Law and Financial Markets Project

Project Director: Dr Philipp Paech 

The Law and Financial Markets Project is based in the LSE's Law Department. The project provides a framework for a research group of LSE faculty and associated participants from outside academia to explore the interactions of law, regulation, financial markets and financial institutions, principally within the EU and the UK.

Research Focus

The Project’s research focuses on three core themes:

  • law, risk and markets, including:

    • how law and regulation constitute markets

    • the impact of market activity on the development and operation of law and regulation

    • the nature and effects of interactions between private law and regulatory rules

    • the impact of law and regulation on the management of risk within markets

  • regulatory dynamics, including:

    • the rationales and dynamics of regulatory processes and techniques

    • the operation of multi-level governance regimes for financial regulation

    • accountability and legitimacy of regulatory institutions

  • governance and ethics of financial institutions, including:

    • corporate governance of financial institutions

    • the challenges of defining and developing ethical practices within financial institutions

Project Activities

The Project organises collaborative workshops, seminars and conferences with lawyers, regulators and policy makers in order to explore salient issues in a mixed academic/practitioner environment.

The Project is connected with the LSE student body. The Project is responsible for the seminar series on corporate and financial law within the LSE LLM programme.

At undergraduate level the Project is linked with the Law and Financial Markets Student Society which shares and discusses the outputs of the Project with undergraduate law students.

The Project is home to the London Law Club, in which senior judges and academics convene to discuss emergent or complex areas of legal doctrine related to financial markets. The London Law Club is run on an invitation basis, and chaired by Prof Michael Bridge.

The Project runs an executive short course on Financial Services and Markets Regulation twice a year. The course is directed by Prof Julia Black, and is aimed at lawyers and regulators who are seeking to keep up to date with the rapidly developing regulatory agenda at the global level, and in the EU and UK.

It also supports the European Forum on Securities Regulation (EFSR). The EFSR is an initiative intended to facilitate discourse and the exchange of ideas among academics from across Europe working in the field of securities law, takeover regulation, and other areas of law relevant to the functioning of capital markets. The EFSR is a joint initiative of scholars from LSE (Edmund Schuster), Bucerius Law School (Hamburg), and the Vienna University of Business and Economics.

The first EFRS workshop was held in Vienna on 5 December 2014. Academics from 14 European countries and from the US discussed recent developments and challenges in securities regulation and related fields. The workshop was also intended to form the basis for on-going international discourse and collaboration. The next workshop will be hosted by Bucerius Law School in Hamburg in September 2015; the 2016 meeting will be organised at LSE. Please click here for the 2014 programme.

Project Members

The Director of the Project is Dr Philipp Paech. Other LSE faculty and visiting professors participating in the Project are Dr Jo Braithwaite, Prof Julia Black, Prof Michael Bridge, Dr Carsten Gerner-Beuerle, Prof David Kershaw, Dr Eva Micheler, Prof Niamh Moloney, Sarah Paterson and Dr Edmund Schuster. In addition, three Visiting Professors are members of the Project: Jonathan Fisher QC, Prof Christos Hadjiemmanuil, Leslie Kosmin QC. The Project’s current post-doctoral research fellow is Dr Paolo Saguato.

Members of the project have links to other centres in the LSE. Eva Micheler is a co-investigator of the ESRC Centre for Systemic Risk. David Kershaw is a senior research member of the Corporate Finance and Governance programme run by the  LSE Financial Markets Group.



Information about the department's arrangements for Visiting Fellowships can be found here.



Herbert Smith, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Gómez-Acebo & Pombo Abogados are the project's Foundation Funders. For details of the benefits of contributing to the project, please contact the Project Director, Dr Philipp Paech.




Philipp Paech, 'The Value of Insolvency Safe Harbours' LSE Law Society and Economy Working Paper Series, 09-2015. Forthcoming in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1-2016  '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.

Eva Micheler, ‘Custody Chains and Remoteness – Disconnecting Investors from Issuers'
available via: 
or The article shows that the current market infrastructure systemically prevents investors, both shareholders and bondholders, from exercising their rights against issuers. Equity and debt securities are now normally held through a chain of custodians. These custodians are connected with each other through contract law. There also exists legislation determining the relationship between custodians and their clients.
    The thesis of the article is that custody chains have become independent from investors and issuers. Neither issuers nor investors are able to control the length of the chain or the content of the legal arrangements that governs the custody chain. Custodians are connected through a series of bilateral links that are independent of each other. This erodes the rights of investors.
    This problem cannot be overcome by contract law, corporate law or property law. The thesis of the article is that structural reform is required to reduce the number of intermediaries that operate between issuers and investors. A central, direct and transparent mechanism should be created through which investors hold securities. The paper observes that in the past incumbent market participants have lobbying intensively to preserve the exiting structure and predicts that they are likely to oppose any change that will be proposed in the future.

Philipp Paech, 'Close-Out Netting, Insolvency Law and Conflict-of-Laws' Journal of Corporate Law Studies 14 (2) (2014) pp.419-452 Close-out netting is a risk mitigation tool used by financial institutions. It is comparable to set-off and its effects in insolvency are loosely comparable to a super-priority. Therefore, it might conflict with the pari passu principle. Many jurisdictions have solved that conflict and adapted their laws so that close-out netting is enforceable even in the event of insolvency. However, as the financial market is global, the parties, their branches and assets might be located in different jurisdictions. Nevertheless, countries failed to agree on a harmonised conflict-of-laws rule, despite the obvious need, when they decided not to include a conflict-of-laws principle in the 2013 Unidroit Principles on the operation of close-out netting provisions. The relevant EU law, though patchy, already addresses this concern. This article identifies the underlying conceptual difficulties and proposes a solution for an improved framework for both the EU and other financial marketplaces.  click here for full text via Ingenta [ON CAMPUS] ; click here for full text via Ingenta [OFF CAMPUS]

Jo Braithwaite, 'Law after Lehmans' LSE Law Society and Economy Working Paper Series 11/2014 The September 2008 collapse of the Lehman Brothers group marked the nadir of the global financial crisis. While the regulatory aftermath has been extensively debated, the effects of the case law that arose from the insolvency have not. This paper explains the need to redress the balance. It starts by considering the quantity and qualities of the Lehmans case law, examining why the 30 plus decisions handed down by the English courts enjoy an unusually high precedent-setting potential. The paper proceeds by analysing the precedential effects of these decisions, and it reports on a recent workshop held at the London School of Economics that met to consider this question. Subject to the event’s terms of engagement, the paper draws out several themes from the discussion, including the impact of the Lehmans cases on the principles of contractual interpretation, the law of trusts and insolvency law. By way of conclusion, it is submitted that the impact of Lehmans case law reaches far beyond that particular insolvency, to worldwide users of standard form documents, the global financial markets and the common law itself. Seen in this light, the Lehmans case law is a significant, but under-appreciated, side-effect of the global financial crisis.

Who Should Prosecute Fraud, Corruption and Financial Markets Crime?  In this briefing, Jonathan Fisher QC argues that City fraud, financial markets offences and corruption should be investigated and prosecuted by a single enforcement authority instead of the multiplicity of agencies currently involved. The recent establishment of the Economic Crime Command at the National Crime Agency has muddied the waters further. It is high time for the Government to deliver on its Coalition Agreement commitment by allowing the Serious Fraud Office to mutate into an enlarged new economic crime-busting agency, leaving the Financial Conduct Authority to concentrate on the imposition of civil penalties for regulatory and compliance breaches which do not demand a criminal response.

Philipp Paech, 'Shadow Banking – legal issues regarding collateral and insolvency law' Briefing for the European Parliament’s ECON Committee (2013) In its first part, the paper addresses issues relating to close-out netting and bank insolvency. In many financial markets repurchase agreements (repos) and securities lending agreements benefit from special insolvency treatment which - broadly speaking - consists of an exemption from a number of insolvency law mechanisms. There was some discussion triggered by the Financial Stability Board’s Recommendation 13 on repos and securities lending, aiming at changes of the special insolvency treatment of these transactions. However, this analysis submits that no changes should be made in this regard. Instead, the regulators should be given the power to temporarily stay close-out netting, as in bank resolution proceedings. At the same time, regulatory haircuts to collateral assets (FSB Recommendations 6 and 7) may buffer systemic consequences but are unable to act as a circuit breaker. In its second part, the paper addresses legal uncertainty in relation to proprietary interests in collateral securities. Repo and securities lending collateral assets face increased enforcement difficulties in cross-border settings, stemming from different national rules regarding good-faith acquisition and close-out netting. Haircuts, as proposed by some commentators, are not an appropriate solution. Instead, only harmonisation of securities law and of the relevant insolvency rules can guarantee a consistent cross-border framework.

Carsten Gerner-Beuerle, Philipp Paech, Edmund-Philipp Schuster, 'Study on Directors’ Duties and Liability in Europe’ (2013), prepared for the European Commission. This comparative study analyses directors' duties and liabilities in all EU Member States, identifying regulatory strategies and trends across Europe and discussing enforcement strategies. The report has been prepared for the European Commission.

Criminalising Bank Managers (Julia Black and David Kershaw, Professors of Law, LSE). This Policy Briefing evaluates the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommendation to criminalise the reckless behaviour of senior bank managers.

The Commission on Banking Standards Report and Bank Incentives: A Missed Opportunity (Julia Black and David Kershaw, Professors of Law, LSE) This Policy Briefing asks whether the Commission has missed an opportunity to address the skewed incentives for bank managers created by the UK’s system of corporate law and governance.

Legal Risks and Risks to Lawyers (Julia Black, LSE and Karen Anderson, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) June 2013. The financial crisis exposed risks that were not foreseen and in the subsequent quest to attribute blame to the financial institutions, their managers, auditors, regulators, credit rating agencies, and politicians, a question was also asked: where were the lawyers? Were lawyers close enough to the events that they should be blamed, whether for their actions, or for a failure to act as gatekeepers  In its most recent roundtable, discussion the Herbert Smith Freehills and London School of Economics Regulatory Reform Forum debated the role that lawyers can and should play in managing risks in financial institutions.  This paper summarises some of the issues debated, including: 
• Practical challenges in identifying, assessing and monitoring legal risks
• Expectations on the role of lawyers in financial institutions
• Consequential liability for lawyers
It also reports on a survey conducted of the firms invited to the forum, on the involvement of the legal function in legal risk management.

'Creating an ethical framework for the financial services industry' (Julia Black, LSE and Karen Anderson, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) February 2013. The Herbert Smith Freehills and London School of Economics Regulatory Reform Forum held a roundtable event to discuss creating an ethical framework for the financial services industry. The event was attended by senior members of the financial services industry, academics, lawyers and key policy makers. This paper summarises some of the matters discussed.

Philipp Paech, Enforceability of Close-out Netting: Draft UNIDROIT Principles to Set New International Benchmark, by Philipp Paech. (2013) 1 JIBFL 13, Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, January 2013, pp 13-19. UNIDROIT has recently launched an intergovernmental process intended to set an international non-binding standard for close-out netting legislation. This paper, first, provides insights into the question of why harmonisation is needed. The colossal exposures inherent in the derivatives, securities lending, repo, forex and similar markets are generally covered by close-out netting provisions, which are contained in the relevant master agreements. Close-out netting reduces mutual exposure by about 80–90%. The ‘net’ exposure is taken as a basis for the calculation of collateral and underlying capital, thus being vital for market participants' risk management, as well as for prudential supervision. Even though most developed markets have adopted netting-friendly legislation, the international nature of the modern financial market complicates enforceability of close-out netting in cross-jurisdictional situations, in particular in insolvency scenarios. Further, the Article explains the current difficulties in transposing the concept of close-out netting across jurisdictional borders and advocates a functional approach alongside the five criteria (immediate discharge of obligations? obligations due? obligations of the same kind?). Lastly, it sheds light on the concepts underlying the current UNIDROIT draft principles.  click here for full text (LEXIS) [LSE only]

Phillip Paech, 'Market Needs as Paradigm: Breaking Up the Thinking on EU Securities Law'  Law Society and Economy Working Paper Series, WPS 11-2012 October 2012 (published in Thévenoz, Conac and Segna, Intermediated Securities, Cambridge University Press, early 2013). Modern patterns for holding investment securities face three basic legal challenges: first, negotiability and the possibility of good faith acquisition must be ensured as they are the basis of today’s anonymous trading and settlement of securities. In the past, securities have been incorporated in paper certificates to achieve this result, allowing for the application of principles of property law to what in substance is a set of mutual rights and obligations. Second, account holders need to be protected against intermediary risk. Traditionally, concepts like safekeeping or trust were applied to achieve this result. Since there is a need to adjust to modern, basically electronic holding of securities, these concepts are now stretched to a considerable extent. Third, 40% of holdings entail cross-jurisdictional questions. Therefore, the issues of both negotiability/good faith acquisition and protection against intermediary risk need to be addressed from an international perspective. Modern conflict-of-laws concepts, in particular PRIMA, lead to the application of different laws to the 'same' securities, with potentially differing legal analyses in respect of these securities. The EU legislator was so far unable to address these problems. The Geneva Securities Convention and the Hague Securities Convention provide for answers but face criticism and are not yet implemented.

'Breaking up is hard to do : The next stage' (Julia Black, LSE and Martyn Hopper, Herbert Smith LLP) May 2012. LFMP and Herbert Smith hosted a seminar in December 2010 with HM Treasury on the future of UK financial regulation. The accompanying discussion paper, by Julia Black and Martyn Hopper (revised, 2012) discusses the objectives, remit, powers and accountability of the new regulators and sets out key principles to guide the reform.

Philipp Paech, 'Draft Principles and Commentary regarding the Enforceability of Close-out Netting Provisions', UNIDROIT 2012 Study 78C – Doc. 13 (April 2012).  This paper sets out eight principles designed to ensure the cross-jurisdictional enforceability of close out-netting. Close-out netting is heavily used by the financial industry and used in many regulatory mechanisms like in particular bank’s capital requirements (Basel II). However, as soon as banks located in different jurisdictions agree to apply close-out netting between them, they risk that the relevant provisions are unenforceable in the event of insolvency of either of them. About 40 countries do allow close-out netting, however on differing terms. The Principles shall provide guidelines to legislators on how to amend national insolvency laws so as to be compatible with each other. Principle 1 defines close out netting. Principles 2 and 3 set a standard regarding the circle of netting-eligible parties and netting-eligible financial transactions. Principles 4-6 deal with formal requirements, promoting in particular the idea that unenforceability as a consequence of non-compliance with formal requirements is not the right means to achieve regulatory goals. Principle 7 is the core rule and defines the relationship between close-out netting and insolvency avoidance rules. Principle 8 clarifies the role of Principle 7 in respect of bank resolution procedures as recently promoted by the Financial Stability Board. Each Principle is accompanied by a detailed commentary explaining its background and reasoning. The paper is the final one in a sequence of four that the Author has produced for UNIDROIT. It has greatly benefited from the input of other Members of the UNIDROIT Study Group and will serve as a basis for intergovernmental negotiations.



17 November 2015  4pm-6pm  |  Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London

The Lloyd's Crisis and Its Resolution - Legal Aspects

Lloyd’s of London is a long-revered British Institution, dating from the 17th century and one the world’s largest insurance markets. It came very close to collapsing as a result of large-scale losses suffered in the 1980s and 1990s. Many lessons are to be learnt from the crisis experienced by Lloyd’s, both in economic and legal terms, as well as from Lloyd’s remarkable recovery and transformation, which demonstrates the institution’s resilience. This event aims to shed light on the legal aspects of the Lloyd’s Crisis and to tease out the lessons learnt. The event will be followed by a drinks reception. >> Registration here.


Andrew Duguid  (Author of On the Brink, How a Crisis Transformed Lloyd's of London, Palgrave 2014. Formerly, advisor to the Council of Lloyd’s)

Graham Nicholson (Former Chief Legal Advisor, Bank of England; previously with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (advising Lloyd’s, in particular regarding Equitas))

Adam Ridley (Member of the Council of Lloyd’s and of the Lloyd’s Regulatory Board from 1997 to 1999, subsequently Chair of the independent "Names' Committee" set up by Lloyd's and Chair until 2014 of the Trustees of Equitas.)

Julian Burling (Barrister, Serle Court; Counsel to Lloyd’s 1995 to 2010. Author of Lloyd’s: Law and Practice. Informa 2013. )

Chair: Charles Goodhart (LSE)


Miriam Goldby and Rosa Lastra
Insurance Law Institute, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, QMUL

Eva Micheler
Systemic Risk Centre and Law and Financial Markets Project, LSE



20 May 2015  5.30pm-7.30pm  |   Moot Court Room, 7th Floor, New Academic Building

Market Manipulation, HFT and Algorithmic Trading

Speaker: Jamie Symington (Director of Enforcement, Financial Conduct Authority)

See flyer for full details.

12 March 2015 

Law, Finance and the Abyss

Chair: Eva Micheler - Associate Professor (Reader) in Law at LSE


Katharina Pistor  (Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law, Columbia Law School);  Julia Black (Professor of Law and Pro-Director for Research, LSE);  Jon Danielson (Director Systemic Risk Centre, Reader in Finance); Charles Goodhart (Emeritus Professor, LSE)

In financial markets law and finance are intrinsically connected. Law underpins markets. Finance applies the tools provided for by the law but also continuously tests the boundaries set by law.

When markets collapse, however, legal rules are pushed into the background and other forces take over determining the way in which actors respond to systemic events

25 February 2015  5pm-8 pm  |   New Academic Building, NAB.2.14

Responses to the G-20 Derivatives Reform Agenda beyond Dodd-Frank and EMIR

Speaker: David Murphy ((Senior Policy Adviser, The Bank of England)
LSE Convenor: Dr Jo Braithwaite (LSE Law)
Information file [Moodle]


28 January 2015  6pm-7:30 pm

Going beyond the homo economicus in executive incentives

Speaker: Simon C.Y. Wong (Northwestern University & LSE)
FT article file [Moodle]


13 January 2015  6pm - 7:30 pm

Active Shareholders and European Takeover Regulation

Speaker: Prof Martin Winner (Vienna University of Economics and Business & Austrian Takeover Commission)
Edmund-Philipp Schuster

19 November 2014  6pm-7:30 pm 

Shareholder Empowerment and Bank Bailouts

Speakers: Prof David Kershaw; Edmund-Philipp Schuster
Information file [Moodle]


5 November 2014  6pm-7:30 pm 

Are EU Banks Safe?

Speaker: Dr Roel Theissen
Information file [Moodle]


22 October 2014  6pm-7.30pm

Fit for purpose? Does UK company law contribute to short termism in UK companies?

Chair: Sir Geoffrey Owen (LSE)

Speakers: Ian Gilham (Chairman, Horizon Discovery Plc); Professor David Kershaw (LSE); William Underhill (Partner at Slaughter & May, London)

Whether or not managers of UK companies are subject to short term pressures is one of the most important current policy debates. The mechanisms through which institutional investors invest in capital markets are thought to be subject to several pressures to invest with the short rather than the long term in mind. The remuneration structures and reporting requirement of fund managers provide one such example of such pressures. However as Professor Roe of the Harvard Law School has argued, in order for capital market short termism to be translated into business short termism there needs to be a transmission mechanism to transfer such pressures into the board room.


16 October 2014 9.30am-5.30pm

Perspectives on Systemic Risk
Organisers: Jon Danielsson (SRC) and Eva Micheler (Department of Law, LSE)

Systemic financial risk can be caused by many factors such as: financial decisions, legal and accounting rules, and politics. While all of these factors can on their own trigger systemic events, it is the interaction between them which is especially dangerous because it creates new avenues for vicious feedback loops. Unfortunately, these channels for systemic risk are usually studied within disciplinary silos, giving us a rather fragmented understanding of how systemic risk is created. The aim of the conference is to bring together speakers from accounting, economics, finance, law and political science to break down these silos and present a more complete analysis of the nature of systemic risk

- conference programme


14 October 2014  6pm-7:30 pm

Minilateralism: How Trade Alliances, Soft Law and Financial Engineering are Redefining Economic Statecraft
Speaker: Prof Chris Brummer (Georgetown)
Chair: Prof Niamh Moloney
Information file [Moodle]


24 March 2014
Intermediated Securities and Investor Rights

On 24 March 2014, Dr. Eva Micheler organised a conference entitled 'Intermediated Securities and Investor Rights'. The event was funded by the Law and Financial Markets Project and the Systemic Risk Centre. The aim of the conference was to determine whether the law is able to ensure that securities continue to be negotiable. The main question was whether it is possible to conclude that holding and lending chains have become too complex and inter-connected that investors are systemically compromised in their ability to exercise rights against the issuers.

The event was oversubscribed and attended by regulators, practitioners as well as academics. The contributions made by participants showed that the event raised questions of fundamental importance to the current debate on stewardship, investor rights, corporate governance and also on systemic risk in financial markets. It added a new perspective on both the discussion on intermediated securities and the discussion on stewardship and corporate governance.

The program, a conference report and selected slides can be found here:

22 January 2014  6.00-7.30pm
Modern Issues in International Commercial Law: Can We Hold a Legal Dialogue Across the Channel?
Speaker: Jean-François Riffard (University of Auvergne, School of Law)
Chair: Eva Micheler (LSE, Law Department)

11 December 2013  5pm-6.30pm 
International Legal Risks for Banks and Corporates
Philip Wood, QC (Hon.) Special Global Counsel, Allen & Overy LLPChair: Professor David Kershaw (LSE, Department of Law)

5 December 2013    6pm-7.30pm, Wolfson Theatre, New Academic Building
The Role of the Sharia Scholar in Islamic Finance
Sheikh Nizam Yaquby

20 November 2013   6pm-7.30pm
One Step Ahead: Private Equity and Hedge Funds after the Global Financial Crisis
Speaker: Timothy Spangler, Partner (Kaye Scholer) and Adjunct Professor (UCLA)

As the recession stutters onwards systemic and structural causes for the financial crash continue to dominate international news and debate. Despite public interest, alternative investment vehicles such as private equity and hedge funds remain elusive. Both have always had a unique position in the market, designed as they are to function outside of the rules that govern other financial organizations. But what is it that they do and - significantly - how is it that they have prospered since the 2008 meltdown despite the introduction of new regulatory regimes? , Timothy Spangler, author of the award-winning book ‘One Step Ahead’, explores how the structures of alternative investment funds enable them to adapt and react to global financial conditions. The seminar focus ranges from small start-ups to the titans of the industry. It explores how private equity and hedge funds operate, drive economic growth, and have become essential vehicles for investment for both public and private sectors the world over.
Chair: Professor Julia Black (LSE, Department of Law)

13 November 2013   6pm-7.30pm
The Ubiquitous Role of Financial Collateral
David Murphy (Rivast consulting, formerly ISDA)

Post crisis financial reforms have handed a central role to collateral. It is required for many bilateral derivatives transactions; it is a central risk mitigant in central clearing; and it will be required for many intragroup exposures as local capital and liquidity requirements are imposed. At the same time, unsecured interbank credit is declining importance, with many banks instead relying on collateralised central bank funding. It is therefore timely to investigate the role of collateral in the financial system, the legal infrastructure which supports its use, and the dynamics of collateralised transactions. In this context the phenomenon of procyclicality naturally arises. Thus while supervisors have determined that in the large there is enough high quality collateral available, short term increases in collateral requirements can be de-stabilising. We examine this issue, highlighting the delicate balance between collateral-as-credit-risk-mitigant and collateral-as-liquidity-risk-creator.

Chair: Dr Jo Braithwaite (LSE, Department of Law)

13 November 2013   6pm-7.30pm
Ethics, Interest and Finance
Ann Pettifor (Director of Policy Research in Macroeconomics, PRIME)

6 November 2013   6pm-7.30pm
Islamic Finance and Derivatives
Habib Motani (Partner, Clifford Chance)

30 October 2013   6pm-7.30pm
Intellectual Property Financing: the work of UNCITRAL
Speaker: Spyridon Bazinas (Senior Legal Officer, UNCITRAL Secretariat)

Economic development increasingly depends on innovative ideas that often become the subject of intellectual property rights. Yet, more often than not, while there is no sufficient funding to create or develop intellectual property, using intellectual property as collateral for credit is from difficult to impossible. The main reason is the fact that intellectual property law is not sufficiently coordinated with secured financing law. Matters become even more complex when a transaction involves a portfolio of intellectual property rights protected under the laws of several countries and the question of applicable law arises, or when a licensor or licensee of intellectual property becomes insolvent. The lecture will examine how the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions: Supplement on Security Interests in Intellectual Property (2010) addresses all these issues. More specifically, the lecture will examine the interaction of secured financing and intellectual property law, types of intellectual property financing practices, the creation, registration/perfection, priority and enforcement of a security interest in intellectual property, acquisition financing with respect to intellectual property, law applicable to a security interest in intellectual property and the impact of insolvency of a licensor or licensee of intellectual property.

Chair: Professor Michael Bridge (LSE, Department of Law)

30 October2013    6pm-7.30pm
Debt Financing and Sukuk
Speaker: Roger Wedderburn-Day (Partner, Allen & Overy)

28 October 2013   6pm-7pm
Introduction to Islamic Finance: Concepts and Structures
Bi Farmida (Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright)

10 October 2013
Law after Lehmans

To mark the fifth anniversary of the collapse of the Lehman Brothers group, the LSE Department of Law and the LSE Law and Financial Markets Project is organising a half-day workshop, ‘Law after Lehmans’. ...

The objective of the event is to consider the impact of Lehmans-related cases on the English law. Speakers will be attending from, inter alia, PWC, City law firms, the Bar, LSE and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

It is widely acknowledged that the collapse of the Lehman Brothers group was one of the most significant events in the global financial crisis. In the short-term, the group's collapse brought the world’s financial system to the brink of disaster. In the longer-term, these events have had an obvious and profound effect on worldwide programmes of financial regulatory reform. This spike of new regulation has been extensively debated by practitioners and academics alike. The cumulative effects of the Lehmans-related cases have, however, received comparatively little attention, and it is this imbalance that the workshop aims to redress. The cases will be considered in terms of their impact on different elements of English law, namely, property rights, contractual interpretation and insolvency law.

related publication:
Jo Braithwaite, 'Law after Lehmans' LSE Law Society and Economy Working Paper Series 11/2014

9 October 2013 6pm-7.30pm
The History and Evolution of Islamic Finance
Iqbal Khan (CEO, Fajr Capital)

30 September -  4 October 2013
Short Course on Financial Services and Markets Regulation
Our one week executive education course ...

24 April 2013
The Global Financial Crisis: The Case for a Criminal Response
Colloquium organised by Jonathan Fisher QC with David Greene QC.
The paper summarising the discussions and exploring the case for a stronger criminal response by UK law enforcement authorities to the global financial crisis is available here.