Insolvency of Significant Non-Financial Enterprises: Lessons from Bank Failures and Bank Resolution

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilya Kokorin
Policy Papers ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  

Developing an effective framework for cross-border resolution is a key priority in international regulatory reform. Large bank failures during the global financial crisis brought home the lack of adequate tools for resolving “too-big-to-fail” institutions. In cross-border cases, misaligned incentives and lack of robust mechanisms for resolution and cross-border cooperation left some country authorities with little choice but to take unilateral actions, which contributed to the high fiscal costs of the crisis and resulted in disorderly resolution in some cases


Author(s):  
Gabriel Moss QC ◽  
Bob Wessels ◽  
Matthias Haentjens

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.


Author(s):  
Olivares-Caminal Rodrigo ◽  
Douglas John ◽  
Guynn Randall ◽  
Kornberg Alan ◽  
Paterson Sarah ◽  
...  

The chapter starts by looking at resolution as understood in the United States. ‘Resolution’ refers to the way bank failures are dealt with in the United States. Similar to the traditional bankruptcy model, the chapter explains, two of the main goals of resolution are to maximize the value and minimize the losses of an institution for the benefit of its depositors and other stakeholders and, at least in a receivership situation, to determine who receives the residual value of the institution in satisfaction of their claims. However, resolution is also aimed at promoting a third goal: to deal with a failed institution in a manner that reduces the risk of contagion, preserves or restores public confidence in the banking or wider financial system, and otherwise promotes financial stability. The chapter then describes the history of financial resolution in the United States and outlines the fundamentals of resolution authority.


Author(s):  
Xiaofei Li ◽  
Cesar L. Escalante ◽  
James E. Epperson ◽  
Lewell F. Gunter

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Adewale Adegoke Alawiye-Adams ◽  
Dr. Afolabi Babatunde
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document