Closing financial institutions on both sides of the Atlantic: Are there differences in approach? CEPS Commentary, 25 February 2015

In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis both the EU and the US have implemented resolution procedures for their largest and most systemic financial institutions. This Commentary examines the main differences between the two frameworks. The EU framework allows, inter alia, action to prevent the failure of a credit institution, while the US regulatory framework requires that all systemic banks subject to resolution must be closed and resolved. The greater flexibility under the EU resolution framework allows action to be taken to preserve a credit institution without putting it through an insolvency process, which makes limiting moral hazard less obvious. Moreover, the scope of the EU framework is still narrow, since it does not allow the recovery of non-bank financial institutions, whereas the US framework does

The Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program

Part of a series of XX papers -RESPONDING to the GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: What We Did and Why We Did It, presented on September 11-12, 2018, at the Hutchins Center of the Brookings Institute and co-sponsored by the Yale Program on Financial Stability, in light of the 10th Anniversary of the Global Financial Crisis

YPFS Lessons Learned Oral History Project: An Interview with Michael Krimminger

Suggested Citation Form: Krimminger, Michael, 2019. “Lessons Learned Interview. Interview by Charles Euncher. Yale Program on Financial Stability Lessons Learned Oral History Project. September 24, 2019. Transcript. https://ypfs.som.yale.edu/library/ypfs-lesson-learned-oral-history-project-interview-michael-krimminge

The resolution of cross-border banks: Issues for deposit insurers and proposals for cooperation

This paper reviews critical legal and policy issues created by cross-border banking insolvencies. These include (I) Insolvency principles, such as (1) criteria for intervention; (2) deposit insurance; (3) power to manage; (4) ability to maximize recoveries. Also included is (II) International legal complications. Critical issues in cross-border crisis management involve: (1) division of labor between home and host countries; (2) the availability of information; (3) the legal, regulatory and supervisory framework; (4) the law governing initiation of proceedings; (5) grounds for intervention; (6) deposit insurance; (7) legal powers of controlling authorities; (8) the potential financial and economic effects. We conclude with a few proposals for cooperation.Cross-border banking insolvency Home/host regulatory powers Insolvency laws

The choice between judicial and administrative sanctioned procedures to manage liquidation of banks : a transatlantic perspective

This article analyses the EU and US approaches to bank insolvency and reflects on the effectiveness of insolvency procedures for banks (and their holding companies in the United States), as well as on the advantages and disadvantages of a dual system that includes an administrative authority and court-based procedures. The article also analyses the need for coordination through harmonization in the EU, and especially in the euro area, and the need for enhanced substantive coordination with a view to development of the European Deposit Insurance System (EDIS). The article first presents the current state of debate of the EU versus US approaches to bank insolvency, then analyses the effectiveness of ‘dual’ administrative and court-based bank liquidation procedures for the purpose of both coordination within the EU and cross-border coordination, before providing conclusions and policy implications

Panel 3: Bankruptcy & Restructuring of Financial Institutions

Barry Adler: Thank you all for being here. It is an honor for me to be on this panel and an honor to moderate it. Let me introduce our panel before we get started. William A. Ackman, the founder and CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management; Marsha Goldstein, a partner and chair of the business finance and restructuring department at Weil, Gotshal; the Honorable Arthur Gonzalez, a judge in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York; and Ed Morrison, the Harvey Miller Professor of Law and Economics at Columbia Law School. Also on this panel is Mike Krimminger, and we\u27re honored to have him here. Mike is a Special Advisor for Policy to the Chairman of the FDIC. I saved him for last because he is going to speak first, and I\u27ll start him off with three questions. What is a non-bank financial institution, and what is systemic risk? We hear both of those terms a lot. Also, does the former affect or cause the latter