Insights

The Annual Global Fund Finance Symposium was held in Miami from 26-28 February 2025. The symposium typically brings together all major market participants in fund finance and this year was no exception, with over 2,500 delegates attending.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (the “Act”) received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024. Its focus is to bolster competition in the UK and ultimately, protect consumers. The Act makes significant changes by introducing new obligations and providing direct enforcement powers to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Businesses will need to be aware of the new changes from the outset and adopt a proactive approach to their implementation, crucially to avoid being subject to unwanted penalties for breaches.

In a business environment characterised by tremendous change and impact as a result of the new Trump Administration and the 119th Congress, it is crucial for U.K. businesses to stay informed about developments in the U.S. Crowell is focused on providing clients with timely and actionable insights that can help to inform forward-looking business priorities and strategies.

As a result of the Procurement Act 2023, the UK procurement regime  changed on 24 February 2025. To read about the key changes, please see our article Understanding the UK’s New Procurement Regime in 2025.

As they have on each previous anniversary, the EU and UK released new sanctions against Russia on February 24, 2025, to mark the three-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For the first time, the United States did not do the same, electing to issue a limited set of Iran-related sanctions on the anniversary instead. The EU package was more fulsome than the UK package, including new port and airport restrictions, additional trade restrictions (including an aluminium ban), enhanced military end-user restrictions, and additional asset freezes and vessel designations.

On February 4, 2025, California Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan introduced AB 412, titled the AI Copyright Transparency Act (the “Act”), which is aimed at increasing greater transparency when copyrighted materials are used as training data for Generative AI (“GenAI”) models and systems. If passed, the Act would require developers who use copyrighted materials as part of their training dataset to disclose this use to the copyright owners.

The UK’s new Procurement Act 2023 (the “Act”) takes effect from 24 February 2025. Our view is that while there are a small number of important differences, which we discuss below, the majority of the processes outlined in previous legislation, remain unchanged, despite some changes in terminology.

The Directive on Credit Servicers and Credit Purchasers was adopted by the EU in 2021 (the Directive) and the implementing technical standards (ITS) relating to the Directive have also been adopted by the European Commission. Member states (of the EU) were required to implement the Directive into local law by the end of 2023 and notably France, Luxembourg, Ireland and Germany have now passed laws implementing the Directive.

President-elect Donald Trump has proposed to expedite federal approvals and permits for any investments worth more than $1 billion.[1] To date, details of Trump’s current proposed fast-tracking initiative have not been articulated. If put into action, however, infrastructure megaprojects will certainly be among the investments covered by any such initiative, with such fast-tracking potentially enhancing disputes risks before projects commence and throughout the lifecycle of the project.

In a recent UK Court of Appeal judgment in what is known as “the motor finance cases” (see Johnson v FirstRand Bank, Wrench v FirstRand Bank and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited, which appeals were all heard together), the Court has shone a spotlight on the issue of commissions paid by financiers to brokers and determined that, in some cases, they may be considered “bribes” under UK law. 

On 18 September 2024, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30.  The judgment considers several significant issues relevant to international arbitration.  Primarily, though, it reaffirms: (i) the English court’s strong support for arbitration, in general; (ii) the steps it is prepared to take to hold parties to their agreement to arbitrate; and (iii) the current position for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement, in the absence of an express election by the parties.

On Sunday, September 29, 2024, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 1047, a bill to enact the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act. Although the bill passed the California Assembly and Senate, it generated significant controversy and debate within the tech community. The Center for AI Safety, Elon Musk, the L.A. Times editorial board, and San Francisco-based AI startup Anthropic all supported the bill; while Meta, OpenAI, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposed it as hindering innovation.

The amount of litigation regarding environmental and climate change issues is, perhaps unsurprisingly, growing worldwide.[1] A significant portion of that litigation relates to so-called ‘greenwashing’, ‘climate-washing’ or ‘social-washing’ disputes. In other words, legal cases where people or organisations (often NGOs and consumer groups) accuse companies, banks, financial institutions or others, of making untrue statements. They argue these companies or financial institutions are pretending their products, services or operations are more environmentally-friendly, sustainable, or ethically ‘good’ for society – than is really the case. Perhaps more interestingly, of all the litigation in the environmental and climate change space – complainants bringing greenwashing and social washing cases have, according to some of these reports, statistically the most chance of winning. So, in a nutshell, not only is greenwashing and social washing litigation on the rise, companies and financial institutions are most likely to lose cases in this area.

In the ever-evolving landscape of English law credit agreements in the European leveraged loan market, the dynamics of lending have undergone significant transformations in the last few years. One issue that has gained prominence is the increase in limits on the ability of lenders to transfer their loans and the associated restrictions imposed on potential new lenders. European syndicated loan agreements have historically included a standardised and expected set of transfer restrictions applicable to prospective lenders, reflective of the market guidance and templates issued by the Loan Market Association (“LMA”). Certainty of terms and the capability of an existing lender to sell out of a loan position have been the hallmark (and expectation) of the LMA loan market. However, trends in the drafting of credit agreements have contained a concerning increase in limitations on loan liquidity. As a result, many lenders are finding it difficult to sell their distressed loans. This article explores these trends, as well as their implications on the secondary loan trading market.

In response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and to exert further pressure on Russia, the EU enacted its 14thsanctions package against Russia on June 24, 2024. The new package comes after months of negotiations between Member States, and follow, but in many ways expand upon, those passed by the United States and the UK last week (see Crowell’s Alert on those developments here). 

EU member states must transpose the directive into national law within two years of its entry into force.  Compliance with the Directive will be introduced in stages, as follows:

On April 25, 2024, ISDA launched an outreach initiative on its proposed Notices Hub which will be a new online platform that market participants can use to deliver termination notices.  The Notices Hub seeks to reduce delays in delivery of termination notices under the ISDA which can result in major losses both on short and longer term basis.

On 19 March 2024, the Government followed through on a promise from the Ministry of Justice to introduce draft legislation to reverse the effect of  R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28.  The effect of this ruling was discussed in our prior alert and follow on commentary discussing its effect on group competition litigation and initial government reform proposals. Should the bill pass, agreements to provide third party funding to litigation or advocacy services in England will no longer be required to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”) to be enforceable.

In this alert we discuss recent developments in the regulation of third party funding since R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, (“PACCAR”) which we discussed in our prior alert. In Alex Neill Class Representative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited et al. [2023] CAT 73, the first analysis of a third-party litigation funding agreement (“LFA”) to take place since PACCAR, finding that an optional payment mechanism based on a cut of damages “only to the extent enforceable and permitted by applicable law” will not render the whole LFA an unenforceable damages-based agreement (“DBA”). Meanwhile, the government intends to enact a legislative amendment to make non-lawyer LFAs for group opt-out competition proceedings enforceable, but calls have quickly begun for the government to go further.

The world has watched in horror as tragedy has unfolded in Israel because of the brutal terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas.  Nothing can compensate for the devastating loss of life, for the trauma suffered by those injured or kidnapped, or for the grief, sorrow, fear, and anger felt by family members.  For the past twenty-five years, American victims or family members have held Iran accountable in U.S. courts for its sponsorship and support of murderous and terrorist acts like those carried out by Hamas in Israel.  The U.S. legal system may again be a vehicle to hold Iran and its proxies to account today.