not to interfere with the application of collateral held in the
U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office or otherwise interfere with the exercise of remedies pursuant to a
collateral security arrangement that would constitute a valid and perfected security interest under
applicable state law.
We trust this is responsive to your inquiry.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Julie L. Williams
Chief Counsel
Interpretive Letter #733
(3 of 3)

## Nearby sections

- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 719 Letter concludes that an ESOP is a "company' for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 371c and that an ESOP that controls at least 25% of a bank's voting stock is an "affiliate" under sec. 371c (supersedes existing OCC interpretive letter #261). (10/26/89)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0719.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 720 Group of affiliate national banks may collectively own, through operating subsidiaries, minority interest in a merchant credit card processing subsidiary. (01/26/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0720.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 722 A national bank may invest CIF assets in mutual funds, including mutual funds that pay the bank a servicing fee, without the bank having to reduce its trustee fees, if the bank concludes, based upon a reasoned opinion of trust counsel, that such an arrangement is authorized by applicable state law, is consistent with the trust instrument, is appropriate for the particular trust accounts, and is consistent with OCC regulations, including in particular 12 C.F.R. 9.18(b)(12). (03/12/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0722.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 724 Bank can sell vehicle service contracts to customers who use home equity loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle, and the maturity of the service contract may be different from the maturity of the loan. (04/22/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0724.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 725 National bank to establish an operating subsidiary to engage in permissible derivatives-related activities. (05/10/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0725.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 726 Letter concerns the application of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to financial institutions' support of microenterprise lending programs. (06/21/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0726.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 730 Letter concludes that loans proposed by the bank to an unaffiliated distributor of mutual funds would not be subject to interaffiliate lending restrictions contained in 12 U.S.C. 371C. (05/29/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0730.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 732 National bank may make a 5.5% investment in software company which is engaged in the design, development, marketing and maintenance of a network for electronic funds transfers and electronic data interchange, including transacting electronic commerce and marketing software products for use on its world-wide electronic commerce network. (05/10/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0732.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733 National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 736 Lending limit exception for participations not limited to banks. Non-banks may act as participants. (07/25/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0736.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 737 Huntington National Bank's acquisition of minority interest in a limited liability company providing stored value systems. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0737.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 738 National bank's participation in a guaranty issued by an agent for a syndication of lenders with respect to their borrower's letter of credit reimbursement obligations to another bank or financial institution is permissible under I.R. 7.1016. (08/14/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0738.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 740 Letter advises the Bank as follows: 1) The question of whether "salary" as used in 12 C.F.R. 2.4 includes an officer's base salary, bonuses, director's fees and/or any other compensation paid by the Bank must be determined by the Bank's management; 2) the question of whether the payment bonuses for credit life sales under 12 C.F.R. 2.4 is based on salary received by the recipient in a calendar year, a fiscal year, or any 12-month period must be determined by the Bank's management; and 3) pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 2.4, if the Bank's CEO is a loan officer and the CEO participates in the bonus plan under which payments based on credit life insurance sales are made, the CEO must be included in averaging the salaries of loan officers that participate in the Bank's bonus or incentive plan. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0740.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 741 National bank may acquire majority interest in company which operates call center facility which operates programs by which potential customers for new or used automobiles may access databases containing information on the used and new car inventories of numerous automobile dealerships in its metropolitan area. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0741.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.