Introduction
With the continuing development of sophisticated cross-border financial transactions, certain contractual practices have evolved and, with the passage of time, become recognised as standard in the relevant marketplace. Financial centres such as Jersey monitor such developments with a view to implementing policy and/or legislation as may be required or desirable to maintain and enhance the reputation of Jersey as a jurisdiction of choice for such cross-border transactions.
Pursuant to Article 3:246 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) pledgees have the power to enforce their right of pledge on receivables by claiming (direct) payment of the receivable. This power also includes the right to enforce rights of pledge that in their turn have been granted as security for the repayment of the pledged receivable. The Supreme Court confirmed this in its judgement of 18 December 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).
Het is pandhouders op grond van artikel 3:246 lid 1 Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW) toegestaan om een pandrecht op vorderingen uit te winnen door middel van het opeisen van de vordering. Deze bevoegdheid omvat tevens het recht om zekerheidsrechten uit te winnen die aan de verpande vordering zijn verbonden. Dit is bevestigd in een arrest van de Hoge Raad van 18 december 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).
Feiten
Our legislation prohibits (as unconscionable) clauses that, while not negotiated with consumers, require “collateral disproportionate to the risk assumed” (art. 88(1) of the Spanish Consumer and User Protection Act). Note that this rule has not been the subject of any case law development and that the clause that paradoxically could yield to art.
On August 28, 2012, the Special Tribunal related to Dubai World (the “Tribunal”) formally approved the restructuring of more than US$2 billion of debt of Drydocks World LLC and Drydocks World – Dubai LLC (together, “Drydocks”) under a syndicated term loan facility and separate hedging agreements, in the first restructuring approved under Dubai Decree No.
Actions taken to seize control of a securitisation structure and the underlying loan portfolio declared void and of no effect.
Two recent High Court cases, Business Mortgage Finance 6 Plc v Greencoat Investments Limited and others [2019] EWHC 2128 (Ch) (the Greencoat Case) and Business Mortgage Finance 6 Plc v Roundstone Technologies Ltd [2019] EWHC 2917 (Ch) (the Roundstone Case) (together, the Business Mortgage Cases), have affirmed a number of principles relating to securities held through the clearing systems and the powersof receivers, including the following:
The lender's dilemma
Lenders who take security over shares in an English company have to decide whether to take either:
- a legal mortgage by becoming registered owner of the shares
- an equitable mortgage or charge with the chargor remaining the registered owner.
A legal mortgage gives the lender the right to vote subject to the terms of the mortgage document and prevents the chargor from disposing of legal title to the shares to a third party, as the lender is the registered owner of the shares.
- The 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Court of Appeal provides clarity on payment obligations owed to insolvent counterparties
Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 419
The UK Supreme Court, which is the UK's highest court, has handed down its long-awaited decision in Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, in which the Court considered the validity and enforceability of so-called "flip" clauses under English bankruptcy law.