The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be felt across the global business community.
At first sight, the message of the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Rock Advertising v MWB seems simple: if you want to vary your contract, make sure you get it in writing. But in attempting to create greater certainty in this area, the Supreme Court may have created a new set of problems - particularly for businesses wishing to amend large numbers of contracts at the same time.
In this In Practice article the authors consider the practical issues faced by practitioners and deal counterparties in structuring and executing leveraged buyout transactions where the target company is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and/or Prudential Regulation Authority.
From conflicts of interest to subscriptions lines, lawyers flag up the five issues most likely to trigger court action to Victoria Robson.
Two new regulations have been published amending existing Level 2 requirements on depositaries of AIFs and UCITS with effect from 1 April 2020. They impose stricter obligations on them when they delegate their safekeeping obligations to a third party custodian.
A new EU regulation is due to enter into force aimed at removing barriers to crossborder e-commerce in the EU.
Two recent high profile cases throw a spotlight on this question.
Andrew Ross and Sarah Quy examine the background to rights to light and how a development can proceed where such rights exist.
In the first contested prosecution under section 7 of the UK's Bribery Act 2010 (the "Act"), a Londonbased interiors company has been found guilty of the 'corporate offence' of failing to prevent bribery.
In Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v National Power Corporation and another [2018] EWHC 487 (Comm), the High Court ruled that the requirement to use "commercially reasonable procedures" to produce a "commercially reasonable result" in determining the Close-out Amount under the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement was to be assessed by reference to an "objective" standard of reasonableness. This decision emphasises the need for close scrutiny of the exact contractual wording in question in determining the ambit of any contractual discretion.
In two recent high-profile takeovers, bidders gave binding commitments as to the conduct of the target business post-completion, in order to protect broader stakeholder interests. This legal briefing considers the regulatory framework for these commitments, and highlights that a bidder needs to consider not only the price to offer shareholders, but also what protections it is extending to other stakeholders.
It has been exactly twelve months since the UK submitted its notification of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. In twelve months' time, assuming that there has been no agreed extension of the negotiating period or permitted revocation of the withdrawal notification, the UK will officially leave the EU and become a "third country".
The UK’s real estate market attracts significant levels of investment from across the world, and many global corporate occupiers. It is not unusual for one or more of the landlord, tenant or guarantor in a commercial letting to be an entity based outside England and Wales.
This chapter of Global Legal Insights Fund Finance 2018 considers a number of key structural and documentary legal issues that should be considered by any manager thinking about entering into derivatives transactions at fund level.
A change in the way we work, ever-improving technology and a shift in workplace culture are just some of the key drivers in changing the way we do business faster than ever before.
At the end of last week the LSE published a notice announcing changes to the AIM Rules for Companies and the AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers, most of which will take effect on 30 March 2018. This follows the LSE's discussion paper last summer 2017 and the subsequent consultation in December 2017.
Pre-commencement conditions are powerful things: unless they are satisfied, then any works done to implement a planning consent will not count, and the consent will not have been properly implemented. If this occurs near to the expiry date, there is a risk that the consent will expire without having been implemented, and any works done on site deemed to be unlawful.