The object of this study is to compare the US and the European regulation as for the planning of the recovery and resolution of a troubled credit institution. In particular, this is done by analyzing the Dodd-Frank Act in the USA and the BRRD in Europe, as we focus on the content and functioning of recovery and resolution plans in the EU, on the one hand, and the corresponding US instruments namely, the so-called ‘living wills’ – on the other. First, we describe the post-crisis regulatory framework created as a response to the needs of market players; then, we move on to the analysis of the provisions concerning the formulation of the plans, by comparing the two different ways of proceeding.
Subsequently, the causes of the crisis, its transmission at international level, and the responses and interventions undertaken, are addressed from both a regulatory and supervisory point of view. Consequently, we highlight the reasons that have led regulators to discipline the planning phase of the consolidation and resolution of a credit institution.
The BRRD and the Dodd-Frank Act are analyzed highlighting similarities and divergences regarding the planning of recovery and resolution of crises. Alongside this, we try to identify which prospects the two different realities are likely to be facing over the next future. On the one hand, the reform package by the EBA is initially analyzed in the BRR directive defining the basis for an upcoming BRRD 2, a reforming project which also includes a revision that will give rise to a CRD 5 and a CRR 2. On the other hand, we focus on the US scenario by studying the guidelines for 2018 drawn up by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for the drafting of living wills and the views expressed by President Trump on the issue: in particular we discuss how they fit into the deregulation process that his administration is promoting.