The completion of the bank restructuring draft law, which was referred to the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, was deliberately leaked on a very wide scale.

However, MPs, bankers, and major depositors fiercely opposed it on the basis that it does not guarantee the return of deposits.

According to "Nidaa al Watan" newspaper, the draft law aligns with international standards and is based on the best global practices adopted and tested in countries that experienced banking crises. However, opponents do not see it from this perspective. Instead, they argue that the Lebanese banking crisis is unlike any crisis in the world. They insist on the need to prepare a special and very specific law for Lebanon due to the interweaving of debts between the state, the Central Bank of Lebanon, banks, and depositors.

The newspaper highlighted the following points of contention:

• The bank restructuring draft law is based on the draft law for restoring financial stability, which is stuck in parliament and is rejected by MPs because it establishes a fund to recover deposits under almost impossible conditions. They refuse to provide only $100,000 for depositors and argue that anything above that amount will lead to unfulfilled promises.
• The restructuring project cannot be implemented without the approval of the Capital Control law and the complete lifting of banking secrecy before the authorities responsible for implementing the restructuring. The Capital Control law has been disputed for four years, and its approval faces intertwined interests. Despite being amended twice, MPs refuse to amend the banking secrecy law for the third time, even if requested by the International Monetary Fund.
• According to the project, bank capital will evaporate unless stakeholders take precautionary measures first and then capitalize within a short period. It is unclear to banks why they would inject capital if the distribution of losses (return of deposits) falls on banks before the state.
• There is no clear indication of the state's responsibility in both restructuring and regularization projects. Most MPs, banks, and economic entities want, through a strange design and a dubious agreement, to burden the state with the majority of deposit returns.
• MPs want to assess the situation of banks before any discussion of their restructuring. They reject the excuse that such an evaluation will cost more than $20 million if conducted by specialized international companies and disregard the government's complaint of financial constraints. They also refuse to rely on the evaluations of the Banking Control Commission, which may be as important as the required international audit.
• If unable to restructure and decide to liquidate banks, the assets of shareholders, board members, senior executives, and signatory and supervisory commissioners will be seized. This article in the draft law worries many bankers because the stringent restructuring conditions will inevitably lead to the liquidation of most Lebanese banks, imposing losses on bankers' wealth, a total rejection agreed upon by bankers and those in power.
• The specialized authority for banking reform has wide, exceptional, and harsh powers that make banks believe that their necks and the necks of their stakeholders are under an unbreakable guillotine!
• MPs, bankers, and major depositors insist that this law will not pass, and they will strike it down immediately upon reaching parliament. They insist on burdening the state with the majority of the deposit return burden, claiming that the fundamental gap lies in the Central Bank of Lebanon, which funded the state with depositors' money. The IMF believes that a parliamentary fact-finding committee should be formed to determine how deposits were spent, and based on the results, responsibilities should be assigned for the partial or complete return of deposits.