Law360, Expert Analysis: The Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP’s global investigations team considers the current position on corporate criminal liability in the US, UK and France.

The Migration Observatory has published a commentary which examines the available evidence on whether non‑UK citizens are more or less likely than British citizens to be convicted or imprisoned. The authors note that although they lack reliable figures for the current number of non‑citizens in the population, the data they do have offers indicative trends. In 2024 roughly 13 per cent of cautions and convictions were given to non‑citizens, and in June 2025 non‑UK nationals accounted for 12.4 per cent of the prison population. These proportions are broadly similar to estimates that non‑citizens constitute around 12 per cent of people aged 16 or over, though that estimate may undercount recent arrivals. Taking account of age and sex, the report states that non‑citizens are underrepresented in prison relative to citizens, though the same conclusion cannot be reached for convictions due to lack of disaggregated data.

This Practice Note considers the key differences between institutional and ad hoc arbitration as well as areas of overlap between the two. Differences and overlaps between institutional and ad hoc arbitration An institutional arbitration is administered by an arbitral institution agreed by the parties and conducted in accordance with that institution’s arbitration rules. Some of the major international arbitral institutions include the: • London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) • International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) • Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Arbitration Institute and • Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) • Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) • International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) attached to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) • Swiss Arbitration Centre (SAC) Other commercial arbitration institutions have emerged, particularly in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. Among these, the following are covered by dedicated Practice Notes: • Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation & Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) • Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) • Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) • Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) Each

Arbitration is a popular mechanism for resolving international commercial disputes. This Practice Note considers the key features that distinguish international arbitration from English and Welsh civil litigation (England and English are used as convenient shorthand). This Practice Note also discusses some of the perceived advantages of arbitration and identifies circumstances in which litigation may be a more appropriate method of dispute resolution. The following introductory Practice Notes are also likely to be of interest: • Arbitration—an introduction to the key features of arbitration • Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitration • Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitration • International arbitration—an introduction to the key features of international arbitration • International arbitration—key differences between international and domestic arbitration Choosing between arbitration and litigation Sophisticated commercial parties often include an arbitration clause (an arbitration agreement) in their commercial contracts. If drafted correctly, the arbitration agreement can provide parties with greater control over how their disputes are resolved and, significantly, who may be appointed to determine the dispute. The

Investment treaty arbitrations may be brought under the rules of many different institutions or ad hoc arbitration rules. Each institution or body has its own unique rules and associated collection of risks and benefits. The table below provides a quick reference guide for the investment arbitration rules of several key institutions, ie the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). This is a high-level guide intended to provide an overview of the similarities and differences among some of the major institutional and ad hoc international arbitration rules. It is not intended as a substitute for detailed legal advice as to the procedures and laws which govern a particular dispute. Advice should be sought when agreeing to arbitration and at an early stage of any dispute. Quick reference guide table SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules 2017 SCC Rules

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA) publishes two versions of its commonly used master agreement, which sets out the terms and conditions for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions. They are: • the ISDA Master Agreement (Multicurrency—Cross Border) (the 1992 Master Agreement); and • the ISDA 2002 Master Agreement (the 2002 Master Agreement) This Practice Note summarises the key changes brought about in the 2002 Master Agreement and highlights issues to consider when negotiating a 2002 Master Agreement as compared to the 1992 Master Agreement. Payments on early termination—close-out amount replacing market quotation, loss and first and second methods Perhaps the most significant change to the Master Agreement relates to the manner in which payments are calculated on an early termination. The inclusion of 'Close-out Amount' in the 2002 Master Agreement has eliminated the need for two of the key elections in the 1992 Master Agreement: the choices between 'Market Quotation' and 'Loss' and between the 'First Method' and

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Project management Various project management methodologies have been developed to guide organisations through project management and develop common use of terminology for project management exponents. These are recommended to be modified to suit organisations or project types. Three of the most widely used are: • PRINCE2® (PRojects IN Controlled Environments) • PMBOK® (Project Management Body Of Knowledge) • Agile PRINCE2® PRINCE2®, originally developed by a UK government agency, is a structured project management method used extensively by the UK government as well as other public and private sector organisations in the UK and internationally. It provides processes for managing projects over their entire lifecycle and identifies themes that ensure that focus is retained on critical success factors. It has been developed so that it can be tailored to suit the environment in which it is used. PRINCE2® is a defined methodology that provides a relatively straightforward, integrated and consistent project management framework of what

Private Client analysis: This briefing written by Simon Rees Davies of Appleby Bermuda and Peter Colegate of Appleby Cayman compares the key features of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and Bermuda’s Personal Information Protection Act 2016, which will come into effect in December 2018.

Law360: In February 2024, the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) published the UK government’s response to its consultation, ‘A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation’, launched in March 2023.

There are a significant number of different arbitral institutions, arbitral organisations and arbitration rules, and the distinctions between them are not always obvious. The tables below contain information comparing some key provisions of some of the most commonly used international arbitration rules. For detailed guidance on key sets of arbitration rules, the Overview documents in the ‘Related documents’ provide a helpful starting point. For an explanation of the key differences between institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration, see Practice Notes: Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitration and Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitration. Choosing arbitration rules Parties that choose arbitration over litigation will rarely agree their own procedural rules governing their arbitration proceedings, although they are entitled to do so given that arbitration is a consensual process. Instead, they will often agree to use the arbitration rules of an arbitral institution or other organisation, modified as appropriate to suit their own requirements. Parties can agree to have their arbitration

This Practice Note compares the JCT, NEC and FIDIC contracts in terms of events/risks which entitle the Contractor to claim time and money relief. These are set out in: • JCT—the list of Relevant Events (REs) in relation to extensions of time and; the list of Relevant Matters (RMs) in relation to claiming loss and expense • NEC3/NEC4 ECC—the list of Compensation events, under which the Contractor can claim both time and money • FIDIC—in clause 8.5 [Extension of Time for Completion] in relation to extensions of time and various other places throughout the contract in relation to time and money In relation to the JCT and NEC contracts, the table below should be read alongside Practice Notes: JCT—interpreting the lists of Relevant Events and Relevant Matters and NEC contracts—interpreting the list of compensation events (clause 60) which set out in greater detail what the provisions in the JCT and NEC contracts regarding extensions of time and loss and expense say and how they are likely to be, or have

This Checklist looks at some of the key differences and areas of overlap between the UK Corporate Governance Code 2024 (UKCG Code) and the Quoted Companies Alliance’s (QCA) corporate governance code 2023 (QCA Code). It also considers guidance included in the QCA’s audit committee and remuneration committee guides. The UKCG Code applies to companies with equity shares listed in the equity shares (commercial companies) category or the closed-ended investment funds category of the Official List, regardless of whether they are incorporated in the UK or elsewhere. For further details on the UKCG Code, see Practice Note: The UK Corporate Governance Code. The QCA Code does not apply to any specific category of company. In practice it is more likely to be adopted by small and mid-sized quoted companies that are not listed in the commercial companies or closed-ended investment funds categories, AIM companies, Aquis Growth Market companies and private companies which may opt to float in the future. For further details on the QCA Code, see Practice Note: The Quoted Companies Alliance (QCA) Corporate