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.

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.