Do you get Butterworth’s Journal of International Banking and Financial Law? I do and judging by the reactions of bank lawyers around me, the articles have become interesting and relevant in the last few issues. Take for example this month’s issue:
Amending a syndicated loan agreement; How committed is a ‘Committed Facility’?; and Basel II – market liquidity and borrower issues – mouth watering stuff.
The Daily Telegraph reports today: “Banks have been dealt another blow in their battle to fend off claims against overdraft charges after the Financial Ombudsman ordered Alliance & Leicester to compensate a customer for closing his account.” See here for the full report. The case begs the question: why should a bank have to operate an account for someone who does not agree to its terms of business?
“Transferability”, the procedure that enables a new lender to replace an existing lender in a syndicated loan, is one of the defining characteristics of a syndicated loan agreement. Martin Hughes has written a four page article in the new Law and Financial Markets Review (January 2007) that sets out why transferability was needed and issues in transferability. He points out that investors in distressed debt do regularly purchase by way of transfers (eg the Argo Fund) but he thinks they would be well advised not to.
Setting an Agenda for Future Competitiveness
GNOSIS (of Liverpool University) are running this session at the London Business School on 23rd February. It sounds very impressive if this is your sort of thing.
GNOSIS say As part of a major Government funded initiative to support National Competitiveness, you are invited to contribute to the development of an agenda that can help to influence policy and define the future of competitiveness in the Banking sectorThis event is one of a series of 3 events to take place in 2007, culminating in an International Conference defining a new Vision for Competitiveness in the 21st Century in September 2007. This event will provide insights from cutting edge research on the main trends, current practices and future challenges in the banking sector. It will also provide the opportunity to interact, debate and learn from insights of other practitioners, policymakers and senior academics doing research in this sector. Bookings are taken till 16 February.
Leave a comment here if you would like me to send you GNOSIS contact details
The European Data Protection Supervisor has issued his opinion on the role of the European Central Bank in the SWIFT case. There is a bit of a history behind this: the SWIFT case started in June 2006 when press coverage revealed a secret US terrorist financing tracking system. This raised issues of compliance with European data protection legislation, and complaints were lodged with data protection authorities all over Europe.Have a look at this here, for some background.
The Opinion ought to be available here, but isn’t yet. Keep looking. ECB’s position in the context of the payment system is threefold, being an overseer, a user, and a policy maker. When deciding to use SWIFT’s services in its own payment operations, the ECB was placed in the position of a joint controller. As such, it is co-responsible for ensuring full compliance with data protection rules. This includes ensuring respect for the purpose limitation principle, information to data subjects, and adequate guarantees when personal data are transferred to third countries.
