Feature

Alternate realities: transactional and economic reality in APP fraud and unjust enrichment

Two recent conflicting judgments have considered whether, for the purposes of a claim in unjust enrichment against a receiving bank, a transfer of funds following an authorised push payment fraud is made “at the expense of the claimant”. In this article we consider the application of the concepts of “transactional reality” and “economic reality” in this inquiry.

Market abuse and restitution orders: challenges for FCA policy

This article addresses the potential for the Financial Conduct Authority’s use of its powers to order restitution for market abuse against a listed or publicly traded company/issuer, to undermine the liability regime for such companies to their investors set out elsewhere in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). It suggests that the proportionate issuer liability regime which was adopted, after extensive consultation, between 2006 and 2010, and is now contained in s 90A and Sch 10A FSMA, is a key aspect of UK public market competitiveness and that restitution should not become a substitute means for investors to recover losses for disclosure breaches from the issuer, absent fraud.

Security financial collateral arrangements and the crystallisation of floating charges

In this article Jonathan Haines considers whether the crystallisation of a floating charge means that it can qualify retrospectively under the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (2003/3226) and the impact of that on other creditors.

Country risk in unprecedented times: a precedent for cross-border loan documentation?

While country risk cannot be avoided in cross-border transactions entirely, it can be effectively mitigated through careful transaction structuring and tailored contractual protections. Market standard loan agreements will include a number of exit rights and cost recovery provisions which may be helpful to a lender exposed to country risk and can be negotiated to meet the needs of the particular transaction. It is important to strike a balance between the effective management of country risk for lenders, and a contractual framework that provides the borrower with the required economics and flexibility to operate with certainty.

Accelerating the green transition: European Energy’s landmark portfolio construction financing of renewable energy projects

In this article the authors describe the key features and unique structural considerations and challenges of European Energy’s landmark portfolio construction facility, which was put in place in November 2023 after a two-year bottom-up design, documentation and bank credit approval process.

The rise of NAV financings: is an equity contribution really “equity”?

Leveraged buyouts have traditionally been funded principally by debt secured against the collateral of the asset being acquired (typically borrowed by the acquisition special purpose vehicle, onward lent, and secured against the underlying collateral), combined with a sponsor equity commitment. To this, debt and equity commitment letters are commonplace within acquisition processes, and there is a clear expectation – both from sellers, and the acquisition financing provider – that the sponsor is committing true equity into the structure. However, as rising costs of capital have made investment returns more challenging, sponsors have looked to more creative ways to assist in levering their equity contribution, including by way of the incurrence of NAV financings. NAV financings used in this manner can mask the underlying nature of the equity commitment and, in a downside scenario, potentially lead to significantly more complex, and uncertain, workouts.

How to address the “possession or control” issue in the UK Financial Collateral Arrangements

This article examines the legal uncertainties surrounding collateralisation in the UK, focusing on the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003, SI 2003/3226. It explores the challenges posed by the “provision” of collateral and the “possession or control” test, especially in practical portfolio management and derivatives markets. Through an analysis of key case law, the article identifies inconsistencies and recommends separate definitions for “possession” and “control”. These proposed reforms aim to align legal definitions with modern financial practice, thereby enhancing legal certainty, reducing systemic risk, and supporting the resilience of financial markets.

The FSB’s Consultation on Liquidity Preparedness for Margin and Collateral Calls: is it all about liquidity?

The FSB consultation report on Liquidity Preparedness for Margin and Collateral Calls (https://www.fsb.org/2024/04/liquidity-preparedness-for-margin-and-collateral-calls-consultation-report/), responded to a number of high-profile loss-making transactions by various banks involved in lending against collateral comprised of large positions in single listed stocks. Recently, the most talked-about debacle was that of  Archegos Capital Management (Archegos), the family office of Bill Hwang with total assets reported at around $36bn. In a nutshell, the prices of several stock positions held by Archegos dropped  for different reasons and it could not post enough cash collateral, so some of the lending banks had to liquidatethe collateral shares. Some banks managed to exit their positions quickly, but other chose not to, and suffered substantial losses. 

This article provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in such large transactions and highlights the key procedural requirements and potential regulatory developments needed. 

Floating charges again

Far too much ink has been spilled attempting to distinguish between fixed and floating charges, so I will keep this brief. It was prompted by reading Sarah Worthington’s article in this journal last year (‘Fixed and floating charges: still favouring absolutism over multi-factored nuance’ (2023) 9 JIBFL 583). My purpose is twofold: to argue that distinguishing between fixed and floating charges is both conceptually impossible and commercially pointless; and then to suggest how the law might be reformed.

Russia’s quest for financial independence through the use of digital assets, cryptocurrencies and digital currencies

The Russian Central Bank and its regulatory bodies, which were historically against all things crypto, took a co-ordinated U-turn shortly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in Feburary 2022 and the imposition of unprecedented sanctions by the West - because they realised that cryptocurrencies and digital assets can be used the evade sanctions. Having been subject to widespread sanctions for over two years and effectively cut off from the international payment system (SWIFT), and largely shut out of Western's bank and bank accounts, Russia is trying to adjust the "new order" and its international isolation - both economically and financially. It is finding new ways to receive monies from the West for its raw materials and to trade independently of Westen banks  and the US dollar, so that it can transact with both friendly and not so friendly countries on the premise that West cannot  trace those transactions.