Feature

As the European Securities and Markets Authority has started to approve Consolidated Tape Providers,¹ this article takes a closer look at the implications of increased pre- and post-trade transparency on financial markets.

The evolution of laws relating to financial settlement has long reflected an ongoing accommodation between legal and operational certainty. Tokenisation seeks to reconcile these dimensions, promising legally final and enforceable transfer alongside instantaneous, automated execution. The Novat Protocol is one example, introducing a programmable structure in which settlement obligations are expressed as transient digital instructions that are contractually stapled to underlying assets and extinguished upon registration of title. This article examines the legal character of that structure, focusing on stapling, extinguishment and negotiability.

Fraud-on-the-market doctrine allows for the establishment of common reliance: investors are presumed to rely on the integrity of the market price rather than having to prove they actually read or relied on the issuer’s disclosures. However, generative AI and alternative data are replacing “price-taker” investors with “price-challengers” who trade on detected price inaccuracies. This technological shift severs the nexus of common reliance, transforming private litigation from the vindication of rights into an exercise of quasi-regulatory power. As courts increasingly delegate loss calibration to opaque third-party models, the legal system must address the resulting “black box” of judicial power to maintain institutional legitimacy.

Recent caselaw has shown that a default rate clause in a finance agreement may be unenforceable as a penalty, particularly in cases where a single rate applies to multiple types of events of default. This article considers the recent caselaw and the approach adopted by the courts in assessing default rate clauses. It then considers the steps that can be taken by lenders to mitigate the risk that the default rate clause is struck down.

AI “agents”, which combine the reasoning of generative AI with memory and execution capabilities, are the next frontier of AI risk and opportunity. One rapidly emerging application is agentic commerce, where agents autonomously execute tasks and make payments – whether operating alone or in multi-agent systems. For financial institutions, the question is not whether agentic commerce will arrive, but whether their existing compliance frameworks can absorb it. This article considers how firms can satisfy regulatory obligations, mitigate risks and allocate liability in this new landscape.

There has been much discussion about law firm financing and ownership. There is an increasingly wide base of potential "lenders", who all have different drivers which dictate the terms they are able to offer. At Harbour, we have many approaches for law firm financing, for a multitude of purposes, not just litigation. What is clear, is just how relatively limited the levels of understanding are about the options, terms, terminology and impacts of different types of financing. Firms must put the necessary groundwork in place before soliciting financing, to maximise their chances of securing the lending. This article is intended to remove some of that mystery and also a checklist of information a firm should prepare before approaching a finance source.

Ownership, possession and control of an asset have long been intertwined in the public’s consciousness. Albeit implicitly recognising that a possessory title can be displaced by a superior legal title, the old adage “possession is nine-tenths of the law” remains a popular refrain carrying more than a grain of truth. Following a series of high-profile collapses of crypto custodians in “the crypto winter”, a digital equivalent has emerged: “not your key, not your coin”. This article considers the private key and its role in legal analysis of cryptocurrencies.

The UK stands on the cusp of implementing a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoassets, fundamentally reshaping the landscape for firms wishing to serve UK clients. The final form of The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025 has been laid before parliament and, together with the Financial Conduct Authority’s consultations on the new cryptoasset regime, sets out the activities within scope, the geographical reach of the regime, and the expectations for both domestic and overseas firms. As the regime nears full commencement (scheduled for 25 October 2027), cryptoasset businesses, whether based in the UK or abroad, must assess whether their operations will be captured by the new requirements and prepare for authorisation and ongoing compliance.

Private law remedies correspond to the nature of the primary right breached. Within the Quincecare  litigation arena, this uncontroversial proposition forces a needed – and potentially uncomfortable – inquiry: is the claimant customer (the principal) asserting a: (i) primary right to be paid the account balance exclusive of any unauthorised debiting by the defendant bank (in accordance with the customer’s agent’s instructions); or (ii) a secondary right arising upon negligent execution of a valid mandate? This article proposes that the two claims occupy distinct realms as they aim to protect distinct primary duties. A claim in debt vindicates the customer’s primary right to performance of the mandate, which entitles the customer not to have the account’s balance diminished by a debit without authority. Contrastingly, a claim in damages for breach of the Quincecare   duty compensates for the customer’s right to have the bank’s payment services carried out with reasonable skill and care and thus concerns the manner in which the execution of the payment instruction has occurred. A reconsideration of these two distinct duties can assist claimants in carefully characterising their claims in light of the limited scope of the Quincecare duty’s application post-Phillip .

This article examines a recurring issue in finance disputes: the demand for payment or service of an acceleration notice in circumstances where the borrower contends that the relevant contractual precondition has not been satisfied. An invalid acceleration notice is generally characterised as a nullity rather than a breach of contract. Where a borrower pays for commercial reasons even though it believes that the sum is not due, restitution is generally unavailable because the borrower cannot show that it paid under a mistake.