EXHIBIT BFDIE Federal Deposit insurance Corporation 550 7h Set, Wesigon,DC, 204789880 Dison Superson nd Consors Petecton RECEIVED APR O 7 2008 sprit 2, 2008 D-W.A. David W. Alexander Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. 1300 Huntington Center 41 South High Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Re: Branch Banking and Trust Company Winston Salem, North Carolina 1est to Disclose Suspicious Activi ‘Dear Mr. Alexander: ‘The FDIC has reviewed the request submitted by your office on behalf of Branch Banking and Trust Company, Winston Salem, North Carolina, (BB&T) dated October 19, 2007, and subsequent information received from your office dated January 15, 2008. The FDIC hereby denies the request to authorize BB&T to produce a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), in a Federal administrative proceeding or in state court litigation. In addition, the FDIC has determined that the Department of Labor is not an "appropriate law enforcement agency" to which a bank may disclose a SAR or the fact that one was filed. There is a strong legal basis in statute and regulation in favor of confidentiality of SARs." ‘The FDIC's regulation governing the filing and disclosure of SARs denies banks the authority to disclose a SAR or the fact that one has been filed.’ This restriction on banks and other institutions that file SARs has been widely recognized by the courts.’ In addition, SARs are statutorily exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.‘ There are very strong public policy reasons behind the restrictions on the disclosure of SARs, including the fact that a SAR has been filed, which are discussed in the cases cited in this, letter, and others. SARs are used to detect and prevent crime, where possible, and apprehend criminals, and as such are a vital tool in protecting against the use of the U.S. financial system to ‘engage in criminal conduct. Confidentiality is essential to achieving this objective. Even ‘occasional disclosure of a SAR for purposes unrelated to the statutory reasons for collection of the information may deter banks from timely and accurate filing of SARS, either for reasons of perceived liability, damage to customer relationships, and/or retaliation against bank personnel. {31 USC. §5318(g)@). PACER. $353.30). » See, e.g., Union Bank of California v. Superior Court, 130 Cal. App.sth 378, 397, 29 Cal. Rpt.3d 894 (Cal, Ct, ‘App. 2005) (Union Bank); Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Karam, 306 F. Supp. 24 678, 682-83 (Whimey) (S.D. Tex. 2004). #31 USC. §5319,Additionally, SARs embody unproven allegations of illicit activity which could damage the reputation of named individuals or companies, who may be innocent. As provided for in its regulations,’ the FDIC has accepted BB&T"s request for consideration, and has weighed the factors against and in favor of authorizing BB&T’s production of the SAR, In reviewing BB&T’s request, the FDIC has considered, among other factors: © the possibility that BB&T can adequately defend itself in the administrative and state court proceedings if the FDIC denies its request; ‘©. the possibility that an ongoing law enforcement investigation could be compromised by disclosure; and (© the likelihood that the existence of and contents of a SAR could remain confidential if the request is granted. BB&T has a heavy burden to show that its private interest outweighs the substantial public interest in non-disclosure. The FDIC has determined that BB&'T has not demonstrated suflicient cause to deviate from the established policy discussed above, in favor of non- disclosure of a SAR or the fact of its filing. Enclosed is a detailed explanation of the FDIC’s decision on this matter. If you have any ‘questions, please contact me at (202) 898-8996 or Counsel Carl Gold at (202) 898-8702. Sincerely, Gin Associate Director Enclosure Mr. Alan L. Briggs Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20044-0407 *I2CER, § 309.6(046).