Article 53(3) provides “Where a resolution authority reduces to zero the principal amount of, or outstanding amount payable in respect of, a liability by means of the power referred to in point (e) of Article 63(1), that liability and any obligations or claims arising in relation to it that are not accrued at the time when the power is exercised shall be treated as discharged for all purposes, and shall not be provable in any subsequent proceedings in relation to the institution under resolution or any successor entity in any subsequent winding up.” Pursuant to Article 53(3) an obligation shall be treated as discharged when a resolution authority exercises the power referred to in point (e) of Article 63(1) (hereafter: the write down power) and reduces the principle amount, or outstanding amount payable, of that liability to zero. It follows from Article 53(3) that obligations or claims “arising in relation to” the written down liability “that are not accrued at the time when the write down power is exercised” shall also be treated as discharged for all purposes. This also means, a contrario, that obligations or claims arising in relation to the written down liability that are accrued at the time when the write down power is exercised, shall not be treated as discharged. This gives rise to the following questions regarding the effects of the bail-in tool: • What type of obligations and claims fall within the category obligations or claims “arising in relation to” the written down liability? In particular, does this category include claims for interest, costs or a contractual penalty in relation to the written down liability? • Can the resolution authority apply the write down power separately to obligations or claims arising in relation to a written-down liability that are accrued at the time when the write down power is exercised, or do these obligations or claims fall outside of the scope of the bail-in tool altogether even though they do not appear to be excluded from bail-in under Article 44?