Law360: A group of underwriters and insurance companies have denied they owe at least US$90m claimed by a Lloyd's of London syndicate to cover coronavirus (COVID-19) losses, arguing they have met their obligations, having already paid out around US$26.6m.

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: In the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption decision, the Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in International Entertainment Holdings Ltd and others v Allianz Insurance plc (‘IEH’). This case will be of particular interest to policyholders with ‘policing authority’ or ‘incident’ wordings. The main issue in the appeal concerned whether coronavirus amounted to an ‘incident’, and whether central government or the Secretary of State for Health could be construed as a ‘policing authority’. The judgment also provides helpful commentary on issues often arising in policyholder disputes with insurers, such as the application of the policy sub-limit and the circumstances in which courts will be willing to correct obvious mistakes. Written by Harriet Thurstan, associate at Covington & Burling LLP.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information only. This Practice Note considers the extended version of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) that applied between 1 November 2020 and 30 April 2021, referred to in this Practice Note as the ‘extended CJRS’ or the ‘CJRS extension’. For information on the extended CJRS from 1 May 2021, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 May to 30 September 2021) [Archived]. The background to the extended CJRS is as follows: Date Details Government information published News Analysis 31 October 2020 HM Treasury announced an extension throughout November 2020 of the CJRS, with a corresponding postponement of the start of the Job Support Scheme Furlough Scheme Extended and Further Economic Support announced Employment aspects of the new coronavirus lockdown and the extension of the CJRS (2/11/20) 2 November 2020 Announcement that extended CJRS will run until 2 December 2020 HMRC Help and Support bulletin, 3 November 2020

As a result of coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, investment funds have faced challenges both operationally and as a result of significantly increased volatility in global markets. The pandemic, in combination with high volatility and inherent valuation issues that it has triggered, has led to large market corrections and a deterioration of liquidity risks, which in turn has prompted stress in different parts of the financial system, including in some segments of the investment fund sector. These issues are summarised in a joint committee report on risks and vulnerabilities in the EU financial system, which was published by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the other European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) in September 2020. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published guidance setting out its expectations regarding funds in light of coronavirus. While it acknowledges the significant challenges firms are facing in the current environment, it nevertheless expects them to continue to uphold the best interest of their investors at all times. ESMA and the Investment Association (IA) have also published guidance, and

How does the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak impact on transparency orders in the Court of Protection? Mr Justice Hayden issued guidance on remote hearings in the Court of Protection on 31 March 2020. In this guidance, Hayden J made it clear that transparency is central to the philosophy of the Court of Protection and, while it will be difficult to ensure that a Skype hearing is as accessible to the public as an ‘open court’, this does not mean that transparency can become a casualty of our present public health emergency. If anything, the present emergency enhances the need for continuing press scrutiny, representing, as it does, the conduit by which we preserve the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Having said this, the provisions of Practice Direction 4C: Transparency

Shops The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/350, Sch 2 lists essential businesses including food retailers, pharmacies etc which were permitted to open between 23 March and 14 June 2020. Restrictions have now been removed. This designation did not include service businesses, ie accountants or law firms. The

While there is no specific primary legislation in relation to the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS), section 75 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA 2020) disapplies section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, permitting the

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is an unforeseen global event that has had significant ramifications for society and the economy. Family practitioners are once again debating, as they did in the wake of the 2007-2008 global financial crisis, whether an event of such magnitude is likely to constitute a ‘Barder event’ in financial remedy proceedings before the courts of England and Wales. This Practice Note re-examines that question at this turbulent and unprecedented juncture. It also considers alternative mechanisms for revisiting financial orders, the Re Barrell and Thwaite jurisdictions, as well as the civil law concept of frustration. Barder applications If after a full hearing an aggrieved party complains that the judge fell into error, the appropriate avenue for challenging the order is by way of appeal. If, however, the complaint is not that the judge fell into error but rather relates to an unforeseen event or events that have occurred since the order was made, which fundamentally changes a central aspect of that order, then a so-called

The government published two sets of guidance on the coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS) on 26 March 2020: • guidance for employers: Claim for wage costs through the coronavirus job retention scheme, and • guidance for employees: Check if you could be covered by the coronavirus job retention scheme These were updated on 4 April, 9 April and 15 April, and on 15 April the government also published a Treasury Direction. For further information, see: • HMRC publishes updated employer and employee guidance on Coronavirus (COVID-19) job retention scheme • HMRC publishes second update to employer and employee guidance on Coronavirus (COVID-19) Job Retention Scheme, and • Treasury gives legal effect to Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and updates guidance a third time A woman who takes ordinary maternity

Responding to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is impacting government priorities across Europe and beyond. In light of COVID-19 developments and associated guidance on social distancing, UK and EU negotiating teams involved in the talks on the future relationship and Withdrawal Agreement implementation are not meeting in person in accordance with the original terms of reference, but they remain in regular contact to find alternative ways of continuing the discussions. Both the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, and UK chief negotiator, David Frost, have been in isolation due to COVID-19 and were reported to have not met since the first round of talks. The UK government has acknowledged the impact of COVID-19 on immediate priorities, but still aims to review progress in the future relationship talks in June 2020 and is sticking to the December 2020 deadline for ending the transitional arrangements. The government has repeatedly restated its commitment to the current transition timetable and insists that it will not agree to any extension to the transition/implementation period under

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note was archived and is not maintained. Unlike conventional perils such as fire or flood, an outbreak of a virus cannot so easily be located at a particular place and time. The 2020 coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak and consequent government action therefore presented insurers with a novel loss scenario, in relation to which the factual complexities arising were compounded by a lack of clear judicial authority on some of the key issues that the scenario posed in the context of business interruption claims, including: • the proper construction of composite insured perils in non-damage business interruption polices (ie, the so-called ‘disease’, ‘prevention of access’ and ‘hybrid’ clauses) • the correct approach to causation in the context of so-called ‘wide-area’ perils, which are apt to result in damage not only to the insured property but also to the surrounding area • identification of the proximate cause of a loss where there is a multitude of competing causes, some of which are insured and some of which are

On 17 March 2020, the government published guidance about the emergency coronavirus legislation to tackle the urgent issues that are arising as a result of coronavirus (COVID-19). One of the five key areas covered by the Coronavirus Bill is managing a death of a person with respect and dignity. The legislation will be limited in its application to a two year period and not all provisions will apply immediately. The legislation will include modifications to the current rules and regulations regarding the registration of a death and will take account of the fact that some families may be self-isolating or otherwise house-bound due to coronavirus, as well as the potential impact of the pandemic in terms of the capacity for registration and other arrangements to be made within the usual timeframe. The Coronavirus Bill 2019–21 was introduced in parliament on 19 March 2020 and the relevant provisions relating to registration of deaths and issues relating