Bad wars expose the weaknesses in the international framework of law. The attack by Russia on Ukraine is no exception to this proposition in an area of law often considered to be obscure but of very significant consequences. This is Article VIII 2b of the IMF agreement which allows a member’s exchange controls unilaterally to override its contracts in certain cases. This Article is considered a blot on the otherwise pure parchment of the IMF Agreement and should be removed.
25 March 2024In this article, the authors compare the approaches US and European direct lenders take to certain deal terms and highlight market-specific trends.
25 March 2024The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (the Act) implements the highly anticipated register of beneficial ownership of UK property, forcing overseas entities to disclose details of beneficial ownership in order to transact with UK property. It is designed to improve the transparency of foreign ownership of UK property and clamp down on economic crime. However, the new regime is not faultless, and the new register is at risk of exploitation in certain areas. In this article, we consider key aspects of the Act, the new register, and issues for lenders ahead of the implementation of the new regime.
25 March 2024This article covers three issues: (i) which kinds of digital assets (arguably) fall within the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (FCARs); (ii) what is likely to constitute “possession or control” of a digital asset for the purpose of the FCARs (where a security financial collateral arrangement is involved); and (iii) whether the FCAR regime is appropriate in the digital asset context (and whether there needs to be a separate regime that applies specifically to digital assets).
20 March 2024This article examines two recent decisions in securities fraud cases: (i) ACL Netherlands v Lynch [2022] EWHC 1178 (Ch) (Autonomy); and (ii) Allianz Global Investors GmbH v G4S Limited [2022] EWHC 1081. The former considered such important questions as what published information is caught by s 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), how statements in such information are to be construed, what constitutes the requisite guilty knowledge and how reliance is to be proved. In the latter case, the court held that so-called “person discharging managerial responsibility” (PDMR) status in these claims is limited to English law concepts of directorship but emphasised the potential elasticity of de facto directorship in particular.
20 March 2024In this article Nora Beausang considers recent case law relating to the interpretation of “consumer” for the purposes of special jurisdictional rules (Recast Brussels Regulation and its predecessors), considers whether this interpretation has wider application to other regulatory protections applying to consumers and argues for the limitation of this more expansive interpretation.
20 March 2024In this article, Tom Marshall explains the meaning of interoperability in the context of blockchains, existing infrastructure and why and how traditional finance is getting involved.
20 March 2024There is no scope for trusts under current Spanish law; they neither exist nor are recognised in the jurisdiction. Incorporating them into Spanish law would require a substantial transformation of Spanish property law. At the same time, it is not even truly clear whether trusts are indeed a bulletproof solution in the context of safeguarding securities under custody. In any case, Spanish law provides for a set of measures designed to safeguard securities held under custody, particularly traded securities held under custody by an entity participating in Iberclear, the Spanish central securities depository.
20 March 2024There are several regulatory and practical reasons why some creditors may not be able or willing to take up an allocation of equity post-restructuring. In this article the authors explore some of those reasons and provide some potential structuring solutions.
20 March 2024In this article, Amy Held draws attention to two ways in which fundamental principles of English property law are being distorted in the present discourse on crytpoassets. First, English law is not really prescriptive as to what “things” fall within the scope of property law or “can be property”, but, rather, is concerned with rights in relation to things. The statement, therefore, that cryptoassets “are property” lacks any real meaning. Second, English law has no real concept of “ownership” as distinct from “possession”. Given that English law tends to focus on the latter, it remains unclear what it means for anyone to assert that they are the “owner” of a cryptoasset, how “ownership” is proved and established, and how the right of “ownership” is vindicated in a dispute.
20 March 2024