The Enhancing Bank Resolution Participation Act directs the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to carry out a joint study into the agencies’ use of “shelf charters” and the FDIC’s so-called modified bidder qualification process. The study must examine all conditional or preliminary shelf-charter approvals granted from January 1, 2008 through the date of enactment, review whether these tools were considered or used in any insured-depository receivership in 2023, and assess how greater use might have affected participant pools, competition, the Deposit Insurance Fund, and the need for emergency Treasury determinations.
The bill requires the OCC and FDIC to consult with the Federal Reserve, to identify statutory or regulatory barriers to using shelf charters and modified bidder procedures in resolutions, and to recommend legislative or regulatory changes. The agencies must submit a joint report to the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee within 270 days of enactment, meaning this is a directed fact-finding and policy-recommendation exercise rather than a change in law itself.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the OCC and FDIC to perform a joint study on the use and potential utility of shelf charters and the FDIC’s modified bidder qualification process, including a retrospective review of conditional shelf-charter approvals from 2008 onward and whether these tools were applied in 2023 receiverships.
Who It Affects
The study and its recommendations will affect federal bank regulators (OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve), potential acquirers of failed banks (including non-bank investors and newly formed charters), existing national banks and bank holding companies, and Congress if legislative changes are recommended.
Why It Matters
If the report finds legal or regulatory impediments, it could prompt rulemaking or legislative proposals that change who can participate in failed-bank auctions and how resolutions occur—shifting acquisition dynamics, competition for failed-bank assets, and the FDIC’s strategies to protect the Deposit Insurance Fund.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does one thing: it orders a joint, time-limited study by the OCC and FDIC. That study has four linked parts: catalog past uses of “shelf charters” (conditional or preliminary national bank charters approved since January 1, 2008); catalog the FDIC’s use of its modified bidder qualification approach; examine whether either tool was considered or used in receiverships of insured depository institutions in 2023; and — critically — evaluate how broader use might have changed who could buy failed-bank assets, increased competition and diversity among buyers, protected the Deposit Insurance Fund, or reduced the need for emergency Treasury actions.
The bill also sets process requirements. The OCC and FDIC must consult the Federal Reserve while they do the study and while preparing the report, with particular attention to how the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA) applies to shelf-charter proposals and to non-bank investors participating through the FDIC’s modified bidder process.
The agencies must identify statutory or regulatory barriers that limit the use or effectiveness of these tools and propose legislative or regulatory fixes.This is not a new regulatory regime; it does not change conduct immediately. Instead, it creates a forensic and policy-oriented exercise designed to surface practical and legal obstacles to widening the pool of bidders in failed-bank resolutions.
The mandated 270-day reporting deadline makes this a relatively fast, bounded review that could feed concrete action (regulatory guidance, rulemaking, or Congressional proposals) depending on what the agencies find.The bill relies on existing agency definitions: it ties the modified bidder qualification process to a 2008 FDIC press release and ties the shelf-charter definition to a 2017 OCC cumulative activities report. That choice channels the study to operational practices and previously published agency meanings rather than inventing new statutory definitions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a joint OCC–FDIC study of shelf charters and the FDIC’s modified bidder qualification process, specifically including conditional or preliminary shelf-charter approvals from January 1, 2008 through enactment.
The study must assess whether these tools were considered or used in any insured-depository receivership in 2023 and evaluate how greater use could have expanded bidders, increased competition, protected the Deposit Insurance Fund, or reduced emergency Treasury interventions.
The OCC and FDIC must consult the Federal Reserve on the study and report, with explicit attention to the application of the Bank Holding Company Act to shelf-charter proposals and participation by non-depository investors.
The agencies must identify statutory and regulatory barriers to using shelf charters and modified bidder procedures in resolutions and include recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes.
The OCC and FDIC must submit a joint report with findings and recommendations to the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee within 270 days after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the "Enhancing Bank Resolution Participation Act." This is a standard, single-line provision that does not change law or authority; it simply labels the directive that follows.
Scope of the joint study
Directs the OCC and FDIC, acting jointly, to study four discrete items: (1) use of shelf charters by the OCC (covering all conditional or preliminary approvals from Jan 1, 2008 through enactment); (2) FDIC use of its modified bidder qualification process; (3) whether either tool was considered or used in insured-depository receiverships in 2023; and (4) for those 2023 receiverships, the extent to which greater use could have expanded the bidder pool, increased competition and diversity in outcomes, protected the Deposit Insurance Fund, or reduced the need for emergency Treasury determinations under 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(G). This provision sets the analytic boundaries and outcome measures the agencies must address.
Report content and deadline
Requires the OCC and FDIC to deliver a joint report to the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee within 270 days of enactment. The report must include all findings from the study and an identification of statutory or regulatory barriers to using shelf charters and modified bidder processes in bank resolution, together with recommendations for legislative and regulatory changes. The 270-day clock makes the deliverable a focused, actionable product rather than an open-ended inquiry.
Interagency consultation and definitions
Obligates consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve in both the study and the report, specifically on how the BHCA applies to shelf-charter proposals and to participation by investors not organized as insured depository institutions in the modified bidder process. The bill also defines key terms by reference—to the FDIC’s 2008 press release for the modified bidder process and to a 2017 OCC report for shelf charters—steering the agencies toward established, agency-originated meanings rather than requiring new statutory definitions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Potential non-bank acquirers and alternative investors — the study could identify ways to reduce legal/regulatory barriers that currently prevent non-depository investors from participating in failed-bank purchases, creating new acquisition paths.
- Smaller or regional banks seeking expansion — if the report recommends loosening constraints, more bidders could translate into better pricing or more robust acquisition offers for failed-bank assets in certain markets.
- FDIC and Deposit Insurance Fund oversight — the study’s focus on protecting the Deposit Insurance Fund could produce tools or rule changes that improve asset disposition outcomes and reduce FDIC losses over time.
- Congress and regulators — the joint report will give lawmakers and agency rulemakers a fact-based menu of options (statutory fixes or rule changes) to consider for making resolutions more competitive and efficient.
Who Bears the Cost
- OCC and FDIC (agency resources) — the agencies must allocate staff time and potentially incur data-collection and legal-analysis costs to complete a comprehensive study and recommended changes within 270 days.
- Potential acquirers that lack charters — if the agencies or Congress adopt new participation rules, non-bank investors may face new supervisory obligations or BHCA-related consequences that impose compliance and capital costs.
- Bank holding companies and existing banks — proposed changes to enable shelf-charter entrants or modified bidders could trigger BHCA interpretation changes, increasing supervisory complexity and possibly constraining strategic transactions.
- Congress and rulemaking participants — if the report recommends legislative amendments, stakeholders will face lobbying, compliance planning, and transition costs during any statutory or regulatory overhaul.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between widening participation in failed-bank resolutions to boost competition, pricing, and buyer diversity, and preserving safety, soundness, and clear supervisory boundaries—especially where allowing non-depository investors or expedited shelf-charter entrants could create regulatory arbitrage, complicate BHCA application, and increase supervisory or systemic risk.
The bill narrowly confines the work to a study and report, but the choice of what the agencies must examine steers outcomes. By anchoring definitions to specific agency publications (a 2008 FDIC press release and a 2017 OCC report), the bill makes the study’s scope dependent on prior agency framings that may be partial or out of date.
That helps focus the agencies on operational practices, but it risks leaving unanswered whether alternative definitions or broader statutory changes would be preferable.
Practical constraints matter. The requirement to review all conditional or preliminary shelf-charter approvals since 2008 could be time-consuming, and agencies may hit confidentiality, privacy, or supervisory-privilege limits when examining whether those approvals figured in 2023 receiverships.
The 270-day deadline pressures the agencies to prioritize discrete, implementable recommendations over longer-term structural reform. Finally, the consultation requirement with the Federal Reserve centers the Bank Holding Company Act as a gating legal issue—if the Fed’s interpretation makes certain investor structures subject to BHCA treatment, expanding participation might carry supervision and capital consequences that blunt the policy intent of broadening bidders.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.