Business Law International (BLI)

This article considers the role of lawyers in assisting their clients in recognising the challenges and opportunities created by the transition to a net-zero, low-carbon economy. In particular, it focuses upon the impact of United Kingdom regulation and environmentally focused litigation on the private sector’s transition to net zero and the sustainability of business practices.

Read this article online     

In recent years, the financial growth of the digital economy and the influence of its associated assets and organisations has led to a concern over the legal mechanisms governing market interactions on blockchain systems. More critically, the question of ‘which law, which court’ is one that the Law Commission of England and Wales has posed in relation to considering the dilemma of which laws will govern a tech-related dispute. This conflict of laws issue is exacerbated in the world of decentralised finance, given the inherently borderless nature of blockchain transactions, which can lack the necessary legal safeguards.

The article frames this issue in the context of payment systems, decentralised autonomous organisations and digital wallets. The potential displacement of central counterparties that decentralised finance proposes, alongside a wealth of efficiency and security benefits, must be assessed against the backdrop of cryptocurrency related fraud, cybersecurity concerns and the revolutionary nature of contracting between parties on decentralised platforms. The article aims to show that the aggregate gain of this financial revolution must be approached with legal caution, given that principles of private international law, company law and contract law may not adequately remedy (in one form or another) the range of legal concerns regarding the resolution of blockchain-related disputes. As the article will highlight and argue, the implementation of an international framework to homogenise jurisdictional variations requires rectifying a range of underlying legal ambiguities and speculations to unify a currently fragmented framework of regulation(s).

Read this article online     

EU Directive 2011/61/EU, commonly known as the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), came into force on 22 July 2013 and had a profound effect on the alternative investment fund industry, not just within the European Union but across the world. The overriding purpose of the original AIFMD regime was to help create a single market in the EU for the management and marketing of alternative investment funds and to strengthen investor protection and financial stability across the industry. Nearly ten years after the introduction of the original AIFMD, the EU legislature is now at an advanced stage of introducing amendments that will update the provisions of the AIFMD with a view to enhancing the directive. The amendment proposals are commonly referred to as ‘AIFMD II’.

While the asset management industry cautiously awaits details of the finalised AIFMD II package, the various stages of the legislative process are being closely monitored by industry participants given the importance of the directive to the sector.

This article provides an overview of: the background to the proposals and the proposed timeline for the introduction of AIFMD II; the latest developments in the process (as of the date of writing), which include a summary of the proposals and, in particular, the latest positions adopted by the various European legislative institutions; and the likely impact of the proposed changes on the alternative investment funds industry.

Read this article online     

As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to have an impact on our economy and social structures, it comes as no surprise that the way people work – and the digital tools used – differ substantially from our experience of pre-pandemic work. Across the globe, organisations are extending a suite of remote work options, including full-time remote work, hybrid remote work and flexible personalised plans. The legal profession is no exception to this trend, and in facilitating the shift, a variety of digital tools and services have been implemented to optimise the experience of remote legal work. These tools and services include virtual meeting platforms, digital hearing and filing platforms for courts, e-signatures, digital document review and e-discovery.

The international uptake of digital tools and services in legal work signals a shift towards a new ‘normal’ in the profession. While being a lawyer was once synonymous with paper stacks and extensive physical libraries, digital tools and services have made the same world available through one’s laptop. The sustainability of the shift and our new ‘normal’ is also due in part to legislative reforms during the height of the pandemic that enabled an increased use of digital tools and services, and which in some cases continue to be in effect today. This article will examine how several jurisdictions, namely Australia, Belgium, India, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom, adapted their legislative frameworks to facilitate remote work, the impact of remote work on the legal profession, the various innovations adopted in the context of the pandemic and whether such innovations and associated changes were maintained after the lifting of associated restrictions.

Read this article online     

In recent years, financial technology (Fintech) has expanded worldwide, forcing traditional institutions to adapt to this innovative means of doing financial business. Around the globe, the legal response to this new trend has been diverse, although we can still trace certain similarities. In this context, the Banking Law Committee of the International Bar Association has conducted an investigation project to observe the regulatory and legal responses to Fintech and their impact. For this purpose, we have worked with different law firms from 39 countries. This article summarises the findings of this project.

Read this article online     

The government-imposed lockdowns and restrictions necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic, together with the changes in consumer behaviour that the virus triggered, had a radical impact on the turnover of many businesses. Those businesses often looked to their business interruption insurance to recoup their losses.

In relation to such insurance claims, the United Kingdom regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in cooperation with leading insurers, launched a test case with a view to resolving some of the fundamental coverage issues arising on a selection of common market wordings.

The decision in the FCA test case of course left several issues unanswered, particularly in relation to the assessment of quantum. Three recent cases have attempted to address these issues. They were brought by Stonegate (a pub chain), Greggs (a bakery chain) and Various Eateries (a group of restaurants).

Read this article online     

• Volume 24 Number 1, January 2023
• Volume 23 Number 3, September 2022
• Volume 23 Number 2, May 2022
• Volume 23 Number 1, January 2022
• Volume 22 Number 3, September 2021
• Volume 22 Number 2, May 2021
• Volume 22 Number 1, January 2021
• Volume 21 Number 3, September 2020
• Volume 21 Number 2, May 2020
• Volume 21 Number 1, January 2020
• Volume 20 Number 3, September 2019
• Volume 20 Number 2, May 2019
• Volume 20 Number 1, January 2019