Feature

The importance of a modern secured transactions framework for movable assets that effectively channels credit to the SME sector has been widely recognised. However, a modern secured transactions framework may not spur market-based collateralised lending if a public credit guarantee scheme disincentivises lenders and borrowers from engaging in it. Improperly designed schemes cause many market distortions, including slower growth, profitability and sustaining zombie companies. As Japan embarks on secured transactions reform, it needs to consider the role of its credit guarantee scheme in facilitating collateralised lending. The lessons this article outlines should be instrumental in other economies.

The publication of the new 2021 ISDA Interest Rate Derivatives Definitions (2021 Definitions) marks the first comprehensive update of ISDA’s definitions booklet for interest rate products since the publication of the 2006 ISDA Definitions (2006 Definitions) in January 2007. It is a significant undertaking, making a very wide variety of changes to take account of, among other things, benchmark reform, the new regulatory environment for bank resolution, the introduction of collateral rules and central clearing. In addition, there will also be a new electronic ISDA user interface called MyLibrary which will be updated as changes are made to the definitions. This article analyses the changes to the cash settlement provisions.

In this article the authors consider the consequences of the creation of “super priority” debts under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) moratorium, including the effect on secured creditors, priority as between holders of Super Priority debt and the potential impact on floating charge holders.

This article summarises some of the key points arising out of the newly published Digital Dispute Resolution Rules (Digital DR Rules). The advantages of adopting the Digital DR Rules are explored as well as considering how the rules might be incorporated into new and existing agreements.

In this article Jonathan Dawid considers how victims of abusive short selling can seek legal redress against those responsible for their loss.

In this article, Timothy Sherwin considers the provisions concerning the return and stewardship of “relevant funds” under the new Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021. The article was written before the High Court’s judgment in In the matter of ipagoo LLP (in administration) [2021] EWHC 2163, which, in contrast to In Re Supercapital [2020] EWHC 1685 (Ch), determined that no statutory trust exists over safeguarded funds held under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011. The Ipagoo decision does not overrule Supercapital and relates to different legislation but the inconsistency in approach means that the existence of a statutory trust may not now be the correct legal position. (A case analysis on the ipagoo decision will follow in the October edition).

Clive Wolman explains why there may no longer be a valid legal basis for a company to be able to restrain the presentation, advertisement or pursuit of a winding-up petition against it merely by showing that it is genuinely and substantially disputing the petition debt. Changes in UK insolvency and company legislation, reinforced by changes in accounting standards and by judicial rulings, have led to a broader definition of a “contingent” debt or liability. It now includes the contingency of a court finding that the disputed debt or liability does exist.

Traditionally, in a financial product mis-selling context, claims against financial institutions involving allegations of fraud, LIBOR manipulation and unlawful means conspiracy have not been amenable to strike out or summary determination. However, the English courts are increasingly demonstrating a willingness to deal with opportunistic claims against banks (and other third parties) involving allegations of fraud without the need for a full trial, in “appropriate” cases. Two recent High Court judgments provide guidance on when the court will consider it appropriate to do so: Boyse (International) Limited v Natwest Markets plc & Anor³ and Elite Properties and Ors v BDO LLP.⁴

The impact on the aviation sector of the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental restrictions on air travel and other movement controls has been severe and has resulted in a number of airline restructurings. This article examines the use by an airline of a scheme of arrangement under Pt 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (2006 Act), as a mechanism for effecting a compromise with certain of its creditors, and the interplay between a scheme and those creditors’ rights under the Cape Town Convention and associated Aircraft Protocol (CTC), as implemented in the UK by The International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015 (Regulations). These considerations arose in the decisions of the English court in MAB Leasing Limited.¹