EBA欧洲银行-EBA-Letter-to-Caius-Capital-LLP_3页_218kb

Caius Capital LLP BUL Request Summary

Core Content

Caius Capital LLP has submitted a request to the European Banking Authority (EBA) for an investigation into a potential breach of Union law by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Italy, concerning the regulatory capital treatment of a transaction by Unicredit S.p.A. referred to as "CASHES."

Main Points of the BUL Request

• Transaction Overview: The CASHES transaction, involving a capital increase and share premium, was approved by Unicredit in 2008 and capitalised in 2011.
• Regulatory Concern: Caius Capital claims that the proceeds from the CASHES transaction and Unicredit's ordinary shares are incorrectly classified as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
• Legal Basis: The request is based on alleged breaches of Article 28(1) of the CRR, particularly subparagraphs (d), (h)(vii), (i), (j), and Article 62, as well as Article 437 of the CRR, which requires disclosure of certain instruments.
• Impact on Level Playing Field: Caius Capital argues that the incorrect treatment undermines the European level playing field and risks weakening the perceived quality of CET1 capital across the EU.
• Role of Competent Authorities: They claim that the Bank of Italy and ECB SSM have permitted this treatment, which they believe is a breach of Union law.

EBA's Response

The EBA has reviewed the BUL Request in light of its discretion to initiate an own-initiative investigation under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. Key considerations include:

• Previous Assessment: In 2012, the EBA's Board of Supervisors examined the CASHES transaction during a recapitalisation review, noting its complexity and technical concerns.
• Capital Treatment: The EBA accepted the share premium portion of the CASHES transaction as Core Tier 1 capital (CT1) on a one-off basis, which later qualified as CET1 under the CRR. The remaining nominal amount is currently treated as Additional Tier 1 (AT1) capital.
• Discretion of Authorities: The EBA acknowledges that competent authorities have discretion in their annual supervisory examination programs, and that the request may be more appropriately addressed by other entities, such as the European Commission or national competent authorities.
• Investigation Decision: Based on the available information and the EBA's discretion, the EBA does not intend to open an investigation into the matters raised in the BUL Request.

Key Information

• EBA's Founding Regulation: Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
• CRR References: Article 28(1), Article 62, and Article 437.
• Timeframe: The CASHES transaction dates back to 2008, with capitalisation in 2011 and review in 2012.
• Capital Classification: The share premium was treated as CT1, and the remaining nominal amount as AT1.
• Outcome: The EBA does not find clear grounds for an investigation, citing the discretion of competent authorities and the suitability of the matter for other regulatory bodies.

Conclusion

The EBA has determined that the BUL Request does not warrant the initiation of an own-initiative investigation, due to the lack of clear evidence of a breach of Union law and the availability of discretion for competent authorities in their supervisory activities. The EBA believes the matter is more appropriately addressed by other entities or through existing supervisory mechanisms.