Content Options

Content Options

View Options

Status: Please note you should read all Brexit changes to the FCA Handbook and BTS alongside the main FCA transitional directions. Where these directions apply the 'standstill', firms have the choice between complying with the pre-IP completion day rules, or the post-IP completion day rules. To see a full list of Handbook modules affected, please see Annex B to the main FCA transitional directions.

You are viewing the version of the document as on 2021-01-01.

Article 25 Identification of a resolution strategy

  1. (1)

    Resolution authorities shall assess whether a candidate resolution strategy is appropriate to achieve the resolution objectives given the structure and business model of the institution or group, and the resolution regimes applicable to legal entities in a group. A resolution action may be taken in the public interest if it is necessary for the achievement of and is proportionate to one or more of the resolution objectives and winding up of the institution under normal insolvency proceedings would not meet those resolution objectives to the same extent.

  2. (2)

    In particular for groups, resolution authorities shall assess whether it would be more appropriate to apply a single point of entry or a multiple point of entry strategy.

  3. (3)

    For these purposes resolution authorities shall consider at least the following matters:

    1. (a)

      what resolution tools would be used under the preferred resolution strategy and whether those resolution tools are available for legal entities to which the resolution strategy proposes to apply them;

    2. (b)

      the amount of qualifying eligible liabilities under the proposed resolution strategy, the risk of not contributing to loss absorption or recapitalisation, and the legal entities issuing those qualifying eligible liabilities, taking into account that:

      1. (i)

        single point of entry is more likely to be appropriate if sufficient externally issued eligible liabilities, or liabilities expected to contribute to loss absorption and recapitalisation under the proposed resolution strategy are issued by the top parent or group holding company;

      2. (ii)

        multiple point of entry is more likely to be appropriate if the group's eligible liabilities or liabilities expected to contribute to loss absorption and recapitalisation under the proposed resolution strategy are issued by more than one entity or regional or functional subgroup in the group which would be resolved;

    3. (c)

      the contractual or other arrangements in place for losses to be transferred between legal entities in a group;

    4. (d)

      the operational structure and business model of the institution or group, and in particular whether it is highly integrated or has a decentralised structure with a high degree of separation between different parts of the institution or group, taking into account that:

      1. (i)

        single point of entry is more likely to be appropriate if a group operates in a highly integrated manner, including by having centralised liquidity management, risk management, treasury functions, or IT and other critical shared services;

      2. (ii)

        multiple point of entry is more likely to be appropriate if a group's operations are divided into two or more clearly identifiable subgroups, each of which is financially, legally or operationally independent from other parts of the group, and any critical operational dependencies on other parts of the group are based on robust arrangements that ensure their continued operation in the event of resolution;

    5. (e)

      the enforceability of resolution tools which would be applied, in particular in third countries;

    6. (f)

      whether the resolution strategy requires supporting action by other authorities, in particular in third countries, or requires such authorities to refrain from independent resolution actions; and whether any such actions are feasible and credible for those authorities.

  4. (4)

    Resolution authorities shall assess whether variants of the resolution strategy are necessary to address scenarios or circumstances where the resolution strategy cannot be feasibly and credibly implemented.

  5. (5)

    Resolution authorities shall consider the extent to which any variant strategy is likely to achieve the resolution objectives and in particular ensure the continuity of critical functions.

    Measures to remove impediments to variants of the resolution strategy shall only be implemented if they do not impair the feasible and credible implementation of the preferred resolution strategy.