Finance parties meaning

STOP PRESS The Loan Market Association (LMA) has released refreshed editions of the standard terms and conditions for Par and Distressed Trade Transactions, the complete set of Funded Participation and Risk Participation Agreements, and the Secondary Debt Trading Documentation User Guide, with effect from 17 March 2026. The changes remove LIBOR references, update IBOR rate definitions and the Target2 definition, and revise ERISA representations to incorporate additional exemptions to the prohibited transaction rules under ERISA and the US Internal Revenue Code. The revised documentation is available exclusively to LMA members, accessible via the LMA’s Documentation Hub. These publications are updated versions issued by the LMA. Summary A core principle of trading under the LMA protocol is that ‘Trade is a Trade’; i.e. once a trade is struck—including an oral contract agreed by telephone—it is binding, and subsequent developments, even if adverse to one or both parties, do not entitle either party to cancel or ‘break’ the trade. By way of example, a failure to secure consent for...

Checklist This Checklist sets out the principal direct and indirect tax considerations that a corporate borrower within the scope of UK corporation tax (a UK corporate borrower) ought to assess both prior to entering into a loan and over the life of that loan... It is designed to be used as a Checklist by the tax adviser to a UK corporate borrower, offering a concise outline of the relevant tax matters and providing space for the adviser to record notes... This Checklist proceeds on the basis that: the borrower is a company within the charge to UK corporation tax in relation to the loan, that is, either a UK tax resident company or a non‑UK tax resident company for which the loan is attributable to its UK permanent establishment (a UK PE), or attributable to the non‑UK resident company’s trade of dealing in or developing UK land; and the borrower and the lender are unconnected parties dealing at arm’s length ...

What this checklist covers This checklist sets out the principal matters a solicitor guiding a first time issuer must verify and, where appropriate, propose changes to, when reviewing English law terms and conditions governing an issue of debt securities...

LLC Eurochem North-West-2 and another company v Societe Generale S.A. and other companies [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm) This is a highly important decision for practitioners dealing with international sanctions, as the court delivers a detailed examination of how EU sanctions interface with domestic sanctions authorities in such circumstances. It also provides an in-depth consideration of the notions of ‘ownership’ and ‘control’ for the purpose of sanctions, including where trust arrangements feature, which is not unusual when there is a link to a designated individual. The ruling is likewise of real assistance to those working with performance bonds and related trade finance instruments in the sanctions context. The background facts The relevant parties The dispute stemmed from six on-demand bonds (Bonds) issued in 2021 and 2022 by Société Générale (SocGen) and ING Bank (ING) (the Banks) in favour of EuroChem North-West-2 (EuroChem NW2), a Russian entity. The Bonds were issued under contracts between EuroChem NW2 and Tecnimont S.P.A (Tecnimont), an Italian engineering company, and its Russian affiliate...

In this issue: Lending Security Debt capital markets Derivatives Cryptoassets Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Lending Nova Leipzig Sarl v Gravity Fitness Ltd [2025] EWHC 1262 (Comm) An application to the Commercial Court sought a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court held that Gravity Fitness Limited, an English company, had not satisfied its burden on the ‘More Appropriate Forum’ question. The defendant’s reliance on the potential application of German law was insufficient to establish that Germany was a more suitable forum than England, whether viewed from the parties’ interests or the broader interests of justice. Security Brooke Homes (Bicester) Ltd v Portfolio Property Partners Ltd (in administration) [2025] EWHC 1305 (Ch) This dispute examines equitable rights and duties between secured creditors after development land was sold by the first-ranking mortgagee, Desiman. The second-ranking creditor, Brooke Homes, sought an equitable account and pressed...

Singh (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mrs Angela Garcha) v Garcha and others [2024] EWHC 1844 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The obligation on a judge to provide reasons for their conclusions flows from three core considerations: ensuring that the appellate system can operate effectively (English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd (Practice Note) [2002] EWCA Civ 605; [2002] 1 WLR 2409, para [19]) recognising that the parties are entitled to be told how their substantive rights have been decided (Weymont v Place [2015] EWCA Civ 289, para [6]) upholding fairness by addressing any evidence that appears particularly persuasive, where such material exists (Simetra Global Assets Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413, para [46]) That said, a judge is not required to engage with every point raised. It is enough if the reasoning demonstrates to the parties—and, if necessary, to the Court of Appeal—the essential basis on which the decision was reached (Eagil...

Introduction to Musharaka—a profit and loss sharing instrument of Islamic finance At the heart of Islamic finance lies the maxim ‘no profit without risk’, ie no person should realise a gain unless they bear some degree of risk. This concept is most clearly shown through the application of profit and loss sharing instruments. For further detail on this principle, see Practice Note: Key principles of Islamic finance. This Practice Note examines Musharaka, an Islamic finance technique originally founded on profit and loss sharing and broadly analogous to a conventional partnership arrangement. In straightforward terms, a Musharaka is a partnership customarily entered into by two or more parties, not necessarily for a fixed term, and most commonly for the purpose of undertaking a business venture. In a typical Musharaka, each participant makes a capital contribution to the venture and profits and losses are shared between them. A comparable Islamic finance arrangement premised on the same profit and loss sharing rule is Mudaraba, a special form of partnership in which only...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It is provided for background information only. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is an independent regulatory organisation supervising the US securities market. As part of its remit, FINRA runs the securities industry’s largest dispute resolution forum. It addresses financial and commercial disagreements between investors, brokerage firms and individual brokers, as well as disputes within and between brokerage firms and brokers. Matters are resolved through FINRA’s own arbitration process. FINRA maintains two Codes of Arbitration Procedure: the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (the Customer Code or Section 12000 of the FINRA Rules), which governs arbitrations between investors and industry participants, and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (the Industry Code or Section 13000 of the FINRA Rules), which governs arbitrations between industry parties This note relates to costs under both Codes. Filing fees Any party bringing a claim—including a counterclaim, a cross-claim or a...

For both the investing private equity fund and the target’s leadership, the prime lure of a private equity-backed buyout is the chance to crystallise a meaningful gain on exit. There are several potential paths to exit from such an investment, most typically: a trade sale to another company operating within the same sector, a flotation (IPO), or a secondary buyout (SBO). The ultimate route will hinge on considerations such as public market appetite for a listing and whether credible purchasers are available. Management often influence the decision, and may favour renewed private equity support via an SBO when the business model and prevailing market backdrop align. A secondary buyout (SBO) is, in essence, a private equity-backed acquisition of a company that has already undergone a private equity-backed buyout. In an SBO, the existing private equity owner exits its stake, though the current management team can remain in post afterwards. Alternatively, fresh management might be appointed, or a blend of old and new...

This Agreement, dated [ • ] 20[ • ], is entered into between the following parties: Parties [ insert name of Borrower ], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Borrower); and [ insert name of Lender ] of [ insert address ] (the Lender). Background (A) [ insert description of background to transaction ]. (B) The Lender has agreed to provide the Facility (as defined below) to the Borrower on the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement...

We must not use a client account to provide banking facilities for clients or third parties. This is a firm requirement of rule 3.3 in the SRA Accounts Rules, covering our main client account and any separately designated client accounts as well. Permitting use of our client account as a banking facility creates the risk that we could potentially facilitate money laundering or comparable offences. You must understand and adhere to our policy on anti-money laundering (AML), counter-terrorist financing (CTF), and counter-proliferation financing when taking receipt of client or office monies. This also encompasses our distinct policy on accepting cash. The SRA may levy substantial penalties for breach of rule 3.3. There need not be a risk of money laundering, or any hint of impropriety, for this to apply. A breach of rule 3.3, by itself, is enough for the SRA to impose a penalty on the firm and/or any individuals concerned. We should only accept funds into our client account where...

This Deed is made on [ insert day and month ] 20[ insert year ] Parties [ Insert name of Chargor ], being a company incorporated in England and Wales, with registered number [ insert company number ], and whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the “ Chargor ”); and 1 [ Insert name of Security Agent ], acting as security agent and trustee for the Finance Parties pursuant to the terms and conditions set out in the [ Facilities Agreement OR Intercreditor Agreement OR Security Trust Deed ] (the “ Security Agent ”). Recitals: (A) The Finance Parties have consented to provide loan facilities subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Facilities Agreement (as defined below). (B) As a condition precedent to the loan facilities becoming available, the Chargor must execute this Deed for the purpose of granting security in favour of the Security Agent in relation to the Secured Obligations (as defined below)...

Section 33 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (LG(MP)A 1982) This provision addresses how local authorities can enforce certain land-related covenants. It applies where a principal council and another person are parties to an instrument under seal that is executed for specific purposes relating to land in which that person has an interest. The section is engaged where the instrument is: executed to secure the carrying out of works on land within the council’s area in which the other party holds an interest; or executed to regulate the use of, or is otherwise connected with, land either within or outside the council’s area in which that party has an interest; and only where the instrument is neither executed to facilitate, nor otherwise connected with, the development of the relevant land. LG(MP)A 1982, s 33(2) sets out powerful enforcement provisions...