From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Mon May 3 14:15:48 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 11:15:48 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] "Golden Sacks" faces criminal investigation, shareholder class action Message-ID: <6FCC0D8F-7AF4-43D5-8464-8BEA8B753401@countercorp.org> Goldman Sachs Has Mounting Legal Woes By David Ellis (CNN, May 3) -- Goldman Sachs' legal headaches don't start and end with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Reports surfaced late Thursday that federal prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into Goldman and its employees, over whether it may have committed securities fraud in its mortgage trading operations. A representative for the firm would not confirm reports of an inquiry, but said they were not surprised given the scrutiny the firm has endured in recent weeks, adding they would cooperate with any requests for information. The latest legal action builds on the high-profile civil case brought against the company last month by the SEC, in which the agency charged the firm and one of its employees with defrauding investors in the sale of securities tied to subprime mortgages. In many ways, the agency's case has become a game changer for Goldman. Not only has it tarnished the gilded reputation of Wall Street's top firm, it also exposed the company to series of new legal attacks across a number of fronts. Since the SEC announcement, top German and British officials (including UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown) have demanded investigations into the firm's dealings, opening the door to additional regulatory probes. And even some state law enforcement officials have hinted that they too may join the Goldman Sachs pile-on, capitalizing on the public distaste for big banks and Wall Street in general. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said recently that he is already looking into the SEC's allegations, potentially setting the stage for a formal state investigation. There's also the possibility that individual investors who were burned by the now infamous "Abacus" mortgage security that's at the heart of the SEC probe may also sue Goldman. "Some of the investors who lost money might try to go after them," said Tom Hazen, a securities law professor at the University of North Carolina. The only concrete legal action taken so far however, has been a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a handful of individual shareholders. That complaint alleges that the company simply fell down on the job, failing to be transparent with its own shareholders about the potential charges it faced from the SEC. Goldman acknowledged some of those legal woes in a securities filing Monday, adding that it expects to face other suits and investigations in the future related to the sale of complex mortgage investments called collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs. Experts suggest the company could also soon come under fire as pension funds and other activist investors cry foul over the drop in the company's stock. Shares of Goldman have plunged 21% since the SEC first revealed its fraud allegations, including a 9% drop on Friday as news of the federal criminal probe prompted a pair of analysts to cut their rating on the firm. "There are any number of large institutional investors looking at a possible class action against Goldman, based upon recent disclosures and the recent stock drop," said Thomas Dubbs, a senior partner with Labaton Sucharow, a law firm that specializes in securities litigation cases. The Goldman spokesman said the company would not comment on the current lawsuits filed against it or about the possibility of more legal action. Damage to reputation may outweigh legal costs All along, analysts and legal experts have contended that the actual dollars the company might have to spend defending itself against such claims is quite manageable for Goldman, a firm with famously deep pockets. Some estimates have placed the cost of the SEC claim at $700 million or more, over the next couple years. While no small sum for some firms, that's mere pennies for a company that is expected to bring in about $11 billion in revenue each quarter through the remainder of this year and into 2011. Even before the SEC's bombshell announcement on April 16, Goldman attorneys were already bracing for a busy 2010. "Our litigation expenses can be expected to remain high," the company wrote in its latest annual report. Goldman was already involved in a number of cases that seemed much more minor in comparison to its current headaches. For example, Goldman and 20 of its peers have been engaged in a long-standing battle with the city of Cleveland for allegedly creating a "public nuisance" after securitizing sub-prime mortgages that are now tied to foreclosed, and in some instances, abandoned homes. In March, a former female vice-president at Goldman filed a discrimination suit against the firm, alleging Goldman engaged in "mommy tracking", or sending her to a lesser position after her first pregnancy and ultimately firing her while on maternity leave with her second child. Despite all those headaches, experts assert that Goldman's biggest threat is not how much it may have to pay in legal settlements. Instead, it is the potential impact the whole affair will have on its reputation, client relationships and worker morale. "Needless to say, this is highly challenging for us to quantify," Credit Suisse analyst Howard Chen, who tracks the firm, wrote in a note to clients earlier this month. Maybe that's why investors are so nervous. From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Tue May 4 06:44:23 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 03:44:23 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] Financial reform must end Wall Street's taxpayer-subsidized gambling Message-ID: Protect Taxpayers from Wall Street Risk By Joseph E. Stiglitz (CNN, May 3) -- As legislators continue to trade loud barbs over the details of the bill that seeks to overhaul our financial system, we risk losing a crucial aspect of reform in the din. We now have an important opportunity to fix the regulation of derivatives -- the controversial mechanisms that played a central role in the downfall of insurance giant AIG, and helped spark the Great Recession. The current finance bill contains reasonable proposals, developed by the Senate Agriculture Committee (which oversees commodities trading), under the leadership of Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas), that would rein in the most egregious abuses of these instruments. The AIG experience should have made clear that derivatives can create enormous risks -- risks that ended up being borne by taxpayers. In addition, derivatives have played an important role in all kinds of nefarious activities, ranging from trying to obfuscate Greece's real financial position to vast tax evasion. Derivatives are not inherently bad. They can play a positive role in risk management, but only within the appropriate regulatory and legal framework. Without it, they will almost surely contribute to the creation of risk -- as they did in this crisis, and as they did a decade ago in the infamous Long-Term Capital Management bail-out. The provisions being reported out of the Agriculture Committee are an important step in the right direction. But derivatives have produced enormous profits (about $20 billion last year) for a few big banks, so we should not be surprised that there is resistance to anything that is a real change to the status quo. Derivatives have been advertised as an "insurance product" -- insuring bondholders, for example, against the risk of a loss. But if they were really insurance products, they should have been regulated as insurance, with insurance regulators making sure that there was adequate capital to meet their obligations. In reality, in many cases derivatives are more accurately described as gambling instruments. But gambling would be subject to gaming laws, and derivatives aren't. Remarkably, in fact, derivatives have been left totally unregulated -- a mistake that President Clinton, who failed to introduce regulations when he had the chance, now acknowledges. Congress's current proposal is the opportunity to rectify that mistake. One provision holds particular promise -- and has the banks especially riled up. It is the idea that the government should not be responsible for the "counterparty risk" -- the risk that a derivatives contract not be fulfilled. It was AIG's inability to fulfill its obligations that led the U.S. government to step into the breach, to the tune of some $182 billion. The modest proposal of the Agriculture Committee is that the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) stop underwriting these risks. If banks wish to sell derivatives, they would have to do so through a separate affiliate within the holding company. And if the bank made bad gambles, the taxpayer wouldn't have to pick up the tab. This change would help fix the current system, where those who buy this so-called "insurance" enjoy the subsidy of an essentially free government guarantee; and where competition among the few issuers of these risky products is sufficiently weak that they enjoy high profits. The current arrangement is economically inefficient -- instead, firms should pay for the costs of their insurance. If the government guarantee is removed, the banks might have to put more money into their derivatives subsidiaries. This will reduce the banks' profitability, and it might force up prices of this "insurance." But that is as it should be. The government shouldn't be subsidizing "insurance" -- and it certainly shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing gambling. The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury seem to object to the Agriculture Committee's proposals. These objections show once again the extent to which the Fed and Treasury have been captured by the institutions that they are supposed to regulate, and re-emphasize the need for deeper governance reforms than those on the table. To be sure, banks' high profits from derivatives would help them re-capitalize, thereby offsetting the losses they incurred from the risky gambles of the past. But that doesn't mean that the policy of allowing banks to issue derivatives -- and laying the risk of failure onto the taxpayer -- is correct. Bank re-capitalization should be done in an open and transparent way, consistent with sound economic principles. After all, abusive creditcard practices could halso help re-capitalize the banks, but fortunately we have curtailed some of these. We should now do the same for derivatives. We should recognize that the Agriculture Committee provision is already a compromise that perpetuates some of the current risks to the taxpayers. Many worry that if the affiliate within the holding company that writes the derivatives gets into trouble, Uncle Sam will still come to the rescue. The bill also includes a "strong presumption" of losses for creditors and shareholders. What should be required is that creditors (other than depositors) and shareholders bear all the losses before the government is asked to pony up any money. But ultimately, in a crisis, worries about the consequences of such strong medicine will almost surely mean a bail-out for the bank holding companies, as well as the banks -- as happened in this crisis. The government will not only bail out the banks, but also the bankers, their shareholders, and their bondholders -- if not totally, at least partially. So if we are to protect American taxpayers, we must also bar any too-big-to-fail institutions from selling derivatives. But right now, the institutions who sell the vast majority of these derivatives are too big to fail. Ideally, responsibility for selling derivatives should be spun out to an entity that's totally independent of the big banks themselves. The Agriculture Committee bill does not go this far; rather, it strikes a reasoned compromise between political expediency and economic good sense. It would be a major mistake to walk away from this compromise by allowing FDIC-insured institutions to continue to sell these risky products. To allow them to do so would simply generate more political cynicism: It would show that the big banks have succeeded in their ambition of returning to the world as it was before the crash. ----------------------- Joseph E. Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel Prize winner in economics, is a professor of economics at Columbia University and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration. He is the author most recently of "Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the Global Economy." From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Tue May 4 23:50:48 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 20:50:48 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] World's biggest retailer caught dumping hazardous waste in California Message-ID: <55F2A0C4-3B09-4836-8746-5A12E6EC8C7E@countercorp.org> Wal-Mart to Pay $27.6 Millon in California Dumping Case (KGO-TV, May 3) -- Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $27.6 million to settle allegations that it improperly handled and dumped hazardous waste at stores across California, in a case that led to changes in the retailer's practices nationwide, prosecutors said Monday. The most serious allegations accused employees at various Wal-Mart stores of illegally dumping pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. Some of the products were dumped at local landfills, some in trash cans, and in one case down a storm drain. The complaint covers all of Wal-Mart's 236 stores and outlets in California. "They're trying to send a message, in this case to Wal-Mart, that if you operate in the state of California, you have to adhere to California rules," said Kyle Graham, a former prosecutor and law professor at Santa Clara University who is familiar with the civil complaint. Wal-Mart agreed to pay more than $27 million to settle the case, and issued a statement which said in part: "It is important to note that these incidents happened at least four years ago. Since then, we have worked closely with the state of California on a comprehensive hazardous waste plan that includes improved training programs, policies, and procedures." Wal-Mart customers we talked to say corporate America needs to be held accountable. "Definitely -- we as consumers are giving them our money," a Wal-Mart shopper said. "A lot of people are about being green right now, and nobody should be exempt from it," another shopper said. California Attorney General [and Democratic candidate for governor] Jerry Brown is going after Target for similar environmental violations, and recently settled with other major retail firms, including a $33 million case with Home Depot and smaller settlements last year against Kmart and U-Haul. Elizabeth Sturcken of the Environmental Defense Fund says more effort needs to be directed at the source of the problem -- the toxic and hazardous products themselves. "Frankly, we need to take it a stage further, and focus on reducing and eliminating hazardous materials, and that's what our work at Environmental Defense Fund is focused on," she said. From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Wed May 5 13:59:28 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:59:28 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] BP: Bullshit Predominates Message-ID: BP's Slick Greenwashing The petroleum giant tried to sell itself as a green industry leader -- but that was just an oily tactic By James Ridgeway (Mother Jones, May 4) -- For the last decade, BP has been busily engaged in a multi-million-dollar greenwashing campaign. Changing its name from British Petroleum to BP, the company adopted a new slogan, "Beyond Petroleum," and began a "re-branding" effort to depict itself as a public-spirited, environmentally sensitive, green-energy enterprise, the very model of 21st century corporate responsibility. It's going to take more than a name change and a clever ad campaign to erase the image of oil spreading across the Gulf Coast [1] from BP's off-shore rig, and dead wildlife washing up onto beaches. Even as the company agreed to cover the costs of cleaning up the mammoth spill, BP was still insisting that it wasn't at fault [2] for the accident that caused it -- instead blaming the off-shore drilling contractor that operated the rig. So much for corporate accountability. Before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, BP's green image was nothing more than a scam. While making minuscule investments in things like solar power, biofuels, and carbon fuel cells that backed its PR claims, BP continued to work relentlessly to expand its oil and gas operations. In the last decade, as the world's second largest producer of fossil fuels, the company drilled (and spilled) vast quantities of oil and gas on Alaska's North Slope, and in the North Sea. It positioned itself to rip up Canada's tar sands to extract its dirty oil, and grabbed a 50 percent interest in Iraq's rich Rumaila oil field. BP boasted the highest number of explosions and other accidents at its US refineries (several of them deadly), and made the Multinational Monitor's 10 Worst Companies [3] lists in 2000 and 2005, based on its environmental and human rights record. BP clearly believed that green was in the eye of the beholder. The company's move toward green marketing began in 1997, when it quit the industry's climate change denial group, the Global Climate Coalition, and acknowledged a possible link between global warming and the use of fossil fuels. By 2000, the vertically integrated multinational -- which explores, extracts, transports, refines, and sell fuels through its myriad gas stations -- had bought up Amoco, Arco, and Burmah Castrol. It united them under the BP brand with a feel-good flowering sun logo, and hired advertising firm Ogilvy & Mathers to launch a $200 million re-branding campaign. As Ogilvy executive John Seifert described it [4] in 2002, then BP CEO John Browne -- or, to use his full title, Lord Browne of Madingley -- "came to me with a dream proposal. He said, 'I want this company to be a force for good in this world. Build that image and I will hold the company accountable to it'." The problem, Seifert said, was, "No other industry is more loathed and distrusted by the public than the energy industry, and yet no other industry is more critical to modern survival. The reality is that no matter how much consumers resent energy companies, they still drive their cars and leave on the lights and turn the other cheek." His solution was a campaign that "bridges the us/them barrier, that brings the consumer into the debate so that we can address the problem together." By 2004, BP was running its "BP on the Street" nation-wide ad campaign, featuring what one BP executive described to Adweek as "a radical conversation with consumers about the paradox of the need for energy and the cost for getting it." TV spots showed ordinary looking people being asked questions like, "What would you rather have, a car or a cleaner environment?" One woman replies, "I can't imagine being without my car. But that compromise is very hard to make where we are." Then the punch line flashes on the screen: "We voluntarily introduced cleaner fuels, six years before EPA mandates. ? These low-sulphur fuels reduce ozone pollution. ? It's a start." Whew. Thank goodness for BP, saving us from making those tough choices between preserving the polar ice caps and taking the bus. Other ads had the appearance of being hard-hitting -- including one that asked people [4] what they would like to say to oil company executives. "Think about your children," one woman answers. "They're breathing the air I'm breathing, that you're breathing, and it's bad. And down the line, they will suffer. Think about that. If you have alternatives, invest the money in alternatives. You'll still make money. It won't make you a Communist. It''ll just make you a better human being." The television and print ads always ended with a plug for BP as "a global leader" in clean energy production. Accompanying the ad campaign was a series of public pronouncements from Lord Browne, who had been dubbed the "sun king" and the "green oilman," and was also reputed to be Tony Blair's favorite businessman.[5] Browne announced a plan to reduce company-wide greenhouse gas emissions, and another to invest $8 billion in alternative energy and greenhouse gas abatement projects -- an impressive figure that was actually a pittance relative to BP's overall budget. The gimmicks appeared to work. In 2001, BP had already been chosen as the "company that does most to protect the environment" in a survey by the Financial Times [6]that polled not only corporate executives but also activist groups and the media. "There appears to be near consensus," the paper reported, that BP "has made exceptional efforts to replenish environmental resources, develop alternative fuels and communicate with stakeholders." As for the general public, a 2007 "green brands survey" found that BP was perceived as more green than any of the other petroleum companies, and also headed the list of companies that had "become more green" in the previous five years. And what else was going on at BP while it was supposed to be "becoming more green"? ? In 2004, BP engaged in a "massive manipulation" [7] of the U.S. propane market. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ordered the company [8] to pay $303 million in criminal penalties and restitution to victims of its trading abuses. ? In 2005, a devastating explosion [9] and fire at a BP refinery in Texas BP killed 15 workers and injured 170 others. In 2007, BP was fined $50 million for environmental damage caused by the refinery blast. In 2009, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) levied an additional fine of $87 million fine -- the largest in OSHA's history -- for the company's "failure to correct potential hazards [10] faced by employees." ? In 2006, more than 260,000 gallons of crude poured onto the Arctic tundra from a BP pipeline near Prudhoe Bay [11] -- the worst on-shore spill in Alaskan history. Whistleblowers had already revealed that BP ignored warnings [12] about leaking and corroded pipelines and had tried to cover up earlier, smaller spills, and Congressional investigations found that negligence and cost-cutting [13] were factors in the 2006 disaster. BP was fined more than $20 million. ? In 2007, the U.S. Justice Department announced a fine [7] of $303 million against BP for "massive manipulation" of energy markets in 2004. ? Also in October 2007, the U.S. Minerals Management Service fined BP for a series of violations related to a near blow-out at an off-shore rig [14] in 2002. The violations included inadequate training of BP workers in "well control." During the period that all of these human and environmental catastrophes were going on, BP sales rose [15] from $192 billion in 2004 to $240 billion in 2005, and then to $266 billion in 2006. The company's profits fell [16] in 2007 following the disasters and fines, but began rebounding as soon as BP announced massive lay-offs. The dapper Lord Browne of Madingley, however, resigned after reports faulted his leadership in contributing to the accidents -- and after he was found to have lied to a court about his relationship with a former male escort. BP's new CEO, Tony Hayward, had been head of exploration and production for BP since 2003. According to the New York Times [17], Hayward "promised to re-focus the company and change the culture, emphasizing safety." In the last few years, BP has spent less time promoting itself as a green company and more time depicting itself as safe, competent, and forward-thinking -- a claim that has now proven more preposterous than the greenwashing was. The Times article remarked that for Hayward, "the accident threatens to overshadow all of the efforts he has made to burnish the tattered reputation of the company." In a meeting with BP executives in London following the spill, Hayward reportedly asked, "What the hell did we do to deserve this?" Tony Hayward himself has the answer, since according to the Times, "he also expanded the company's already aggressive exploratory efforts in the deep waters of the Gulf." In fact, the newspaper reported "last year, the same platform that has now sunk to the sea floor drilled the deepest well in history, opening one of the largest new fields in the world." New information is emerging every day on the many ways in which BP cut corners when it came to safeguards on the rig -- some of them implicated in the current disaster.[18] Hayward received a 40 percent pay increase [19] in 2009 based on BP's "improved performance." And the company recently announced earnings of $5.6 billion for the first quarter of 2010, more than double the same quarter last year. The disaster in the Gulf, of course, has not been good for BP's share prices. But a Morningstar oil stock analyst blithely told the New York Times that the worst oil spill in U.S. history "will test Tony and his ability to respond to this situation." She confidently concluded, "Certainly, BP will survive this." Whether the Gulf Coast will survive it is another question. ------------------ ENDNOTES: [1] www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/01/us/20100501-oil-spill-tracker.html?ref=us [2] http://abcnews.go.com/WN/oil-spill-spreads-gulf-mexico-blame-game-begins/story?id=10542248 [3] www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2005/112005/mokhiber.html [4] www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/08/29/got/index.html [5] www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-private-lives-447068.html [6] http://specials.ft.com/wmr2001/FT3K4GNQ6VC.html [7] www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bp-pays-373m-to-end-investigations-in-us-397975.html [8] www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr5405-07.html [9] www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8UJSQ880.htm [10] www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=16674 [11] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0320_060320_alaska_oil.html [12] www.counterpunch.org/leopold05162005.html [13] www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bps-oil-spill-in-alaska-blamed-on-costcutting-449167.html [14] www.cleanskies.com/articles/mms-records-show-bp-has-previous-deepwater-violations [15] www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/15/beyond-petroleum-pays-off-for-bp/ [16] www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bp-profits-slide-22-per-cent-778107.html [17] www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/business/30bp.html?pagewanted=2&hp [18] http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/bp-getting-heat-gulf-disaster [19] http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100305-705163.html From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Thu May 6 15:46:09 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 12:46:09 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] Ending the Big Bank gouge to get your own money Message-ID: Senators Push for a Cap of 50 Cents on ATM Fees By Betsy Schiffman (Daily Finance, May 6) -- Banks probably make a tidy profit off ATM fees, which can range anywhere from $1 to $7, but a proposed amendment to the financial reform bill would put an end to that by capping fees at 50 cents per transaction. The amendment, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and co-sponsored by Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Sanders (I-Vt.), aims to "ensure that fees charged to consumers at ATMs bear a reasonable relation to the cost of processing the transaction." Harkin says that based on the "best available data," the cost per transaction is 36 cents, therefore 50 cents per transaction is a reasonable upper limit. Level the Playing Field for 'Average Joe' "Under the current structure, banks charge consumers fees for using ATMs, while also collecting fees from other banks. This amendment restricts the double-dipping that benefits banks and costs consumers," said Harkin in a prepared statement. "Our mission in financial reform is to level the playing field for the average Joe," he said. "My amendment goes to the heart of that mission, ensuring consumers are no longer victimized by unfair fees." Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase all declined to comment. Banks are easy targets for politicians in the current political climate -- consumer animosity and rage toward financial institutions is palpable -- still, it's not clear the amendment would serve everyone's best interest. ATM Companies Will Go Out of Business "It's outrageous," says Jeremy Inman, executive vice president of operations for Aptus Financial, a Portland, Ore.-based company that sells, places and services white-label ATMs. "Capping surcharges at 50 cents would mean that the industry would see a lot of [ATM] companies go out of business." "They survive on -- and their financial model and revenue share, is very, very dependent on -- ATM surcharges," Inman says. The result, he says, is that "Subsequently you'd see a lot of cardholders who no longer have quick access to cash. And you'd likely see companies like MasterCard and Visa take pretty significant hits. Any time somebody uses their cards, Visa or MasterCard gets paid." Inman also argues that the amendment would hurt retailers, who often not only take a percentage of the ATM fees, but expect a certain percentage of purchases to be paid for with cash. "If customers can no longer take cash out at the retail location, some retailers will probably see a sharp increase in credit card transactions and credit card fees. Unintended Consequences: Access to Cash May Be Limited Another potential consequence of the amendment: Banks may close less-profitable ATMs, thus limiting consumer access to cash. "Banks build ATM networks for a couple different reasons -- to provide their customers with access to their cash in a convenient way, and to generate revenue from non-customers who are willing to pay for the convenience of using ATMs in certain locations," says John McGuinness, an attorney with Kelley Drye & Warren in Washington, D.C. "There are extensive costs in building the network," McGuinness says, "ranging from system support to security cameras, and if the fees are capped, then I think it's foreseeable that banks would start closing certain ATMs, or maybe ban non-bank customers from using those ATMs." This isn't the first time politicians have tried to limit or ban ATM surcharges. In 1999, the city Santa Monica, Calif., passed a measure that banned ATM surcharges. It was subsequently sued by a slew of banks, including Wells Fargo and Bank of America, arguing that states didn't have the right to regulate nationally chartered banks. The measure was eventually overturned.