Article 41 Operation of a bridge institution
1. Member States shall ensure that the operation of a bridge institution respects the following requirements: (a) the contents of the bridge institution’s constitutional documents are approved by the resolution authority; (b) subject to the bridge institution’s ownership structure, the resolution authority either appoints or approves the bridge institution’s management body; (c) the resolution authority approves the remuneration of the members of the management body and determines their appropriate responsibilities; (d) the resolution authority approves the strategy and risk profile of the bridge institution; (e) the bridge institution is authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU, as applicable, and has the necessary authorisation under the applicable national law to carry out the activities or services that it acquires by virtue of a transfer made pursuant to Article 63 of this Directive; (f) the bridge institution complies with the requirements of, and is subject to supervision in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and with Directives 2013/36/EU and Directive 2014/65/EU, as applicable; (g) the operation of the bridge institution shall be in accordance with the Union State aid framework and the resolution authority may specify restrictions on its operations accordingly. Notwithstanding the provisions referred to in points (e) and (f) of the first subparagraph and where necessary to meet the resolution objectives, the bridge institution may be established and authorised without complying with Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU for a short period of time at the beginning of its operation. To that end, the resolution authority shall submit a request in that sense to the competent authority. If the competent authority decides to grant such an authorisation, it shall indicate the period for which the bridge institution is waived from complying with the requirements of those Directives. 2. Subject to any restrictions imposed in accordance with Union or national competition rules, the management of the bridge institution shall operate the bridge institution with a view to maintaining access to critical functions and selling the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1), its assets, rights or liabilities, to one or more private sector purchasers when conditions are appropriate and within the period specified in paragraph 4 of this Article or, where applicable, paragraph 6 of this Article. 3. The resolution authority shall take a decision that the bridge institution is no longer a bridge institution within the meaning of Article 40(2) in any of the following cases, whichever occurs first: (a) the bridge institution merges with another entity; (b) the bridge institution ceases to meet the requirements of Article 40(2); (c) the sale of all or substantially all of the bridge institution’s assets, rights or liabilities to a third party; (d) the expiry of the period specified in paragraph 5 or, where applicable, paragraph 6; (e) the bridge institution’s assets are completely wound down and its liabilities are completely discharged. 4. Member States shall ensure, in cases when the resolution authority seeks to sell the bridge institution or its assets, rights or liabilities, that the bridge institution or the relevant assets or liabilities are marketed openly and transparently, and that the sale does not materially misrepresent them or unduly favour or discriminate between potential purchasers. Any such sale shall be made on commercial terms, having regard to the circumstances and in accordance with the Union State aid framework. 5. If none of the outcomes referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (e) of paragraph 3 applies, the resolution authority shall terminate the operation of a bridge institution as soon as possible and in any event two years after the date on which the last transfer from an institution under resolution pursuant to the bridge institution tool was made. 6. The resolution authority may extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 for one or more additional one-year periods where such an extension: (a) supports the outcomes referred to in point (a), (b), (c) or (e) of paragraph 3; or (b) is necessary to ensure the continuity of essential banking or financial services. 7. Any decision of the resolution authority to extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 shall be reasoned and shall contain a detailed assessment of the situation, including of the market conditions and outlook, that justifies the extension. 8. Where the operations of a bridge institution are terminated in the circumstances referred to in point (c) or (d) of paragraph 3, the bridge institution shall be wound up under normal insolvency proceedings. Subject to Article 37(7), any proceeds generated as a result of the termination of the operation of the bridge institution shall benefit the shareholders of the bridge institution. 9. Where a bridge institution is used for the purpose of transferring assets and liabilities of more than one institution under resolution the obligation referred to in paragraph 8 shall refer to the assets and liabilities transferred from each of the institutions under resolution and not to the bridge institution itself.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 41 Operation of a bridge institution):
1. Member States shall ensure that the operation of a bridge institution respects the following requirements: (a) the contents of the bridge institution’s constitutional documents are approved by the resolution authority; (b) subject to the bridge institution’s ownership structure, the resolution authority either appoints or approves the bridge institution’s management body; (c) the resolution authority approves the remuneration of the members of the management body and determines their appropriate responsibilities; (d) the resolution authority approves the strategy and risk profile of the bridge institution; (e) the bridge institution is authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU, as applicable, and has the necessary authorisation under the applicable national law to carry out the activities or services that it acquires by virtue of a transfer made pursuant to Article 63 of this Directive; (f) the bridge institution complies with the requirements of, and is subject to supervision in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and with Directives 2013/36/EU and Directive 2014/65/EU, as applicable; (g) the operation of the bridge institution shall be in accordance with the Union State aid framework and the resolution authority may specify restrictions on its operations accordingly. Notwithstanding the provisions referred to in points (e) and (f) of the first subparagraph and where necessary to meet the resolution objectives, the bridge institution may be established and authorised without complying with Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU for a short period of time at the beginning of its operation. To that end, the resolution authority shall submit a request in that sense to the competent authority. If the competent authority decides to grant such an authorisation, it shall indicate the period for which the bridge institution is waived from complying with the requirements of those Directives. The resolution authority shall take a decision that the bridge institution is no longer a bridge institution within the meaning of Article 40(2) in any of the following cases, whichever occurs first: (a) the bridge institution merges with another entity; (b) the bridge institution ceases to meet the requirements of Article 40(2); (c) the sale of all or substantially all of the bridge institution’s assets, rights or liabilities to a third party; (d) the expiry of the period specified in paragraph 5 or, where applicable, paragraph 6; (e) the bridge institution’s assets are completely wound down and its liabilities are completely discharged. 4. Member States shall ensure, in cases when the resolution authority seeks to sell the bridge institution or its assets, rights or liabilities, that the bridge institution or the relevant assets or liabilities are marketed openly and transparently, and that the sale does not materially misrepresent them or unduly favour or discriminate between potential purchasers. Any such sale shall be made on commercial terms, having regard to the circumstances and in accordance with the Union State aid framework. The resolution authority may extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 for one or more additional one-year periods where such an extension: (b) is necessary to ensure the continuity of essential banking or financial services. 7. Any decision of the resolution authority to extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 shall be reasoned and shall contain a detailed assessment of the situation, including of the market conditions and outlook, that justifies the extension. 8. Where the operations of a bridge institution are terminated in the circumstances referred to in point (c) or (d) of paragraph 3, the bridge institution shall be wound up under normal insolvency proceedings. Subject to Article 37(7), any proceeds generated as a result of the termination of the operation of the bridge institution shall benefit the shareholders of the bridge institution. 9. Where a bridge institution is used for the purpose of transferring assets and liabilities of more than one institution under resolution the obligation referred to in paragraph 8 shall refer to the assets and liabilities transferred from each of the institutions under resolution and not to the bridge institution itself.
Article 42 Asset separation tool
1. In order to give effect to the asset separation tool, Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the power to transfer assets, rights or liabilities of an institution under resolution or a bridge institution to one or more asset management vehicles. Subject to Article 85, the transfer referred to in the first subparagraph may take place without obtaining the consent of the shareholders of the institutions under resolution or any third party other than the bridge institution, and without complying with any procedural requirements under company or securities law. 2. For the purposes of the asset separation tool, an asset management vehicle shall be a legal person that meets all of the following requirements: (a) it is wholly or partially owned by one or more public authorities which may include the resolution authority or the resolution financing arrangement and is controlled by the resolution authority; (b) it has been created for the purpose of receiving some or all of the assets, rights and liabilities of one or more institutions under resolution or a bridge institution. 3. The asset management vehicle shall manage the assets transferred to it with a view to maximising their value through eventual sale or orderly wind down. 4. Member States shall ensure that the operation of an asset management vehicle respects the following provisions: (a) the contents of the asset management vehicle’s constitutional documents are approved by the resolution authority; (b) subject to the asset management vehicle’s ownership structure, the resolution authority either appoints or approves the vehicle’s management body; (c) the resolution authority approves the remuneration of the members of the management body and determines their appropriate responsibilities; (d) the resolution authority approves the strategy and risk profile of the asset management vehicle. 5. Resolution authorities may exercise the power specified in paragraph 1 to transfer assets, rights or liabilities only if: (a) the situation of the particular market for those assets is of such a nature that the liquidation of those assets under normal insolvency proceedings could have an adverse effect on one or more financial markets. (b) such a transfer is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the institution under resolution or bridge institution; or (c) such a transfer is necessary to maximise liquidation proceeds. 6. When applying the asset separation tool, resolution authorities shall determine the consideration for which assets, rights and liabilities are transferred to the asset management vehicle in accordance with the principles established in Article 36 and in accordance with the Union State aid framework. This paragraph does not prevent the consideration having nominal or negative value. 7. Subject to Article 37(7), any consideration paid by the asset management vehicle in respect of the assets, rights or liabilities acquired directly from the institution under resolution shall benefit the institution under resolution. Consideration may be paid in the form of debt issued by the asset management vehicle. 8. Where the bridge institution tool has been applied, an asset management vehicle may, subsequent to the application of the bridge institution tool, acquire assets, rights or liabilities from the bridge institution. 9. Resolution authorities may transfer assets, rights or liabilities from the institution under resolution to one or more asset management vehicles on more than one occasion and transfer assets, rights or liabilities back from one or more asset management vehicles to the institution under resolution provided that the conditions specified in paragraph 10 are met. The institution under resolution shall be obliged to take back any such assets, rights or liabilities. 10. Resolution authorities may transfer rights, assets or liabilities back from the asset management vehicle to the institution under resolution in one of the following circumstances: (a) the possibility that the specific rights, assets or liabilities might be transferred back is stated expressly in the instrument by which the transfer was made; (b) the specific rights, assets or liabilities do not in fact fall within the classes of, or meet the conditions for transfer of, rights, assets or liabilities specified in the instrument by which the transfer was made. In either of the cases referred in points (a) and (b), the transfer back may be made within any period, and shall comply with any other conditions, stated in that instrument for the relevant purpose. 11. Transfers between the institution under resolution and the asset management vehicle shall be subject to the safeguards for partial property transfers specified in Chapter VII of Title IV. 12. Without prejudice to Chapter VII of Title IV shareholders or creditors of the institution under resolution and other third parties whose assets, rights or liabilities are not transferred to the asset management vehicle shall not have any rights over or in relation to the assets, rights or liabilities transferred to the asset management vehicle or its management body or senior management. 13. The objectives of an asset management vehicle shall not imply any duty or responsibility to shareholders or creditors of the institution under resolution, and the management body or senior management shall have no liability to such shareholders or creditors for acts and omissions in the discharge of their duties unless the act or omission implies gross negligence or serious misconduct in accordance with national law which directly affects rights of such shareholders or creditors. Member States may further limit the liability of an asset management vehicle and its management body or senior management in accordance with national law for acts and omissions in the discharge of their duties. 14. EBA shall, by 3 July 2015, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to promote the convergence of supervisory and resolution practices regarding the determination when, in accordance to paragraph 5 of this Article the liquidation of the assets or liabilities under normal insolvency proceeding could have an adverse effect on one or more financial markets.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 42 Asset separation tool):
1. In order to give effect to the asset separation tool, Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the power to transfer assets, rights or liabilities of an institution under resolution or a bridge institution to one or more asset management vehicles. Subject to Article 85, the transfer referred to in the first subparagraph may take place without obtaining the consent of the shareholders of the institutions under resolution or any third party other than the bridge institution, and without complying with any procedural requirements under company or securities law. 2. For the purposes of the asset separation tool, an asset management vehicle shall be a legal person that meets all of the following requirements: (a) it is wholly or partially owned by one or more public authorities which may include the resolution authority or the resolution financing arrangement and is controlled by the resolution authority; (b) it has been created for the purpose of receiving some or all of the assets, rights and liabilities of one or more institutions under resolution or a bridge institution. For the purposes of the asset separation tool, an asset management vehicle shall be a legal person that meets all of the following requirements: (a) it is wholly or partially owned by one or more public authorities which may include the resolution authority or the resolution financing arrangement and is controlled by the resolution authority; (b) it has been created for the purpose of receiving some or all of the assets, rights and liabilities of one or more institutions under resolution or a bridge institution. 3. The asset management vehicle shall manage the assets transferred to it with a view to maximising their value through eventual sale or orderly wind down. 4. Member States shall ensure that the operation of an asset management vehicle respects the following provisions: (a) the contents of the asset management vehicle’s constitutional documents are approved by the resolution authority; (b) subject to the asset management vehicle’s ownership structure, the resolution authority either appoints or approves the vehicle’s management body; (c) the resolution authority approves the remuneration of the members of the management body and determines their appropriate responsibilities; (d) the resolution authority approves the strategy and risk profile of the asset management vehicle. 5. Resolution authorities may exercise the power specified in paragraph 1 to transfer assets, rights or liabilities only if: (a) the situation of the particular market for those assets is of such a nature that the liquidation of those assets under normal insolvency proceedings could have an adverse effect on one or more financial markets. (b) such a transfer is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the institution under resolution or bridge institution; or (c) such a transfer is necessary to maximise liquidation proceeds. 6. When applying the asset separation tool, resolution authorities shall determine the consideration for which assets, rights and liabilities are transferred to the asset management vehicle in accordance with the principles established in Article 36 and in accordance with the Union State aid framework. This paragraph does not prevent the consideration having nominal or negative value. 7. Subject to Article 37(7), any consideration paid by the asset management vehicle in respect of the assets, rights or liabilities acquired directly from the institution under resolution shall benefit the institution under resolution. Consideration may be paid in the form of debt issued by the asset management vehicle. 8. Where the bridge institution tool has been applied, an asset management vehicle may, subsequent to the application of the bridge institution tool, acquire assets, rights or liabilities from the bridge institution. 9. Resolution authorities may transfer assets, rights or liabilities from the institution under resolution to one or more asset management vehicles on more than one occasion and transfer assets, rights or liabilities back from one or more asset management vehicles to the institution under resolution provided that the conditions specified in paragraph 10 are met. The institution under resolution shall be obliged to take back any such assets, rights or liabilities. 10. Resolution authorities may transfer rights, assets or liabilities back from the asset management vehicle to the institution under resolution in one of the following circumstances: (a) the possibility that the specific rights, assets or liabilities might be transferred back is stated expressly in the instrument by which the transfer was made; (b) the specific rights, assets or liabilities do not in fact fall within the classes of, or meet the conditions for transfer of, rights, assets or liabilities specified in the instrument by which the transfer was made. Resolution authorities may transfer rights, assets or liabilities back from the asset management vehicle to the institution under resolution in one of the following circumstances: (a) the possibility that the specific rights, assets or liabilities might be transferred back is stated expressly in the instrument by which the transfer was made; (b) the specific rights, assets or liabilities do not in fact fall within the classes of, or meet the conditions for transfer of, rights, assets or liabilities specified in the instrument by which the transfer was made. In either of the cases referred in points (a) and (b), the transfer back may be made within any period, and shall comply with any other conditions, stated in that instrument for the relevant purpose. 11. Transfers between the institution under resolution and the asset management vehicle shall be subject to the safeguards for partial property transfers specified in Chapter VII of Title IV. 12. Without prejudice to Chapter VII of Title IV shareholders or creditors of the institution under resolution and other third parties whose assets, rights or liabilities are not transferred to the asset management vehicle shall not have any rights over or in relation to the assets, rights or liabilities transferred to the asset management vehicle or its management body or senior management. 13. The objectives of an asset management vehicle shall not imply any duty or responsibility to shareholders or creditors of the institution under resolution, and the management body or senior management shall have no liability to such shareholders or creditors for acts and omissions in the discharge of their duties unless the act or omission implies gross negligence or serious misconduct in accordance with national law which directly affects rights of such shareholders or creditors. Member States may further limit the liability of an asset management vehicle and its management body or senior management in accordance with national law for acts and omissions in the discharge of their duties. 14. EBA shall, by 3 July 2015, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to promote the convergence of supervisory and resolution practices regarding the determination when, in accordance to paragraph 5 of this Article the liquidation of the assets or liabilities under normal insolvency proceeding could have an adverse effect on one or more financial markets.
Article 43 The bail-in tool
1. In order to give effect to the bail-in tool, Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the resolution powers specified in Article 63(1). 2. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities may apply the bail-in tool to meet the resolution objectives specified in Article 31, in accordance with the resolution principles specified in Article 34 for any of the following purposes: (a) to recapitalise an institution or an entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) of this Directive that meets the conditions for resolution to the extent sufficient to restore its ability to comply with the conditions for authorisation (to the extent that those conditions apply to the entity) and to continue to carry out the activities for which it is authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU, where the entity is authorised under those Directives, and to sustain sufficient market confidence in the institution or entity; (b) to convert to equity or reduce the principal amount of claims or debt instruments that are transferred: (i) to a bridge institution with a view to providing capital for that bridge institution; or (ii) under the sale of business tool or the asset separation tool. 3. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities may apply the bail-in tool for the purpose referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 of this Article only if there is a reasonable prospect that the application of that tool together with other relevant measures including measures implemented in accordance with the business reorganisation plan required by Article 52 will, in addition to achieving relevant resolution objectives, restore the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) in question to financial soundness and long-term viability. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities may apply any of the resolution tools referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 37(3), and the bail-in tool referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article, where the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph are not met. 4. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities may apply the bail-in tool to all institutions or entities referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) while respecting in each case the legal form of the institution or entity concerned or may change the legal form.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 43 The bail-in tool):
1. In order to give effect to the bail-in tool, Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the resolution powers specified in Article 63(1). 2. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities may apply the bail-in tool to meet the resolution objectives specified in Article 31, in accordance with the resolution principles specified in Article 34 for any of the following purposes: to convert to equity or reduce the principal amount of claims or debt instruments that are transferred: (i) to a bridge institution with a view to providing capital for that bridge institution; or (ii) under the sale of business tool or the asset separation tool. to convert to equity or reduce the principal amount of claims or debt instruments that are transferred: (i) to a bridge institution with a view to providing capital for that bridge institution; or (ii) under the sale of business tool or the asset separation tool. 3. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities may apply the bail-in tool for the purpose referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 of this Article only if there is a reasonable prospect that the application of that tool together with other relevant measures including measures implemented in accordance with the business reorganisation plan required by Article 52 will, in addition to achieving relevant resolution objectives, restore the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) in question to financial soundness and long-term viability. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities may apply any of the resolution tools referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 37(3), and the bail-in tool referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article, where the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph are not met. 4. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities may apply the bail-in tool to all institutions or entities referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) while respecting in each case the legal form of the institution or entity concerned or may change the legal form.
Article 44 Scope of bail-in tool
1. Member States shall ensure that the bail-in tool may be applied to all liabilities of an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) that are not excluded from the scope of that tool pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 3 of this Article. 2. Resolution authorities shall not exercise the write down or conversion powers in relation to the following liabilities whether they are governed by the law of a Member State or of a third country: (a) covered deposits; (b) secured liabilities including covered bonds and liabilities in the form of financial instruments used for hedging purposes which form an integral part of the cover pool and which according to national law are secured in a way similar to covered bonds; (c) any liability that arises by virtue of the holding by the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) of this Directive of client assets or client money including client assets or client money held on behalf of UCITS as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC or of AIFs as defined in point (a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 31 ) , provided that such a client is protected under the applicable insolvency law; (d) any liability that arises by virtue of a fiduciary relationship between the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) (as fiduciary) and another person (as beneficiary) provided that such a beneficiary is protected under the applicable insolvency or civil law; (e) liabilities to institutions, excluding entities that are part of the same group, with an original maturity of less than seven days; (f) liabilities with a remaining maturity of less than seven days, owed to systems or operators of systems designated according to Directive 98/26/EC or their participants and arising from the participation in such a system; (g) a liability to any one of the following: (i) an employee, in relation to accrued salary, pension benefits or other fixed remuneration, except for the variable component of remuneration that is not regulated by a collective bargaining agreement; (ii) a commercial or trade creditor arising from the provision to the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) of goods or services that are critical to the daily functioning of its operations, including IT services, utilities and the rental, servicing and upkeep of premises; (iii) tax and social security authorities, provided that those liabilities are preferred under the applicable law; (iv) deposit guarantee schemes arising from contributions due in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU. Point (g)(i) of the first subparagraph shall not apply to the variable component of the remuneration of material risk takers as identified in Article 92(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU. Member States shall ensure that all secured assets relating to a covered bond cover pool remain unaffected, segregated and with enough funding. Neither that requirement nor point (b) of the first subparagraph shall prevent resolution authorities, where appropriate, from exercising those powers in relation to any part of a secured liability or a liability for which collateral has been pledged that exceeds the value of the assets, pledge, lien or collateral against which it is secured. Point (a) of the first subparagraph shall not prevent resolution authorities, where appropriate, from exercising those powers in relation to any amount of a deposit that exceeds the coverage level provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2014/49/EU. Without prejudice to the large exposure rules in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU, Member States shall ensure that in order to provide for the resolvability of institutions and groups, resolution authorities limit, in accordance with point (b) of Article 17(5) of this Directive, the extent to which other institutions hold liabilities eligible for a bail-in tool, save for liabilities that are held at entities that are part of the same group. 3. In exceptional circumstances, where the bail-in tool is applied, the resolution authority may exclude or partially exclude certain liabilities from the application of the write-down or conversion powers where: (a) it is not possible to bail-in that liability within a reasonable time notwithstanding the good faith efforts of the resolution authority; (b) the exclusion is strictly necessary and is proportionate to achieve the continuity of critical functions and core business lines in a manner that maintains the ability of the institution under resolution to continue key operations, services and transactions; (c) the exclusion is strictly necessary and proportionate to avoid giving rise to widespread contagion, in particular as regards eligible deposits held by natural persons and micro, small and medium sized enterprises, which would severely disrupt the functioning of financial markets, including of financial market infrastructures, in a manner that could cause a serious disturbance to the economy of a Member State or of the Union; or (d) the application of the bail-in tool to those liabilities would cause a destruction in value such that the losses borne by other creditors would be higher than if those liabilities were excluded from bail-in. Where a resolution authority decides to exclude or partially exclude an eligible liability or class of eligible liabilities under this paragraph, the level of write down or conversion applied to other eligible liabilities may be increased to take account of such exclusions, provided that the level of write down and conversion applied to other eligible liabilities complies with the principle in point (g) of Article 34(1). 4. Where a resolution authority decides to exclude or partially exclude an eligible liability or class of eligible liabilities pursuant to this Article, and the losses that would have been borne by those liabilities have not been passed on fully to other creditors, the resolution financing arrangement may make a contribution to the institution under resolution to do one or both of the following: (a) cover any losses which have not been absorbed by eligible liabilities and restore the net asset value of the institution under resolution to zero in accordance with point (a) of Article 46(1); (b) purchase shares or other instruments of ownership or capital instruments in the institution under resolution, in order to recapitalise the institution in accordance with point (b) of Article 46(1). 5. The resolution financing arrangement may make a contribution referred to in paragraph 4 only where: (a) a contribution to loss absorption and recapitalisation equal to an amount not less than 8 % of the total liabilities including own funds of the institution under resolution, measured at the time of resolution action in accordance with the valuation provided for in Article 36, has been made by the shareholders and the holders of other instruments of ownership, the holders of relevant capital instruments and other eligible liabilities through write down, conversion or otherwise; and (b) the contribution of the resolution financing arrangement does not exceed 5 % of the total liabilities including own funds of the institution under resolution, measured at the time of resolution action in accordance with the valuation provided for in Article 36. 6. The contribution of the resolution financing arrangement referred to in paragraph 4 may be financed by: (a) the amount available to the resolution financing arrangement which has been raised through contributions by institutions and Union branches in accordance with Article 100(6) and Article 103; (b) the amount that can be raised through ex-post contributions in accordance with Article 104 within three years; and (c) where the amounts referred to (a) and (b) of this paragraph are insufficient, amounts raised from alternative financing sources in accordance with Article 105. 7. In extraordinary circumstances, the resolution authority may seek further funding from alternative financing sources after: (a) the 5 % limit specified in paragraph 5(b) has been reached; and (b) all unsecured, non-preferred liabilities, other than eligible deposits, have been written down or converted in full. As an alternative or in addition, where the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph are met, the resolution financing arrangement may make a contribution from resources which have been raised through ex-ante contributions in accordance with Article 100(6) and Article 103 and which have not yet been used. 8. By way of derogation from paragraph 5 (a), the resolution financing arrangement may also make a contribution as referred to in paragraph 4 provided that: (a) the contribution to loss absorption and recapitalisation referred to in point (a) of paragraph 5 is equal to an amount not less than 20 % of the risk weighted assets of the institution concerned; (b) the resolution financing arrangement of the Member State concerned has at its disposal, by way of ex-ante contributions (not including contributions to a deposit guarantee scheme) raised in accordance with Article 100(6) and Article 103, an amount which is at least equal to 3 % of covered deposits of all the credit institutions authorised in the territory of that Member State; and (c) the institution concerned has assets below EUR 900 billion on a consolidated basis. 9. When exercising the discretions under paragraph 3, resolution authorities shall give due consideration to: (a) the principle that losses should be borne first by shareholders and next, in general, by creditors of the institution under resolution in order of preference; (b) the level of loss absorbing capacity that would remain in the institution under resolution if the liability or class of liabilities were excluded; and (c) the need to maintain adequate resources for resolution financing. 10. Exclusions under paragraph 3 may be applied either to completely exclude a liability from write down or to limit the extent of the write down applied to that liability. 11. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 in order to specify further the circumstances when exclusion is necessary to achieve the objectives specified in paragraph 3 of this Article. 12. Before exercising the discretion to exclude a liability under paragraph 3, the resolution authority shall notify the Commission. Where the exclusion would require a contribution by the resolution financing arrangement or an alternative financing source under paragraphs 4 to 8, the Commission may, within 24 hours of receipt of such a notification, or a longer period with the agreement of the resolution authority, prohibit or require amendments to the proposed exclusion if the requirements of this Article and delegated acts are not met in order to protect the integrity of the internal market. This is without prejudice to the application by the Commission of the Union State aid framework.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The proposed amendments to Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) are part of a legislative package that includes also amendments to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR), to Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) and to Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR). Over the past years the EU implemented a substantial reform of the financial services regulatory framework to enhance the resilience of financial institutions in the EU, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners. In particular, the reform package included Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD), on prudential requirements for and supervision of institutions, Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), on recovery and resolution of institutions and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). These measures were taken in response to the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2008.The absence of adequate crisis management and resolution frameworks forced governments around the world to rescue banks following the financial crisis. The subsequent impact on public finances as well as the undesirable incentive of socialising the costs of bank failure have underscored that a different approach is needed to manage bank crises and protect financial stability. Within the Union and in line with the significant steps that have been agreed and taken at international level, Directive 2014/59/EU (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) 1 and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) 2 have established a robust bank resolution framework to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. A cornerstone of the new resolution framework is the “bail-in” which consists of writing down debt or converting debt claims or other liabilities into equity according to a pre-defined hierarchy. The tool can be used to absorb losses of and internally recapitalise an institution that is failing or likely to fail, so that its viability is restored. Therefore, shareholders and other creditors will have to bear the burden of an institution's failure instead of taxpayers. In contrast to other jurisdictions, the Union bank recovery and resolution framework has already mandated resolution authorities to set for each credit institution or investment firm ('institution') a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities ('MREL'), which consist of highly bail-inable liabilities to be used to absorb losses and recapitalise institutions in case of failures. The delegated legislation concerning the practical implementation of this requirement has been adopted recently by the Commission 3 . At the global level, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published on 9 November 2015 the Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet ('the TLAC standard') that was adopted a week later at the G20 summit in Turkey 4 . The TLAC standard requires global systemically important banks ('G-SIBs'), referred to as global systemically important institutions ('G-SIIs') in the Union legislation, to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution. In its Communication of 24 November 2015 5 , the Commission committed to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of this year so that the TLAC standard can be implemented by the agreed deadline of 2019. In addition, the Commission committed to review the existing MREL rules with the view to provide full consistency with the internationally agreed TLAC standard by considering the findings of a report that the European Banking Authority (EBA) is required to provide to the Commission under Article 45(19) of the BRRD. An interim version of that report has already been published by the EBA on 19 July 2016 6 and the final report is expected to be submitted in the course of December 2016. While the general BRRD framework remains valid and sound, the main objective of this proposal is to implement the TLAC standard and to integrate the TLAC requirement into the general MREL rules by avoiding duplication by applying two parallel requirements. Although TLAC and MREL pursue the same regulatory objective, there are, nevertheless, some differences between them in the way they are constructed. The scope of application of MREL covers not only G-SIIs, but the entire Union banking industry. Differently from the TLAC standard, which contains a harmonised minimum level, the level of MREL is determined by resolution authorities on the basis of a case-by-case institution specific assessment. Finally, the minimum TLAC requirement should be met in principle with subordinated debt instruments, while for the purposes of MREL, subordination of debt instruments could be required by resolution authorities on a case-by-case basis to the extent it is needed to ensure that in a given case bailed in creditors are not treated worse than in a hypothetical insolvency scenario (which is a scenario that is counterfactual to resolution). In order to achieve a simple and transparent framework providing legal certainty and consistency, the Commission is proposing to integrate the TLAC standard into the existing MREL rules and ensure that both requirements are met with largely similar instruments. This approach requires introducing limited adjustments to the existing MREL rules ensuring technical consistency with the structure of any requirements for G-SIIs. In particular, further appropriate technical amendments to the existing rules on MREL are needed to align them with the TLAC standard as regards inter alia the denominators used for measuring loss-absorbing capacity, the interaction with capital buffer requirements, disclosure of risks to investors and their application in relation to different resolution strategies. While implementing the TLAC standard for G-SIIs, the Commission's approach will not materially affect the burden of institutions which are not G-SIIs to comply with the provisions on MREL. Operationally, the harmonised minimum level of the TLAC standard will be introduced in the Union through amendments to the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive (CRR and CRD) 7 while the institution specific add-on for G-SIIs and the institution specific MREL for non-G-SIIs will be dealt with through targeted amendments to the BRRD and SRMR. This proposal covers specifically the targeted amendments to the BRRD related to the implementation of the TLAC standard in the Union. As such, this proposal is part of a wider review package of the Union financial legislation aiming at reducing risks in the financial sector (CRR/CRD review) and rendering it more resilient. In addition, based on views expressed by many respondents to the call for evidence to stakeholders published in September 2015 8 , this proposal amends the BRRD with the view to ease compliance costs of banks where their liabilities are governed by the laws of third countries. The current requirement has proven difficult to comply with in practice thus bringing limited added value to the resolvability of banks. It is thus necessary to introduce more flexibility in the contractual relationships of Union banks with third country entities by allowing resolution authorities to waive, subject to certain strict safeguards, the obligation to insert contractual clauses with the aim of recognising in third countries the effects of the bail-in of liabilities governed by the law of these third countries. In practice, the current rules are very difficult to enforce. Furthermore, at the invitation of the ECOFIN in its conclusions of 17 June 2016, this proposal amends the BRRD as regards the application by resolution authorities of moratorium tools in the course of resolution, i.e. powers to suspend the executions of bank commitments towards third parties. Harmonisation of such powers should contribute to the stabilisation by the relevant authorities of an institution in the period before, and possibly after, resolution. 
Revised version (Article 44 Scope of bail-in tool):
1. Member States shall ensure that the bail-in tool may be applied to all liabilities of an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) that are not excluded from the scope of that tool pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 3 of this Article. 2. Resolution authorities shall not exercise the write down or conversion powers in relation to the following liabilities whether they are governed by the law of a Member State or of a third country: (a) covered deposits; (b) secured liabilities including covered bonds and liabilities in the form of financial instruments used for hedging purposes which form an integral part of the cover pool and which according to national law are secured in a way similar to covered bonds; (c) any liability that arises by virtue of the holding by the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) of this Directive of client assets or client money including client assets or client money held on behalf of UCITS as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC or of AIFs as defined in point (a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 7 ), provided that such a client is protected under the applicable insolvency law; (d) any liability that arises by virtue of a fiduciary relationship between the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) (as fiduciary) and another person (as beneficiary) provided that such a beneficiary is protected under the applicable insolvency or civil law; (e) liabilities to institutions, excluding entities that are part of the same group, with an original maturity of less than seven days; (f) liabilities with a remaining maturity of less than seven days, owed to systems or operators of systems designated in accordance with Directive 98/26/EC or to their participants and arising from the participation in such a system, or to CCPs authorised in the Union pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and third-country CCPs recognised by ESMA pursuant to Article 25 of that Regulation; (g) a liability to any one of the following: (i) an employee, in relation to accrued salary, pension benefits or other fixed remuneration, except for the variable component of remuneration that is not regulated by a collective bargaining agreement; (ii) a commercial or trade creditor arising from the provision to the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) of goods or services that are critical to the daily functioning of its operations, including IT services, utilities and the rental, servicing and upkeep of premises; (iii) tax and social security authorities, provided that those liabilities are preferred under the applicable law; (iv) deposit guarantee schemes arising from contributions due in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU; (h) liabilities to institutions or entities referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) that are part of the same resolution group without being themselves resolution entities, regardless of their maturities, except where those liabilities rank below ordinary unsecured liabilities under the relevant national law governing normal insolvency proceedings applicable on the date of transposition of this Directive; in cases where that exception applies, the resolution authority of the relevant subsidiary that is not a resolution entity shall assess whether the amount of items complying with Article 45f(2) is sufficient to support the implementation of the preferred resolution strategy. Point (g)(i) of the first subparagraph shall not apply to the variable component of the remuneration of material risk takers as identified in Article 92(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU. Member States shall ensure that all secured assets relating to a covered bond cover pool remain unaffected, segregated and with enough funding. Neither that requirement nor point (b) of the first subparagraph shall prevent resolution authorities, where appropriate, from exercising those powers in relation to any part of a secured liability or a liability for which collateral has been pledged that exceeds the value of the assets, pledge, lien or collateral against which it is secured. Point (a) of the first subparagraph shall not prevent resolution authorities, where appropriate, from exercising those powers in relation to any amount of a deposit that exceeds the coverage level provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2014/49/EU. Without prejudice to the large exposure rules in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU, Member States shall ensure that in order to provide for the resolvability of institutions and groups, resolution authorities limit, in accordance with point (b) of Article 17(5) of this Directive, the extent to which other institutions hold bail-inable liabilities , save for liabilities that are held at entities that are part of the same group. 3. In exceptional circumstances, where the bail-in tool is applied, the resolution authority may exclude or partially exclude certain liabilities from the application of the write-down or conversion powers where: (a) it is not possible to bail-in that liability within a reasonable time notwithstanding the good faith efforts of the resolution authority; (b) the exclusion is strictly necessary and is proportionate to achieve the continuity of critical functions and core business lines in a manner that maintains the ability of the institution under resolution to continue key operations, services and transactions; (c) the exclusion is strictly necessary and proportionate to avoid giving rise to widespread contagion, in particular as regards eligible deposits held by natural persons and micro, small and medium sized enterprises, which would severely disrupt the functioning of financial markets, including of financial market infrastructures, in a manner that could cause a serious disturbance to the economy of a Member State or of the Union; or (d) the application of the bail-in tool to those liabilities would cause a destruction in value such that the losses borne by other creditors would be higher than if those liabilities were excluded from bail-in. Resolution authorities shall carefully assess whether liabilities to institutions or entities referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) that are part of the same resolution group without being themselves resolution entities and that are not excluded from the application of the write down and conversion powers under point (h) of paragraph (2) of this Article should be excluded or partially excluded under points (a) to (d) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph to ensure the effective implementation of the resolution strategy. Where a resolution authority decides to exclude or partially exclude a bail-inable liability or class of bail-inable liabilities under this paragraph, the level of write down or conversion applied to other bail-inable liabilities may be increased to take account of such exclusions, provided that the level of write down and conversion applied to other bail-inable liabilities complies with the principle in point (g) of Article 34(1). 4. Where a resolution authority decides to exclude or partially exclude a bail-inable liability or class of bail-inable liabilities pursuant to this Article, and the losses that would have been borne by those liabilities have not been passed on fully to other creditors, the resolution financing arrangement may make a contribution to the institution under resolution to do one or both of the following: (a) cover any losses which have not been absorbed by bail-inable liabilities and restore the net asset value of the institution under resolution to zero in accordance with point (a) of Article 46(1); (b) purchase shares or other instruments of ownership or capital instruments in the institution under resolution, in order to recapitalise the institution in accordance with point (b) of Article 46(1). 5. The resolution financing arrangement may make a contribution referred to in paragraph 4 only where: (a) a contribution to loss absorption and recapitalisation equal to an amount not less than 8 % of the total liabilities including own funds of the institution under resolution, measured at the time of resolution action in accordance with the valuation provided for in Article 36, has been made by the shareholders and the holders of other instruments of ownership, the holders of relevant capital instruments and other bail-inable liabilities through write down, conversion or otherwise; and (b) the contribution of the resolution financing arrangement does not exceed 5 % of the total liabilities including own funds of the institution under resolution, measured at the time of resolution action in accordance with the valuation provided for in Article 36. 6. The contribution of the resolution financing arrangement referred to in paragraph 4 may be financed by: (a) the amount available to the resolution financing arrangement which has been raised through contributions by institutions and Union branches in accordance with Article 100(6) and Article 103; (b) the amount that can be raised through ex-post contributions in accordance with Article 104 within three years; and (c) where the amounts referred to (a) and (b) of this paragraph are insufficient, amounts raised from alternative financing sources in accordance with Article 105. 7. In extraordinary circumstances, the resolution authority may seek further funding from alternative financing sources after: (a) the 5 % limit specified in paragraph 5(b) has been reached; and (b) all unsecured, non-preferred liabilities, other than eligible deposits, have been written down or converted in full. As an alternative or in addition, where the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph are met, the resolution financing arrangement may make a contribution from resources which have been raised through ex-ante contributions in accordance with Article 100(6) and Article 103 and which have not yet been used. 8. By way of derogation from paragraph 5 (a), the resolution financing arrangement may also make a contribution as referred to in paragraph 4 provided that: (a) the contribution to loss absorption and recapitalisation referred to in point (a) of paragraph 5 is equal to an amount not less than 20 % of the risk weighted assets of the institution concerned; (b) the resolution financing arrangement of the Member State concerned has at its disposal, by way of ex-ante contributions (not including contributions to a deposit guarantee scheme) raised in accordance with Article 100(6) and Article 103, an amount which is at least equal to 3 % of covered deposits of all the credit institutions authorised in the territory of that Member State; and (c) the institution concerned has assets below EUR 900 billion on a consolidated basis. 9. When exercising the discretions under paragraph 3, resolution authorities shall give due consideration to: (a) the principle that losses should be borne first by shareholders and next, in general, by creditors of the institution under resolution in order of preference; (b) the level of loss absorbing capacity that would remain in the institution under resolution if the liability or class of liabilities were excluded; and (c) the need to maintain adequate resources for resolution financing. 10. Exclusions under paragraph 3 may be applied either to completely exclude a liability from write down or to limit the extent of the write down applied to that liability. 11. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 in order to specify further the circumstances when exclusion is necessary to achieve the objectives specified in paragraph 3 of this Article. 12. Before exercising the discretion to exclude a liability under paragraph 3, the resolution authority shall notify the Commission. Where the exclusion would require a contribution by the resolution financing arrangement or an alternative financing source under paragraphs 4 to 8, the Commission may, within 24 hours of receipt of such a notification, or a longer period with the agreement of the resolution authority, prohibit or require amendments to the proposed exclusion if the requirements of this Article and delegated acts are not met in order to protect the integrity of the internal market. This is without prejudice to the application by the Commission of the Union State aid framework.
Article 45 Application of the minimum requirement
1. Member States shall ensure that institutions meet, at all times, a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities. The minimum requirement shall be calculated as the amount of own funds and eligible liabilities expressed as a percentage of the total liabilities and own funds of the institution. For the purpose of the first subparagraph derivative liabilities shall be included in the total liabilities on the basis that full recognition is given to counterparty netting rights. 2. EBA shall draft technical regulatory standards which specify further the assessment criteria mentioned in points (a) to (f) of paragraph 6 on the basis of which, for each institution, a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, including subordinated debt and senior unsecured debt with at least 12 months remaining on their terms that are subject to the bail-in power and those that qualify as own funds, is to be determined. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. Member States may provide for additional criteria on the basis of which the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities shall be determined. 3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, resolution authorities shall exempt mortgage credit institutions financed by covered bonds which, according to national law are not allowed to receive deposits from the obligation to meet, at all times, a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, as: (a) those institutions will be wound-up through national insolvency procedures, or other types of procedure implemented in accordance with Article 38, 40 or 42 of this Directive, provided for those institutions; and (b) such national insolvency procedures, or other types of procedure, will ensure that creditors of those institutions, including holders of covered bonds where relevant, will bear losses in a way that meets the resolution objectives. 4. Eligible liabilities shall be included in the amount of own funds and eligible liabilities referred to in paragraph 1 only if they satisfy the following conditions: (a) the instrument is issued and fully paid up; (b) the liability is not owed to, secured by or guaranteed by the institution itself; (c) the purchase of the instrument was not funded directly or indirectly by the institution; (d) the liability has a remaining maturity of at least one year; (e) the liability does not arise from a derivative; (f) the liability does not arise from a deposit which benefits from preference in the national insolvency hierarchy in accordance with Article 108. For the purpose of point (d) where a liability confers upon its owner a right to early reimbursement, the maturity of that liability shall be the first date where such a right arises. 5. Where a liability is governed by the law of a third-country, resolution authorities may require the institution to demonstrate that any decision of a resolution authority to write down or convert that liability would be effective under the law of that third country, having regard to the terms of the contract governing the liability, international agreements on the recognition of resolution proceedings and other relevant matters. If the resolution authority is not satisfied that any decision would be effective under the law of that third country, the liability shall not be counted towards the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities. 6. The minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities of each institution pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be determined by the resolution authority, after consulting the competent authority, at least on the basis of the following criteria: (a) the need to ensure that the institution can be resolved by the application of the resolution tools including, where appropriate, the bail-in tool, in a way that meets the resolution objectives; (b) the need to ensure, in appropriate cases, that the institution has sufficient eligible liabilities to ensure that, if the bail-in tool were to be applied, losses could be absorbed and the Common Equity Tier 1 ratio of the institution could be restored to a level necessary to enable it to continue to comply with the conditions for authorisation and to continue to carry out the activities for which it is authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU and to sustain sufficient market confidence in the institution or entity; (c) the need to ensure that, if the resolution plan anticipates that certain classes of eligible liabilities might be excluded from bail-in under Article 44(3) or that certain classes of eligible liabilities might be transferred to a recipient in full under a partial transfer, that the institution has sufficient other eligible liabilities to ensure that losses could be absorbed and the Common Equity Tier 1 ratio of the institution could be restored to a level necessary to enable it to continue to comply with the conditions for authorisation and to continue to carry out the activities for which it is authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU; (d) the size, the business model, the funding model and the risk profile of the institution; (e) the extent to which the Deposit Guarantee Scheme could contribute to the financing of resolution in accordance with Article 109; (f) the extent to which the failure of the institution would have adverse effects on financial stability, including, due to its interconnectedness with other institutions or with the rest of the financial system through contagion to other institutions. 7. Institutions shall comply with the minimum requirements laid down in this Article on an individual basis. A resolution authority may, after consulting a competent authority, decide to apply the minimum requirement laid down in this Article to an entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1). 8. In addition to paragraph 7, Union parent undertakings shall comply with the minimum requirements laid down in this Article on a consolidated basis. The minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities at consolidated level of an Union parent undertaking shall be determined by the group-level resolution authority, after consulting the consolidating supervisor, in accordance with paragraph 9, at least on the basis of the criteria laid down in paragraph 6 and of whether the third-country subsidiaries of the group are to be resolved separately according to the resolution plan. 9. The group-level resolution authority and the resolution authorities responsible for the subsidiaries on an individual basis shall do everything within their power to reach a joint decision on the level of the minimum requirement applied at the consolidated level. The joint decision shall be fully reasoned and shall be provided to the Union parent undertaking by the group-level resolution authority. In the absence of such a joint decision within four months, a decision shall be taken on the consolidated minimum requirement by the group-level resolution authority after duly taking into consideration the assessment of subsidiaries performed by the relevant resolution authorities. If, at the end of the four-month period, any of the resolution authorities concerned has referred the matter to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the group-level resolution authority shall defer its decision and await any decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take its decision in accordance with the decision of EBA. The four-month period shall be deemed to be the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four-month period or after a joint decision has been reached. In the absence of an EBA decision within one month, the decision of the group-level resolution authority shall apply. The joint decision and the decision taken by the group-level resolution authority in the absence of a joint decision shall be binding on the resolution authorities in the Member States concerned. The joint decision and any decision taken in the absence of a joint decision shall be reviewed and where relevant updated on a regular basis. 10. Resolution authorities shall set the minimum requirement to be applied to the group’s subsidiaries on an individual basis. Those minimum requirements shall be set at a level appropriate for the subsidiary having regard to: (a) the criteria listed in paragraph 6, in particular the size, business model and risk profile of the subsidiary, including its own funds; and (b) the consolidated requirement that has been set for the group under paragraph 9. The group-level resolution authority and the resolution authorities responsible for subsidiaries on an individual basis shall do everything within their power to reach a joint decision on the level of the minimum requirement to be applied to each respective subsidiary at an individual level. The joint decision shall be fully reasoned and shall be provided to the subsidiaries and to the Union parent institution by the resolution authority of the subsidiaries and by the group-level resolution authority, respectively. In the absence of such a joint decision between the resolution authorities within a period of four months the decision shall be taken by the respective resolution authorities of the subsidiaries duly considering the views and reservations expressed by the group-level resolution authority. If, at the end of the four-month period, the group-level resolution authority has referred the matter to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the resolution authorities responsible for the subsidiaries on an individual basis shall defer their decisions and await any decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take their decisions in accordance with the decision of EBA. The four-month period shall be deemed to be the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four-month period or after a joint decision has been reached. The group-level resolution authority shall not refer the matter to EBA for binding mediation where the level set by the resolution authority of the subsidiary is within one percentage point of the consolidated level set under paragraph 9 of this Article. In the absence of an EBA decision within one month, the decisions of the resolution authorities of the subsidiaries shall apply. The joint decision and any decisions taken by the resolution authorities of the subsidiaries in the absence of a joint decision shall be binding on the resolution authorities concerned. The joint decision and any decisions taken in the absence of a joint decision shall be reviewed and where relevant updated on a regular basis. 11. The group-level resolution authority may fully waive the application of the individual minimum requirement to an Union parent institution where: (a) the Union parent institution complies on a consolidated basis with the minimum requirement set under paragraph 8; and (b) the competent authority of the Union parent institution has fully waived the application of individual capital requirements to the institution in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. 12. The resolution authority of a subsidiary may fully waive the application of paragraph 7 to that subsidiary where: (a) both the subsidiary and its parent undertaking are subject to authorisation and supervision by the same Member State; (b) the subsidiary is included in the supervision on a consolidated basis of the institution which is the parent undertaking; (c) the highest level group institution in the Member State of the subsidiary, where different to the Union parent institution, complies on a sub-consolidated basis with the minimum requirement set under paragraph 7; (d) there is no current or foreseen material practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities to the subsidiary by its parent undertaking; (e) either the parent undertaking satisfies the competent authority regarding the prudent management of the subsidiary and has declared, with the consent of the competent authority, that it guarantees the commitments entered into by the subsidiary, or the risks in the subsidiary are of no significance; (f) the risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures of the parent undertaking cover the subsidiary; (g) the parent undertaking holds more than 50 % of the voting rights attached to shares in the capital of the subsidiary or has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the management body of the subsidiary; and (h) the competent authority of the subsidiary has fully waived the application of individual capital requirements to the subsidiary under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. 13. The decisions taken in accordance with this Article may provide that the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities is partially met at consolidated or individual level through contractual bail-in instruments. 14. To qualify as a contractual bail-in instrument under paragraph 13, the resolution authority shall be satisfied that the instrument: (a) contains a contractual term providing that, where a resolution authority decides to apply the bail-in tool to that institution, the instrument shall be written down or converted to the extent required before other eligible liabilities are written down or converted; and (b) is subject to a binding subordination agreement, undertaking or provision under which in the event of normal insolvency proceedings, it ranks below other eligible liabilities and cannot be repaid until other eligible liabilities outstanding at the time have been settled. 15. Resolution authorities, in coordination with competent authorities, shall require and verify that institutions meet the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities laid down in paragraph 1 and where relevant the requirement laid down in paragraph 13, and shall take any decision pursuant to this Article in parallel with the development and the maintenance of resolution plans. 16. Resolution authorities, in coordination with competent authorities, shall inform EBA of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, and where relevant the requirement laid down in paragraph 13, that have been set for each institution under their jurisdiction. 17. EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to specify uniform formats, templates and definitions for the identification and transmission of information by resolution authorities, in coordination with competent authorities, to EBA for the purposes of paragraph 16. EBA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. 18. Based on the results of the report referred to in paragraph 19, the Commission shall, if appropriate, submit by 31 December 2016 to the European Parliament and the Council a legislative proposal on the harmonised application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities. That proposal shall include, where appropriate, proposals for the introduction of an appropriate number of minimum levels of the minimum requirement, taking account of the different business models of institutions and groups. The proposal shall include any appropriate adjustments to the parameters of the minimum requirement, and if necessary, appropriate amendments to the application of the minimum requirement to groups. 19. EBA shall submit a report to the Commission by 31 October 2016 on at least the following: (a) how the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities has been implemented at national level, and in particular whether there have been divergences in the levels set for comparable institutions across Member States; (b) how the power to require institutions to meet the minimum requirement through contractual bail-in instruments has been applied across Member States and whether there have been divergences in those approaches; (c) the identification of business models that reflect the overall risk profiles of the institution; (d) the appropriate level of the minimum requirement for each of the business models identified under point (c); (e) whether a range for the level of the minimum requirement of each business model should be established; (f) the appropriate transitional period for institutions to achieve compliance with any harmonised minimum levels prescribed; (g) whether the requirements laid down in Article 45 are sufficient to ensure that each institution has adequate loss-absorbing capacity and, if not, which further enhancements are needed in order to ensure that objective; (h) whether changes to the calculation methodology provided for in this Article are necessary to ensure that the minimum requirement can be used as an appropriate indicator of an institution’s loss-absorbing capacity; (i) whether it is appropriate to base the requirement on total liabilities and own funds and in particular whether it is more appropriate to use the institution’s risk-weighted assets as a denominator for the requirement; (j) whether the approach of this Article on the application of the minimum requirement to groups is appropriate, and in particular whether the approach adequately ensures that loss absorbing capacity in the group is located in, or accessible to, the entities where losses might arise; (k) whether the conditions for waivers from the minimum requirement are appropriate, and in particular whether such waivers should be available for subsidiaries on a cross-border basis; (l) whether it is appropriate that resolution authorities may require that the minimum requirement be met through contractual bail-in instruments, and whether further harmonisation of the approach to contractual bail-in instruments is appropriate; (m) whether the requirements for contractual bail-in instruments laid down in paragraph 14 are appropriate; and (n) whether it is appropriate for institutions and groups to be required to disclose their minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, or their level of own funds and eligible liabilities, and if so the frequency and format of such disclosure. 20. The report in paragraph 19 shall cover at least the period from 2 July 2014 until 30 June 2016 and shall take account of at least the following: (a) the impact of the minimum requirement, and any proposed harmonised levels of the minimum requirement on: (i) financial markets in general and markets for unsecured debt and derivatives in particular; (ii) business models and balance sheet structures of institutions, in particular the funding profile and funding strategy of institutions, and the legal and operational structure of groups; (iii) the profitability of institutions, in particular their cost of funding; (iv) the migration of exposures to entities which are not subject to prudential supervision; (v) financial innovation; (vi) the prevalence of contractual bail-in instruments, and the nature and marketability of such instruments; (vii) the risk-taking behaviour of institutions; (viii) the level of asset encumbrance of institutions; (ix) the actions taken by institutions to comply with minimum requirements, and in particular the extent to which minimum requirements have been met by asset deleveraging, long-term debt issuance and capital raising; and (x) the level of lending by credit institutions, with a particular focus on lending to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, local authorities, regional governments and public sector entities and on trade financing, including lending under official export credit insurance schemes; (b) the interaction of the minimum requirements with the own funds requirements, leverage ratio and the liquidity requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and in Directive 2013/36/EU; (c) the capacity of institutions to independently raise capital or funding from markets in order to meet any proposed harmonised minimum requirements; (d) consistency with the minimum requirements relating to any international standards developed by international fora.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The proposed amendments to Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) are part of a legislative package that includes also amendments to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR), to Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) and to Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR). Over the past years the EU implemented a substantial reform of the financial services regulatory framework to enhance the resilience of financial institutions in the EU, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners. In particular, the reform package included Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD), on prudential requirements for and supervision of institutions, Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), on recovery and resolution of institutions and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). These measures were taken in response to the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2008.The absence of adequate crisis management and resolution frameworks forced governments around the world to rescue banks following the financial crisis. The subsequent impact on public finances as well as the undesirable incentive of socialising the costs of bank failure have underscored that a different approach is needed to manage bank crises and protect financial stability. Within the Union and in line with the significant steps that have been agreed and taken at international level, Directive 2014/59/EU (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) 1 and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) 2 have established a robust bank resolution framework to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. A cornerstone of the new resolution framework is the “bail-in” which consists of writing down debt or converting debt claims or other liabilities into equity according to a pre-defined hierarchy. The tool can be used to absorb losses of and internally recapitalise an institution that is failing or likely to fail, so that its viability is restored. Therefore, shareholders and other creditors will have to bear the burden of an institution's failure instead of taxpayers. In contrast to other jurisdictions, the Union bank recovery and resolution framework has already mandated resolution authorities to set for each credit institution or investment firm ('institution') a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities ('MREL'), which consist of highly bail-inable liabilities to be used to absorb losses and recapitalise institutions in case of failures. The delegated legislation concerning the practical implementation of this requirement has been adopted recently by the Commission 3 . At the global level, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published on 9 November 2015 the Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet ('the TLAC standard') that was adopted a week later at the G20 summit in Turkey 4 . The TLAC standard requires global systemically important banks ('G-SIBs'), referred to as global systemically important institutions ('G-SIIs') in the Union legislation, to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution. In its Communication of 24 November 2015 5 , the Commission committed to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of this year so that the TLAC standard can be implemented by the agreed deadline of 2019. In addition, the Commission committed to review the existing MREL rules with the view to provide full consistency with the internationally agreed TLAC standard by considering the findings of a report that the European Banking Authority (EBA) is required to provide to the Commission under Article 45(19) of the BRRD. An interim version of that report has already been published by the EBA on 19 July 2016 6 and the final report is expected to be submitted in the course of December 2016. While the general BRRD framework remains valid and sound, the main objective of this proposal is to implement the TLAC standard and to integrate the TLAC requirement into the general MREL rules by avoiding duplication by applying two parallel requirements. Although TLAC and MREL pursue the same regulatory objective, there are, nevertheless, some differences between them in the way they are constructed. The scope of application of MREL covers not only G-SIIs, but the entire Union banking industry. Differently from the TLAC standard, which contains a harmonised minimum level, the level of MREL is determined by resolution authorities on the basis of a case-by-case institution specific assessment. Finally, the minimum TLAC requirement should be met in principle with subordinated debt instruments, while for the purposes of MREL, subordination of debt instruments could be required by resolution authorities on a case-by-case basis to the extent it is needed to ensure that in a given case bailed in creditors are not treated worse than in a hypothetical insolvency scenario (which is a scenario that is counterfactual to resolution). In order to achieve a simple and transparent framework providing legal certainty and consistency, the Commission is proposing to integrate the TLAC standard into the existing MREL rules and ensure that both requirements are met with largely similar instruments. This approach requires introducing limited adjustments to the existing MREL rules ensuring technical consistency with the structure of any requirements for G-SIIs. In particular, further appropriate technical amendments to the existing rules on MREL are needed to align them with the TLAC standard as regards inter alia the denominators used for measuring loss-absorbing capacity, the interaction with capital buffer requirements, disclosure of risks to investors and their application in relation to different resolution strategies. While implementing the TLAC standard for G-SIIs, the Commission's approach will not materially affect the burden of institutions which are not G-SIIs to comply with the provisions on MREL. Operationally, the harmonised minimum level of the TLAC standard will be introduced in the Union through amendments to the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive (CRR and CRD) 7 while the institution specific add-on for G-SIIs and the institution specific MREL for non-G-SIIs will be dealt with through targeted amendments to the BRRD and SRMR. This proposal covers specifically the targeted amendments to the BRRD related to the implementation of the TLAC standard in the Union. As such, this proposal is part of a wider review package of the Union financial legislation aiming at reducing risks in the financial sector (CRR/CRD review) and rendering it more resilient. In addition, based on views expressed by many respondents to the call for evidence to stakeholders published in September 2015 8 , this proposal amends the BRRD with the view to ease compliance costs of banks where their liabilities are governed by the laws of third countries. The current requirement has proven difficult to comply with in practice thus bringing limited added value to the resolvability of banks. It is thus necessary to introduce more flexibility in the contractual relationships of Union banks with third country entities by allowing resolution authorities to waive, subject to certain strict safeguards, the obligation to insert contractual clauses with the aim of recognising in third countries the effects of the bail-in of liabilities governed by the law of these third countries. In practice, the current rules are very difficult to enforce. Furthermore, at the invitation of the ECOFIN in its conclusions of 17 June 2016, this proposal amends the BRRD as regards the application by resolution authorities of moratorium tools in the course of resolution, i.e. powers to suspend the executions of bank commitments towards third parties. Harmonisation of such powers should contribute to the stabilisation by the relevant authorities of an institution in the period before, and possibly after, resolution.
Article 46 Assessment of amount of bail-in
1. Member States shall ensure that, when applying the bail-in tool, resolution authorities assess on the basis of a valuation that complies with Article 36 the aggregate of: (a) where relevant, the amount by which eligible liabilities must be written down in order to ensure that the net asset value of the institution under resolution is equal to zero; and (b) where relevant, the amount by which eligible liabilities must be converted into shares or other types of capital instruments in order to restore the Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of either: (i) the institution under resolution; or (ii) the bridge institution. 2. The assessment referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall establish the amount by which eligible liabilities need to be written down or converted in order to restore the Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of the institution under resolution or where applicable establish the ratio of the bridge institution taking into account any contribution of capital by the resolution financing arrangement pursuant to point (d) of Article 101(1) of this Directive, and to sustain sufficient market confidence in the institution under resolution or the bridge institution and enable it to continue to meet, for at least one year, the conditions for authorisation and to continue to carry out the activities for which it is authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU. Where resolution authorities intend to use the asset separation tool referred to in Article 42, the amount by which eligible liabilities need to be reduced shall take into account a prudent estimate of the capital needs of the asset management vehicle as appropriate. 3. Where capital has been written down in accordance with Articles 59 to 62 and bail-in has been applied pursuant to Article 43(2) and the level of write-down based on the preliminary valuation according to Article 36 is found to exceed requirements when assessed against the definitive valuation according to Article 36(10), a write-up mechanism may be applied to reimburse creditors and then shareholders to the extent necessary. 4. Resolution authorities shall establish and maintain arrangements to ensure that the assessment and valuation is based on information about the assets and liabilities of the institution under resolution that is as up to date and comprehensive as is reasonably possible.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The proposed amendments to Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) are part of a legislative package that includes also amendments to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR), to Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) and to Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR). Over the past years the EU implemented a substantial reform of the financial services regulatory framework to enhance the resilience of financial institutions in the EU, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners. In particular, the reform package included Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD), on prudential requirements for and supervision of institutions, Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), on recovery and resolution of institutions and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). These measures were taken in response to the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2008.The absence of adequate crisis management and resolution frameworks forced governments around the world to rescue banks following the financial crisis. The subsequent impact on public finances as well as the undesirable incentive of socialising the costs of bank failure have underscored that a different approach is needed to manage bank crises and protect financial stability. Within the Union and in line with the significant steps that have been agreed and taken at international level, Directive 2014/59/EU (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) 1 and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) 2 have established a robust bank resolution framework to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. A cornerstone of the new resolution framework is the “bail-in” which consists of writing down debt or converting debt claims or other liabilities into equity according to a pre-defined hierarchy. The tool can be used to absorb losses of and internally recapitalise an institution that is failing or likely to fail, so that its viability is restored. Therefore, shareholders and other creditors will have to bear the burden of an institution's failure instead of taxpayers. In contrast to other jurisdictions, the Union bank recovery and resolution framework has already mandated resolution authorities to set for each credit institution or investment firm ('institution') a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities ('MREL'), which consist of highly bail-inable liabilities to be used to absorb losses and recapitalise institutions in case of failures. The delegated legislation concerning the practical implementation of this requirement has been adopted recently by the Commission 3 . At the global level, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published on 9 November 2015 the Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet ('the TLAC standard') that was adopted a week later at the G20 summit in Turkey 4 . The TLAC standard requires global systemically important banks ('G-SIBs'), referred to as global systemically important institutions ('G-SIIs') in the Union legislation, to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution. In its Communication of 24 November 2015 5 , the Commission committed to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of this year so that the TLAC standard can be implemented by the agreed deadline of 2019. In addition, the Commission committed to review the existing MREL rules with the view to provide full consistency with the internationally agreed TLAC standard by considering the findings of a report that the European Banking Authority (EBA) is required to provide to the Commission under Article 45(19) of the BRRD. An interim version of that report has already been published by the EBA on 19 July 2016 6 and the final report is expected to be submitted in the course of December 2016. While the general BRRD framework remains valid and sound, the main objective of this proposal is to implement the TLAC standard and to integrate the TLAC requirement into the general MREL rules by avoiding duplication by applying two parallel requirements. Although TLAC and MREL pursue the same regulatory objective, there are, nevertheless, some differences between them in the way they are constructed. The scope of application of MREL covers not only G-SIIs, but the entire Union banking industry. Differently from the TLAC standard, which contains a harmonised minimum level, the level of MREL is determined by resolution authorities on the basis of a case-by-case institution specific assessment. Finally, the minimum TLAC requirement should be met in principle with subordinated debt instruments, while for the purposes of MREL, subordination of debt instruments could be required by resolution authorities on a case-by-case basis to the extent it is needed to ensure that in a given case bailed in creditors are not treated worse than in a hypothetical insolvency scenario (which is a scenario that is counterfactual to resolution). In order to achieve a simple and transparent framework providing legal certainty and consistency, the Commission is proposing to integrate the TLAC standard into the existing MREL rules and ensure that both requirements are met with largely similar instruments. This approach requires introducing limited adjustments to the existing MREL rules ensuring technical consistency with the structure of any requirements for G-SIIs. In particular, further appropriate technical amendments to the existing rules on MREL are needed to align them with the TLAC standard as regards inter alia the denominators used for measuring loss-absorbing capacity, the interaction with capital buffer requirements, disclosure of risks to investors and their application in relation to different resolution strategies. While implementing the TLAC standard for G-SIIs, the Commission's approach will not materially affect the burden of institutions which are not G-SIIs to comply with the provisions on MREL. Operationally, the harmonised minimum level of the TLAC standard will be introduced in the Union through amendments to the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive (CRR and CRD) 7 while the institution specific add-on for G-SIIs and the institution specific MREL for non-G-SIIs will be dealt with through targeted amendments to the BRRD and SRMR. This proposal covers specifically the targeted amendments to the BRRD related to the implementation of the TLAC standard in the Union. As such, this proposal is part of a wider review package of the Union financial legislation aiming at reducing risks in the financial sector (CRR/CRD review) and rendering it more resilient. In addition, based on views expressed by many respondents to the call for evidence to stakeholders published in September 2015 8 , this proposal amends the BRRD with the view to ease compliance costs of banks where their liabilities are governed by the laws of third countries. The current requirement has proven difficult to comply with in practice thus bringing limited added value to the resolvability of banks. It is thus necessary to introduce more flexibility in the contractual relationships of Union banks with third country entities by allowing resolution authorities to waive, subject to certain strict safeguards, the obligation to insert contractual clauses with the aim of recognising in third countries the effects of the bail-in of liabilities governed by the law of these third countries. In practice, the current rules are very difficult to enforce. Furthermore, at the invitation of the ECOFIN in its conclusions of 17 June 2016, this proposal amends the BRRD as regards the application by resolution authorities of moratorium tools in the course of resolution, i.e. powers to suspend the executions of bank commitments towards third parties. Harmonisation of such powers should contribute to the stabilisation by the relevant authorities of an institution in the period before, and possibly after, resolution. 
Revised version (Article 46 Assessment of amount of bail-in):
1. Member States shall ensure that, when applying the bail-in tool, resolution authorities assess on the basis of a valuation that complies with Article 36 the aggregate of: (a) where relevant, the amount by which bail-inable liabilities must be written down in order to ensure that the net asset value of the institution under resolution is equal to zero; and (b) where relevant, the amount by which bail-inable liabilities must be converted into shares or other types of capital instruments in order to restore the Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of either: (i) the institution under resolution; or (ii) the bridge institution. 2. The assessment referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall establish the amount by which bail-inable liabilities need to be written down or converted in order to restore the Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of the institution under resolution or where applicable establish the ratio of the bridge institution taking into account any contribution of capital by the resolution financing arrangement pursuant to point (d) of Article 101(1) of this Directive, and to sustain sufficient market confidence in the institution under resolution or the bridge institution and enable it to continue to meet, for at least one year, the conditions for authorisation and to continue to carry out the activities for which it is authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU. Where resolution authorities intend to use the asset separation tool referred to in Article 42, the amount by which bail-inable liabilities need to be reduced shall take into account a prudent estimate of the capital needs of the asset management vehicle as appropriate. 3. Where capital has been written down in accordance with Articles 59 to 62 and bail-in has been applied pursuant to Article 43(2) and the level of write-down based on the preliminary valuation according to Article 36 is found to exceed requirements when assessed against the definitive valuation according to Article 36(10), a write-up mechanism may be applied to reimburse creditors and then shareholders to the extent necessary. 4. Resolution authorities shall establish and maintain arrangements to ensure that the assessment and valuation is based on information about the assets and liabilities of the institution under resolution that is as up to date and comprehensive as is reasonably possible.
Article 47 Treatment of shareholders in bail-in or write down or conversion of capital instruments
1. Member States shall ensure that, when applying the bail-in tool in Article 43(2) or the write down or conversion of capital instruments in Article 59, resolution authorities take in respect of shareholders and holders of other instruments of ownership one or both of the following actions: (a) cancel existing shares or other instruments of ownership or transfer them to bailed-in creditors; (b) provided that, in accordance to the valuation carried out under Article 36, the institution under resolution has a positive net value, dilute existing shareholders and holders of other instruments of ownership as a result of the conversion into shares or other instruments of ownership of: (i) relevant capital instruments issued by the institution pursuant to the power referred to in Article 59(2); or (ii) eligible liabilities issued by the institution under resolution pursuant to the power referred to in point (f) of Article 63(1). With regard to point (b) of the first subparagraph, the conversion shall be conducted at a rate of conversion that severely dilutes existing holdings of shares or other instruments of ownership. 2. The actions referred to in paragraph 1 shall also be taken in respect of shareholders and holders of other instruments of ownership where the shares or other instruments of ownership in question were issued or conferred in the following circumstances: (a) pursuant to conversion of debt instruments to shares or other instruments of ownership in accordance with contractual terms of the original debt instruments on the occurrence of an event that preceded or occurred at the same time as the assessment by the resolution authority that the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) met the conditions for resolution; (b) pursuant to the conversion of relevant capital instruments to Common Equity Tier 1 instruments pursuant to Article 60. 3. When considering which action to take in accordance with paragraph 1, resolution authorities shall have regard to: (a) the valuation carried out in accordance with Article 36; (b) the amount by which the resolution authority has assessed that Common Equity Tier 1 items must be reduced and relevant capital instruments must be written down or converted pursuant to Article 60(1); and (c) the aggregate amount assessed by the resolution authority pursuant to Article 46. 4. By way of derogation from Articles 22 to 25 of Directive 2013/36/EU, the requirement to give a notice in Article 26 of Directive 2013/36/EU, Article 10(3), Article 11(1) and(2) and Articles 12 and 13of Directive 2014/65/EU and the requirement to give a notice in Article 11(3) of Directive 2014/65/EU, where the application of the bail-in tool or the conversion of capital instruments would result in the acquisition of or increase in a qualifying holding in an institution as referred to in Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU or Article 11(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, competent authorities shall carry out the assessment required under those Articles in a timely manner that does not delay the application of the bail-in tool or the conversion of capital instruments, or prevent resolution action from achieving the relevant resolution objectives. 5. If the competent authority of that institution has not completed the assessment required under paragraph 4 on the date of application of the bail-in tool or the conversion of capital instruments, Article 38(9) shall apply to any acquisition of or increase in a qualifying holding by an acquirer resulting from the application of the bail-in tool or the conversion of capital instruments. 6. EBA shall, by 3 July 2016, issue guidelines, in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, on the circumstances in which each of the actions referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article would be appropriate, having regard to the factors specified in paragraph 3 of this Article.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 47 Treatment of shareholders in bail-in or write down or conversion of capital instruments):
1. Member States shall ensure that, when applying the bail-in tool in Article 43(2) or the write down or conversion of capital instruments in Article 59, resolution authorities take in respect of shareholders and holders of other instruments of ownership one or both of the following actions: (a) cancel existing shares or other instruments of ownership or transfer them to bailed-in creditors; provided that, in accordance to the valuation carried out under Article 36, the institution under resolution has a positive net value, dilute existing shareholders and holders of other instruments of ownership as a result of the conversion into shares or other instruments of ownership of: (i) relevant capital instruments issued by the institution pursuant to the power referred to in Article 59(2); or bail-inable liabilities issued by the institution under resolution pursuant to the power referred to in point (f) of Article 63(1). With regard to point (b) of the first subparagraph, the conversion shall be conducted at a rate of conversion that severely dilutes existing holdings of shares or other instruments of ownership. The actions referred to in paragraph 1 shall also be taken in respect of shareholders and holders of other instruments of ownership where the shares or other instruments of ownership in question were issued or conferred in the following circumstances: (b) pursuant to the conversion of relevant capital instruments to Common Equity Tier 1 instruments pursuant to Article 60. When considering which action to take in accordance with paragraph 1, resolution authorities shall have regard to: (a) the valuation carried out in accordance with Article 36; (b) the amount by which the resolution authority has assessed that Common Equity Tier 1 items must be reduced and relevant capital instruments must be written down or converted pursuant to Article 60(1); and (c) the aggregate amount assessed by the resolution authority pursuant to Article 46. 4. By way of derogation from Articles 22 to 25 of Directive 2013/36/EU, the requirement to give a notice in Article 26 of Directive 2013/36/EU, Article 10(3), Article 11(1) and(2) and Articles 12 and 13of Directive 2014/65/EU and the requirement to give a notice in Article 11(3) of Directive 2014/65/EU, where the application of the bail-in tool or the conversion of capital instruments would result in the acquisition of or increase in a qualifying holding in an institution as referred to in Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU or Article 11(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, competent authorities shall carry out the assessment required under those Articles in a timely manner that does not delay the application of the bail-in tool or the conversion of capital instruments, or prevent resolution action from achieving the relevant resolution objectives. 5. If the competent authority of that institution has not completed the assessment required under paragraph 4 on the date of application of the bail-in tool or the conversion of capital instruments, Article 38(9) shall apply to any acquisition of or increase in a qualifying holding by an acquirer resulting from the application of the bail-in tool or the conversion of capital instruments. 6. EBA shall, by 3 July 2016, issue guidelines, in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, on the circumstances in which each of the actions referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article would be appropriate, having regard to the factors specified in paragraph 3 of this Article.
Article 48 Sequence of write down and conversion
1. Member States shall ensure that, when applying the bail-in tool, resolution authorities exercise the write down and conversion powers, subject to any exclusions under Article 44(2) and (3), meeting the following requirements: (a) Common Equity Tier 1 items are reduced in accordance with point (a) of Article 60(1); (b) if, and only if, the total reduction pursuant to point (a) is less than the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3), authorities reduce the principal amount of Additional Tier 1 instruments to the extent required and to the extent of their capacity; (c) if, and only if, the total reduction pursuant to points (a) and (b) is less than the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3), authorities reduce the principal amount of Tier 2 instruments to the extent required and to the extent of their capacity; (d) if, and only if, the total reduction of shares or other instruments of ownership and relevant capital instruments pursuant to points (a), (b) and (c) is less than the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3), authorities reduce to the extent required the principal amount of subordinated debt that is not Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital in accordance with the hierarchy of claims in normal insolvency proceedings, in conjunction with the write down pursuant to points (a), (b) and (c) to produce the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3); (e) if, and only if, the total reduction of shares or other instruments of ownership, relevant capital instruments and eligible liabilities pursuant to points (a) to (d) of this paragraph is less than the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (d) of Article 47(3), authorities reduce to the extent required the principal amount of, or outstanding amount payable in respect of, the rest of eligible liabilities in accordance with the hierarchy of claims in normal insolvency proceedings, including the ranking of deposits provided for in Article 108, pursuant to Article 44, in conjunction with the write down pursuant to points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this paragraph to produce the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3). 2. When applying the write down or conversion powers, resolution authorities shall allocate the losses represented by the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3) equally between shares or other instruments of ownership and eligible liabilities of the same rank by reducing the principal amount of, or outstanding amount payable in respect of, those shares or other instruments of ownership and eligible liabilities to the same extent pro rata to their value except where a different allocation of losses amongst liabilities of the same rank is allowed in the circumstances specified in Article 44(3). This paragraph shall not prevent liabilities which have been excluded from bail-in in accordance with Article 44(2) and (3) from receiving more favourable treatment than eligible liabilities which are of the same rank in normal insolvency proceedings. 3. Before applying the write down or conversion referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1, resolution authorities shall convert or reduce the principal amount on instruments referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 when those instruments contain the following terms and have not already been converted: (a) terms that provide for the principal amount of the instrument to be reduced on the occurrence of any event that refers to the financial situation, solvency or levels of own funds of the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1); (b) terms that provide for the conversion of the instruments to shares or other instruments of ownership on the occurrence of any such event. 4. Where the principal amount of an instrument has been reduced, but not to zero, in accordance with terms of the kind referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 before the application of the bail-in pursuant to paragraph 1, resolution authorities shall apply the write-down and conversion powers to the residual amount of that principal in accordance with paragraph 1. 5. When deciding on whether liabilities are to be written down or converted into equity, resolution authorities shall not convert one class of liabilities, while a class of liabilities that is subordinated to that class remains substantially unconverted into equity or not written down, unless otherwise permitted under Article 44(2) and (3). 6. For the purposes of this Article, EBA shall, by 3 January 2016, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 for any interpretation relating to the interrelationship between the provisions of this Directive and those of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The proposed amendments to Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) are part of a legislative package that includes also amendments to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR), to Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) and to Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR). Over the past years the EU implemented a substantial reform of the financial services regulatory framework to enhance the resilience of financial institutions in the EU, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners. In particular, the reform package included Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD), on prudential requirements for and supervision of institutions, Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), on recovery and resolution of institutions and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). These measures were taken in response to the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2008.The absence of adequate crisis management and resolution frameworks forced governments around the world to rescue banks following the financial crisis. The subsequent impact on public finances as well as the undesirable incentive of socialising the costs of bank failure have underscored that a different approach is needed to manage bank crises and protect financial stability. Within the Union and in line with the significant steps that have been agreed and taken at international level, Directive 2014/59/EU (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) 1 and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) 2 have established a robust bank resolution framework to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. A cornerstone of the new resolution framework is the “bail-in” which consists of writing down debt or converting debt claims or other liabilities into equity according to a pre-defined hierarchy. The tool can be used to absorb losses of and internally recapitalise an institution that is failing or likely to fail, so that its viability is restored. Therefore, shareholders and other creditors will have to bear the burden of an institution's failure instead of taxpayers. In contrast to other jurisdictions, the Union bank recovery and resolution framework has already mandated resolution authorities to set for each credit institution or investment firm ('institution') a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities ('MREL'), which consist of highly bail-inable liabilities to be used to absorb losses and recapitalise institutions in case of failures. The delegated legislation concerning the practical implementation of this requirement has been adopted recently by the Commission 3 . At the global level, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published on 9 November 2015 the Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet ('the TLAC standard') that was adopted a week later at the G20 summit in Turkey 4 . The TLAC standard requires global systemically important banks ('G-SIBs'), referred to as global systemically important institutions ('G-SIIs') in the Union legislation, to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution. In its Communication of 24 November 2015 5 , the Commission committed to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of this year so that the TLAC standard can be implemented by the agreed deadline of 2019. In addition, the Commission committed to review the existing MREL rules with the view to provide full consistency with the internationally agreed TLAC standard by considering the findings of a report that the European Banking Authority (EBA) is required to provide to the Commission under Article 45(19) of the BRRD. An interim version of that report has already been published by the EBA on 19 July 2016 6 and the final report is expected to be submitted in the course of December 2016. While the general BRRD framework remains valid and sound, the main objective of this proposal is to implement the TLAC standard and to integrate the TLAC requirement into the general MREL rules by avoiding duplication by applying two parallel requirements. Although TLAC and MREL pursue the same regulatory objective, there are, nevertheless, some differences between them in the way they are constructed. The scope of application of MREL covers not only G-SIIs, but the entire Union banking industry. Differently from the TLAC standard, which contains a harmonised minimum level, the level of MREL is determined by resolution authorities on the basis of a case-by-case institution specific assessment. Finally, the minimum TLAC requirement should be met in principle with subordinated debt instruments, while for the purposes of MREL, subordination of debt instruments could be required by resolution authorities on a case-by-case basis to the extent it is needed to ensure that in a given case bailed in creditors are not treated worse than in a hypothetical insolvency scenario (which is a scenario that is counterfactual to resolution). In order to achieve a simple and transparent framework providing legal certainty and consistency, the Commission is proposing to integrate the TLAC standard into the existing MREL rules and ensure that both requirements are met with largely similar instruments. This approach requires introducing limited adjustments to the existing MREL rules ensuring technical consistency with the structure of any requirements for G-SIIs. In particular, further appropriate technical amendments to the existing rules on MREL are needed to align them with the TLAC standard as regards inter alia the denominators used for measuring loss-absorbing capacity, the interaction with capital buffer requirements, disclosure of risks to investors and their application in relation to different resolution strategies. While implementing the TLAC standard for G-SIIs, the Commission's approach will not materially affect the burden of institutions which are not G-SIIs to comply with the provisions on MREL. Operationally, the harmonised minimum level of the TLAC standard will be introduced in the Union through amendments to the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive (CRR and CRD) 7 while the institution specific add-on for G-SIIs and the institution specific MREL for non-G-SIIs will be dealt with through targeted amendments to the BRRD and SRMR. This proposal covers specifically the targeted amendments to the BRRD related to the implementation of the TLAC standard in the Union. As such, this proposal is part of a wider review package of the Union financial legislation aiming at reducing risks in the financial sector (CRR/CRD review) and rendering it more resilient. In addition, based on views expressed by many respondents to the call for evidence to stakeholders published in September 2015 8 , this proposal amends the BRRD with the view to ease compliance costs of banks where their liabilities are governed by the laws of third countries. The current requirement has proven difficult to comply with in practice thus bringing limited added value to the resolvability of banks. It is thus necessary to introduce more flexibility in the contractual relationships of Union banks with third country entities by allowing resolution authorities to waive, subject to certain strict safeguards, the obligation to insert contractual clauses with the aim of recognising in third countries the effects of the bail-in of liabilities governed by the law of these third countries. In practice, the current rules are very difficult to enforce. Furthermore, at the invitation of the ECOFIN in its conclusions of 17 June 2016, this proposal amends the BRRD as regards the application by resolution authorities of moratorium tools in the course of resolution, i.e. powers to suspend the executions of bank commitments towards third parties. Harmonisation of such powers should contribute to the stabilisation by the relevant authorities of an institution in the period before, and possibly after, resolution. 
Revised version (Article 48 Sequence of write down and conversion):
1. Member States shall ensure that, when applying the bail-in tool, resolution authorities exercise the write down and conversion powers, subject to any exclusions under Article 44(2) and (3), meeting the following requirements: (a) Common Equity Tier 1 items are reduced in accordance with point (a) of Article 60(1); (b) if, and only if, the total reduction pursuant to point (a) is less than the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3), authorities reduce the principal amount of Additional Tier 1 instruments to the extent required and to the extent of their capacity; (c) if, and only if, the total reduction pursuant to points (a) and (b) is less than the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3), authorities reduce the principal amount of Tier 2 instruments to the extent required and to the extent of their capacity; (d) if, and only if, the total reduction of shares or other instruments of ownership and relevant capital instruments pursuant to points (a), (b) and (c) is less than the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3), authorities reduce to the extent required the principal amount of subordinated debt that is not Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital in accordance with the hierarchy of claims in normal insolvency proceedings, in conjunction with the write down pursuant to points (a), (b) and (c) to produce the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3); (e) if, and only if, the total reduction of shares or other instruments of ownership, relevant capital instruments and bail-inable liabilities pursuant to points (a) to (d) of this paragraph is less than the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3), authorities reduce to the extent required the principal amount of, or outstanding amount payable in respect of, the rest of bail-inable liabilities, including debt instruments referred to in Article 108(3), in accordance with the hierarchy of claims in normal insolvency proceedings, including the ranking of deposits provided for in Article 108, pursuant to Article 44, in conjunction with the write down pursuant to points (a) to (d) of this paragraph to produce the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3). 2. When applying the write down or conversion powers, resolution authorities shall allocate the losses represented by the sum of the amounts referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 47(3) equally between shares or other instruments of ownership and bail-inable liabilities of the same rank by reducing the principal amount of, or outstanding amount payable in respect of, those shares or other instruments of ownership and bail-inable liabilities to the same extent pro rata to their value except where a different allocation of losses amongst liabilities of the same rank is allowed in the circumstances specified in Article 44(3). This paragraph shall not prevent liabilities which have been excluded from bail-in in accordance with Article 44(2) and (3) from receiving more favourable treatment than bail-inable liabilities which are of the same rank in normal insolvency proceedings. 3. Before applying the write down or conversion referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1, resolution authorities shall convert or reduce the principal amount on instruments referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 when those instruments contain the following terms and have not already been converted: (a) terms that provide for the principal amount of the instrument to be reduced on the occurrence of any event that refers to the financial situation, solvency or levels of own funds of the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1); (b) terms that provide for the conversion of the instruments to shares or other instruments of ownership on the occurrence of any such event. 4. Where the principal amount of an instrument has been reduced, but not to zero, in accordance with terms of the kind referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 before the application of the bail-in pursuant to paragraph 1, resolution authorities shall apply the write-down and conversion powers to the residual amount of that principal in accordance with paragraph 1. 5. When deciding on whether liabilities are to be written down or converted into equity, resolution authorities shall not convert one class of liabilities, while a class of liabilities that is subordinated to that class remains substantially unconverted into equity or not written down, unless otherwise permitted under Article 44(2) and (3). 6. For the purposes of this Article, EBA shall, by 3 January 2016, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 for any interpretation relating to the interrelationship between the provisions of this Directive and those of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU. 7. Member States shall ensure that, for entities referred to in points (a) to (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1), all claims resulting from own funds items have, in national laws governing normal insolvency proceedings, a lower priority ranking than any claim that does not result from an own funds item. For the purposes of the first subparagraph, to the extent that an instrument is only partly recognised as an own funds item, the whole instrument shall be treated as a claim resulting from an own funds item and shall rank lower than any claim that does not result from an own funds item.
Article 49 Derivatives
1. Member States shall ensure that this Article is complied with when resolution authorities apply the write-down and conversion powers to liabilities arising from derivatives. 2. Resolution authorities shall exercise the write-down and conversion powers in relation to a liability arising from a derivative only upon or after closing-out the derivatives. Upon entry into resolution, resolution authorities shall be empowered to terminate and close out any derivative contract for that purpose. Where a derivative liability has been excluded from the application of the bail-in tool under Article 44(3), resolution authorities shall not be obliged to terminate or close out the derivative contract. 3. Where derivative transactions are subject to a netting agreement, the resolution authority or an independent valuer shall determine as part of the valuation under Article 36 the liability arising from those transactions on a net basis in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 4. Resolution authorities shall determine the value of liabilities arising from derivatives in accordance with the following: (a) appropriate methodologies for determining the value of classes of derivatives, including transactions that are subject to netting agreements; (b) principles for establishing the relevant point in time at which the value of a derivative position should be established; and (c) appropriate methodologies for comparing the destruction in value that would arise from the close out and bail-in of derivatives with the amount of losses that would be borne by derivatives in a bail-in. 5. EBA, after consulting the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (‘ESMA’), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying methodologies and the principles referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 4 on the valuation of liabilities arising from derivatives. In relation to derivative transactions that are subject to a netting agreement, EBA shall take into account the methodology for close-out set out in the netting agreement. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 January 2016. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The establishment of a European Single Access Point (ESAP) by 2024 is a flagship action of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan adopted by the European Commission in September 2020 1 . ESAP will contribute to the achievement of the CMU’s objectives by providing EU-wide access to information published by entities that is relevant to capital markets, financial services and sustainable finance, i.e. mainly information about their economic activities and products. ESAP will provide access to this information in an efficient and non-discriminatory manner. Information about entities’ activities and products is essential for decision-making by providers of capital. ESAP will contribute to further integrating the financial services and capital markets in the single market, to allocating capital more efficiently across the EU and promoting the development of smaller national capital markets and economies by giving them greater visibility. ESAP will also allow non-listed entities including Small and Medium-Sized enterprises (SMEs) to make available information on a voluntary basis. This will facilitate their access to capital. This proposal is part of a package comprised of: · a proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Single Access Point; · a proposal for a Directive amending certain Directives (this proposal); and · a proposal for a Regulation amending certain Regulations. Amendments to certain Directives are necessary to achieve the above objectives to contribute to the integration of the single market, particularly as regards the collection of information to be made available to ESAP. 
Revised version (Article 49 Derivatives):
1. Member States shall ensure that this Article is complied with when resolution authorities apply the write-down and conversion powers to liabilities arising from derivatives. 2. Resolution authorities shall exercise the write-down and conversion powers in relation to a liability arising from a derivative only upon or after closing-out the derivatives. Upon entry into resolution, resolution authorities shall be empowered to terminate and close out any derivative contract for that purpose. Where a derivative liability has been excluded from the application of the bail-in tool under Article 44(3), resolution authorities shall not be obliged to terminate or close out the derivative contract. 3. Where derivative transactions are subject to a netting agreement, the resolution authority or an independent valuer shall determine as part of the valuation under Article 36 the liability arising from those transactions on a net basis in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 5. EBA, after consulting the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (‘ESMA’), established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying methodologies and the principles referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 4 on the valuation of liabilities arising from derivatives. In relation to derivative transactions that are subject to a netting agreement, EBA shall take into account the methodology for close-out set out in the netting agreement. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 January 2016. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 50 Rate of conversion of debt to equity
1. Member States shall ensure that, when resolution authorities exercise the powers specified in Article 59(3) and point (f) of Article 63(1), they may apply a different conversion rate to different classes of capital instruments and liabilities in accordance with one or both of the principles referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. 2. The conversion rate shall represent appropriate compensation to the affected creditor for any loss incurred by virtue of the exercise of the write down and conversion powers. 3. When different conversion rates are applied according to paragraph 1, the conversion rate applicable to liabilities that are considered to be senior under applicable insolvency law shall be higher than the conversion rate applicable to subordinated liabilities. 4. EBA shall, by 3 January 2016, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 on the setting of conversion rates. Those guidelines shall indicate, in particular, how affected creditors may be appropriately compensated by means of the conversion rate, and the relative conversion rates that might be appropriate to reflect the priority of senior liabilities under applicable insolvency law.
Article 51 Recovery and reorganisation measures to accompany bail-in
1. Member States shall ensure that, where resolution authorities apply the bail-in tool to recapitalise an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) in accordance with point (a) of Article 43(2), arrangements are adopted to ensure that a business reorganisation plan for that institution or entity is drawn up and implemented in accordance with Article 52. 2. The arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may include the appointment by the resolution authority of a person or persons appointed in accordance with Article 72(1) with the objective of drawing up and implementing the business reorganisation plan required by Article 52.