Feature

In this article, Rebecca Zaman considers lessons to be learned from the recent VietJet  litigation  for a security trustee navigating its retirement and replacement as trustee, particularly in the context of a sale or other change of control of the lending.

The UK’s capital markets are eagerly awaiting the implementation of a new private company secondary trading platform following the adoption of the final rules for the Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System (PISCES) in June 2025. In the next six months, the London Stock Exchange and potentially other operators are expected to have PISCES platforms up and running, thereby marking the debut of the first regulated market for the intermittent secondary trading of private company shares.¹ The timing seems auspicious: public listings in the UK and Europe have fallen to historic lows as private companies increasingly pursue alternative routes to liquidity.² As private markets mature and investor demand grows, the PISCES framework may unlock opportunities for private company share lending, although such arrangements raise significant questions around valuation, settlement, transfer restrictions and alignment with existing share lending market practices.

The harmonisation of the rules on prospectus liability should be put on the agenda of the Savings and Investment Union (SIU) as a matter of urgency. The International Working Group on Harmonisation of Prospectus Liability in Europe (IWGHPLE), a private group of academics and practitioners from different EU member states and beyond (led by the authors of this article), has recently drafted a concrete blueprint for uniform European prospectus liability rules. The blueprint could serve as a model for the European legislator in its efforts to overcome the current fragmentation of the EU’s legal framework. The blueprint covers all aspects pertaining to prospectus liability.

This article addresses the debate which has arisen from Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s much cited dictum that equity imposes a constructive trust on a fraudulent recipient whenever property is obtained by fraud.  It explores the rationale for the imposition of a constructive trust in the context of the underlying legal principles and considers how those principles have been approached in the key authorities. In an effort to identify a coherent rationalisation of the authorities, it then focuses on the decision in Halley v Law Society and addresses whether that decision can be reconciled with other authority, particularly the recent Supreme Court decision in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc .

A recent Singaporean case, Sapura Fabrication Sdn Bhd and Others v GAS and Another Appeal   [2025] SGCA 13, provides welcome guidance on when arbitral proceedings can be carved out from a domestic restructuring and insolvency process. Continuing the debate about the clash between arbitration and insolvency, Sapura  adds two new dimensions: the multi-creditor context and a sliding timescale. This article examines how best to interpret these novel elements in light of the spirit of the insolvency regime, namely facilitating the fair administration of assets according to creditors’ legal entitlements rather than a free-for-all favouring the most well-resourced and well-advised.

Deborah Sabalot Deane asks whether the motor finance vehicle cases have identified a gap between the law and the regulatory rules creating legal uncertainty and doubtful outcomes for both consumers and the industry.

In December 2023, the United States Securities and Exchanges Commission published their Final Rule prescribing mandatory clearing for “eligible secondary market transactions” involving US Treasury Securities. In-scope transactions must be cleared and settled through a central clearing agency. The rule extends to those who are a party to “eligible secondary market transactions” regardless of their jurisdiction. This includes market participants in the UK, the European Union, APAC and other jurisdictions in addition to the US. The purpose of this article is to examine the requirements of the clearing mandate, to review the legal issues and documentation requirements which it raises.

This article explores the proposals to bring cryptoassets within the regulatory perimeter. It summarises the current and new regimes and assesses some of the challenges that may materialise.

This article updates the series of articles published between March 2015 and November 2018 on the subject of financing businesses in the TMT sectors (Series 1). Since then, the type and value of intangible assets have increased, many banks have launched growth debt products, private credit firms have expanded their business both generally and in providing credit to technology  businesses, and some legal developments relevant to intangible assets and credit finance have taken place.
Certainly, the value of the market has grown. According to the latest ONS figures (published in November 2024), in 2022 UK businesses invested £200bn (a record) into intangible assets. This statistic also illustrates one of the original points of Series 1: of the £200bn, only around half was invested in assets protected by intellectual property rights (IPR); the rest paid for assets such as know-how, trade secrets, business processes, and all the other intangible assets that are not covered by IPR.
We can view the lay of the land in 2025 by considering what has not changed, what has changed, and what is changing. 

In this article the authors consider the implications of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses drafted such that the non-exclusive limb of the provision is carved out of a blanket provision stating that the courts of England are to have exclusive jurisdiction. The article considers how, with this drafting, English courts are unlikely to refuse jurisdiction and that explicit drafting is required if a financial party wishes to compel an English court to discontinue proceedings in favour of a court of its choosing.