![]() ![]() When IIF US Holding was acquiring El Paso Electric, Mr. It is problematic that the Commission failed to recognize that an unopposed proceeding involving IIF Int’l had a direct impact on an open 206 investigation to determine affiliation between IIF and JP Morgan.įurthermore, one of IIF Int’l Holding’s alleged “owners”, Henry Fayne, has long-standing affiliation with IIF US Holding. Intervenors like Public Citizen therefore serve an essential role to assist the Commission in ensuring that the record is factual and accurate. This is the reality of the Commission’s review of otherwise routine filings: if a proceeding features no intervenors raising substantive issues, the Commission typically and uncritically regurgitates whatever narrative is proffered by applicants. The result of the Commission’s dereliction has been a cascading series of IIF filings in other proceedings waiving off Public Citizen challenges to the affiliation between IIF Int’l and JP Morgan. Unsurprisingly, there were no intervenors.īut what is surprising is that the Commission issued an order on Januthat neither questioned nor challenged the application’s unsubstantiated assertion that “IIF Int’l and IIF US Holding 2 are not affiliates.” One would hope that a federal regulator that initiated an investigation to determine affiliation between IIF and JP Morgan would attempt to verify the accuracy of a claim that “IIF Int’l and IIF US Holding 2 are not affiliates”, as such a claim is directly related to the 206 investigation. ![]() It was therefore unintuitive for intervenors such as Public Citizen to recognize any relationship between Innovate Solar and an open investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act. The Commission’s notice of the Novemapplication did not include the name IIF, as it unhelpfully listed only the name Innovative Solar 42, LLC. made the unsupported claim that “IIF Int’l and IIF US Holding 2 are not affiliates under the Commission’s regulations.” In that application, counsel for IIF Int’l Holding L.P. applied under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act to acquire 51% of a FERC-jurisdictional asset. ![]() The non-public Investment Advisory Agreement between IIF US Holding and JP Morgan, in addition to IIF US Holding’s non-public Agreement of Limited Partnership, detail various rights and privileges enjoyed by JP Morgan Chase that demonstrate the bank’s affiliation with IIF, per 18 CFR § 35.36(a)(9)(iii). IIF is a network of private equity shell companies created by JP Morgan Chase in 2006. ![]() This proceeding was initiated by the Commission under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine―per 18 CFR § 35.36(a)(9)(iii)―whether JP Morgan Chase is affiliated with IIF and its associated companies. Both documents must be made public, per 18 CFR § 388.112(e). Second, the Commission must compel the public disclosure of two relevant documents: the investment advisory agreement between JP Morgan and IIF Int’l Holding, and the agreement of limited partnership of IIF Int’l Holding. First, this investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act must include a determination of affiliation between IIF Int’l Holding L.P. The Commission must correct its error in two ways. IIF Int’l Holding―an entity under an investment advisory agreement with JP Morgan Chase―recently acquired a FERC-jurisdictional facility while claiming it is affiliated with neither IIF US Holding nor JP Morgan Chase. Today in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket EL21-36 we asked to expand the open investigation of JP Morgan’s affilition and control over the private equity entity IIF to include IIF Int’l Holding. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |