Feature

In this article Sophia Hurst considers the various options open to the Law Commission on the issue of conflict of laws for cryptocurrency disputes in advance of its consultation paper to be published in the second half of 2023.

In 2012 the Court of Appeal ruled that the counterparties of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) who had transacted under ISDA Master Agreements could suspend payment to the administrators indefinitely for so long as the Event of Default occasioned by the appointment of the administrators was continuing. As it has become ever clearer that LBIE will one day exit administration as a going concern (on a solvent basis), the administrators have maintained that the Event of Default will cease to be continuing and the holdouts will have to pay up. In one of the first cases to be heard virtually at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the administrators were finally able to ask the court whether implementation of their proposals for ending the administration would mean that the Event of Default was no longer continuing. This autumn the court ruled for the administrators.¹ In addition to discussing the meaning of “continuing”, the judgment pays particular attention to what constitutes a Bankruptcy Event of Default under the 1992 and 2002 ISDA Master Agreements. Within the analysis, key variables were the importance to be given to factors such as the impact of an event on the counterparty’s credit risk and the permanent effect of the event on creditors’ rights. The granular analysis will be relevant to users of the ISDA Master Agreements but also to users of other contracts with similar wording such as credit derivatives.

This article explores the risks associated with the common practice in finance documents of including references to legislation.

Over the last decade, fintechs (including EMIs (see definition in the key points above)) have transformed the payments landscape and have driven and facilitated the rapid shift by individuals and businesses away from cash to e-money. This article sets out the practical and legal considerations under English law when taking security over e-money and deposits with Deposit Aggregators (see definition in the key points).

In this article, barrister Michael Collett KC considers the types of security commonly taken by banks providing trade finance and their potential weaknesses, in light of recent case-law arising from the collapse of oil traders such as Hin Leong, Zenrock and Gulf Petrochem.

This article considers the types of M&A deals that the UK government has intervened in using its powers under the National Security and Investment Act (NSIA) and the conditions that have been attached to secure approval. It further considers the global position of the UK by comparison to similar regimes that regulate foreign investment in other jurisdictions (such as CFIUS in the US) and the potential issues faced by multi-national investors needing to grapple with multiple sets of rules.

In this article the authors consider the relevance of the Loan Market Association’s (LMA) Defaulting Lender concept in non-traditional facilities such as those arranged by private credit funds and non-bank Lenders.

This article considers a key potential value proposition of smart contracts, namely the elimination of performance risk, and the trade-offs required in order to fully realise that potential. On the other hand, it considers the limits of any attempt to utilise smart contracts to oust the applicability of the law and legal systems.

Defined benefit pension funds, having leveraged billions of pounds of their gilt positions using repos, were exposed to a fall in prices. This occurred in September 2022 and large losses were sustained. It is not permissible for pension funds to leverage their assets using loans or derivatives (other than for narrow specific purposes). The question then arises of whether repos are loans or derivatives, or something entirely different. Who bears the losses may well be dependent on the answer. The author’s conclusion is that repos are properly either loans or derivatives.

Shares in a private company must be valued when they are given as collateral for a loan and the borrower does not pay the interest and capital when due. Unlike for quoted companies, the subjectivity in valuing a private company results in a wide range of valuations. Even when standard methods are used, there are additional questions of whether the valuations should include, for example, synergy benefits which would accrue to a buyer of the shares – the so-called “special value”. The range of valuations and special value could be problematic, particularly for the borrower. In such transactions, disputes can be avoided if the valuation method and the parameters required by the model are agreed at inception.