6.8.2 The main differences between the relevant contexts

The difference between the C-context and the S-context lies in the number of potential beneficiaries. When a bank is split-up in the S/T/W-context, there are two (potential) beneficiaries: the remaining activities in the Rump bank and the transferred activities. As illustrated by the aforementioned case of AB Ukio Bankas, the transferred activities might constitute an economic continuity. By contrast, when a bank is split-up in the C-context, then there is only one beneficiary. For instance, ING was a so-called bank insurance company: it consisted of a banking branch and an insurance branch. As part of the restructuring, ING had to divest its insurance activities, but only the bank was considered to be the beneficiary of the State aid. The divested insurance activities were not considered to constitute an economic continuity.

The difference between the S/T/W-context and the S/C/W-context is the existence of an acquiring bank. In the S/T/W-context, there is an acquiring bank. In the S/C/W-context, there is no acquiring bank. This means that even if certain activities are to be sold, the case is still labelled as S/C/W if there is not yet an acquiring bank. A split-up into a bad bank and bridge bank takes thus place in a S/C/W-context.

The difference between the T-context and the S/T/W-context is that in the T-context, all the bank’s activities are taken over by another bank. More specifically, the acquiring bank acquires all the shares in the beneficiary bank.