Feature

On 6 April 2022, the European Commission adopted the final Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and its Annexes. The RTS was previously supposed to apply from July 2022 but will now instead apply from 1 January 2023.

This article gives an overview of cryptocurrency fraud in the UK, highlights the risk that recovery actions may be time barred, considers the s 32 test in the light of recent authority, and then offers practical tips as to how cryptocurrency investors might increase their prospects of being able to rely on that provision.

The market share of ESG funds is rising rapidly and by some estimates is set to become a third of the total market as measured by assets under management. Many questions around ESG funds have yet to be resolved. There is active debate about the issues between, amongst others, asset managers, investors, regulators, lawmakers, scientists and pressure groups. However, some questions can be answered immediately. An ESG fund which shorts a stock which it would deem to be environmentally sound, or, more likely, lends it to another fund to short is acting against the principles of the ESG ethos which attracted its investors in the first place. This is because there is a tension between portfolio returns and environmental concerns. There is a risk of accusation of mis-selling resulting in litigation and censure by the regulator unless the fund’s modus operandi and their rationale are explicit.

The question of whether a derivative transaction is properly characterised as a hedge or as speculation has long vexed the English courts. It has arisen recently in a decision of the Commercial Court dealing with the capacity of an Italian local authority to transact interest-rate swaps. This article reviews the caselaw on the question and asks: (i) is it possible for the courts to make any distinction between hedging transactions and speculative transactions?; and (ii) what test should be applied?

In the March 2022 edition of Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law ((2022) 3 JIBFL 198), we briefly explored the analysis undertaken to determine whether a transaction in the European fund finance market constitutes a “securitisation” under the EU¹ and UK² regulatory frameworks. If a fund financing does constitute a securitisation, further work is required to establish how the applicable regulatory requirements will be met. In this follow-on article, we survey the application of the key regulatory requirements imposed on participants in securitisations in the EU and UK in the context of fund financing transactions, namely: risk retention, transparency (and reporting), due diligence and credit granting requirements. We also consider the direct applicability of the rules to fund parties and the related provisions participants in these transactions should expect in the financing documents.

In this article, we examine concerns related to the burgeoning sustainability/ESG ratings market identified in policymaker, academic and practitioner research and consider potential regulator interventions that could be on the horizon.

This article explores recent developments in the financial sanctions deployed against Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine with a particular focus on the expanded scope of those measures and the meaning of “connected with” Russia.

This article examines the settlement finality in a subtype of blockchains that relies on probabilistic settlement finality. Having studied transaction finality in blockchains, both from a private law and regulatory law perspectives, this article finds that the main difference between settlement in blockchains and those in traditional finance is the absence of intermediaries to whom the legal obligations and liabilities could be assigned in case of settlement fails. In the absence of such intermediaries, the regulatory law may be hesitant to give effect to settlement finality in such blockchains.

This article considers two recent cases involving claims against Lebanese banks by claimants wanting to withdraw foreign currency and seeking to invoke the special regimes for consumers that apply in relation to: (i) jurisdiction; and (ii) applicable law. In the first case, Bitar v Banque Libano-Française SAL [2021] EWHC 2787 (QB)(Bitar), the court considered the question of jurisdiction. In the second case, Khalifeh v Blom Bank SAL [2021] EWHC 3399 (QB) (Khalifeh), the court considered the question of applicable law.

In this article, Andrew Henderson considers the concept of “ancillary services undertakings” under the new UK Investment Firms Prudential Regime (IFPR) and the UKCRR for banks. He argues that draft European Banking Authority Guidance is useful in delineating the limits of the concept and highlighting the reason for including or excluding entities within a consolidation group.