Knowledge

Our knowledge resources reflect the breadth and depth of our expertise, our insight into the issues which matter to your business, and our understanding of the markets in which you operate.

Knowledge

<p>Filter Knowledge</p>

1715 Results

Half-Year UK Public M&A Update

Despite continued global economic and geopolitical uncertainty, and with the UK general election today, H1 2024 has seen improved levels of public M&A activity in the UK. There was a total of 30 firm offers announced in H1 2024 for UK public companies listed on the Main Market or AIM (25 in H1 2023). A further 10 public companies are currently subject to a 28-day put up or shut up (PUSU) period, and there have been six formal sale processes.

What's Happening in DC?

This briefing is for trustees and managers of DC occupational pension schemes. It outlines the latest legal developments and ongoing initiatives in the DC world, with links to issues of our regular publication 'What's Happening in Pensions' (WHiP) and other resources for those who want to read more. 

AI in service supply and outsourcing contracts: managing the risks

Artificial intelligence tools can be a game changer in outsourcing and other contracts for services - promising big wins in terms of costs, time, accuracy, scalability and productivity, to benefit both sides of the negotiating table. To reap those benefits, it is important to stay on top of the "new" risks associated with the use of AI in these arrangements.

When does failure to pay trigger a termination right?

In commercial contracts, the terms of payment are usually a key element of the parties' bargain – so if a customer fails to pay a material sum on time, then surely the supplier should have a right to terminate the contract? Quite possibly, but in practice it may not be as straightforward as this – and if the supplier reaches for the "big red termination button" prematurely, without a careful assessment of its rights, it can be a costly mis-step.

Stellantis Auto SAS v Autoliv AB [2024] EWCA Civ 609 – The Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal against an order of the Competition Appeal Tribunal requiring two defendant groups to use a single joint expert at trial in relation to the issue of overcharge

In its decision dismissing the appeal against the Competition Appeal Tribunal's ("CAT" or "Tribunal") order for two Defendant groups to use a single joint expert at trial, the Court of Appeal has made clear that the Tribunal's duty to restrict expert evidence to that which is reasonably required to resolve the dispute is the paramount consideration. While the issues of proportionality and the potential for conflicts of interest are relevant considerations in determining whether separate experts are required, those considerations must be assessed against the requirement to dispose of cases justly.

Election 2024 - The Future of UK Employment Law

With the general election now set for 4 July 2024, the main political parties have released their election manifestos. Below we summarise the key pledges of the main political parties relating to employment law and business immigration. 

MUR Shipping v RTI: key lessons from the Supreme Court's ruling on force majeure clauses

In a further twist of the MUR Shipping BV v RTI Ltd proceedings, the Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal's decision and ruled that a "reasonable endeavours" proviso in a force majeure clause does not require a party to accept non-contractual performance.  The judgment has important implications for the drafting and interpretation of force majeure clauses generally – and the impact of sanctions in particular.

BHS judgment – Wrongful trading, trading misfeasance and key takeaways

Judgment was handed down last week on the substantial directors' duties and wrongful trading claims brought against former directors of various BHS companies[1]. The liquidators of those companies were successful in arguing that the directors were liable for wrongful trading (albeit at the latest date of six possible dates argued) and were also successful in bringing the first ever claim for "misfeasance trading"[2]. Whilst the judgment is very fact specific, it is an interesting analysis of so-called "insolvency-deepening" activity and shareholder value extraction. Moreover, it is a salient reminder to directors of their duties where they are operating in the zone of insolvency. 

What does the new DMCC Act mean for Private Litigation?

What does the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act mean for private litigation? Whilst the Act shifts the dial forwards in some respects (including by adding clout to the relief available for certain competition law breaches, and by introducing a mechanism for damages to be claimed for breaches of the new digital regulatory regime), there are also some notable omissions.

UK DMCC Act: Long-awaited Regime for Regulation of Big Tech

Digital technologies are at the heart of the UK Government's vision for driving economic growth. The new DMCC Act empowers the UK's Digital Markets Unit (DMU), already set up within the CMA, to designate the biggest digital players with 'Strategic Market Status' (SMS) and, for those designated firms to: (1) set ex ante Conduct Requirements i.e. rules on what those firms must and must not do; (2) enforce Pro-Competition Interventions in order to remedy competition problems; and (3) require the reporting of M&A activity before deals are completed.

Back To Top