International insolvency law and EU bank resolution rules

2019 ◽  
pp. 132-176
Author(s):  
Bob Wessels
Keyword(s):  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Bank Resolution

Part II Bank Resolution, 7 Banking Act Restructuring and Insolvency Procedures

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivares-Caminal Rodrigo ◽  
Douglas John ◽  
Guynn Randall ◽  
Kornberg Alan ◽  
Paterson Sarah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Banking Reform ◽  
Bank Resolution ◽  
Essential Services ◽  
Corporate Insolvency

This chapter starts by introducing the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Insolvency Rules 1986. It argues that for the most part they work effectively in the rescue or liquidation of companies. Special insolvency regimes have been put in place for a number of important industries in order to meet the situation where the application of the normal corporate insolvency law to a monopoly company causes essential services to be interrupted. The area governing both banks and investment firms has undergone more recent reforms with the introduction of the Financial Services Act 2012, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, and with the move to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive. Specific measures concerning the broader special administration and insolvency arrangements are addressed, looking at the treatment of depositors and client assets and explaining the priority accorded to them during the administration and insolvency procedure.

Title IV: Resolution

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Moss QC ◽  
Bob Wessels ◽  
Matthias Haentjens
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
General Public ◽  
Bank Failures ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Bank Resolution ◽  
Title Iv ◽  
Responsibility Of Government

Title IV of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) concerns resolution. If ‘conditions for resolution’ are met, resolution authorities may place any entity covered by BRRD under resolution, apply the resolution tools, and exercise the resolution powers. ‘Resolution’ is often contrasted with ‘insolvency’. Resolution is a specialized regime for bank failures, and its objectives are fundamentally different from the objectives of normal insolvency law. The resolution regime has general public interest as its main, most abstract goal, whereas the insolvency regime traditionally aims at maximizing creditor value. For these reasons, resolution management is the responsibility of government authorities rather than courts. Nonetheless, insolvency law remains of essential importance to bank resolution rules. Not only will (national) insolvency law remain critical for the interpretation and application of the BRRD’s bank resolution rules such as the ‘No Creditor Worse Off’ rule (see below at paras 7.102–7.104), but insolvency law will also remain applicable to bank failures where specific bank resolution rules do not apply.

scholarly journals The Rise of ‘Group Solution’ in Insolvency Law and Bank Resolution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilya Kokorin
Keyword(s):  
Financial Stability ◽  
Multinational Enterprise ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Value Maximization ◽  
Bank Resolution ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Financial Interconnectedness

AbstractThis article traces the emergence of the concept of ‘group solution’ and its manifestations in insolvency law and bank resolution as an alternative to the rigid entity-by-entity approach. The rise of this concept can be linked to the recognition of the specificity of problems related to the insolvency of multinational enterprise groups, arising from group operational and financial interconnectedness. This has not happened at once, but has resulted from the evolution of views and ideas, evident in hard and soft law instruments of the 2000s and the 2010s. In light of this important development the article explores the concept of a group solution, its rationale, scope of application and limitations. It concludes that despite the gradual acceptance of the group phenomenon, a group solution has not been formed as a coherent and well-defined legal principle. Instead, it represents a variety of approaches, tools and practices, which pursue different policy objectives underpinned by different societal values. Among them are asset value maximization, business rescue, the protection of financial stability and the preservation of banks’ critical functions. With all its flexibility, a group solution has one pervasive limitation—it cannot trump the interests of individual group members and their creditors. At the same time, in order to realize the full potential of a group solution, it is necessary to embrace the group-sensitive and forward-looking interpretation of creditors’ interest, facilitating commercially sensible and practical group solutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document