Scheme aiming to supply sufficient funds to provide a targeted (but non-guaranteed) level of retirement income, with some inflation-proofing.

The quantity obtained by multiplying the average effective dose by the number of people exposed to a given source of ionising radiation. Unit Sievert, symbol Sv. Frequently abbreviated to "collective dose".

Typically used in US deals to refer to clauses where a defined majority of creditors can bind all creditors.

The amount of accumulated debt and its progressive increase have led to repayment problems and, in some cases, default. Thus, as countries amass unsustainable debt burdens (ie when the ratio of debt to gross domestic product (GDP) rises to such an extent that the application of policies cannot reverse the situation), they have an increasing need to restructure their outstanding debt obligations. With many banks and retail bondholders now involved, private creditors have become increasingly numerous, anonymous, and difficult to co-ordinate (see Practice Note: Identifying bondholders and effective communication). Types of collective action clauses Collective action clauses (CACs) are clauses that sometimes are included in the indenture and prospectus of a bond issuance as requiring the interaction of bondholders to perform an action aimed at facilitating the restructuring of these debt instruments by overcoming co-ordination issues (also see Practice Note: Intercreditor payment priorities and requisite majorities). There are four different types of CACs. These are: • collective representation clauses (clauses intended to co-ordinate representation of the bondholders as a group)

An agreement entered into between a trade union and an employer about the pay and conditions of employees.

This Practice Note considers agreements between trade unions and employers or employers’ associations (ie collective agreements). It looks at their enforceability between union and employer and how they are incorporated into employment contracts. It examines the effect of changes to collective agreements and considers the enforceability of no strike clauses. Collective agreements are negotiated between one or more trade unions and employers or employers' associations and relate to one or more of the following: • terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work • engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or more workers • allocation of work or the duties of employment between workers or groups of workers • matters of discipline • a worker’s membership or non-membership of a trade union • facilities for officials of trade unions • machinery for negotiation or consultation, or other procedures, relating to any of the above matters, including the recognition by employers of the right of a trade union to represent workers

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal held that the court has no power to order rectification of a collective agreement (between an employer and a union) within the meaning of Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) and any claim should be brought in relation to individual employee contracts (between the employer and individual employees) that may incorporate the terms of the collective agreement. The court also held that Nexus would be prevented from raising arguments about rectification at the remedy stage of a previous claim by employees for unlawful deduction from wages where the issue had not been raised at the liability hearing or subsequent appeals. The court left open the question of whether issues of estoppel or abuse of process would bar Nexus from advancing the argument in future litigation. The judgment provides interesting analysis of the principles of rectification in relation to collective agreements and the powers of an employment tribunal to address rectification. The case also demonstrates the complexities of the application of res judicata in cases involving multiple potential claimants and/or defendants. Written by Rebecca Thomas, barrister at 42 Bedford Row.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note provides information on the legal framework which had previously been put in place for collective defined contribution (CDC) schemes under the Pension Schemes Act 2015. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For more information on the current legal framework for CDC schemes, see Practice Note: Collective defined contribution (CDC) schemes—an introduction and Collective defined contribution (CDC) schemes under the Pension Schemes Act 2021. What are collective defined contribution schemes? Collective defined contribution (CDC) schemes are a type of defined contribution scheme in which the assets are pooled on behalf of members without members having any interest in particular assets. They are being promoted by the government as part of its reforms to reshape workplace pensions. This Practice Note explains a little of how they work, comments on the advantages and disadvantages associated with them and summarises the government's proposed legislative reform to facilitate CDC schemes in the UK. How do CDC schemes

STOP PRESS On 31 July 2026, the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/1313 came into force. These regulations amend both primary and secondary legislation, and introduce standalone secondary legislation, to establish the regulatory framework for unconnected multiple employer collective defined contribution (CDC) schemes. They set out what these schemes must do to obtain authorisation, how they are to operate under regulatory supervision, and the processes that apply if the scheme must change or be wound up. The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published a replacement CDC Code of Practice which reflects the new regulations and also came into force on 31 July 2026. For further information, see: Pensions weekly highlights—6 August 2026 — Collective defined contribution FORTHCOMING CHANGE: On 23 October 2025, the DWP launched a consultation on policy proposals for ‘Retirement CDC schemes’, a new type of pension arrangement for pensioner members only. The proposed schemes would allow individuals with DC pension pots to transfer their

A collective defined contribution (CDC) scheme is a type of defined ambition scheme. What is defined ambition? One of the key principles of defined ambition is the idea of ‘risk sharing’ in the sense that neither the employer nor the members bear all or a majority of the risk in the pension scheme. A defined ambition pension scheme has some features that are found in a traditional defined benefit (DB) pension scheme and some features that are found in a traditional defined contribution (DC) pension scheme. According to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), the: 'aim of a [defined ambition] pension would be to create greater certainty for members than is provided by a pure DC pension. It would alRoyal Mail sets date for new third way pension planso seek to ensure less cost volatility for employers than current DB pensions.' In a traditional DB scheme, the employer tends to bear all of the risk in terms of the fund's investment performance, inflation and member longevity. There has been a marked shift away

Article 102 TFEU and section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position 'by one or more undertakings' giving rise to the possibility that distinct undertakings may together hold a collectively dominant market position as a result of close economic links between them, or if the market structure enables the undertakings to present themselves or act together on the market as a collective entity.

Competition concerns relating to collective dominance and oligopolies may be dealt with in various ways under EU competition law, namely under: • Article 101 TFEU • Article 102 TFEU, and • the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) This Practice Note addresses collective dominance and oligopoly issues outside of Article 101 TFEU. The concept of collective dominance has been developed through case law relating to Article 102 TFEU and the EUMR. The case law suggests that this concept is the same under the two provisions, however, there are important differences between the analysis in each context. Collective dominance and Article 102 TFEU Article 102 TFEU prohibits abuses by one or more undertakings of a dominant position (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance). EU case law has established that Article 102 TFEU extends to abuses of a dominant position held collectively by multiple undertakings that may not separately hold a dominant position. In order for there to be an abuse of collective dominance in breach of Article 102 TFEU, it needs to be established that: • a collective