The U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023
Whilst AI is leading the agenda when it comes to the future of technology, fintech still remains the ace in the pack for investors. In fact, fintech businesses contribute more than £10 billion to the UK economy every year – supporting 76,000 jobs.
Fintechs also tend to outperform firms in other sectors too, with an annualised growth rate of 16% over the past decade, against 1.3% for the average SME.
The U.K. government has published its much-anticipated proposals for regulating the cryptoasset industry. These proposals, currently in the form of a consultation, will see many (but not all) cryptoasset-related activities being brought within the regulatory perimeter for financial services in the U.K.
There has been much commentary recently on the treatment by lenders of individuals and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Indeed, the FCA has made its expectations very clear – that lenders should fully support those experiencing financial difficulty.
As a restructuring professional and insolvency practitioner, and a former regulator, I have some competing views and thoughts on what this means and whether it is the optimum approach in the longer term.
In 1907, Robert Baden-Powell, an English soldier, devised the Scout motto: Be Prepared. Upon hearing the Scout motto, someone asked Baden-Powell the inevitable follow-up question.
“Prepared for what?”
“Why, for any old thing,” he replied.
In Scouting for Boys (published in 1908), Baden-Powell wrote that to ‘Be Prepared’ means “you are always in a state of readiness in mind and body to do your duty.” More than a century later, preparedness is still a cornerstone of Scouting.
Celebrated WWII leader, General George Patton, once said “Do not try to make circumstances fit your plans. Make plans that fit the circumstances.” Unfortunately, it’s advice that is not being fully heeded, according to the FCA’s latest thematic review on wind-down planning The FCA has concluded that “significant further work” is needed to ensure wind-down plans are credible and operable, and has urged all firms to ensure adequate procedures and resources (both financial and non-financial) are in place.
The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.
In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Factual Background
In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).
InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.
Background