Cross-border bank resolution in Japan

Author(s):  
Tomoaki Hayashi
Keyword(s):  

This noter-up complements Transnational Securities Law by Thomas Keijser. It updates the main edition in a number of areas. These include the following subject areas: Intermediated securities; Non-intermediated securities; Central Securities Depository (CSD); Bank resolution and insolvency ; and Banks and cross-border issues .


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Haentjens ◽  
Bob Wessels
Keyword(s):  

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):  
Ceyla Pazarbasioglu ◽  
Ross Leckow ◽  
Barend Jansen ◽  
Marina Moretti ◽  
Wouter Bossu ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 235 ◽  
pp. R40-R49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Beck

This paper surveys the recent academic literature on the economics of cross-border regulatory cooperation as well as recent policy developments in this area. While institutional arrangements of cross-border regulatory cooperation used to focus on day-to-day supervisory tasks, the crisis has given an impetus to a focus on cooperation at the bank resolution stage, with an array of different cooperation forms. A growing theoretical literature has documented different externalities arising from national supervision of cross-border banks, while empirical evidence has been relatively scarce. The paper concludes with a forward looking agenda both for policy reform and academic research in this area.


2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
Mejra Festić

AbstractThe purpose of the article is to present the possible regimes of bank resolution in the euro system and to highlight open questions concerning additional capital buffers and the valuation of assets according to the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The bail-in tool is used to write down or to convert certain liabilities with the purpose of restoring the capital adequacy. The valuation exercise would determine the amount of loss absorbtion to restore viability of the institution and capital adequacy. The bridge bank tool offers deeper restructuring powers to the competent resolution authority. Sale of the business tool is actually a variation of the bridge bank tool, enabling the resolution authority to transfer assets and liabilities to investors. The asset separation tool always is combined with another tool. The write-down is not a resolution tool, as it affects equity, while a bail-in tool goes further to other subordinated debt and senior debt. It is possible to establish additional resolution tools in the national legislation, as long as these tools are compatible with the principles of directive and national legislation in order to support cross-border group resolution. The issue of bank overregulation and the ability to meet the requirements without negative effects on the economy is emphasized.


2016 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Lehmann

AbstractBank resolution is key to avoiding a repetition of the global financial crisis, where failing financial institutions had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money. It permits recapitalizing banks or alternatively winding them down in an orderly fashion without creating systemic risk. Resolution measures, however, suffer from structural weakness. They are taken by States with territorially limited powers, yet they concern entities or groups with global activities and assets in many countries. Under traditional rules of private international law, these activities and assets are governed by the law of other States, which is beyond the remit of the State undertaking the resolution. This paper illustrates the conflict between resolution and private international law by taking the example of the European Union, where the limitations of cross-border issues are most acute. It explains the techniques and mechanisms provided in the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive (BRRD) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) Regulation to make resolution measures effective in intra-Eurozone cases, in intra-EU conflicts with non-Euro Member States and in relation to third States. However, it also shows divergences in the BRRD's transposition into national law and flaws that have been uncovered through first cases decided by national courts. A brief overview of third country regimes furthermore highlights the problems in obtaining recognition of EU resolution measures abroad. This article argues that regulatory cooperation alone is insufficient to overcome these shortcomings. It stresses that the effectiveness of resolution will ultimately depend on the courts. Therefore, mere soft law principles of regulatory cooperation are insufficient. A more stable and uniform text on resolution is required, which could take the form of a legislative guide or, ideally, of a model law. It is submitted that such a text could pave the way for greater effectiveness of cross-border resolution.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document