Category

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

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

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

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

UK Jurisdiction Taskforce publishes Report on Control of Digital Assets

This article reviews the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s Report on Control of Digital Assets (the Report). Certain digital assets fall into the new third category of property enabled by the entry into force of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. For these digital assets, “control” is a key concept, analogous to possession for tangible property. The Report is a factual reference describing control intended for use by legal practitioners to develop legal rules governing digital assets. It highlights distinctions between control of traditional accounts and control of blockchain-based assets. Building on this distinction, it lists various modes of control, such as shared and delegated control and control via smart contracts, through the addition of successive layers of complexity.

29 June 2026

Feature

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?

Dodgy financial reporting or financial covenant breach

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

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

Behind the Synthetic Capital Relief: understanding the litigation risk landscape

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

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

UK Jurisdiction Taskforce publishes Report on Control of Digital Assets

An equity repo trapped in the body of a secured loan agreement? Equity finance after Shukla

The expanding role of back leverage: “loan-on-loan” for non-real estate assets