The resolution of the Resolution Committee in October 2020 approved the request of M to reopen the case. The resolution considered that one of the judges in the case had been ineligible to judge in the case because of losses on the basis of a contract with G hf. on asset management from 2007. The Supreme Court’s decision stated that the reduction in the value of the funds that the judge had in asset management had reached 14.78% at the time of the bank’s collapse. This reduction would not be considered significant when considering the economic effects that the public sector had to endure at that time. The court also referred to the fact that in the Supreme Court’s judgments in cases no. 34/2019 and 35/2019, where the conditions for reopening had been satisfied, there had been a direct relationship between criminal charges and the financial interests of the judges who were deprived but were not treated in this case. Furthermore, a judge in that case had suffered damage when his shares in the bank became totally worthless, but in this case there was a reduction in the capital of a much higher share in a UCITS with distributed assets over a limited period of time. The Supreme Court concluded that the judge would not have been considered ineligible to handle the case. For this reason, the legal requirements for reopening the case were not fulfilled. The main demand of the prosecution authority to dismiss the case from the Supreme Court was therefore taken into consideration.