Banks and other financial institutions have argued that no change should be made.

If plaintiffs wanted such evidence, banks argued, they should pay the costs themselves.

Banks have argued that the rules are hurting their financial positions.

Banks argue there is weak demand from business for loans.

Many private banks argue that cord blood banking is a form of insurance.

The Bank of Boston has argued that a local owner would be better.

The banks argue that its penalty not a transaction fee.

The bank argues that its poverty reduction program would benefit 1.7 million of China's poorest people.

The bank also argues that the law is unnecessary because of antitrust laws, state regulations and market forces.

The Bank argues that "the key is not to produce less, but to produce differently".