In the restructuring plan for the Bank submitted by the Greek authorities to the Commission on 25 June 2014 the Greek authorities requested authorisation to continue granting guarantees and lending government bonds to the Bank under the Greek Banks Support Scheme during the restructuring period, should the need for such liquidity support arise, although that is not expected to happen.

The recapitalisation took the form of preference shares subscribed by Greece which had a coupon of 10 % and a maturity of five years.

The Bank redeemed the preference shares on 22 May 2014, as described in recital 52.

Recitals 14 to 33 of the Piraeus Opening Decision give a detailed description of the first bridge recapitalisation of May 2012 (measure B1). The background and main features of that measure are set out in this section.

On 20 April 2012, the HFSF provided a letter to the Bank committing to participate in a planned share capital increase of the Bank for an amount of up to EUR 5 billion.

Under measure B1, the HFSF transferred EUR 4,7 billion of EFSF bonds to the Bank in May 2012, in line with the provisions for bridge recapitalisations laid down in the law 3864/2010 establishing the HFSF (‘HFSF law’). The Commission established in recital 53 of the Piraeus Opening Decision that ‘The bridge recapitalisation finalised on 28 May 2012 is the implementation of the obligation undertaken in the commitment letter and thus a continuation of the same aid’. Both the amounts provided in the commitment letter and in the first bridge recapitalisation were calculated by the Bank of Greece to ensure the Bank reached a total capital ratio of 8 % as of 31 December 2011, the date of retroactive booking of the bridge recapitalisation in the Bank’s records. As can be seen from Table 3, measure B1 only covered a part of the total capital needs identified by the stress test of 2012. The Bank was supposed to raise capital through a future capital increase and the bridge recapitalisation was intended only to preserve the Bank’s eligibility for ECB financing until that capital increase had taken place.

The Bank booked further losses in the autumn of 2012. Its capital therefore fell again below the minimum capital requirements for it to remain eligible for ECB refinancing.

A second bridge recapitalisation became necessary as a result. On 20 December 2012, the HFSF implemented a second bridge recapitalisation of EUR 1 553 million (measure B2), which was again paid by transferring EFSF bonds to the Bank.

In addition to the second bridge recapitalisation, on 20 December 2012 the HFSF provided the Bank with a commitment letter for its participation in the share capital increase of the Bank and in the convertible instruments to be issued, for a total amount up to EUR 1 082 million (measure B3).

1. (i)

   EUR 7 335 million to cover the capital needs identified by the stress test of 2012; out of that amount, the HFSF subscribed EUR 5 891 million (measure B4) and private investors subscribed EUR 1 444 million;

2. (ii)

   EUR 570 million injected by the HFSF to meet the regulatory capital requirements that arose from the acquired business of ATE Bank, as committed in July 2012; that measure was assessed by the Commission in the ATE Liquidation Decision, which found that it did not constitute aid to the Bank;

3. (iii)
   EUR 524 million injected by the HFSF to meet the capital needs that arose from the payment of the purchase price for the Greek operations of the three Cypriot Banks; that part of the capital increase constitutes measure C59.

The price of the new shares was set at EUR 1,70 per share, which corresponds to 50 % of the volume-weighted average stock price over the 50 trading days preceding its determination.

Therefore the participation of the HFSF in the share capital increase of the Bank amounted to EUR million 6 985.

The HFSF law as amended in 2014 provides that only the strike prices of the warrants may be adjusted in the event of a rights issue. In addition, any such adjustment will take place ex post and only up to the amount of the realised proceeds from the sale of pre-emption rights of the HFSF. No adjustment is provided for in the event of a non-pre-emptive share capital increase.

As mentioned in recital 58, at the time of the ATE Restructuring Decision ATE had already benefited from aid measures.

In December 2011, the Greek State injected EUR 290 million into ATE.

The resolution of 27 July 2012, as described in recitals 62 and 63, also involved additional support from the State. The HFSF granted the Bank EFSF bonds worth EUR 7 471 million to cover the funding gap. The HFSF also gave a commitment to recapitalise the Bank for an amount of EUR 570 million.

Overall, the aid related to the Purchase & Assumption procedure amounts to EUR 8 041 million.

As already explained in recital 173, the Commission regards the Cypriot Transferred Activities as being the beneficiary of the disbursement of the EFSF bonds by the HFSF.

For the purpose of that sale, the Bank of Greece decided to contact only the largest domestic banks operating in Greece, of which only the Bank and two other banks submitted non-binding offers. The Bank is the only bidder that submitted a valid binding offer. The limited set of buyers contacted cannot exclude that the tender was open given that it was reasonable not to expect a formal bid from other investors. Indeed, at that time, due to the financial instability of the Greek banking system, which registered large loan losses due to the deep and protracted recession, foreign banks present in Greece had divested, or were about to divest themselves of their Greek activities (e.g. Geniki, MBG, Emporiki Bank). In other words, they were exiting the Greek market and were not seeking new investments opportunities in Greece. Moreover it is reasonable to assume that only an investor able to quickly stabilise and make viable the acquired activities — i.e. a large banking group — would have been interested in those activities. Finally, due to the very short timeframe available to close the sale — which was dictated by the financial crisis within which the selling banks were operation — the participation of foreign banks or other types of investors in the sales procedure was very unlikely, since those investors would normally have wanted to carry out a due diligence of the assets offered for sale before submitting a formal bid.

The Commission, therefore, concludes that the sale price of the Cypriot Transferred Activities was the market price and that aid to the buyer, that is to say the Bank, can be excluded.

With respect to the appropriateness of the measure, that is to say, the commitment given by the HFSF to recapitalise the Bank amounting to EUR 524 million, the Commission considers that the measure is appropriate because it allowed the Greek operations of the three Cypriot Banks to be sold to the Bank.

In the absence of the measure, none of the Greek banks, including the Bank, would have been willing to acquire the Cypriot Transferred Activities at a time no bank outside of Greece was willing to enter that market. If the Cypriot Transferred Activities had not been acquired, those activities and in particular the deposits of the Greek branches would have been in danger. The measure therefore ensured that financial stability in Greece is maintained. On that basis, the Commission finds that the measure is appropriate as rescue aid.

In line with the 2008 Banking Communication, the aid measure must, in its amount and form, be necessary to achieve the objective of the measure. It implies that a capital injection, for example, must be of the minimum amount necessary to achieve that objective.

At a time when it was very difficult for Greek banks to find capital, the measure covered the capital needs that would result from the payment of the purchase price for the acquisition of the Cypriot Transferred Activities so that the acquisition could occur.

Moreover, the Commission notes positively that the aid took the form of a capital injection in the framework of the Spring 2013 recapitalisation as the HFSF did not give a grant to the Bank but received ordinary shares for the same value.

The measure is therefore necessary to achieve the objective of limiting the disturbance in the Greek banking system and the economy as a whole.

The aided activities were sold after the Greek authorities launched a call for tender. In addition, the acquired activities were quickly integrated within the Bank. The aid did not allow the aided activities to remain as separate competitors on the market.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the measure was designed in such a way as to minimise undue distortions of competition.

On the basis of the analysis in recitals 189 to 197, it is concluded that the recapitalisation of the Bank by the HFSF amounting to EUR 524 million was appropriate, necessary to achieve the objective of limiting the disturbance in the Greek banking system and the economy as a whole and was designed in such a way as to minimise undue distortions of competition, and is in line with the 2008 Banking Communication and the Recapitalisation Communication.

Point 17 of the Restructuring Communication clarifies that the sale of an ailing bank to another financial institution can contribute to the restoration of long-term viability, if the purchaser is viable and capable of absorbing the transfer of the ailing bank, and may help to restore market confidence.

The Bank successfully integrated the Cypriot Transferred Activities. As stated in section 7.6, on the basis of its restructuring plan the Bank can be considered as a viable entity. Therefore, the fact that the Cypriot Transferred Activities have been transferred to the Bank allows their long-term viability to be restored.

Concerning the contribution of the shareholders of the three Cypriot Banks to the restructuring costs, the Commission observes that the three Cypriot Banks did not sell the Cypriot Transferred Activities at their book value but at the value adjusted in line with the PIMCO report. In addition, even after that adjustment was made, the three Cypriot Banks transferred more assets than liabilities to the Bank. Therefore, sufficient burden-sharing of shareholders was achieved since the loss in the value of the Cypriot Transferred Activities was borne by their sellers.

Regarding measures to limit distortions of competition, point 30 of the Restructuring Communication provides that ‘the Commission takes as a starting point for its assessment of the need for such measures, the size, scale and scope of the activities that the bank in question would have upon implementation of a credible restructuring plan … The nature and form of such measures will depend on two criteria: first, the amount of the aid and the conditions and circumstances under which it was granted and, second, the characteristics of the market or markets on which the beneficiary bank will operate.’

As described in recital 196, the amount of aid corresponds to around 3 % of the RWA of the Cypriot Transferred Activities. Therefore the Commission considers it to be relatively small given that that amount enabled the sale of the Cypriot Transferred Activities and, as explained in recital 190, ensured the maintenance of the financial stability in Greece.

Following the sale of the Cypriot Transferred Activities, the Greek branches ceased to exist as stand-alone competitors as they were fully integrated into the Bank.

The Commission concludes that given the relatively small aid amount to the Cypriot Transferred Activities and the fact that they will not continue to exist as stand-alone competitors, there are no undue distortions of competition.

On the basis of the analysis in recitals 199 to 206, it is concluded that the sale of the Cypriot Transferred Activities and their integration into the Bank ensure their long-term viability, that aid is limited to the minimum necessary and that there is no undue distortion of competition, in line with the Restructuring Communication.

The recapitalisation of the Bank amounting to EUR 524 million by the HFSF should therefore be declared compatible with the internal market.

In section 5.1 of the Piraeus Opening Decision, the Commission has already concluded that the first bridge recapitalisation constitutes State aid. The capital received amounted to EUR 4,7 billion.

Measure B2 was implemented with HFSF resources, which, as explained in recital 65 of the Piraeus Opening Decision, involve State resources.

As regards the existence of an advantage, measure B2 increased the Bank’s capital ratio to a level that allowed it to continue to function on the market and to access Eurosystem funding. Furthermore, the remuneration of measure B2 consisted of the accrued interests on EFSF notes and an additional 1 % fee. Because that remuneration is manifestly lower than the remuneration of similar capital instruments in the market, the Bank would have certainly been unable to raise that capital on such terms in the market. Therefore, measure B2 granted an advantage to the Bank from State resources. As the measure was made available only to the Bank, it is selective in nature.

The position of the Bank was strengthened as a result of measure B2 since the Bank was provided with the financial resources necessary to continue to comply with the capital requirements, thus leading to distortions of competition. Since the Bank is active in banking markets in other Member States and since financial institutions from other Member States operate in Greece or would potentially be interested in operating in Greece measure B2 affects trade between Member States.

The Commission considers that measure B2 constitutes State aid. It was notified as aid by the national authorities. The capital received amounted to EUR 1 553 million.

By measure B3, the HFSF committed to provide the additional capital necessary to complete the recapitalisation of the Bank up to the amount requested by the Bank of Greece in the framework of the stress test of 2012. The HFSF receives its resources from the State. The letter therefore commits State resources. The circumstances in which the HFSF can grant support to financial institutions are precisely defined and limited by law. Accordingly the use of those State resources is imputable to the State. The HFSF gave a commitment to provide up to EUR 1 082 million of additional capital.

The commitment letter granted an advantage to the Bank because it reassured depositors that the Bank would be able to raise the entire amount of capital it had to raise, that is to say, the HFSF would provide the capital should the Bank fail to raise it on the market. That commitment also facilitated the raising of private capital from the market, since investors were reassured that, if the Bank could not find part of the capital from the market, the HFSF would provide it. No private investor would have accepted to commit before the terms of the recapitalisation were known, and at that time the Bank had no access to capital markets. That advantage is selective since it was not granted to all the banks operating in Greece.

Since the Bank is active in other Member States and since financial institutions from other Member States operate or would potentially be interested in operating in Greece, measure B3 is also likely to affect trade between Member States and to distort competition.

Measure B3 therefore constitutes aid and was notified as State aid by the Greek authorities.

HFSF’s participation in the Spring 2013 recapitalisation aiming to cover the capital needs identified in the stress test of 2012 (measure B4) is the partial conversion of the first and second bridge recapitalisations (measures B1 and B2) into a permanent recapitalisation of EUR 5 891 million in ordinary shares. Since measure B4 is the partial conversion of aid already granted, it still involves State resources but it does not increase the nominal amount of aid. However for a given nominal amount of aid, it increases the advantage to the Bank (and therefore the distortions of competition) since it is a permanent recapitalisation and not a temporary recapitalisation as in the case of measures B1 and B2.

The Commission notes that such support was not granted to all banks operating in Greece. As regards distortions of competition and effect on trade, the Commission notes for instance that the aid enabled the Bank to pursue its operations in other Member States. A liquidation of the Bank would have led to the termination of its activities abroad, through the liquidation of those activities or their sale. In addition, certain banks from other Member States were operating in Greece. Therefore, the measure distorts competition and affects trade between Member States. The Commission therefore considers that measure B4 constitutes State aid.

Measures B1, B2, B3 and B4 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. The amount of State aid included in measures B1, B2, and B3 is EUR 7 335 million. As indicated in section 7.1.3.3, since the Bank attracted private capital amounting to EUR 1 444 million in the Spring 2013 recapitalisation, only part of the first and second bridge recapitalisation (measures B1 and B2) was converted into a permanent recapitalisation (measure B4). The additional capital of EUR 1 082 million (measure B3) committed by the HFSF was not necessary and therefore not paid out. The amount of State support paid out was therefore only the sum of the first and the second bridge recapitalisations, that is to say EUR 6 253 million and part of that aid was repaid within six months during the Spring 2013 recapitalisation (measure B4) as the private participation exceeded the amount of the commitment.

Point 31 of the Restructuring Communication indicates that, besides the absolute amount of aid, the Commission has to take into account the aid ‘in relation to the bank’s risk-weighted assets’. Measures B1, B2, and B3 were granted over the course of a one-year period, from April 2012 until May 2013. During that period, the RWA of the Bank increased greatly following successive acquisitions. The question therefore arises as to which level of RWA should be used, and more particularly whether the State aid should be assessed by reference to the RWA that existed at the beginning of the period or at the end of the period. Measures B1, B2, and B3 aim at covering a capital need identified by the Bank of Greece in March 2012 (the stress test of 2012). In other words, the capital needs that those State support measures aim to address already existed in March 2012. The Commission therefore considers that the aid amount included in measures B1, B2, and B3 should be compared to the RWA of the Bank at 31 March 2012. It is also recalled that, after March 2012 and until the Spring 2013 recapitalisation, the Bank of Greece did not take into account acquisitions made by Greek banks to adjust their capital needs upwards or downwards. That element further demonstrates that measures B1, B2, and B3 were aid measures related to the perimeter of the Bank as it existed at 31 March 2012.

The aid granted to the Bank amounted to the sum of the first and the second bridge recapitalisations (measures B1 and B2) and the commitment given by the HFSF (measure B3), that is to say EUR 7 335 million or 21,5 % of the Bank’s RWA at 31 March 2012.

The aid paid out to the Bank amounted to the sum of the first and the second bridge recapitalisations (measures B1 and B2), that is to say EUR 6 253 million or 18,4 % of the Bank’s RWA at 31 March 2012.

Since the Bank managed to attract private capital, the amount definitively injected by the HFSF into the Bank in the form of ordinary shares amounted to EUR 5 891 million, which represents 17,3 % of the Bank’s RWA at 31 March 2012.

Furthermore, the acquisition has led to considerable synergies such as cost synergies through branch, staff reduction and IT integration, funding synergies and revenue synergies.

The acquisition is therefore very positive for the restoration of the long-term viability of the Bank.

In line with point 23 of the Restructuring Communication, restructuring aid should not be used for the acquisition of other companies but merely to cover restructuring costs which are necessary to restore the viability of the Bank.

The consideration paid by the Bank for the acquisition of the ATE Transferred Activities was determined at 0,6 % of the value of the transferred deposits and amounted to approximately EUR 95 million. It was equivalent to 0,02 % of the total assets of the Bank at the time of the acquisition. That amount can therefore be considered as small, but not negligible.

The acquisition of ATE Transferred Activities dramatically improved the very stressed liquidity position of the Bank and put it in a much more viable situation. The Commission recalls that […]. Therefore the acquisition and its low purchase price can be considered as essential for the restoration of the long-term viability of the Bank and falls under the exemption in point 23 of the Restructuring Communication.

In line with points 39 and 40 of the Restructuring Communication, State aid should not be used to the detriment of non-aided companies and in particular for acquiring competing businesses. Point 41 of the Restructuring Communication also states that acquisitions may be authorised if they are part of a consolidation process necessary to restore financial stability or to ensure effective competition. In such circumstances the acquisition process should be fair and the acquisition should ensure the conditions of effective competition in the relevant market.

ATE was not deemed viable on a stand-alone basis by the Bank of Greece when it reviewed the viability of all the Greek banks early in 2012. Furthermore, the Bank of Greece analysed different alternatives for ATE (for example, liquidation) and concluded that selling the ATE Transferred Activities was the most attractive option, since it would reduce the execution risk and would minimise the costs for Greece. The acquisition can thus be considered to be part of a consolidation process which is necessary to restore financial stability of the kind described in point 41 of the Restructuring Communication.

Furthermore, no non-aided bidder submitted a bid for the ATE Transferred Activities.

The acquisition of the ATE Acquired Activities is therefore in line with section 4 of the Restructuring Communication.

It is concluded that, in the light of the unique situation of Greek banks and the specificities of the acquisition of the ATE Transferred Activities, that acquisition is in line with the requirements laid down in the Restructuring Communication.

In terms of operating profitability, the acquisition of Geniki will enhance the Bank’s return to long-term viability. According to the analysis submitted by the Bank at the time of that acquisition, merging two banks in the same geographical market will create synergies such as cost savings through personnel reduction and branch closures. The Bank will acquire the customers and depositors of Geniki, thereby significantly reducing distribution costs.

In terms of liquidity position, as illustrated in recital 65, Geniki held more deposits than net loans. Therefore, the acquisition increased the Bank’s liquidity and helped the Bank decrease its loan-to-deposit ratio. In addition, Geniki was adequately capitalised before being acquired by the Bank. Thus, the acquisition is not likely to create any future capital needs for the Bank.

The acquisition is therefore positive for the restoration of the long-term viability of the Bank.

In line with point 23 of the Restructuring Communication, restructuring aid should not be used for the acquisition of other companies but merely to cover restructuring costs which are necessary to restore the viability of the Bank. In this case, although the acquisition has positive implications for the Bank’s viability, it is not essential for its viability within the meaning of point 23 of the Restructuring Communication.

The Commission concludes that, in the light of the specificities of the transaction (acquisition at a very low price of a fully capitalised bank and injection of capital by the seller into the Bank), the acquisition does not generate any further capital need for the Bank and therefore the acquisition of Geniki exceptionally does not contravene the principle that aid should be limited to the minimum necessary.

As stated in recital 274, in line with points 39 and 40 of the Restructuring Communication, State aid should not be used to the detriment of non-aided companies and in particular for acquiring competing businesses, except under specific circumstances.

Geniki was not deemed viable on a stand-alone basis by the Bank of Greece, when it reviewed the viability of all the Greek banks early in 2012. Geniki was generating large losses for Société Générale which therefore wanted to sell it and, if no sale was possible, could have considered how to let it fail. The acquisition can therefore be considered to be part of a consolidation process which is necessary to restore financial stability of the kind described in point 41 of the Restructuring Communication.

Furthermore, no non-aided bidder submitted any valid bid to acquire Geniki. There was therefore no crowding-out of any non-aided bidder by the Bank.

Finally the purchase price was very low. It can therefore not be considered that the Bank used State aid to finance the acquisition. In view of those elements, it can be concluded that the acquisition of Geniki falls under the exemption in point 41 of the Restructuring Communication.

It is concluded that, in the light of the unique situation of Greek banks and the specificities of the acquisition of Geniki, that acquisition is in line with the requirements laid down in the Restructuring Communication.

The acquisition of the Cypriot Transferred Activities enhances the long-term viability of the Bank.

According to the analysis submitted by the Bank at the time of the acquisition, the transaction will lead to considerable synergies such as cost synergies through administration and staff cost savings and significant improvement of the cost of deposits. Since the acquisition the Bank has fully integrated the Greek operations of the three Cypriot Banks, rebranded all the branches of the three Cypriot Banks and is well advanced in the rationalisation of the network.

The loan portfolios of the Greek operations of the three Cypriot Banks were well provisioned. Indeed, the Bank acquired those loans at a price well below their nominal amounts: the purchase price was decreased to reflect the future losses estimated by PIMCO in the framework of a stress test. The risk of loan losses exceeding those already reflected in the low purchase price is therefore limited.

The Bank also acquired a large pool of deposits, nearly as large as the net loans acquired. It therefore strengthened its liquidity position.

The acquisition is therefore positive for the restoration of the long-term viability of the Bank.

In line with point 23 of the Restructuring Communication, restructuring aid should not be used for the acquisition of other companies but merely to cover restructuring costs which are necessary to restore the viability of the Bank.

As analysed in section 7.3, the aid aimed to cover the capital needs of the acquirer of the Cypriot Transferred Activities, since their acquisition would ensure the maintenance of financial stability in Greece. The consideration ultimately paid by the Bank for the acquisition of the Cypriot Transferred Activities was far lower than the book value of the acquired portfolio. It was even lower than the value of the loans after it was adjusted downward to reflect the future loan losses estimated by PIMCO under the stress test. The acquisition price could therefore be considered to be negative. That conclusion is supported by the fact that the Bank booked a large negative goodwill when acquiring the Cypriot Transferred Activities, which increased its capital.

However, should it nevertheless be considered that the Bank paid a positive price, the Commission observes that, as a pre-condition of the acquisition, the HFSF had given a commitment to the buyer that it would inject the amount of the purchase price in capital. The HFSF respected that commitment in the framework of the Spring 2013 recapitalisation. That capital injection is aid to the Cypriot Transferred Activities and not to the Bank as explained in section 6.2.1. Therefore, the acquisition did not create a need for additional State aid to the Bank.

It is concluded that, due to the atypical terms (low purchase price and commitment given by the HFSF to inject the purchase price in the framework of a capital increase), the acquisition of the Cypriot Transferred Activities exceptionally does not contravene the principle that aid should be limited to the minimum necessary.

As stated in recital 274, in line with points 39 and 40 of the Restructuring Communication, State aid should not be used to the detriment of non-aided companies and in particular for acquiring competing businesses, except under specific circumstances.

The sale of the Greek operations of the Cypriot Banks aimed to safeguard the stability of the Greek banking system and to ensure that the Cypriot Banks could sell those businesses before they were likely to lose any value. The transaction can thus be considered to be part of a consolidation process which is necessary to restore financial stability of the kind described in point 41 of the Restructuring Communication.

Furthermore, no non-aided bidder submitted any valid bid to acquire the three Cypriot Banks. The sale process was open, transparent and non-discriminatory.

In view of those elements, it can be concluded that the acquisition of the Cypriot Transferred Activities falls under the exemption in point 41 of the Restructuring Communication.

It is concluded that, in the light of the unique situation of Greek banks and the specificities of the acquisition of the Cypriot Transferred Activities, that acquisition is in line with the requirements laid down in the Restructuring Communication.

The acquisition of the fully recapitalised MBG enhances the long-term viability of the Bank.

According to the analysis submitted by the Bank at the time of the acquisition, the transaction will lead to considerable synergies such as cost synergies through branch and staff reduction, lower deposit costs and revenue synergies. In the meantime, the Bank has fully integrated MBG.

In addition, since MBG was adequately capitalised before being acquired by the Bank and since the bank paid a purchase price of EUR 1 million, the acquisition is not likely to create any future capital needs for the Bank. In addition, the seller gave a commitment, as part of the transaction, to inject EUR 400 million of capital into the Bank. That commitment was implemented in the framework of the Spring 2013 recapitalisation, during which BCP injected EUR 400 million into the Bank.

It is concluded that the acquisition is positive for the restoration of the long-term viability of the Bank and that the purchase price of MBG was so low that it did not prevent the aid from being limited to the minimum necessary.

In line with point 23 of the Restructuring Communication, restructuring aid should not be used for the acquisition of other companies but merely to cover restructuring costs which are necessary to restore the viability of the Bank. In this case, although the acquisition has positive implications for the Bank’s viability, it is not essential for its viability within the meaning of point 23 of the Restructuring Communication.

It is concluded that, in the light of the specificities of the transaction (acquisition at a very low price of a fully capitalised bank and injection of capital by the seller into the Bank), the acquisition of MBG does not generate any further capital needs for the Bank and therefore, the acquisition of MBG exceptionally does not contravene the requirement to minimise the aid.

As stated in recital 274, in line with points 39 and 40 of the Restructuring Communication, State aid should not be used to the detriment of non-aided companies and in particular for acquiring competing businesses, except under specific circumstances.

Furthermore, no non-aided bidder submitted any valid bid to acquire MBG.

Against that background, it can be concluded that the acquisition of MBG falls under the exemption in point 41 of the Restructuring Communication.

It is concluded that, in the light of the unique situation of Greek banks and the specificities of the acquisition of MBG, that acquisition is in line with the requirements laid down in the Restructuring Communication.

The loan-to-deposit ratio commitment mentioned in recital 137 ensures that the Bank’s balance sheet structure will be sustainable at the end of the restructuring period. The sale of securities and of other non-core activities will also strengthen the liquidity position of the Bank. Due to the still stressed liquidity position of the Bank, the Commission can accept the request of the Greek authorities to be authorised to provide liquidity to the Bank under the guarantee and government bond loan measures of the Greek Banks Support Scheme and under the State-guaranteed ELA.

To decrease its funding costs, Greece has also given a commitment that the Bank will continue reducing the interest rates it pays on deposits in Greece, as described in recital 137. The achievement of such a decrease in the cost of deposits will be a key contribution to improving the pre-provisioning profitability of the Bank.

Another point of attention is the governance of the Bank given that the HFSF owns the majority of the Bank’s shares following the Spring 2013 recapitalisation, but with restricted voting power. Additionally, some of the private investors which control the Bank also own warrants and thus would gain the full benefit if the share price were to soar during the restructuring period. Because that situation could create moral hazard, a specific relationship framework was agreed between the Bank and the HFSF in 2013. That agreement protects the day-to-day business of the Bank from any interference from its main shareholders, while ensuring that the HFSF can monitor the implementation of the restructuring plan and prevent excessive risk-taking by the Bank’s management through appropriate consultation procedures. The Bank has also given a commitment to monitor closely its exposure to connected borrowers. The Commission notes positively the fact that the HFSF automatically regains voting rights if the Bank does not implement its restructuring plan.

Some of the Bank’s international activities have drained the Bank’s capital and liquidity in the past, as explained in recital 323.

The restructuring plan anticipates that the Bank will continue to re-focus on its domestic market. The Bank has already sold its subsidiary in the United States of America. It has also started to rationalise the other subsidiaries, to strengthen the loan underwriting process and to reduce the subsidiaries’ funding gap. It is planning further rationalisation of its network in the retained subsidiaries, as described in recital 130.

The total amount of foreign assets will therefore shrink in the future. At the end of the restructuring period they will account for a […] part of the Bank’s total balance sheet.

Therefore the Commission believes that the Bank will have sufficiently restructured and reduced those foreign businesses in size to avoid it being exposed to additional capital needs and liquidity shortages in the future. The commitment described in recital 138 to refrain from injecting large amounts of capital into the Bank’s international subsidiaries also contributes to ensuring that foreign subsidiaries will not represent a threat for capital or the liquidity position of the Bank.

The base case scenario as described in section 2.4 shows that at the end of the restructuring period the Bank will be able to realise a return which allows it to cover all its costs and provide an appropriate return on equity taking into account its risk profile. At the same time, the Bank’s capital position is projected to remain at a satisfactory level.

Finally, the Commission takes note of the adverse scenario described in the restructuring plan of the Bank as submitted by the Greek authorities. That adverse scenario is based on a set of assumptions agreed with the HFSF. It takes into account a longer and deeper recession, as well as a more severe deflation of real estate prices. The restructuring plan shows that the Bank is able to withstand a reasonable amount of stress as, in the adverse scenario, the Bank remains profitable and well capitalised at the end of the restructuring period.

In addition, it is positive that the Bank will not make additional investments in non-investment grade paper, which will help to preserve its capital and liquidity position.

It is therefore concluded that the combination of the already implemented restructuring and the additional proposed restructuring are sufficient to restore the Bank’s long-term viability.

The Bank has already divested small foreign businesses (in the United States of America) and deleveraged part of its portfolio in order to enhance both its capital adequacy and its liquidity position. The restructuring plan foresees the deleveraging of its foreign activities, as described in recitals 125 to 129. Considering the deleveraging and the divestments already implemented and following the implementation of the commitments related to the deleveraging and divestments of foreign businesses, the Bank will have significantly reduced its geographical presence in […]. The downsizing of the Bank’s international assets will also significantly reduce the contingent risk that aid will be needed in the future. It therefore helps to reduce the amount of aid to the minimum.

In order to limit its capital needs, the Bank will not use capital to support or expand its foreign subsidiaries, as described in recital 138. In addition, the commitments made by Greece ensure that the Bank will not make costly acquisitions.

The Bank has also engaged in a far-reaching cost reduction programme, as indicated in section 2.4.2. Its costs will further decrease until 2017. Its workforce is being reduced and salaries adjusted downwards. Greece has also committed to limit the remuneration of the Bank’s managers, […].

The Bank’s hybrid and subordinated debt holders have contributed to the restructuring costs of the Bank. The Bank has performed several liability management exercises in order to generate capital, as described in recital 134.

The still outstanding instruments are subject to the coupon ban mentioned in recital 143. Therefore, the Commission considers that an adequate burden-sharing from the Bank’s hybrid and subordinated debt holders is ensured and the requirements of the Restructuring Communication in that respect are met.