Friday's Business section of The Times made interesting reading to us debt finance nerds.

ne in three of us own crypto currencies, crypto ownership is estimated to have doubled in the UK last year – and two of the world’s biggest crypto exchanges face lawsuits from the securities regulator, the SEC, in the US. Three statistics from the FT this week that put warnings from the UK’s financial regulator – that crypto is largely unregulated and high risk, and investors should be prepared to lose all their money – into context. The FCA noted that it is up to consumers to decide whether to buy crypto, but that many regret making a hasty decision.

In the recent case of Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the High Court revisited the perpetually knotty question: what level of control is necessary for a charge over assets to take effect as a fixed, rather than floating, charge?

The so-called crypto-winter and associated high profile insolvencies of major players such as FTX, Three Arrows Capital and Genesis may have dampened enthusiasm for this new asset class in some quarters. However, while volatility is likely to be an ongoing characteristic in the short and medium term, it is probably better to view recent events as a period of market correction rather than the "beginning of the end" of crypto assets.

The future for a new class of digital assets

In Re Scherzade Khilji (in bankruptcy) the court provided useful guidance on when the three-year "use it or lose it" limitation period to realise a bankrupt’s primary place of residence (provided by section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986) commences.

Background

This case concerns the property interests of Ms Scherzade Khilji (Ms Khilji), who was declared bankrupt on 2 July 2018. Her trustee in bankruptcy was appointed on 7 August 2018 (the trustee).

A raft of new legislation was introduced during the pandemic with the aim of shielding businesses from the full economic impact of lockdown. One such piece of legislation was the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA). Some of the protections implemented by CIGA were temporary – for example, restrictions on the presentation of winding up petitions or the suspension of liability for wrongful trading. However, a number of permanent changes to insolvency legislation remain in force.

Banks often take security for the loans they advance – doing so gives them some additional protection if a borrower fails to repay the loan when due. Where the borrower is a company, that security can take the form of a mortgage, a security assignment, a pledge, lien, or a charge. In this short article, we explain what a charge is and the differences between a fixed and floating charge.

But firstly, what is a charge?

The High Court has approved the sale of a portfolio of securities owned by Sova Capital Limited (Sova) to an unsecured creditor in consideration of the release of that creditor’s claim. The court’s approval of the transaction in this case marks the first reported decision on an unsecured credit bid for the assets of a company in administration (Re Sova Capital Limited (in special administration) [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch)).

Facts

Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge has caused countless disputes between pledgees and insolvency administrators. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.

Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge between pledgees and insolvency administrators has caused countless disputes. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.