Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email .

Feature

826
Go to page of 83 Next Pagination

Bridging public regulations and private rights in the US GENIUS Act and Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance – Part 2: trusts and bankruptcy

This Part 2 focuses on the second part of investor protection (the trustee structure) and stablecoin holder safeguards on issuer insolvency.

26 July 2026

Companies Act 2006: time to review?

The Companies Act 2006 (the Act) received royal assent in November 2006, following an independent review involving a wide range of people (the Review). The then Minister of State for Industry and the Regions (Margaret Hodge) said it would bring major benefits to business by modernising and simplifying company law. Twenty years on, it is a good time to reflect on whether the Act accomplished what it set out to do and to look at some changes the government could consider. This article picks out some of the areas where improvements could be made.

26 July 2026

What belongs in a local security document? The function of local security documents in cross-border finance

"It's already in the Facility Agreement." Anyone acting as local counsel in cross-border financings has heard the phrase.  During the negotiation of a local security document, local counsel suggest that a representation, undertaking or enforcement-related provision should remain in the document. The response is often immediate: 'It's already covered by the Facility Agreement" or "That's dealt with in the Intercreditor Agreement".
But should that end the discussion? Or does the answer depend on the function the local security document is expected to perform? This article explores the evolving role of local security documentation and considers the appropriate drafting solution where a provision performs an independent function within the local security document. 

26 July 2026

Entirely unco-operative, Part 2: if an LME becomes a Restructuring Plan will anti-co-ops limit the Plan’s likelihood of approval or fracture the class?

This article is the second part of ‘Entire agreement clauses: entirely unco-operative to void co-ops? Part 1’ published in June’s edition of JIBFL (2026) 6 JIBFL 398. It looks at whether co-operation agreement lenders get less than they hoped for if a liability management exercise morphs into a formal restructuring plan before an English court. Will the putative anti-pro rata sharing implied by a co-operation agreement (to the extent it is detrimental to non-participating creditors) doom the approval of the plan to failure for impinging on the pari passu  principle? Will the borrower’s use of anti-cooperation agreement provisions help or hurt the chances of plan confirmation or result in fracturing a creditor class where certain creditors have been disenfranchised by such provisions?

29 June 2026

Dodgy financial reporting or financial covenant breach

In this article we consider how preservation of an agreed approach to financial monitoring and calculations for leveraged finance loans in the European mid-market is fundamental to maintain suitable protections for private credit lenders. Discrepancies in figures can raise red flags as to whether the financial reporting is simply inconsistent or whether the sponsor is attempting to hide a financial covenant breach. We discuss options available to lenders to clarify figures and request additional information.

29 June 2026

Prediction markets in the UK: betting the house or hedging your bets?

Prediction markets are trading platforms on which participants trade event contracts whose value depends on whether specified future events occur. In the US, these markets are currently experiencing a period of rapid growth, and at the same time have emerged as one of the most contested areas at the intersection of financial regulation and gambling law. In the UK, their regulatory characterisation turns on whether the contract references a “financial” or a non-financial outcome.

29 June 2026

Governance-by-design for private markets: from platforms to capital infrastructure

Part II of the two-part series ‘Governance-by-Design for Private Markets’ advances governance-by-design from a diagnostic framework to an operational model. As long-term investors such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds become more sophisticated and evolve from product takers into platform architects, governance becomes increasingly important. This article argues that governance-by-design becomes an operational necessity when private markets platforms begin to function less as traditional asset managers and more as core components of global capital infrastructure.

29 June 2026

Behind the Synthetic Capital Relief: understanding the litigation risk landscape

While synthetic capital relief transactions have not yet been the subject of reported litigation, their increasing use and structural complexity creates scope for disputes. In this article we examine the main areas of potential contention and consider the practical measures available to market participants to reduce the scope for disputes.

29 June 2026

Service out of anti-suit injunction arbitration claims: two areas of uncertainty

This article considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in FH Holding Moscow Limited v AO UniCredit Bank and UniCredit S.p.A.  [2026] EWCA Civ 468. It briefly discusses the Court of Appeal’s rejection of the anti-suit injunction (ASI) claim on the merits. It then focuses on two issues raised but not decided in the case relating to service out of ASI arbitration claims.

29 June 2026

Bridging public regulations and private rights in the US GENIUS Act and Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance: Part 1 – contractual right to redeem

Stablecoins have increasingly been heralded as the up and coming "currency" of the modern era. However, financial lingo and the colloquial conception of stablecoins must not cloud legal analysis. Money, in legal terms, is not an amorphous representation of value but a complex constellation of rights between different stakeholders: individuals, banks, intermediaries and transacting parties. For stablecoins, a form of "private", non-government backed currency, it is even more imperative that the law provides a precisely conceptualised and comprehensive framework of private law rights to ensur confidence and enforceability. As with traditional monies, these rights must operate within a regulatory environment designed to safeguard currency reliability and market integrity. The need for regulation is magnified in relation to the stablecoin market, given cryptocurrency's origin as network-driven environment underpinned by game-theory dynamics, fast-acting participants with speculative tendencies and a "trust free" governance model that eschews centralised control. Enforcement in such ecosystems cannot be achieved through piecemeal interventions based on existing criminal, property and contract law alone. New legislation in the form of the US' GENIUS Act and Hong Kong's Stablecoins Ordinance represent landmark efforts to establish comprehensive, issuer- centric regulatory frameworks. The focus of this article is on bridging the gap between those regulatory duties and private claims by stablecoin holders. It analyses how these two bodies of law - public regulations and private rights - working in tandem can achieve investor protection, market integrity and stability, which is the aim of both Acts. 

This Part 1 focuses on the stablecoin holder's contractual right to redeem. 

29 June 2026
Go to page of 83 Next Pagination