Feature
813
Go to page
of
82
Battle of the acronyms: GDPR vs AI – automated decision-making by ride-hailing apps
The Amsterdam District Court has recently considered three cases involving ride-hailing apps which throw into focus the nature of automated decision-making processes, particularly those which involve Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning (already used by banks across a range of business areas). Although the issues arose in a GDPR context, it is instructive to see how the court addressed them in Applicants v Uber BV (case number C/13/692003/HA RK 20-302), Applicants v Uber BV (case number C/13/687315/HA RK 20-207), and Applicants v Ola Netherlands BV (case number C/13/689705/HA RK 20-258).
13 June 2024Are banks obliged to disclose credit adjustment spreads to SONIA?
LIBOR will be replaced by SONIA from the beginning of 2022. With SONIA rates typically lower than LIBOR, banks will seek to make up the difference by application of a Credit Adjustment Spread (CAS), likely to be calculated by reference to the median difference between LIBOR and SONIA over the previous five-year period. This article considers the extent to which banks will be required to disclose the existence of the CAS and its method of calculation to customers in the light of previous findings by the court of the lack of an obligation on banks to disclose the Credit Line Utilisation (CLU) to customers.
13 June 2024Scheme meetings in a global pandemic
COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how companies are able to hold meetings of their shareholders and creditors. This article explores how the courts have dealt with these disruptions in the context of schemes of arrangement under Pt 26 of the Companies Act 2006, and under the new restructuring plan regime under Pt 26A of the Companies Act 2006. It demonstrates that the courts have adopted a flexible approach, enabling meetings to be held even where members or creditors cannot physically come together due to social distancing restrictions.
13 June 2024Does situs actually matter in disputes concerning bitcoin?
There has been considerable interest in the recent ruling of the High Court in Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown (unreported, 21 December 2020)1 as the first in which an English court has considered the question of situs in respect of a Bitcoin. Long described as an “intractable question”, many have taken the case to stand potentially for the proposition that the situs of a cryptoasset is the place where its owner is domiciled.
13 June 2024Creative uses of collateral: opportunities for leveraged companies
Credit to leveraged companies normally ties to the cash flow of the borrower’s business. But the coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on the financial standing of many borrowers, upending their ability to predict cash flows and prompting them to raise capital against hard assets’ liquidation value. In the process, new transaction structures have emerged that use collateral more creatively to maximise borrowing capacity.
13 June 2024Payments by mistake: when will the discharge of an existing debt be a defence to a claim for repayment?
On 11 August 2020, Citibank made a payment of US$900m to the lenders under a syndicated loan agreement, in what the US court later described as “one of the biggest blunders in banking history”. When Citibank sued for the return of the money, the US court held that it was not entitled to repayment because the payments discharged an existing debt and the recipients had no notice of the mistake. That decision, on 16 February 2021, has understandably caused consternation among bankers. One report described the decision as “eye-watering” and one that “will strike terror into earnest hearts in the global trust and agency community”. London, of course, is another global financial hub and the industry might be equally interested to know how this dispute might have been determined as a matter of English law. This article addresses that question.
13 June 2024First among equals: priming debt in leveraged capital structures
In this article the authors examine how US transactions that rank new money claims senior to existing lenders were structured and assess the options for European borrowers looking to achieve similar results.
13 June 2024Ipso facto clauses: the international dimension
This article considers the new provisions in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) on so-called ipso facto clauses and how those provisions interact with cross-border contracts.
13 June 2024The court’s discretion in relation to the Pt 26A cram down
This article explains that a fundamental purpose of the court’s discretion whether to exercise its cram down power under the new Pt 26A process now found in the Companies Act 2006 would be to ascertain whether the dissenting class was promised a just and equitable distribution of the restructuring surplus, ie the value expected to be preserved and perhaps created by the proposed plan itself. By way of comparison, Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code, which contains the best-known cram down mechanism, requires the court to ensure a “fair and equitable” treatment of members of the dissenting class. In the US, however, the much-misunderstood Absolute Priority Rule (APR) supposedly governs this exercise. This article shows that the APR is untenable and is honoured as much in breach in US practice as in observance. Similarly, the cram down powers under the new Dutch and the proposed German restructuring regimes also envisage “exceptions” to the APR which in practice may well overwhelm the rule. Understanding why the APR cannot and should not govern the distribution of the restructuring surplus goes a considerable way to establishing that distribution of the restructuring surplus by reference to the relative contributions to the restructuring surplus by the dissenting and all junior classes provides the appropriate starting point. The article also considers the appropriate treatment of “new money” and “sweat equity”, and of classes excluded from the plan.
13 June 2024Knowing receipt and the proprietary base
A recent High Court decision in a knowing receipt claim against a Saudi Arabian bank has considered the vexed issue of whether a beneficiary must have a continuing equitable interest enduring upon receipt of the property by the recipient to establish a knowing receipt claim. In a detailed and well-reasoned judgment Mr Justice Fancourt answered that question in the affirmative.
13 June 2024
Go to page
of
82
