European Banking Union C: Cross-Border Resolution–Fortis Group

Rosalind Z. Wiggins, Natalia Tente, Andrew Metrick
{"title":"European Banking Union C: Cross-Border Resolution–Fortis Group","authors":"Rosalind Z. Wiggins, Natalia Tente, Andrew Metrick","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2577348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In August 2007, Fortis Group, Belgium’s largest bank, acquired the Dutch operations of ABN AMRO, becoming the fifth largest bank in Europe. Despite its size and its significant operations in the Benelux countries, Fortis struggled to integrate ABN AMRO. Fortis’s situation worsened with the crash of the US subprime market, which impacted its subprime mortgage portfolio. By July 2008, Fortis’s CEO had stepped down, its stock had lost 70% of its value, and it was on the verge of collapse due to a severe liquidity crisis. The governments of Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands quickly came together and agreed to inject funding into the bank to keep it afloat. However, the deal fell apart when the Netherlands reversed course and nationalized Fortis’s Dutch assets. As a result, Fortis underwent an uncoordinated resolution, bifurcated along national lines. This case permits examination of this attempt at a cross-border rescue of a failing systemically important financial institution, analysis of why the effort failed, and consideration of how it might proceed differently under current regulations.","PeriodicalId":142986,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2577348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

In August 2007, Fortis Group, Belgium’s largest bank, acquired the Dutch operations of ABN AMRO, becoming the fifth largest bank in Europe. Despite its size and its significant operations in the Benelux countries, Fortis struggled to integrate ABN AMRO. Fortis’s situation worsened with the crash of the US subprime market, which impacted its subprime mortgage portfolio. By July 2008, Fortis’s CEO had stepped down, its stock had lost 70% of its value, and it was on the verge of collapse due to a severe liquidity crisis. The governments of Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands quickly came together and agreed to inject funding into the bank to keep it afloat. However, the deal fell apart when the Netherlands reversed course and nationalized Fortis’s Dutch assets. As a result, Fortis underwent an uncoordinated resolution, bifurcated along national lines. This case permits examination of this attempt at a cross-border rescue of a failing systemically important financial institution, analysis of why the effort failed, and consideration of how it might proceed differently under current regulations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲银行联盟C:跨境决议-富通集团
2007年8月,比利时最大的银行富通集团(Fortis Group)收购了荷兰银行(ABN AMRO)的荷兰业务,成为欧洲第五大银行。尽管富通银行规模庞大,在比荷卢三国也有大量业务,但它在整合荷兰银行方面仍遇到了困难。富通的情况随着美国次级抵押贷款市场的崩溃而恶化,这影响了其次级抵押贷款组合。到2008年7月,富通的首席执行官已经辞职,其股票价值已经损失了70%,由于严重的流动性危机,富通濒临崩溃。比利时、卢森堡和荷兰政府迅速达成一致,同意向该银行注资以维持其运营。然而,当荷兰改变方向,将富通在荷兰的资产国有化时,这笔交易破裂了。结果,富通经历了一个不协调的解决方案,沿着国家界线分裂。在这个案例中,我们可以审视对一家濒临破产的具有系统重要性的金融机构进行跨境救助的尝试,分析这种努力失败的原因,并考虑在当前监管下如何以不同的方式进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disability, Reasonable Accommodation and the Employer's Obligations: Nano Nagle School V Daly ‘Reasonable Offers’ as a Defence to Unfair Prejudice Petitions: Prescott v Potamianos The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order Equal Civil Partnerships, Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time: R (on the Application of Steinfeld and Keidan) V Secretary of State for International Development Reason‐Giving in Administrative Law: Where are We and Why Have the Courts Not Embraced the ‘General Common Law Duty to Give Reasons’?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1