Systemic risks, regulatory powers and insolvency law : the need of an international instrument on the private law framework for netting

This study examines the legal environment of netting agreements covering financial contracts. It concludes that an international instrument should be developed capable of improving the effectiveness of netting agreements in mitigating systemic risk. To this end, two different aspects of the enforceability of netting agreements are considered: (i) the general enforceability of netting, and (ii) the possibility of precluding the operation of netting a mechanism by way of a regulatory moratorium for considerations of systemic stability. The first part of the study presents the use of netting and the various forms it may take before going on to explain the benefits and drawbacks of enforceable netting agreements. Benefits for individual firms consist in lower counterparty risk and more favourable capital requirements. Benefits for the financial market as a whole flow from greater financial market stability since the contagion of systemically relevant institutions by the default or insolvency of another institution is limited, thus helping to avoid systemic effects. Additionally, the use of netting arrangements can improve overall market liquidity. A potential drawback of enforceability of netting, in certain situations, is that the operation of a netting mechanism could actually work against the purpose of systemic stability where the transfer of parts of the business of an insolvent financial institution to a solvent bridge entity would enhance or maintain value to a greater extent than the operation of a netting agreement would. Regulatory authorities are considering under which conditions a moratorium to halt the netting mechanism until the situation is solved could avoid this threat to systemic stability. The second part of the study examines whether there is the potential to support the purpose of enhanced systemic stability by way of international harmonisation of private and insolvency law. As regards the issue of general enforceability, the global picture of netting legislation is heterogeneous. Given the great practical relevance of the matter, an international instrument could be very useful. As to the issue of private law consequences of regulatory moratoria, the absence of a harmonised framework appears to lead to actual cross-border inconsistency and legal uncertainty as regards financial contracts that are governed by a foreign law. Taking these to aspects into account, this paper recommends that work on developing an international instrument be undertaken. The final part of the study suggests a set of preliminary guidelines for the development of suchan instrument. In the light of the findings of the previous sections, a mixed, two-step approach is recommended. First, a non-binding instrument could be developed, serving as a benchmark and reservoir of legal solutions in respect of the relevant issues. Secondly, isolated aspects relating to both the general enforceability of netting and the accommodation of a regulatory moratorium in foreign private and insolvency law could be dealt with in an international Convention, in particular where cross-border situations involving netting require uniformity of applicable legal rules

The governance of blockchain financial networks

Since the emergence of the virtual currency Bitcoin in 2009, a new, Internet-based way of recording entitlements and enforcing rights has increasingly captured the interest of businesses and governments. The technology is commonly called ‘blockchain’ and is often associated with a closely related phenomenon, the ‘smart contract’. The market is now exploring ways of using these concepts for financial assets, such as securities, legal tender and derivative contracts. This article develops a conceptual framework for the governance of blockchain-based networks in financial markets. It constructs a vision of how financial regulation and private law should set the boundaries of this new technology in order to protect market participants and societies at large, while at the same time allowing for the necessary room for innovation

The value of insolvency safe harbours

‘Safe harbour’ is shorthand for a bundle of privileges in insolvency which are typically afforded to financial institutions. They are remotely comparable to security interests as they provide a financial institution with a considerably better position as compared to other creditors should one of its counterparties fail or become insolvent. Safe harbours have been introduced widely and continue to be introduced in financial markets. The common rationale for such safe harbours is that the protection against the fallout of the counterparty’s insolvency contributes to systemic stability, as the feared ‘domino effect’ of insolvencies is not triggered from the outset. However, safe harbours are also criticised for accelerating contagion in the financial market in times of crisis and making the market more risky. This paper submits that the more important argument for the existence of safe harbours is liquidity in the financial market. Safe harbour rules do away with a number of legal concepts, notably those attached to traditional security, and thereby allow for an exponentiation of liquidity. Normative decisions of the legislator sanction safe harbours as modern markets could not exist without these high levels of liquidity. To the extent that safe harbours accelerate contagion in terms of crisis, which in principle is a valid argument, specific regulation is well suited to correct this situation, whereas a repeal or significant restriction of the safe harbours would be counterproductive

Repo and derivatives portfolios between insolvency law and regulation

In the general perception, financial institutions’ immense repo and derivatives portfolios are friends and foes alike: friends, because they provide for levels of market liquidity that would be unimaginable without them. Foes, because both types of transactions are somehow regarded as being unstable and volatile in their nature, potentially exacerbating and accelerating crisis situations. This tension is also reflected in the treatment of repos and derivatives in the event of a corporate crisis. Insolvency law and relevant regulation seem to support and protect repo and derivatives transactions, while at the same time imposing limits on them, trying to balance liquidity arguments with those relating to stability. This paper concludes that regulation is better placed than insolvency law to address systemic stability concerns, whereas relevant insolvency rules guarantee high levels of liquidity while they are ineffective in terms of stability. The paper will concentrate on EU and US law, complemented by international benchmarks. It expands on certain aspects first developed my earlier paper on insolvency safe harbours

The value of financial market insolvency safe harbours

‘Safe harbour’ is shorthand for a bundle of privileges in insolvency which are typically afforded to financial institutions. They are remotely comparable to security interests as they provide a financial institution with a considerably better position in insolvency. The common rationale for such safe harbours is that they protect against systemic risk. This paper submits that the true argument for the existence of safe harbours is rather liquidity in the financial market. Safe harbour rules do away with a number of legal concepts, notably those attached to traditional security, and thereby allow for the exponentiation of liquidity. The law sanctions safe harbours as modern economies are dependent on these high levels of liquidity. To the extent that safe harbours accelerate contagion in times of crisis, which in principle is a valid argument, specific regulation is well suited to correct this situation. To repeal or significantly restrict the safe harbours would be counterproductive

Securities, intermediation and the blockchain: an inevitable choice between liquidity and legal certainty?

The practice of securities holding, transfer, and collateral has changed significantly over the past 200 years—moving from paper certificates and issuer registers, to an intermediated environment, and from there to computerization and globalization. These changes have made transacting more efficient and thus rendered markets more liquid. However, the law has lagged behind and is now itself an obstacle to efficiency because international securities transactions are subject to considerable legal uncertainty. The latest global market development, a cryptographic transfer process commonly called the blockchain, is the most recent efficiency-enhancing change. It offers a unique possibility to create a consistent legal framework for securities from scratch, on the basis of a legal concept that, to some extent, resembles bearer securities. This article shows what the new international legal framework could look like in the light of experience gained from earlier developments

The blue child – amiodarone-induced blue-gray skin syndrome and pulmonary mass in a child

Adverse effects of amiodarone are rarely seen in pediatric patients, but may occur if amiodarone is applied for long-term treatment. Two rather rare phenomena are blue-gray skin pigmentation and pulmonary mass. They represent important differential diagnoses from more common clinical complications like pneumonia and drug-induced toxic skin lesions