Feature
800
Go to page
of
80
Pricing the increased costs: Basel’s latest invoice
Basel III’s final standards, agreed in December 2017, are now reshaping the economics of bank lending as jurisdictions implement Basel III on divergent timelines. The EU implemented most reforms with effect from 1 January 2025 (with limited further changes from 1 January 2026), while the UK is expected to follow from 1 January 2027, again with limited further changes from 1 January 2028. Basel III introduces wide-ranging reforms, including to capital, liquidity and leverage requirements, operational standards, and the cryptoasset framework, which may affect banks’ prudential balance sheets. This article considers how some of these reforms may impact lenders’ regulatory capital positions, and to what extent some of these changes can be passed on to borrowers through increased cost provisions in facility documentation.
05 May 2026Dealing with “group think”: when the wrong group entity assigns receivables to lenders
It is all too common for corporate groups to think and act as integrated businesses, managed by the same individuals and with group receivables set out in consolidated group accounts. Such “group think” may reap efficiencies but presents challenges when the wrong group entity assigns a receivable due to another group entity in order to provide security for finance lent to support the business of the group. The recent decision in Abraaj Investment Management Ltd (in liq) v KES Power Ltd [2026] EWHC 65 (Comm) offers insight into the issues that arise in such a situation and the potential arguments available to lenders seeking to assert the effectiveness of their security.
05 May 2026From Zeno to Novat: programmable finality in tokenised settlement
The evolution of laws relating to financial settlement has long reflected an ongoing accommodation between legal and operational certainty. Tokenisation seeks to reconcile these dimensions, promising legally final and enforceable transfer alongside instantaneous, automated execution. The Novat Protocol is one example, introducing a programmable structure in which settlement obligations are expressed as transient digital instructions that are contractually stapled to underlying assets and extinguished upon registration of title. This article examines the legal character of that structure, focusing on stapling, extinguishment and negotiability.
05 May 2026Transparency under MiFID II: Consolidated Tape Provider, algorithmic trading and the risk of regulatory overexposure
As the European Securities and Markets Authority has started to approve Consolidated Tape Providers,1 this article takes a closer look at the implications of increased pre- and post-trade transparency on financial markets.
05 May 2026Securities fraud litigation: the erosion of “common reliance” in the AI age
Fraud-on-the-market doctrine allows for the establishment of common reliance: investors are presumed to rely on the integrity of the market price rather than having to prove they actually read or relied on the issuer’s disclosures. However, generative AI and alternative data are replacing “price-taker” investors with “price-challengers” who trade on detected price inaccuracies. This technological shift severs the nexus of common reliance, transforming private litigation from the vindication of rights into an exercise of quasi-regulatory power. As courts increasingly delegate loss calibration to opaque third-party models, the legal system must address the resulting “black box” of judicial power to maintain institutional legitimacy.
05 May 2026One size fits all? Default interest applicable to multiple events of default and the law of penalties
Recent caselaw has shown that a default rate clause in a finance agreement may be unenforceable as a penalty, particularly in cases where a single rate applies to multiple types of events of default. This article considers the recent caselaw and the approach adopted by the courts in assessing default rate clauses. It then considers the steps that can be taken by lenders to mitigate the risk that the default rate clause is struck down.
05 May 2026Agentic AI in the payments chain: regulatory challenges for financial institutions
AI “agents”, which combine the reasoning of generative AI with memory and execution capabilities, are the next frontier of AI risk and opportunity. One rapidly emerging application is agentic commerce, where agents autonomously execute tasks and make payments – whether operating alone or in multi-agent systems. For financial institutions, the question is not whether agentic commerce will arrive, but whether their existing compliance frameworks can absorb it. This article considers how firms can satisfy regulatory obligations, mitigate risks and allocate liability in this new landscape.
05 May 2026Control as economics: the new preferred equity playbook
Market conditions have forced a fundamental shift in how preferred equity is structured and priced. Investors now price governance rights alongside yield, require minimum cash-pay components, and negotiate aggressive anti-priming protections. This article examines how preferred equity has evolved from a convenient financing tool to an instrument designed to perform in difficult conditions, with a focus on enforcement leverage, regulatory developments affecting different investor types, and striking a balance between control rights and economic returns in recent infrastructure and energy transition transactions.
12 April 2026When shareholders sue: a comparative view of the ranking of shareholder claims in insolvency
This article analyses the treatment of shareholder damages claims in insolvency across selected jurisdictions, focusing on England, the Cayman Islands, Germany and the Netherlands. It contrasts systems which permit such claims to rank pari passu with unsecured creditors with those that subordinate or exclude them and assesses the implications for cross-border restructurings and recognition.
12 April 2026The effect of restrictions on assignment on attempts to grant charges
It remains unclear whether and how a no-assignment clause affects the grant of a charge over a contractual right. This article examines the issue as a question of contractual construction, arguing that a no-assignment clause should not be read to prevent the grant of a charge, but should be understood to protect the debtor from enforcement actions by the chargee. The article cautions courts against strained constructions of contractual language now that legislation has addressed the perceived need to protect receivables financing. Courts should, moreover, adopt a standardised approach to interpretation of restrictions on assignment rather than look too closely at the particular context of each clause.
12 April 2026
Go to page
of
80
