Featured Product

    EBA Proposes Contractual Recognition Standards for Bail-In Under BRRD

    July 24, 2020

    EBA proposed regulatory and implementing technical standards on the impracticability of contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers and related notifications, as laid down in the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The draft implementing technical standards specify uniform formats and templates for notification to resolution authorities of contracts meeting the conditions of impracticability defined in the draft regulatory technical standards. EBA also published the draft templates and instructions for impracticability notifications. The consultation runs until October 24, 2020. After the consultation period, EBA will deliver the final draft regulatory and implementing technical standards to EC.

    These standards aim to promote effective application of resolution powers to banks and banking groups and to foster convergence of practices between relevant authorities and institutions across EU. To facilitate and improve the bail-in process in the event of resolution, BRRD requires inclusion of a contractual recognition of the effects of the bail-in tool in contracts or agreements governed by third country law. However, there might be instances where it is impracticable for institutions or entities to include those contractual terms. EBA is mandated to develop the draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions of impracticality. The draft regulatory technical standards define the conditions under which it would be legally or otherwise impracticable for an institution or entity to include the contractual term for the recognition of the bail-in. The regulatory standards also define the conditions and reasonable timeframe for the resolution authority to require the inclusion of contractual terms for the bail-in recognition.

    The draft implementing technical standards are based on Article 55(8) of the BRRD. The mandate for EBA does not cover exclusions from the scope of bail-in or from the scope of the Article 55 of BRRD. The draft regulatory technical standards cannot specify certain instruments as “impracticable,” as the mandate is to identify the underlying conditions creating the impracticability to include in the contractual provisions the term by which the counterparty recognizes the effects of a possible bail-in. The process that would take place in the instances of impracticability would follow these steps:

    • Institutions and entities should notify the relevant resolution authority if they determine that it is legally or otherwise impracticable to include the contractual provisions in a contract. The determination should be based on the conditions of impracticability set in article 1 of the draft regulatory technical standards.
    • The notification to the resolution authority should be made in accordance with the draft implementing technical standards provided in this consultation paper.
    • Resolution authorities should assess the institution’s or entity's determination that it is impracticable to include contractual recognition clauses. If it concludes that it is not impracticable to include the contractual term, it shall, within a reasonable timeframe, require the inclusion of such term. The reasonable timeframe is set by EBA in Article 3 of the draft regulatory technical standards.
    • The resolution authority shall require the inclusion of the contractual term taking into account the conditions defined in Article 2 of the draft regulatory technical standards. The conditions for the resolution authority to require the inclusion of the contractual term is defined in Article 2 of the draft regulatory technical standards
    • Where liabilities not including the contractual term of impracticability lead a resolution authority to determine the existence of a substantive impediment to resolvability, it can apply the powers provided in Article 17 of BRRD as appropriate to remove that impediment to resolvability.
    • Institutions and entities should be prepared to justify their determination. In addition, to ensure that the resolvability of institutions and entities is not affected, liabilities for which the relevant contractual recognition provisions are not included are not be eligible for Minimum Requirement for own funds and Eligible Liabilities or MREL. Furthermore, bail-in-able liabilities arising from contracts that do not include the contractual term are not excluded from bail-in.


    Related Links

    Comment Due Date: October 24, 2020

    Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, BRRD, Regulatory Technical Standards, Implementing Technical Standards, Contractual Recognition, Bail-In, Resolution Framework, MREL, Basel, EBA

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles

    FINMA Approves Merger of Credit Suisse and UBS

    The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has approved the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS.

    March 21, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BOE Sets Out Its Thinking on Regulatory Capital and Climate Risks

    The Bank of England (BOE) published a working paper that aims to understand the climate-related disclosures of UK financial institutions.

    March 13, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    OSFI Finalizes on Climate Risk Guideline, Issues Other Updates

    The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) is seeking comments, until May 31, 2023, on the draft guideline on culture and behavior risk, with final guideline expected by the end of 2023.

    March 12, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    APRA Assesses Macro-Prudential Policy Settings, Issues Other Updates

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published an information paper that assesses its macro-prudential policy settings aimed at promoting stability at a systemic level.

    March 07, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BIS Paper Examines Impact of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Lending

    BIS issued a paper that investigates the effect of the greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions of firms on bank loans using bank–firm matched data of Japanese listed firms from 2006 to 2018.

    March 03, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    HMT Mulls Alignment of Ring-Fencing and Resolution Regimes for Banks

    The HM Treasury (HMT) is seeking evidence, until May 07, 2023, on practicalities of aligning the ring-fencing and the banking resolution regimes for banks.

    March 02, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    MFSA Sets Out Supervisory Priorities, Issues Reporting Updates

    The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) outlined its supervisory priorities for 2023

    March 02, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    German Regulators Issue Multiple Reporting Updates for Banks

    Deutsche Bundesbank published the nationally deactivated validation rules for the German Commercial Code (HGB) users on the taxonomy 3.2, which became valid from December 31, 2022

    March 02, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BCBS Report Examines Impact of Basel III Framework for Banks

    The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published results of the Basel III monitoring exercise based on the June 30, 2022 data.

    February 28, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    PRA Consults on Prudential Rules for "Simpler-Regime" Firms

    Among the recent regulatory updates from UK authorities, a key development is the first-phase consultation, from the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), on simplifications to the prudential framework that would apply to the simpler-regime firms.

    February 28, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 8806