Home /  Insights /  Memos and Newsletters /  Memo

    FDIC Proposes Revisions to Insured Depository Institution Resolution Planning Rule and Deposit Insurance Assessments

    Proposals Would Significantly Reduce the Scope and Applicability of the FDIC’s Resolution Plan Requirements and Reduce Deposit Insurance Assessments

    July 7, 2026 | min read |

    Summary

    On June 25, 2026, the FDIC’s Board of Directors approved a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend the FDIC’s insured depository institution (“IDI”) resolution planning rule (the “IDI Plan Rule Proposal”).[1] The FDIC Board also approved a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend the FDIC’s regulations for determining risk-based deposit insurance assessments for IDIs and insured branches of foreign banks, including by introducing a “resolution readiness adjustment” for large banks (the “Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal”).[2]

    • IDI Plan Rule Proposal: The proposal, which follows the FDIC’s issuance of waivers from some requirements of the IDI Plan Rule in 2025, would narrow the applicability and scope of the IDI Plan Rule. All IDIs with more than $100 billion in total assets would be required to prepare a resolution submission every three years (currently IDIs affiliated with U.S. GSIBs must submit a plan every other year), and the current requirement to provide interim supplements in the off years would be eliminated. IDIs with between $50 and $100 billion in total assets (which currently submit more limited “informational filings”) would be removed from the scope of the IDI Plan rule altogether, and the $100 billion threshold would be indexed to inflation going forward. The content required in submissions would be revised and many currently required sections would be removed, with the stated goal of focusing on basic structural and operational information the FDIC would need in order to carry out the marketing and resolution of a covered IDI (“CIDI”).
    • Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal: The deposit insurance assessments that IDIs pay to fund the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) are based on a risk-based assessment schedule, with different schedules and methodologies applied for IDIs categorized as “small” (less than $10 billion in assets), “large” ($10 billion or more in assets), and “highly complex” (banks with $50 billion or more in assets that are subsidiaries of a holding company with $500 billion or more in consolidated assets, or that are processing banks or trust companies). The proposal would increase the threshold for classification as a large IDI from $10 billion to $30 billion, resulting in 76 IDIs being reclassified from large to small. The proposal would also index the $30 billion threshold (but not the thresholds for classification as a highly complex IDI) to inflation going forward. In addition, the proposal would reduce initial base assessment rates by two basis points for small IDIs and by one basis point for large or highly complex IDIs, while up to an additional one basis point would be available to large or highly complex IDIs through the proposed resolution readiness adjustment (“RRA”). Under the RRA, an assessment reduction of 0.5 basis points would be available to any large or highly complex IDI that successfully participates in a test of its ability to populate a virtual data room (“VDR”) and a further 0.5 basis point reduction would be available to IDIs that agree to provide the FDIC temporary access to certain data and systems that the FDIC has indicated would be useful to it in marketing or managing a bank in receivership.

    IDI Plan Rule Proposal

    Background

    The FDIC’s IDI Plan Rule was first adopted in 2012 and was last updated in 2024.[3] In 2025, the FDIC issued content waivers for resolution plan submissions for the initial submission cycle under the revised rule, amended the 2026 resolution plan filing schedule (exempting certain IDIs from filing altogether), and signaled its intent to implement more permanent changes to the IDI Plan Rule via rulemaking.[4]

    Current IDI Plan Rule Framework

    Under the current rule, IDIs with $50 billion or more in total assets are CIDIs subject to the rule’s requirements. CIDIs with $100 billion or more in total assets (“Group A CIDIs”) are required to periodically submit a “resolution plan” to the FDIC, while CIDIs with at least $50 billion but less than $100 billion in total assets (“Group B CIDIs”) are required to periodically submit a more limited “informational filing,” which consists of a subset of the informational content required in a resolution plan. Except for the IDI subsidiaries of the eight U.S. GSIBs, CIDIs are required to submit full resolution submissions (resolution plans or informational filings) every three years, with more abbreviated filings (“interim supplements”) required in the off years.[5] The IDI subsidiaries of U.S. GSIBs are required to submit full IDI resolution plans every other year, alternating with the submission by their parent holding companies of resolution plans under section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act.[6]

    IDI Plan Rule Proposal

    Proposed Changes

    The FDIC’s proposal would substantially revise the IDI Plan Rule’s applicability and content. Among other changes, the proposal would:

    • Raise the asset threshold for applicability of the rule from $50 billion to $100 billion, with indexing for future inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (“CPI-W”).
    • Move all CIDIs to a three-year cycle for filing resolution submissions and obtain information on material changes relevant to the FDIC’s resolution planning by adopting a revised “notice of extraordinary event” process, rather than by requiring interim supplements. Because holding company-level resolution plans under section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act are required to be filed by the U.S. GSIBs on a two-year cycle, once every six years IDI subsidiaries of U.S. GSIBs would be required to prepare an IDI submission in the same year their parent submits a section 165(d) plan.
    • Eliminate the public section requirement of the current IDI Plan Rule.
    • Eliminate the requirement that a CIDI’s resolution submissions be approved by the CIDI’s board of directors.
    • Amend the content requirements for submissions, with the stated goal of focusing on basic structural and operational information that would be of relevance to the FDIC in carrying out the marketing and resolution of a CIDI. Changes would include removing discussion of hypothetical and strategic analyses (such as development of a strategy, valuation analysis, and adoption of a failure scenario) and certain requirements for discussion of a CIDI’s policies and procedures. The revised terminology for the submissions, which would be called “resolution submissions” instead of “resolution plans,” reflects the removal of these content requirements.
    • Eliminate capabilities testing. Although capabilities testing would no longer be included in the IDI Plan rule, as discussed below the separate Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal would introduce an optional test of an IDI’s ability to populate a VDR as part of the proposed RRA.
    • Eliminate credibility determinations and amend the approach to feedback. In particular, the FDIC would no longer evaluate a plan’s credibility or issue findings in connection with its evaluation of a plan. Instead, the FDIC would evaluate submissions for whether they meet the applicable requirements of the section in all material respects. The amended rule would no longer provide the FDIC with the option to require resubmission of a CIDI’s submission or remedial actions in response to findings; rather, the notice of proposed rulemaking (but not the proposed rule text itself) states that the FDIC anticipates a “simpler approach to feedback” and that it “would expect to communicate timely feedback to CIDIs on the submissions and would identify the aspects of the submission that do not meet requirements in all material respects.”
    • Revise certain content requirements to obtain information that the FDIC has determined is most pertinent on interconnections between CIDIs and their affiliates, material loan portfolios (narrower than the current concept of material asset portfolios), and digital services and products.
    • Add new aspects to certain content requirements to enhance the FDIC’s ability to plan and execute a resolution, including information to better understand a CIDI’s organization, a mapping of information technology architecture and information on processing cut-off times for deposits and loan operations, certain deposit information important for resolution execution, and certain information on qualified financial contracts (“QFCs”).

    The FDIC’s proposed changes are discussed in greater detail and compared to the current IDI Plan rule in the Annex to this memorandum. In addition, a redline of the Proposal’s revised regulatory text against the current IDI Plan Rule is available at the following link: /SullivanCromwell/_Assets/PDFs/Memos/Redline-current-regulation-360.10-and-resolution-planning-rule-text.pdf.

    Transition

    The FDIC proposes to implement a transition period such that initial submissions under the final rule would be due no earlier than 270 days after the final rule’s effective date.

    In addition, the FDIC Board voted to exempt certain IDIs from the current IDI Plan Rule’s requirements in 2026 and 2027, in light of the ongoing rulemaking process. In particular, Group B CIDIs that are scheduled to file informational filings or interim supplements due on or before October 1, 2026 and any IDIs that become CIDIs before the effective date of a final rule will be exempt from the 2026 filing requirements, consistent with the FDIC’s plans to amend the IDI Plan Rule submission schedule that were announced in late 2025. In addition, the FDIC Board also voted to exempt all CIDIs from the 2027 filing requirements.

    Request for Comments

    Comments on the IDI Plan Rule Proposal are due on August 31, 2026.

    Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal

    Background

    The FDIC funds the DIF via assessments imposed on IDIs. The FDIC statutory minimum reserve ratio for the DIF (the ratio of the DIF balance to estimated insured deposits) is 1.35 percent; if the reserve ratio falls below the minimum, the FDIC Board must adopt a restoration plan to restore the ratio to at least 1.35 percent within eight years. Because of an increase in insured deposits during the COVID-19 pandemic, the reserve ratio fell below the statutory minimum in the second quarter of 2020 and the FDIC adopted a restoration plan requiring that the ratio be restored to the minimum by September 2028.[7]

    As part of the restoration plan, the FDIC increased deposit assessment rates to current levels, effective January 1, 2023.[8] In addition, following the FDIC’s invocation of the systemic risk exception to the least-cost resolution test in connection with the 2023 failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the FDIC imposed a special assessment on IDIs to recover the losses attributable to the systemic risk exception. The special assessment was paid over eight quarters, with the last payment due March 30, 2026.[9] As a result of the increased standard assessment rates and the full collection of the special assessment, the DIF balance has increased significantly since 2023, and the reserve ratio has been above the statutory minimum since the second quarter of 2025 and stands at 1.43 percent as of the first quarter of 2026, the highest level in at least 20 years.[10]

    Current Deposit Insurance Assessment Framework

    As required under section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDI Act”), the FDIC has implemented a risk-based assessment system for calculating and charging all IDIs quarterly deposit insurance assessments. Under the FDI Act, in setting risk-based assessments, the FDIC must take into consideration (1) the estimated operating expenses of the DIF; (2) the estimated case resolution expenses and income of the DIF; (3) the projected effects of the payment of assessments on the capital and earnings of IDIs; (4) the risk factors and other factors taken into account under the risk-based assessment system, including the probability that the DIF will incur a loss with respect to an institution and the likely amount of any such loss; and (5) any other factors that the FDIC Board may determine to be appropriate.[11]

    An IDI’s deposit insurance assessment is equal to its assessment base multiplied by its risk-based assessment rate. In general, an IDI’s assessment base equals its average consolidated total assets minus its average tangible equity. An IDI’s risk-based assessment rate is determined on a quarterly basis, based on supervisory ratings and information collected in the Call Report (or equivalent report for branches and agencies of foreign banks).

    The FDIC has established separate risk-based assessment systems and calculation methodologies for small, large, and highly complex institutions:

    • IDIs with total assets of less than $10 billion are considered “small institutions.” Assessment rates of small institutions are calculated based on seven financial ratios and a weighted average of supervisory CAMELS rating components that, according to the FDIC, are statistically significant in predicting the probability of an institution’s failure over a three-year horizon.
    • IDIs with total assets of $10 billion or more that are not highly complex institutions are “large institutions.”
    • IDIs with $50 billion or more in total assets that are controlled by a parent company with $500 billion or more in total assets (as well as processing banks) are “highly complex institutions.” Assessment rates for large institutions and highly complex institutions are calculated using a scorecard approach based on CAMELS component ratings and certain forward-looking financial measures to assess the risk that the institution poses to the DIF, with different scorecards used for the two categories. The FDIC may also adjust a large or highly complex institution’s score to consider risk factors not otherwise reflected in the scorecard.

    Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal

    The FDIC proposes several changes to its assessment system, which would collectively result in a general reduction in assessment rates:

    • The FDIC would increase the threshold for distinguishing between large and small institutions from $10 billion to $30 billion, and would index the threshold to CPI-W inflation going forward.[12] The FDIC assesses that this change would result in 76 institutions shifting from the large IDI assessment methodology to the small IDI methodology, reducing aggregate annual assessments by approximately $129 million for this group.[13] Although the FDIC estimates that aggregate assessments would decrease for this group, it is possible that some IDIs would receive a higher assessment rate under the small institution methodology than the large institution methodology.[14] To mitigate potential cliff effects, IDIs with between $10 and $30 billion in assets as of the effective date of any final rule would be permitted to make a one-time election to continue to be assessed as a large institution for a period of eight quarters after the final rule, but the FDIC would remove the ability that exists under current regulations for small institutions to request to be assessed as large institutions on an ongoing basis.
    • For small institutions, initial base deposit insurance assessment rate schedules would be reduced uniformly by two basis points, restoring the pre-2023 assessment rate schedule for this group. The FDIC estimates that this reduction (applied to the expanded group of small institutions) would reduce annual assessments by approximately $917 million (7.5 percent of total annual assessments industry-wide).
    • For large and highly complex institutions, the proposal would provide a uniform reduction to base deposit insurance assessment rate schedules of one basis point.
    • Up to an additional one-basis-point reduction would be available through the new proposed RRA, which would only be available to large or highly complex institutions. The range of potential assessment rates for a large or highly complex institution receiving the full one-basis-point RRA would be the same as under the pre-2023 assessment schedule. If all large or highly complex institutions were to receive the full one-basis-point RRA reduction, the FDIC estimates that the combination of the RRA and the one-basis-point uniform base reduction would reduce annual assessments by approximately $3.4 billion (27.8 percent of total annual assessments industry-wide).
    • There would be two components to the RRA, both voluntary.
      • First, an IDI could receive a 0.5-basis-point reduction for passing a VDR test by demonstrating an ability to populate a VDR within 48 hours with specified categories of documents, data, and information that would enable a potential bidder to conduct adequate due diligence to inform a potential bid.[15] This voluntary VDR testing would partially replace the capabilities testing that would be eliminated from the IDI Plan Rule. The VDR test would be repeated every three years and IDIs subject to the test would receive notice of the test at least four weeks in advance of the 48-hour exercise. An IDI would need to provide all of the requested information to receive the reduction; no partial credit would be available. The reduction also would not take effect until all IDIs that initially opt in have completed testing, which the FDIC notes could take up to a year from the effective date of any final rule.
      • Second, an IDI could receive a 0.5-basis-point reduction for agreeing to facilitate temporary access by the FDIC to a wide array of the IDI’s data, including the IDI’s general ledger and core data regarding deposits and loans. The purpose of this temporary access would be “to allow the FDIC to engage with service provider(s) and/or institution personnel to build out internal FDIC infrastructure to enable the FDIC to receive and process necessary data in the event of an institution’s rapid failure.”[16] The FDIC anticipates that it will take four years for the FDIC to complete the initial data-access engagement with the full set of IDIs that opt in and that follow-up engagements with participating IDIs would be conducted every seven years. Unlike the VDR testing reduction, the data-access reduction would be available to IDIs immediately, beginning with the first quarterly assessment period after they elect to participate, although IDIs would be liable to reimburse the FDIC if they were to opt in and fail to follow through on providing the requested access.

    Request for Comments

    Comments on the Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal are due on August 31, 2026.

    Implications and Next Steps

    • The IDI Plan Rule Proposal and the RRA component of the Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal are the latest in a series of steps the FDIC has taken to promote a timely and competitive auction process for failed banks while reducing unnecessary burden on banks subject to the IDI Plan Rule.[17] In a speech on June 9 in which he previewed the proposals, FDIC Chairman Travis Hill indicated that the FDIC is considering further changes, including refining the data that banks are required to maintain regarding insured and uninsured deposits and QFCs, increasing the FDIC’s flexibility in hiring financial advisors to advise on the marketing and sale of failed institutions, and continuing to expand nonbank participation in the failed bank bidding process.[18]
    • Critics of the current IDI Plan Rule have argued that the FDIC lacked clear statutory authority to promulgate it. These critics have notably included Comptroller of the Currency (and FDIC Board member) Jonathan Gould, who questioned the legal and conceptual underpinning of the IDI Plan Rule in a January speech, drawing particular attention to components of IDI plans that could be seen as outsourcing the FDIC’s obligation to prepare to execute its responsibilities as the receiver of failed banks to the banks themselves.[19] Although the IDI Plan Proposal includes no new elaboration on the legal authority for the IDI Plan Rule, the changes it would make, including eliminating mandates that an IDI produce hypothetical information about how resolution scenarios would proceed and replacing the mandatory capabilities testing with an optional test via the FDIC’s assessment authority, appear to be influenced by an objective to place the IDI Plan Rule and the FDIC’s evaluation of VDR capabilities on firmer legal footing.
    • In the Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal, the FDIC does not address in detail how the data-access component of the RRA would work in practice and how the FDIC would use the systems access it would obtain. The proposal also does not discuss potential cybersecurity or data privacy risks posed by either the proposed VDR testing or the data-access arrangement or how they would be mitigated.[20]

    Annex

    Comparison of Current IDI Rule with IDI Plan Rule Proposal

    Topic

    Current IDI Plan Rule

    IDI Plan Rule Proposal

    Structural and Administrative Requirements

    CIDIs

    Rule applies to IDIs with $50 billion or more in total assets.

    IDIs with $100 billion or more in total assets are “Group A” CIDIs.

    IDIs with at least $50 billion but less than $100 billion in assets are “Group B” CIDIs.

    Rule would apply to IDIs with $100 billion or more in total assets initially; threshold would be indexed to inflation (measured as non-seasonally adjusted CPI-W) and adjusted every three years, with the first adjustment in 2030.

    Types of Filings

    Group A IDIs are required to file full “resolution plans” and, in off years, “interim supplements,” with more limited content requirements.

    Group B IDIs are required to file shorter “informational filings” and, in off years, “interim supplements.”

    Regular filings would be “resolution submissions.” Interim supplements would be eliminated.

    Frequency of Submissions

    All CIDIs other than Group A CIDIs affiliated with U.S. GSIBs are required to submit full resolution plans or informational filings every three years, with shorter interim supplements in the off years. Group A CIDIs affiliated with U.S. GSIBs are required to file resolution plans every other year, alternating with the year in which their U.S. GSIB parents are required to file a Dodd-Frank Act Section 165(d) resolution plan (which takes the place of the interim supplement for purposes of the IDI Plan Rule).

    All CIDIs would make resolution submissions every three years, without a requirement for interim supplements/other interim submissions (beyond material change notices).

    Material Changes

    CIDIs are required to provide the FDIC with a notice of any extraordinary event (i.e., material merger, acquisition, or disposition of assets, or similar transaction or fundamental change to the CIDI’s organizational structure, core business lines, size, or complexity). The notice is required to describe the extraordinary event, explain how it impacts the resolvability of the CIDI, and address any material changes resulting from the extraordinary event in its next full submission or interim supplement.

    CIDIs would be required to provide a notice of any extraordinary event to the FDIC (i.e., material merger, acquisition, or disposition of assets, or similar transaction or fundamental change to the CIDI’s organizational structure, core business lines, size, or complexity). The notice would be required to describe any material change resulting from or reasonably anticipated as a result of the extraordinary event. CIDIs would no longer be required to explain how the event impacts the “resolvability” of the IDI.

    Review of resolution submissions

    Submissions evaluated under a two-prong “credibility standard” framework, in which submissions could be deemed not credible (1) based on flaws in the identified resolution strategy (for Group A CIDIs only) or (2) if the information and analysis in the submission are not supported with observable and verifiable capabilities and data and reasonable projections or fall short of the requirements of the rule.

    If the FDIC determines that a CIDI’s full resolution submission is not credible, then it may require resubmission.

    The FDIC may also issue “significant findings” relating to weaknesses or gaps that raise questions about credibility but do not rise to the level of a “material weakness,” which the CIDIs must address in their next submission to avoid those items then being considered material weaknesses. The FDIC may also require a CIDI to resolve findings outside of the ordinary resolution submission timeline.

    The FDIC announced via FAQ in April 2025 that it expected to focus its review on the quality and thoroughness of the submission, rather than a comprehensive verification of capabilities or evaluation of projections. It noted that a submission responsive to each of the content requirements would be unlikely to result in material weaknesses or significant findings. The FDIC also noted that it would not affirmatively make a positive credibility determination in its findings; rather, the FDIC indicated that it would only make negative “not credible” determinations, when warranted by the circumstances.

    The regulation would provide that the FDIC will review the resolution submission to determine whether it meets the applicable requirements of the rule in all material respects.

     

    Engagement

    CIDIs are required to provide the FDIC such information and access to such personnel as the FDIC determines is relevant.

    The regulation would provide that the FDIC may ask clarifying questions of a CIDI with regard to the information contained within its resolution submission.

    Capabilities testing

    The FDIC may, at its discretion, require any CIDI to demonstrate the capabilities described in its resolution plan.

    In December 2025, the FDIC announced that it would conduct capabilities testing regarding CIDIs’ capabilities to populate certain information to the FDIC’s VDR in 2026.

    The FDIC would no longer have the authority to require capabilities testing.

    No limiting effect on FDIC

    The current rule provides that submissions provided under the rule will not be binding on the FDIC as supervisor, deposit insurer, or receiver or otherwise require the FDIC to act in conformance with the submission.

    No substantive change.

    Financial information

    CIDIs are required to use, to the greatest extent possible, financial information as of the most recent year-end or any more recent date.

    The requirement to use the most recent data available to the greatest extent possible would be retained, with certain adjustments to wording. The revised rule would also permit a CIDI to use financial data as of the quarter immediately preceding year-end if the resolution submission is due within six months of the most recent year-end.

    Index

    CIDIs must include an index in their submission mapping the content requirements of the rule to the instances in which they are addressed in the full submission.

    The index requirement would be retained, with conforming edits to reflect other changes to the rule. In addition, CIDIs would be required to note whether any content requirement is not applicable to them and describe the reason.

    Form of full resolution submissions and confidential treatment of full resolution submissions and interim supplements

    Full resolution submissions are required to be divided into a public section and a confidential section. The public section is required to include certain information regarding the business of the CIDI.

    The requirement to include a public section in the submission would be eliminated.

    Approval by board of directors

    Submissions generally would be required to be approved by a CIDI’s board of directors.

    The board-level approval requirement would be eliminated.

    Content Requirements

    Identified strategy

    Group A only: CIDIs must include an identified strategy for their resolution in the event of failure. Use of a bridge bank strategy is required unless a CIDI can justify an alternative approach.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement to use a bridge bank strategy.

    Requirement to include an identified strategy would be eliminated.

    Failure scenario

    Group A only: CIDIs must use a failure scenario that demonstrates that a CIDI is experiencing material financial distress to ground assumptions of the identified strategy.

    The FDIC may provide a CIDI additional or alternative parameters for the failure scenario.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the failure scenario content requirement.

    Requirement to include a failure scenario would be eliminated.

    Executive summary

    Group A only: CIDIs’ resolution plans must include an executive summary with (1) a description of the key elements of the identified strategy, (2) an overview of a CIDI’s core business lines and franchise components, (3) a description of each material change since the prior resolution plan addressing the changed element (or affirmation that no such material change has occurred), (4) a discussion of the changes to the CIDI’s previously submitted resolution plan, and (5) a discussion of any actions taken by the CIDI since submission of its prior resolution plan to further develop the CIDI’s resolution plan.

    The executive summary requirement would be eliminated but, as noted above and below, CIDIs would be required to describe material changes since their prior resolution submission in other parts of the submission and in notices to the FDIC between submissions.

    Organizational structure: legal entities; core business lines; and branches

    Group A and B: CIDIs are required to provide information on their legal and functional structures, as well as those of their parents and their parents’ affiliates. The required discussion must include information on each of a CIDI’s core business lines and dependencies on parent company operations for those business lines; a mapping of franchise components to core business lines and franchise components and core business lines to material entities and regulated subsidiaries; a description of the CIDI’s branch organization; a listing of all CIDI subsidiaries that are regulated subsidiaries (e.g., broker-dealer, investment adviser); and information on a CIDI’s cross-border operations.

    Organizational structure reporting would be retained for all CIDIs, with amendments to the required content. CIDIs would be required to provide information on their legal and functional structures, as well as those of their affiliates, and to provide an organizational chart depicting their legal entity structures. They would also be required to provide information on their operations outside the United States; identify and describe each of their core business lines and provide the assets, annual revenue, and dependencies on affiliate operations for each business line; provide a mapping of core business lines to material entities; provide a listing of all other CIDI offices or agencies not otherwise noted with operations located outside the United States that contribute financially or operationally to the CIDI and identification of all authorities with regulatory or supervisory authorities over these operations; and provide a listing of all the CIDI’s non-controlling ownership interests in limited liability companies, investments in partnerships, and involvement in joint ventures and other similar arrangements.

    Methodology for material entity designation

    Group A and B: CIDIs must describe their methodology for identifying “material entities” (i.e., a company, a domestic branch, or a foreign branch that is significant to a CIDI). The methodology must be appropriate to the nature, size, complexity, and scope of a CIDI’s operations.

    This requirement to describe the methodology for identifying material entities would be eliminated, though CIDIs would still be required to identify material entities.

    Separation from parent; potential barriers or material obstacles to orderly resolution

    Group A and B: CIDIs must address their ability to operate separately from a parent entity, including the actions necessary to separate the CIDI and its subsidiaries from its parent entity.

    This requirement would be replaced by a new “Interconnections” section describing a CIDI’s reliance in its day-to-day operations on its affiliates and a description of any services provided by a broker-dealer affiliate.

    Deposit activities

    Group A and B: CIDIs must describe the CIDI’s deposit activities, including information on insured and uninsured deposits and particular deposit concentrations or other aspects of the deposit base or underlying systems that may create operational complexity for the FDIC; information on foreign deposits; information on deposit sweep arrangements; and key (i.e., material) depositors.

    CIDIs would still have to report on deposit activities, with revisions to the required information. CIDIs would be required to provide an overall description of the deposit activities, including a list of deposit products, and the source of the deposits and the manner in which they are identified in the CIDIs’ systems and records; information on deposit sweep arrangements (with different required details versus the current rule); and information on foreign branches and deposits held at those branches.

    Critical services

    Group A and B: CIDIs must be able to demonstrate capabilities necessary to ensure continuity of critical services in resolution, including by identifying and describing critical services, including affiliate services; describing process for identifying and monitoring critical services; mapping critical services support to relevant legal entities, core business lines, and franchise components; identifying the physical locations and jurisdictions of each provider of critical services; and identifying and discussing critical services that may be at risk of interruption in the event of a CIDI’s failure.

    CIDIs would still be required to identify and describe a CIDI’s critical services, including by providing names of the providers and identifying affiliate services; map critical services support to legal entities and core business lines (but not franchise components); and identify the physical locations and jurisdictions of each provider of critical services. They would also be required to provide specific information on payment, clearing, and settlement service providers. Instead of identifying critical services that may be at risk of interruption in general, CIDIs would be required only to identify contracts for critical services that purport to permit the service provider to stop providing services, alter pricing, or alter terms of service upon the insolvency of the CIDI or the FDIC being appointed receiver of the CIDI.

    Key personnel

    Group A and B: CIDIs must identify key personnel, describe their approach for identifying key personnel, recommend an approach for retaining key personnel during the CIDI’s resolution, and identify all employee benefit programs provided to key personnel.

    The requirement to report information on key personnel would be retained but CIDIs would no longer be required to describe their methodology for identifying key personnel or to recommend an approach for retaining key personnel. CIDIs would be newly required to identify whether key personnel are dual-hatted and any CIDI-sponsored work authorizations, as well as to identify key personnel who are responsible for their crisis communications and describe key communication channels used across key stakeholder categories.

    Franchise components

    Group A and B: CIDIs must be able to demonstrate the capabilities necessary to ensure franchise components (defined as a business segment, regional branch network, major asset or asset pool, or other key component of the CIDI that can be separated and sold or divested) and the IDI franchise are marketable in resolution, including by identifying franchise components that are currently separable and marketable and providing information about them. In addition, CIDIs are required to identify services provided by any broker-dealer subsidiary or affiliate of a CIDI and describe their capabilities and processes to promptly establish a VDR to carry out the sale of the IDI franchise and any franchise components.

    Group A only: Group A CIDIs must provide information relating to marketing process and capabilities, key assumptions underpinning each divestiture, and obstacles to execution.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement to discuss franchise components for Group B CIDIs in their informational filings. The FDIC also waived certain parts of the franchise component content requirement for both Group A and Group B CIDIs in their interim supplements.

    The franchise component concept and related requirements would be eliminated.

    Material asset / loan portfolios

    Group A and B: CIDIs must identify each material asset portfolio by size, and by category and classes of assets within such material asset portfolio, and include a breakdown of those assets that are held by a foreign branch or regulated subsidiary. CIDIs must discuss how the portfolios are maintained on the books and records of the CIDI and identify and discuss impediments to the sale of each material asset portfolio and provide a timeline for such sale.

    CIDIs would be required to identify and discuss only material loan portfolios, rather than all types of material asset portfolios. CIDIs would no longer be required to discuss how the portfolios are maintained on the books and records of the CIDI or impediments to the sale of each portfolio or provide a timeline for such sale.

    Valuation to facilitate FDIC’s assessment of least costly resolution method

    Group A only: CIDIs must be able to demonstrate the capabilities necessary to produce valuations needed by the FDIC in assessing that the resolution is the “least costly” to the Deposit Insurance Fund. A resolution plan must include detailed descriptions of the approaches the CIDI would employ for determining the values of franchise components, among other items, and must include a quantitative analysis based on the failure scenario.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived certain requirements related to the valuation requirement, including the requirements for CIDIs to provide a valuation of the IDI franchise.

    The valuation requirement would be deleted.

    Off-balance-sheet exposures

    Group A and B: CIDIs must describe any material off-balance-sheet exposures and map those exposures to core business lines, franchise components, and material asset portfolios.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement for Group A and Group B CIDIs to provide information on off-balance-sheet exposures in their interim supplements.

    The requirement would be amended to require identification, rather than description, of off-balance-sheet exposures and the required mapping would only be to core business lines (not franchise components or material asset portfolios).

    QFCs

    Group A and B: CIDIs must describe the types of QFC transactions they are involved in, how the CIDI offsets risk from such transactions, and identify customers that are significant counterparties to these transactions. CIDIs are also required to describe the booking models they and their subsidiaries use for risk from derivative transactions. CIDIs also must describe how they use QFCs to manage hedging or liquidity needs and provide information on their hedges.

    CIDIs would be required to identify and describe the types of QFCs to which they or their subsidiaries are a party and how the QFCs are used in the provision of services to customers or in the management of risk, including how the CIDI and its subsidiaries offset position risks from such contracts. CIDIs would be required to describe the types of QFCs used by each core business line and the business purpose or risk management purpose of such QFCs; identify whether the CIDI or any of its subsidiaries enter into QFCs that are related to loans to customers made by any affiliate of the CIDI (other than a subsidiary) and, if so, the types of such QFCs; identify the types of counterparties with which they and their subsidiaries have QFCs; identify the booking models that they and their subsidiaries use to support the marketing and management of risk from QFCs; describe how they and their subsidiaries use QFCs to manage hedging or liquidity needs; and provide information on the systems and third-party providers that they and their subsidiaries use for valuation, reporting, and any other purposes.

    Unconsolidated balance sheet

    Group A and B: CIDIs must provide an unconsolidated balance sheet for themselves and a consolidating schedule for all material entities and regulated subsidiaries that are subject to consolidation with the CIDI.

    The requirement to provide an unconsolidated balance sheet would remain but the consolidating schedule would be limited to material entities only, and no longer include regulated subsidiaries.

    Payment, clearing, and settlement (“PCS”)

    Group A and B: CIDIs must identify and provide information relating to each provider of PCS services, and agent banks, and other financial market utilities, of which the CIDI directly is a member or has a direct relationship that is a critical service or a critical service support. CIDIs must provide a mapping of those PCS service providers to the CIDI’s legal entities, describe the services provided by the PCS service providers, and describe their own role as a PCS service provider that is material to any franchise component or core business line.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement for Group A and Group B CIDIs to provide information on PCS services in their interim supplements.

    The requirement to provide information on PCS services would be retained but incorporated into the critical services requirement. CIDIs would be required to provide information for each PCS service provider of which they are a direct member or with which they have a direct relationship that provides a critical service or critical services support, including a description of the PCS services provided and a mapping of the PCS service providers to the CIDI’s legal entities and core business lines that hold a direct membership, have a direct relationship, or receive such PCS services.

    Capital structure; funding sources / composition of non-deposit liabilities and funding sources

    Group A and B: CIDIs must describe processes relating to the funding, liquidity, and capital needs of material CIDI subsidiaries and foreign branches, including a projection of funding and liquidity needs; the composition of the CIDI’s liabilities; and material funding relationships between the CIDI and CIDI subsidiaries and foreign branches.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement for Group A and Group B CIDIs to provide information on capital structure and funding sources in their interim supplements.

    Only the requirement to identify the composition of liabilities would be retained (and only for non-deposit liabilities).

    Parent and parent company affiliate funding, transactions, accounts, exposures, and concentrations

    Group A and B: CIDIs must identify material affiliate funding relationships and material inter-affiliate exposures, including the nature and extent of material inter-affiliate exposures and funding from any parent entity.

    Requirement would be merged with section on composition of non-deposit liabilities and funding sources. CIDIs would be required to identify material affiliate funding relationships and material inter-affiliate exposures, as well as with CIDI subsidiaries or foreign branches that are material entities. CIDIs would also be required to identify and provide information on any capital maintenance agreements and any similar arrangements that the CIDI or any CIDI subsidiary has with an affiliate.

    Economic effects of resolution

    Group A and B: CIDIs must identify any of their activities that provide a service or function that is material (i) to a geographic area or region of the United States; (ii) to a business sector or product line in that geographic area or region, or nationally; or (iii) to other financial institutions. CIDIs must discuss mitigants to the impact of the termination of material services or functions.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement to discuss mitigants.

    The requirement to discuss economic effects of resolution would be deleted.

    Non-deposit claims

    Group A and B: CIDIs must identify and describe their systems and processes used to identify unsecured creditors of the CIDI that are not depositors, as well as those of CIDI subsidiaries that are material entities.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived this content requirement.

    The requirement to discuss non-deposit claims would be deleted, though non-deposit liabilities would be addressed separately through the section on non-deposit liabilities and funding sources.

    Cross-border elements

    Group A and B: CIDIs must describe all components of their parent company’s and parent company affiliates’ operations that are based or located outside the United States, and that contribute to the value, revenues, or operations of the CIDI and identify all authorities with regulatory or supervisory authority over those operations.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement for Group A and Group B CIDIs to provide information on cross-border elements in their interim supplements.

    This requirement would be substantially retained but merged into organizational structure section (see above).

    Management information systems; software licenses; intellectual property

    Group A and B: CIDIs must provide a detailed inventory and description of key management information systems and applications that the CIDIs and their subsidiaries use for risk management, accounting, and financial regulatory reporting, as well as those used to provide the information required in the resolution submission. CIDIs must provide information on how these systems and applications are used, identify core business lines that use them, and identify any related third-party contracts, service-level agreements, licenses, or intellectual property. For any key management information system or application for which they are not the owner or licensor, CIDIs must also describe obstacles and approaches to maintaining access to key systems and capabilities to collect, maintain, and produce the information in the event of resolution. CIDIs must also describe their capabilities to collect, maintain, and produce information and other data underlying the full resolution submission, as well as describe any deficiencies, gaps, or weaknesses in their capabilities and how they will address those issues.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement for Group A and Group B CIDIs to provide information on management information systems, software licenses, and intellectual property in their interim supplements.

    CIDIs would be required to provide a mapping of their information technology architecture; a detailed inventory and description of the key management information systems and applications, including the core processors for deposit and loan data, systems, and applications; a listing of the legal owner, any licensor, key personnel, use and function, any core business lines that use the system, physical location (if any), related third-party contracts or service-level agreements, related licenses, and intellectual property for each key management information system identified; and the end-of-day processing cut-off times for deposit and loan operations.

    Digital services and electronic platforms / digital services and products

    Group A and B: CIDIs are required to describe all digital services and electronic platforms offered to customers; state whether the provider is the CIDI, a CIDI subsidiary or affiliate, or a third party and which party owns the related intellectual property licenses; and discuss how these services or platforms are significant to the operations or customer relationships of the CIDI.

    CIDIs would be required to describe any novel or emerging digital services and products currently offered to retail or business customers through online, mobile, or digital channels; state whether the provider is the CIDI, a CIDI subsidiary or affiliate, or a third party and which party owns the related intellectual property licenses; for digital services and products provided by a third party, identify the provider and its role in the arrangement; and, for each digital service and product, identify the system on which the CIDI maintains customer records.

    Communications playbook

    Group A and B: CIDIs must include a communications playbook that describes their current communication capabilities and how they may be used during their resolution.

    The requirement to provide a communications playbook would be eliminated, but CIDIs would be required to identify key personnel responsible for crisis communications and to describe key communications channels as part of the key personnel requirement (described above).

    Corporate governance

    Group A and B: CIDIs must include a detailed description of how resolution planning is integrated into their corporate governance structure and processes; their policies, procedures, and internal controls governing preparation and approval of the full resolution submission; and the identity and position of their senior management official responsible and accountable for their resolution submissions.

    In April 2025, the FDIC waived the requirement to discuss the identity and position of the senior management official accountable for resolution submissions for Group B CIDIs in their informational filings.

    The requirement to provide corporate governance information would be eliminated.

    CIDI’s assessment of resolution plan

    Group A and B: CIDIs must describe the nature, extent, and results of any contingency planning or similar exercise they have conducted since the date of their most recently filed resolution plan to assess the viability of the identified strategy (if required) or improve any capabilities described in the resolution plan.

    The requirement to provide an assessment of the resolution plan and information on contingency planning exercises would be eliminated.

    Any other material factor

    Group A and B: CIDIs must identify and discuss any other material factor that may impede the resolution of the CIDI.

    The requirement to provide material factors that may impede resolution would be eliminated.

    Summary of other updates since prior submission

    Not included in current rule.

    CIDIs would be required to describe each material change since the prior resolution submission that has not already been addressed in a notice of extraordinary event and describe the changes to their previously submitted resolution plan resulting from any change in law, regulation, or guidance.

    [1] Press Release, FDIC, FDIC Board Approves Proposal to Amend Resolution Submissions by Covered Insured Depository Institutions (June 25, 2026), https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2026/fdic-board-approves-proposal-amend-resolution-submissions-covered-insured. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on June 30. FDIC, Resolution Submissions Required for Covered Insured Depository Institutions, 91 Fed. Reg. 39546 (June 30, 2026).

    [2] Press Release, FDIC, FDIC Board Approves Proposal to Revise Deposit Insurance Assessment Thresholds, Rate Schedules, and Adjustments (June 25, 2026), https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2026/fdic-board-approves-proposal-revise-deposit-insurance-assessment; FDIC, Assessments Thresholds, Rate Schedules, and Adjustments, 91 Fed. Reg. 39794 (June 30, 2026).

    [3] FDIC, Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions With $100 Billion or More in Total Assets; Informational Filings Required for Insured Depository Institutions With at Least $50 Billion but Less Than $100 Billion in Total Assets, 89 Fed. Reg. 56620 (July 9, 2024). For discussion of the 2024 revisions to the IDI Plan Rule, see S&C Memo, FDIC Finalizes Revisions to Insured Depository Institution Resolution Planning Rule (June 26, 2024).

    [4] For more information on these actions, see S&C Memo, FDIC Modifies Approach to Insured Depository Institution Resolution Planning, Issues Updated FAQs on IDI Rule (May 2, 2025), /SullivanCromwell/_Assets/PDFs/Memos/FDIC-Issues-Updated-FAQs-Resolution-Plan-Rule-Insured-Depository-Institutions.pdf; S&C Memo, Acting FDIC Chairman Previews Changes to Resolution Planning and Execution: Acting FDIC Chairman Hill Offers Lessons Learned from 2023 Bank Failures and Discusses Potential Streamlining of Resolution Plan Requirements and Improvements to Failed Bank Receivership Process (Oct. 27, 2025), /insights/memo/2025/October/Acting-FDIC-Chairman-Previews-Changes-Resolution-Planning-Execution; S&C Memo, FDIC Provides Update on Resolution Planning for Large Banks and New Transparency on Failed Bank Sale Process (Jan. 12, 2026), /insights/memo/2026/January/FDIC-Issues-Updates-Resolution-Planning-Sale-Process. The content waivers are also discussed in greater detail in the annex to this memorandum.

    [5] 12 C.F.R. § 360.10(c)(2), (e)(1).

    [6] 12 C.F.R. § 360.10(c)(1).

    [7] FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Restoration Plan, 85 Fed. Reg. 59306 (Sept. 21, 2020).

    [8] FDIC, Assessments, Revised Deposit Insurance Assessment Rates, 87 Fed. Reg. 64314 (Oct. 24, 2022).

    [9] FDIC, Special Assessment Pursuant to Systemic Risk Determination (Apr. 17, 2026), https://www.fdic.gov/deposit-insurance-assessments/special-assessment-pursuant-systemic-risk-determination.

    [10] 91 Fed. Reg. at 39801; FDIC, Deposit Insurance Fund Trends Charts and Data: First Quarter 2026 (2026), https://www.fdic.gov/quarterly-banking-profile/qbp-deposit-insurance-fund-trends-charts-and-data-first-quarter-2026.xlsx.

    [11] 12 U.S.C. § 1817(b)(2)(B); see also 12 U.S.C. § 1817(b)(1)(C).  

    [12] The proposed $30 billion threshold would align with the threshold recently established by the OCC for inclusion in the Regional and Midsize Financial Institutions supervisory portfolio for national banks, and the corresponding $30 billion threshold established by the FDIC for presumptive inclusion in the continuous examination process (as opposed to the point-in-time examination process) for IDIs for which the FDIC is the primary federal regulator. See Press Release, OCC, OCC Announces Updates to Organizational Structure (Sept. 18, 2025), https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2025/nr-occ-2025-89.html; 91 Fed. Reg. at 39797 & n.31.

    [13] 91 Fed. Reg. at 39797.

    [14] The FDIC indicates this is particularly likely to be the case for IDIs with “greater concentrations in core deposits or larger government guaranteed loan portfolios.” Id. This is because the deposit insurance methodology applicable to large IDIs gives specific recognition to these risk-reducing attributes of a large IDI’s asset and liability mix, whereas the less granular methodology applicable to small IDIs would not grant comparable credit for these characteristics. Consequently, for some IDIs that would be recategorized from “large” to “small” under the Deposit Insurance Assessment Proposal, it is possible that the applicable deposit insurance assessment rate would in fact increase, despite the broad reduction in rates across the overall population of small IDIs.

    [15] The required information would include, among other things, general ledgers and other financial information, various lending data, securities and investment data, an organizational chart and list of key personnel, a list of material third-party contracts, and recent internal risk management reports.

    [16] 91 Fed. Reg. at 39815.

    [17] See our prior client memoranda cited supra note 4 and S&C Memo, FDIC Rescinds Policy Statement Limiting the Participation of Private Investors in the Acquisition of Failed Banks (Mar. 20, 2026), /insights/memo/2026/March/FDIC-Acts-Encourage-Private-Investor-Participation-Failed-Bank-Acquisitions.

    [18] Travis Hill, Chairman, FDIC, Speech at the Chamber of Commerce: Rethinking Resolution Readiness: Learning from Experience and Sharpening Focus (June 9, 2026), https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2026/rethinking-resolution-readiness-learning-experience-and-sharpening-focus.

    [19] Jonathan V. Gould, Comptroller of the Currency, Remarks at the American Bar Association Banking Law Committee Meeting (Jan. 16, 2026), https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/speeches/2026/pub-speech-2026-4.pdf.

    [20] Comptroller Gould noted potential concerns along these lines in a statement on the FDIC Board vote approving the proposals. Jonathan V. Gould, Comptroller of the Currency, Remarks at the FDIC Board Meeting 3 (June 25, 2026), https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2026/nr-occ-2026-49a.pdf (“[M]y experience as Comptroller and the bank data breach at the OCC that occurred during the last Administration have reinforced my belief that a banking agency should be clear about how sensitive bank information is not only collected but also used and safeguarded by the agency that requests it, particularly when that agency is not the bank’s primary federal regulator.”).

    Stay Updated

    Subscribe to stay current on S&C Insights.

    Related Practices