Search results for

The rules are a salvo against recognising home country rules

Investment opportunities continue to increase. But uncertainties surrounding deal processes and risk mitigants are ever-present challenges

Who took home what from IFLR’s annual Asia awards

Europe’s most popular fund domiciles, as revealed by the global survey A global survey of 200 asset managers has revealed their priorities when choosing European fund domiciles, with some surprising results. The Economist Intelligence Unit survey, commissioned by Matheson and released on March 4, confirms previous reports that Ireland is Europe's fund domicile of choice. Other findings, however, challenge the traditional perceptions of the funds industry.

A new stock exchange geared towards startups is set to open in Chile in this summer. It should help the country achieve its goal of becoming a regional hub for startups. And its offering model could be exported to other jurisdictions.

European bank capital will come of age this year. Regulatory and market developments have combined to create long-awaited optimism around the asset class

John Breslin Karole Cuddihy In a recent decision, the Irish High Court held that if an investor has paid money to a firm based on a fraudulent misrepresentation, the payer has a proprietary claim to the payment (In re Custom House Capital; Scott v Wallace 2013 IEHC 559). This is obviously crucial where a firm is in insolvent liquidation. The Irish High Court (Justice Finlay Geoghegan) held that monies held on account by Custom House Capital Limited (CHC) before its winding up were held on trust for one of its clients. The client of CHC had, between April and July 2009, transferred most of her personal savings and pension funds to CHC for investment, including a sum of €145,000 ($202,000), referred to as a deposit. The client had agreed that the latter sum would be invested by way of a subordinated loan agreement.

Mak Lin Kum The Companies Bill 2013, tabled by the Companies Commission of Malaysia, proposes a new approach to the reduction of share capital, in line with developments in jurisdictions like Australia and Singapore. At present, a special resolution for the reduction of share capital requires a confirmation by the court before it can take effect. The new bill allows an alternative and a seemingly simpler process of capital reduction, whereby only a special resolution and solvency statement are required. The option of going to court to confirm a capital reduction resolution is still preserved under this new Bill. Although it may appear that this non-court approach is simpler, several reasons may be offered as to why the court approach may continue to remain popular and not be rendered obsolete.

Iñigo de Luisa Ignacio Buil Royal Decree Law 4/2014 of March 7, on urgent measures for refinancing and restructuring corporate debt, significantly amends Spain's insolvency regulation in several key ways. One of its most relevant new provisions deals with the new regime for court-sanctioned (homologation) refinancing agreements (also known as Spanish schemes of arrangement) under the 4th Additional Provision of the Spanish Insolvency Law. The new framework is mainly aimed at improving refinancing processes in Spain. It will introduce more flexibility and new tools to enhance the deleveraging of viable Spanish companies, and facilitate pre-petition restructuring deals while preventing debtors from filing for concurso which is generally value-destructive as in more than 90% of cases results in liquidation, with very low recovery for creditors.

Prior to the enactment of Capital Markets Law 6362 and of December 30 2012 (the Law), it was not clear whether over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives were subject to the Capital Markets Board's (CMBs) regulations under the old legislation. This was because the old legislation did not provide clear rules in terms of OTC derivatives. According to the CMB's principle decisions issued under the old legislation, OTC derivatives were not subject to the CMB regulations. Accordingly, it was generally understood that OTC derivatives did not require an authorisation from the CMB under the old legislation. However, given the fact that Article 6/8 of Decree No. 32 requires such transactions to be carried out through CMB-licensed intermediary institutions operating in Turkey, or by intermediary institutions abroad, this gave rise to an uncertainty amongst banks in particular that were willing to execute OTC derivatives with their customers.