はじめに

「金融かわら版～担保法制の見直しに関する中間試案①～」においては、法制審議会担保法制部会（以下、「担保法制部会」といいます。）の2022年12月6日の第29回会議において取りまとめられた「担保法制の見直しに関する中間試案」（以下、「中間試案」といいます。）の第1章「担保権の効力」及び第2章「担保権の対抗要件及び優劣関係」につき、中間試案とともに公表された担保法制の見直しに関する中間試案の補足説明（以下、「補足説明」といいます。）や、その後に公表された担保法制部会資料等も踏まえて、特に金融実務の観点から重要と思われる点を中心に紹介いたしました。本稿では、それに引き続き、中間試案の第３章「担保権の実行」、第4章「担保権の倒産手続における取扱い」及び第５章「その他」のうち、金融実務及び倒産実務の観点から重要と考えられる項目を紹介します。

個別動産を目的とする新たな規定に係る担保権の実行

On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration did not have authority to forgive student loans under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). Despite this defeat, the Biden administration is still working to reduce the burden of student loans. Advocates for student loan relief argue that student loans can be a crushing form of debt in part because of their treatment in bankruptcy. It is the common belief that student loans, unlike other forms of unsecured debt, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 17, 2023.

Eine Herausforderung für Gläubiger im Insolvenzverfahren: Die Informationsbeschaffung zur Steuerung der Geschäftsbeziehung und Geltendmachung von Rechten.

Der Insolvenzverwalter oder in der Eigenverwaltung der eigenverwaltende Schuldner (in der Regel der Geschäftsführer) wird dem ihm bekannten Gläubiger nach Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens schriftlich die Gelegenheit geben, Forderungen zur Insolvenztabelle anzumelden. Damit ist der Gläubiger zumindest über die Eröffnung informiert.

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.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court (SC) handed down judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2023] UKSC 25. In summary, the SC found that banks do not owe a duty to refrain from executing customers’ direct payment instructions where there may be an attempt to defraud the customer.

It's out! The Supreme Court has handed down its keenly awaited judgment on whether banks owe a Quincecare duty not to carry out a customer's instructions in cases of suspected fraud.

The confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic, high inflation, and increased borrowing costs culminated in countries incurring record levels of debt.[1] Despite this global debt crisis, there is currently no comprehensive set of rules or body of law to govern the restructuring of sovereign debt.

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.

The new Belgian restructuring plan for large enterprises: secured creditors no longer entitled to the reorganisation value.

The long anticipated law of 7 June 2023 implementing the European Directive on restructuring and insolvency brings about a major reform of Belgian insolvency law. Among various other innovations, it introduces a new judicial reorganisation through collective agreement for large enterprises.¹

The new law will apply to all procedures opened as from 1 September 2023.