Feature

Will the proceeds of the sale of an asset, excluded from the scope of a floating charge, be captured by that charge when sold by an insolvency practitioner? In this article the authors consider the default position under general law in relation to this issue and what parties should do to ensure their intentions are appropriately reflected when formulating security packages.

This article considers Soleymani v Nifty Gateway LLC [2022] EWHC 773 (Comm) (Soleymani) in which the High Court held it had no jurisdiction and granted a stay under s 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) of proceedings brought by an English consumer primarily to enforce his rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015).

A key weapon in the lender’s arsenal is the default provisions contained in a loan agreement and the actions that the lender may take upon the occurrence of an event of default. In Lombard North Central plc v European Skyjets Limited [2022] EWHC 728 (QB), Mr Justice Foxton considered whether certain events of default had occurred and whether Lombard had validly terminated the loan agreement so as to enable it to enforce its security, namely Skyjets’ aircraft. The judge’s legal analysis provides a useful recap of the legal principles. This article focusses on the doctrine of waiver by election and some practical considerations for lenders in a default scenario.

Unlike an English private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 2006, an English limited partnership (LP) is not a legal entity. In practice, this can create confusion and risk when LPs create and register security. Stephan Smoktunowicz examines some of the key considerations when taking security from LPs including the grey areas which surround registration and how to approach them more safely.

In this article, Daniel Benedyk considers the application of state immunity to individuals acting on behalf of states and “separate entities”. This issue was not addressed in the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA), but has since been developed in case law. In particular, it has been considered in two significant decisions of the Commercial Court in the last year.

Central banks around the world have been contemplating the creation of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)¹ for the best part of the last five years, with some of them already experimenting, at the time of writing, with pilot schemes. This article explores to what extent the armed conflict that recently erupted in Europe’s periphery strengthens, as some have argued, the case for their issuance so as to better enforce financial sanctions imposed on deviant state actors or, instead, creates risks of currency retaliation as well as jeopardising the credibility of public money and its issuers.

In this article, the authors consider the circumstances in which termination clauses in a commercial contract might be subject to a so-called Braganza duty of good faith and the practical issues that might follow from this.

This article considers the possibility of recovering cryptoassets without the authorisation of the private key.

This 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.

This 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).