Search results for

Credit Foncier’s offering of €1 billion RMBS has been hailed as the deal that could reopen the French securitisation market

Dieter Grünblatt, Stefan Kramer and Benedikt Maurenbrecher of Homburger explain Switzerland’s new clearing system for paperless mortgage certificates

Anna Pinedo and Jerry Marlatt of Morrison & Foerster examine the opportunity for US regulators to adopt a framework to encourage the issuance of covered bonds by US banks

Orrick’s Raul Ricozzi and Francesca Isgrò explain what must change before investors and sponsors can gain the benefit of project bond technology

Corporate inversions out of the US continue to gather pace. Arthur Cox's Maura McLaughlin and Conor Hurley explain what a company must consider when choosing a transaction structure

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton's Richard Cooper, Adam Brenneman and Jessica McBride analyse the new statute and explain why lawmakers have not overcome their scepticism of in-court reorganisations

Investors may have been buoyed by a ruling that creates new liabilities for rating agencies. Herbert Smith Freehills' Harry Edwards explains why litigation in EU courts could have a very different outcome

Thomas Sando One of the changes to the Norwegian Competition Act (the Act) that entered into force on January 1 2014 was the amendments to the leniency scheme available for cartel participants considering blowing the whistle to the Norwegian Competition Authority (the NCA). Under the previous scheme, the conditions for obtaining leniency were hidden in the Leniency Regulation. From January 1, the conditions are included in the new sections 30 and 31 of the Act, dealing with complete and partial leniency respectively. Besides the relocation of the conditions for obtaining leniency, the amended scheme introduces a marker system in line with the system in the EU. This is an improvement, as it will be possible for leniency applicants to initially bring only limited information, yet receive leniency rights from the time of the initial application.

Jeff Bullwinkel, Microsoft's director of legal for the Asia Pacific, explains why a complance benchmark would help assure firms that they can adopt the cloud without flouting the region’s maze of regulations

John Breslin Karole Cuddihy The Irish High Court decision in Ulster Bank Ireland Limited v Dermody (2014) has raised an evidential issue for financial institutions contemplating debt enforcement and possession proceedings. The issue is whether, in proceedings brought by a bank, evidence grounding the proceedings can be given by an officer or employee of a legal entity other than the bank. In a number of cases, the intended deponent will in fact be an employee of a related company (or in some cases an employee of an external service provider), even if they have carried out the day-to-day dealings with the customer. In Dermody, the person who swore the affidavits grounding the application for summary judgment was not an employee of Ulster Bank Ireland Limited (UBIL), but rather of Ulster Bank Limited (UBL), a related company which dealt with the debt collection process of UBIL on its behalf. UBIL was a wholly owned subsidiary of UBL.