The process of removing duplicates of a document.

The process by which a site is removed from the nuclear site licensing requirements set out in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. A nuclear site licence may also be surrendered or revoked but this does not end the licensee’s Period of Responsibility.

HMRC may withdraw the favourable tax status granted to a registered pension scheme.

This Practice Note provides an overview of de-risking in the context of financial services firms’ anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) efforts. It examines the key sectors and customers impacted, outlines the relevant legal and regulatory requirements, including the overlay with the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Consumer Duty, and discusses the FCA’s expectations and focus. It also considers legal and regulatory initiatives aimed at addressing de-risking, including the FCA’s review of bank account closures, its review of the treatment of domestic Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and statutory amendments relating to domestic PEPs in the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/1371. Key points Key points are as follows: • the UK legislative and regulatory framework requires FCA authorised firms and firms registered with the FCA for supervision under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/692 (MLRs) to adopt a risk-based approach to identify, assess and manage ML/TF risk • a risk-based approach to AML/CTF necessitates that customer due diligence (CDD)

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES ONLY TO DEFINED BENEFIT OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES The increase in the number of underfunded defined benefit occupational pension schemes over recent years has been mirrored by a growing interest on the part of sponsoring employers and trustees in methods whereby the financial risks and investment volatility associated with such schemes can be managed, and ideally minimised—a process commonly known as 'de-risking'. Various methods of de-risking have been developed, and continue to be developed. For example, incentive exercises, such as enhanced transfer value exercises and pension increase exchange exercises, can be regarded as forming part of the arsenal of de-risking tools available to employers and trustees of defined benefit schemes (for more information on incentive exercises, see Practice Note: Pension scheme incentive exercises). However, there has been a growing use of various forms of insurance products in de-risking strategies, the most common options being pension buy-outs and pension buy-ins. Before engaging in a buy-in or buy-out exercise, the Pensions Regulator recommends that the trustees take specialist advice and possibly consider

Under the UK General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), organisations transferring personal data outside the UK on or after 21 March 2022 can rely on two sets of standard of data protection clauses issued by the ICO as an 'appropriate mechanism': (a) the ICO's International Data Transfer Agreement (IDTA), or (b) International Data Transfer Addendum (UK Addendum). The UK Addendum enables the use of the standard contractual clauses issued under Commission Decision (EU) 2021/914 under the EU GDPR on June 2021 ('2021 EU SCCs' or 'new EU SCCs'). Under transitional arrangements for existing contracts entered into before 21 September 2022, organisations were permitted to rely on the 'old EU SCCs' (the SCCs issued under Commission Decision 2001/497/EC, Commission Decision 2004/915/EC and Commission Decision 2010/87/EU, also known as 'pre-2021 SCCs' or 'Model Clauses', which could be used in their original form or in a form slightly adapted for the UK GDPR). Organisations could continue to rely on those older arrangements to make restricted transfers under the UK regime until 21 March 2024. As the transition period expires, organisations relying on the old EU SCCs should, by now, have opted to use the IDTA or UK Addendum (appended to the new EU SCCs), or to an alternative appropriate mechanism to comply with the UK GDPR requirements for international transfers. Organisations who have not yet done so should reconsider their position.

Recent guidance updates on UK visas for Ukrainian nationals have imposed a deadline for travel to the UK with a permission to travel letter and provided details on the arrangements for group appointments. In a significant update to the UK visa support for Ukrainian nationals page, the Home Office has included new provisions addressing permission to travel letters. The guidance provides that permission to travel letters issued without accompanying digital status are only valid for travel to the UK until 12.01 am UK time on 13 February 2025. Those arriving to the UK after this date with a travel letter may be denied entry to the UK and removed. Those arriving at the UK border before 13 February 2025 must provide their travel letter and passport to an Immigration Officer. The Officer is then given the discretion to provide permission to stay in the UK for six months. Additionally, one must submit a further application to remain once you arrive in the UK. This includes arranging a biometric appointment within six months after arrival. This could result in leave to stay in the UK for a period of up to three years.

The CIOT and ATT have released reminders of the deadline of 31 December 2025 for trusts to register under AEOI regulations.

This is where the parties cannot reach agreement upon a particular matter which requires their approval. A joint venture company in which two shareholders each own 50% of the shares is known as a deadlocked or deadlock joint venture, as the shareholders need to reach agreement on all matters for a decision to be taken. A deadlock may also arise where the joint venture is not held 50/50 in relation to reserved matters which require the approval of all joint venture parties. Joint venture agreements will typically contain deadlock provisions for breaking a deadlock.

A joint venture in which two joint venture parties each owns 50% of the shares of the joint venture company (JVC) is sometimes known as a deadlocked or deadlock joint venture. In such a joint venture, the joint venture parties must reach agreement on any decisions to be taken by the JVC; if they cannot agree on a certain course of action, the action will not be taken ie the status quo will be maintained. When will deadlock be an issue? The structure and management of a 50/50 joint venture will usually reinforce the deadlock position, eg: • each joint venture party will be able to appoint an equal number of directors to the board • the joint venture parties will take turns to appoint the chair of the board and the chair will not have a casting vote • each joint venture party will have equal voting rights, both at board and shareholder level • advance notice of matters to be discussed at board and shareholder meetings may be required to be given to each joint

Clause 15 Replace clauses 15.3, 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 with the following new clauses 15.3 and 15.4: 15.3 If the Deadlock is not resolved within [20] Business Days of the matter being referred to the respective chairs of the Shareholders, either Shareholder shall be entitled [within [60] Business Days of the deemed occurrence of a Deadlock in accordance with clause 15.1] to serve a notice (the Deadlock Resolution Notice) on the other Shareholder, whereupon each Shareholder shall have the right within [20] Business Days from the date of service of the Deadlock Resolution Notice to deposit at the registered office of the Company, addressed to the secretary of the Company (or, if there is no secretary, the Board of directors), a sealed

A deadlocked jury is a criminal trial jury that cannot reach the required verdict, even after being directed to continue deliberating. It is often referred to in England and Wales and Northern Ireland as a “hung jury”; in Scotland the same situation arises where the jury cannot reach a majority verdict; in Ireland, “jury disagreement” is commonly used. The concept is descriptive rather than formally defined in statute, but is recognised in case law and criminal procedure rules across the UK and Ireland.In all four jurisdictions, a deadlocked jury prevents the court from taking a verdict on the charge in question. The trial judge may give a further direction encouraging continued deliberation (e.g. a “Watson direction” in England and Wales), but if impasse persists, the judge will normally discharge the jury.The usual consequence is a mistrial on that count and the possibility of a retrial, subject to prosecutorial discretion, abuse of process considerations and, in some instances, statutory limits on further proceedings. Deadlocked juries are particularly significant in serious criminal cases where the public interest in retrial, witness availability and cost must be carefully assessed.