Search results
214 results ordered by
Duty of care can exist between parent company and third parties affected by subsidiaries' actions
Vedanta(1) is one of three similar cases progressing through the English courts concerning jurisdiction, mass tort claims and the potential liability of an English parent company for the actions of its foreign subsidiaries,(2) the others being Unilever and Dutch Shell.
Read moreRegulation of cryptocurrency pre-ICO funding under English Law
Launching a cryptocurrency typically involves an initial fundraising process followed by a public sale process, by way of initial coin offering or token sale ("ICO").
Read moreFTT prevents HMRC from having two bites of the cherry!
In Lady Henrietta Pearson v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 890 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ('FTT') concluded that HMRC had "ignored" its previous decision by seeking to reduce the amount of a VAT refund which it had ordered HMRC make to Lady Henrietta Pearson ('the taxpayer').
Read moreISDA Master Agreements
Banking litigation partners Simon Hart and Jake Hardy discuss the world of ISDA Master Agreements, close out mechanics and a rather opaque investment bank wheeze involving counter hedging strategies, which counterparties miss at their financial peril.
Read moreAll is not (necessarily) lost: Crypto crime recovery
With over 2 million people in the UK now holding and using cryptocurrency, and the Chancellor announcing that a government backed non-fungible token ("NFT") is to be issued by the Royal Mint this summer, the market for crypto-assets is expected to continue to grow in the coming months and years; so much so that legislation is planned to implement a new regulatory regime for the crypto market.
Read moreFull and frank disclosure means more than just putting relevant matters in evidence – a new year warning in UKIP v Braine & Others
New year, new reminder of the obligation to make full and frank disclosure in without notice applications, this time in the context of a falling out within the UKIP party. The obligation can only be satisfied by drawing the court's attention to legal or factual matters which could undermine the applicant's own application; it is not enough to simply put relevant matters in evidence before the court (UKIP v Braine & Others). Injunction, confidential, publication and non-disclosure.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here