Recovery and Resolution Planning

  • Marilena Rispoli Farina
  • Luigi Scipione


Prevention is the most important and innovative aspect of the new European framework for regulating banking crises.

This chapter analyses the main substantive and procedural aspects regarding the creation and approval of recovery and resolution plans under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). It also aims to highlight the importance of planning as a governance tool. “Recovery plans” can play a key role in improving corporate governance structures and promoting the development of a new risk management culture.

For recovery and resolution plans to be credible, the planned measures must be able to ensure orderly bank resolution and safeguard the stability of the system. A further aim of this chapter will therefore be to understand how these difficulties can be realistically overcome.


Early warning Governance Living will Recovery plan Resolution plan Systemic crises Trigger event 


  1. Amorello L. and Huber S. (2014), Recovery Planning: A New Valuable Corporate Governance Framework for Credit Institutions, Law and Economics Yearly Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 296–317Google Scholar
  2. Avgouleas E., Goodhart Ch., Schoenmaker D. (2013), Bank Resolution Plans as a catalyst for global financial reform, Journal of Financial Stability, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder J.-H. (2014), Resolution Planning and Structural Bank Reform within the Banking Union, SAFE Working Paper No. 81Google Scholar
  4. Carmassi J. and Herring R. J. (2013), Living wills and cross-border resolution of systemically important banks, Journal of Financial Economic Policy, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 361–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Serière V. (2014), Recovery and Resolution Plans of Banks in the Context of the BRRD and the SRM: Some Fundamental Issues, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  6. EBA (15 May 2012), Discussion Paper on a template for recovery plansGoogle Scholar
  7. EBA (11 March 2013a), Consultation Paper on Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on the content of recovery plans, EBA/CP/2013/01Google Scholar
  8. EBA (20 March 2013b), Consultation Paper on Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on the assessment of recovery plans, EBA/CP/2013/08Google Scholar
  9. EBA (20 May 2013c), Consultation Paper on Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on the range of scenarios to be used in recovery plans, EBA/CP/2013/09Google Scholar
  10. EBA (18 July 2014a), Final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on the content of recovery plans under Article 5(10) of Directive 2014/59/EU establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms, EBA/RTS/2014/11Google Scholar
  11. EBA (18 July 2014b), Guidelines on the range of scenarios to be used in recovery plans, EBA/GL/2014/06Google Scholar
  12. EBA (6 March 2015a), Comparative report on the approach to determining critical functions and core business lines in recovery plansGoogle Scholar
  13. EBA (23 July 2015b), Guidelines on the minimum list of qualitative and quantitative recovery plan indicators, EBA/GL/2015/02Google Scholar
  14. EBA (1 March 2017), Recovery Planning – Comparative Report On Recovery Options, EBA/BS/2017/03Google Scholar
  15. EBA (26 January 2018), Recommendation on the coverage of entities in a group recovery plan, EBA/REC/2018/02Google Scholar
  16. EBF (December 2010), Positioning in respect of the European Commission’s communication on An EU Framework for Crisis Management in the Financial Sector, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (23 October 2018), Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1624, Official Journal of the European Union, L 277/1Google Scholar
  18. FSB (October 2011), Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, available at:
  19. FSB (November 2012), Recovery and Resolution Planning: Making the Key Attributes Requirements Operational Consultative Document, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  20. FSB (16 July 2013), Paper Guidance on Identification of Critical Functions and Critical Shared ServicesGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordon J. N. and Ringe W.-G. (2015), Bank Resolution in Europe: the Unfinished Agenda of Structural Reform, Law Working Paper N° 282/2015, available at:
  22. Grünewald S. (2017), Legal challenges of bail-in, in ECB Legal Conference 2017: Shaping a new legal order for Europe: a tale of crises and opportunities, European Central Bank, pp. 287–310Google Scholar
  23. Huertas T. F. (2010), Living Wills: How Can the Concept be Implemented? Speech at the Financial Services Authority, available at:
  24. Karamichailidou G. and Mayes D. G. (2016), ‘Plausible recovery and resolution plans for cross-border financial institutions’, Chapter 3 in J. Castañeda, D.G. Mayes and G. Wood (eds.), European Banking Union: Prospects and Challenges, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Micossi S., Bruzzone G., Cassella M. (2016), Fine-Tuning the Use of Bail-in to Promote a Stronger EU Financial System, in CEPS Special Report No 136, CEPS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. Pakin N.G. (2013), The Case Against Dodd-Frank Act’s Living Wills: Contingency Planning Following the Financial Crisis, Berkeley Business Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 28–93Google Scholar
  27. Troiano V. (19 May 2015), Recovery plans in the context of the BRRD framework, Open Review of Management, Banking and FinanceGoogle Scholar
  28. Weber R. F. (2012), Structural Regulation as Antidote to Complexity Capture, American Business Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 643–738Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marilena Rispoli Farina
    • 1
  • Luigi Scipione
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NaplesNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations