Is a court order necessary for security interests granted after the appointment of external administrators? Perhaps not.

On 30 October 2023, HM Treasury (“HMT”) published 3 key updates on its proposed approach to regulating cryptoassets under the UK’s financial services regulatory framework, namely:

On 30 October 2023, the UK government published an update on its legislative approach for regulating fiat-backed stablecoins, following on from its consultation on the UK regulatory approach to cryptoassets and stablecoins in January 2021, and the response to that consultation in April 2022. Alongside this, it published a response to its consultation on the approach to managing the failure of systemic digital settlement asset (DSA) (including stablecoin) firms.

This case relates to the principle that creditors with the benefit of a third-party debt order, are ostensibly in a better position than other unsecured creditors of an insolvent estate.

In the matter of Mr. Shantanu Prakash vs. Mr. Mahendar Singh Khandelwal (resolution professional of Educomp Solutions Limited) and others, while disposing of an interim application filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT New Delhi”) held that a guarantor can question the valuation at which the security pledged by the borrower with its secured creditor is enforced.

Brief Facts

The Financial Conduct Authority (“the FCA”) issued a Final Notice against London Capital & Finance plc (“LCF”) for contravening regulatory requirements (pursuant to section 205 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“the Act”)). The Final Notice contained a statement censuring LCF for failing to ensure that its financial promotions were fair, clear and not misleading.

With the passing of the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act (MTSA) (likely to pass into law in 2024) the way in which we take security over rights and assets in Scotland will be brought firmly into the 21st century, doing away with the need to rely on statutes from as long ago as 1862 and a smattering of case law which has fostered uncertainty in the market for almost as long.

はじめに

コロナ禍によって事業や財政状態が毀損した企業の再生が課題となる近時、実質的に債務超過状態にある上場会社をスポンサーが完全子会社化する（つまり既存株主の保有する株式を全てスポンサーが取得する）ことで、その経営再建を図る事例が増加しつつある。

こうした事例では、事業再生ADR手続等の準則型私的整理手続を通じた金融債権者（金融機関）を対象とする債務リストラクチャリング（債務免除による金融支援）によって過剰債務を解消するとともに、スポンサー支援を通じて資本を拡充し手元資金を確保した上で、対象会社の上場を廃止してスポンサーの完全子会社となり抜本的な再建プロセスが講じられることになる。

Introduction

In Short:

The Situation: After the nationalization of the Dutch SNS banking and insurance group, the Dutch Minister of Finance offered zero compensation to expropriated bondholders.

The Result: Ten years after the nationalization, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed compensation awards totaling approximately €1 billion including accrued interest.

Looking Ahead: The SNS case provides some interesting lessons on where those seeking compensation in the context of bank bailouts and resolutions may head.