Forthcoming Change—fund liquidity risk management On 13 August 2026, the FCA published PS26/17, Enhancing fund liquidity risk management, setting out final rules and guidance intended to strengthen liquidity risk management for authorised fund managers (AFMs) of UK UCITS schemes and non-UCITS retail schemes (NURS). The changes include enhanced requirements and guidance on anti-dilution measures, assessment of asset liquidity and liquidity stress testing. The principal changes come into force on 1 February 2027, with certain transitional provisions applying until 1 August 2027. For more information, see Practice Note: Developments in the regulation of UK investment funds and asset management—FCA final rules on enhancing fund liquidity risk management. This Practice Note explores key elements of the UK UCITS regulatory framework, including authorisation, UK UCITS management companies, master-feeder structures, depositaries, remuneration, investor information, and the implementation and divergence of the UK regime following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. What is the UCITS Directive and what is a UCITS fund? In the EU, Directive 2009/65/EC (the UCITS Directive, also referred to

This Practice Note considers the principles governing apportionment in occupational disease claims. It explains the distinction between divisible and indivisible diseases, the relationship between material contribution and the extent of liability and the different approaches required when allocating responsibility between defendants and insurers. It also considers uninsured periods, insolvent employers and insurers and the steps practitioners can take to identify historic employers’ liability insurance. The claimant’s entitlement to damages, contribution between defendants and allocation between insurers are separate questions. An allocation appropriate to one question should not be applied automatically to another. In particular, the absence of insurance does not itself reduce an employer’s liability and a defendant’s proportionate contribution to exposure does not invariably limit the claimant’s recovery to that proportion. Material contribution Before considering apportionment, the analysis should distinguish four stages: • causation—did the defendant’s breach cause or materially contribute to the injury, or does an exceptional material-increase-in-risk test apply? • extent of liability—is the defendant responsible for the whole injury or only an identifiable part? • contribution between defendants—are

It is possible to dismiss an employee while they are on long-term sick leave, but particular attention must be paid to the justification for the dismissal, the way it is implemented and its timing, to avoid claims such as unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. This answer assumes that the employee does not have a pregnancy- or maternity-related illness and that the real reason for dismissal is genuinely the long-term absence. See Reason for dismissal—capability. The following Practice Notes are particularly relevant: • Dealing with long-term or chronic sickness • Dealing with stress and mental ill health in the workplace Key points to consider at an early stage Key points that an employer who is considering dismissal should address include to: • make sure the absence is properly documented • consider the cause of the absence—is it work-related? • follow any existing sickness policies/procedures and Acas Guidance • check if early retirement or any PHI benefits may be available, as alternatives to dismissal • consider the actual impact of the absence on the employer's

Purpose of this Checklist This Checklist is designed to assist a Solvency II UK firm in aligning its governance, systems and controls with the regulatory expectations of both the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA). It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Governance, systems and controls requirements for insurers which provides a more detailed overview of the relevant requirements. Governance and organisational structure • ensure that the board is ultimately accountable for compliance with applicable PRA, FCA and legislative requirements • establish an effective system of governance, including a transparent organisational structure with clear allocation and segregation of responsibilities • regularly review and update written policies covering risk management, internal control, internal audit and, where relevant, outsourcing • maintain documented approvals from the governing body for critical decisions and policy changes Risk management • implement and integrate an effective risk-management system into the decision-making process, ensuring continuous identification, measurement, monitoring, management and reporting of risks • incorporate comprehensive strategies, stress testing, scenario analysis

The Capacity Market (CM) is designed to ensure that there is sufficient investment in the overall level of reliable capacity necessary to provide secure electricity supply. The CM works by giving capacity providers a regular retainer in return for such providers agreeing to provide capacity when the system is under stress, as an insurance policy against future black outs. For an overview of the key features of the CM, see Practice Note: Capacity Market—key features. The CM is one of the key mechanisms used by the government to introduce electricity market reform (EMR) (see Practice Note: Electricity Market Reform (EMR)). The other key mechanism introduced through EMR is the Contracts for Difference revenue support regime for low carbon generation projects, see Practice Note: Contracts for Difference (CfD)—key features for more details. This CM tracker sets out in reverse chronological order (ie most recent first) key developments in relation to the CM since February 2015, covering all closed consultations, regulatory guidance publications and key amendments to the CM legislation and the Capacity Market Rules. For a dedicated Practice Note exclusively on the Capacity Market

Overage is a covenant or contractual obligation by the buyer to make an additional payment to the seller over and above the original purchase price if a specified event occurs. It is important to stress to clients that payment of this additional sum is by no means certain. For example: • the specified trigger event may not occur within the overage period • the local authority's development plan for the site or other circumstances surrounding the property may change over time • even if the trigger event does occur, the buyer may simply fail to make the payment to the seller • the buyer may become insolvent in the intervening period At the outset At the outset (ie when heads of terms are circulated) consider whether overage is appropriate for the transaction. Is it likely that the overage will be triggered during the anticipated overage period? If it is a near certainty, a more appropriate solution may be that the price should be adjusted upwards instead. If the overage is being imposed simply to cover the ‘what

FORTHCOMING DEVELOPMENT: On 15 December 2025, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) launched a consultation examining whether the existing powers enabling the Pensions Regulator (TPR) to remove and replace trustees should be supplemented or reformed, noting that TPR’s current statutory powers to suspend, prohibit or replace trustees are tightly constrained, used infrequently and can involve complex, quasi-judicial processes. Where trustee replacement is required, TPR generally appoints independent trustees from its independent register, which in practice consists of a small number of professional trustee firms and can be an effective but costly solution, particularly for schemes under stress or orphan schemes with no trustees in place. Against this background, the consultation explores the feasibility of introducing a government-appointed public trustee to act as a secure, independent, last-resort option where trustees need to be replaced or appointed. Moreover, where applicable, a scheme must comply with legislative requirements relating to the appointment of member-nominated trustees or directors. Legislation (the ‘Member-nominated trustees (MNT) legislation’) requires that at least one-third of trustees are member-nominated trustees (or

FORTHCOMING DEVELOPMENT: On 15 December 2025, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) launched a consultation examining whether the existing powers enabling the Pensions Regulator (TPR) to remove and replace trustees should be supplemented or reformed, noting that TPR’s current statutory powers to suspend, prohibit or replace trustees are tightly constrained, used infrequently and can involve complex, quasi-judicial processes. Where trustee replacement is required, TPR generally appoints independent trustees from its independent register, which in practice consists of a small number of professional trustee firms and can be an effective but costly solution, particularly for schemes under stress or orphan schemes with no trustees in place. Against this background, the consultation explores the feasibility of introducing a government-appointed public trustee to act as a secure, independent, last-resort option where trustees need to be replaced or appointed. Independent individuals may act in relation to occupational pension schemes, either as the sole trustee or as one of a number of trustees (or as directors of a corporate trustee). There is no general overriding definition

1 Introduction 1.1 How we behave in and out of the workplace affects us all. Everyone has an important role to play in building and maintaining a culture of respect, inclusion, and ethical behaviour within our firm. This policy sets out our firm’s commitment to safe, fair, inclusive and respectful behaviour, our expectations for how we behave towards each other, our colleagues, clients and other third parties and how to act when you see or become aware of unacceptable behaviour by others. 1.2 [Insert name of firm] is committed to safe and fair treatment of everyone in our firm and other colleagues with whom we work. Our employment policies and practices are intended to actively foster and support ethical behaviour, staff wellbeing, inclusion and diversity. We prohibit harassment, bullying, discrimination and sexual misconduct in any form. 1.3 This conduct and behaviour policy should be read together with [our Code of ethics and ]our policies and guidance on: 1.3.1 [insert, eg equality, diversity and inclusion;] 1.3.2 [insert, eg bullying and harassment;] 1.3.3 [insert, eg stress and mental health;] 1.3.4 [insert, eg sexual misconduct;] 1.3.5 [insert, eg breach reporting;] 1.3.6 [insert, eg whistleblowing.]

The Bank of England (BoE) has published a discussion paper examining the effectiveness and impact of potential reforms to the UK gilt repo market, developed in consultation with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), HM Treasury (HMT) and the UK Debt Management Office (DMO). The paper focuses on two key proposals: greater central clearing of gilt repo transactions and minimum haircuts on non-centrally cleared trades. The discussion paper highlights the role of the gilt repo market in supporting financial stability, liquidity management and monetary policy transmission. It identifies vulnerabilities such as limited dealer intermediation capacity during stress, zero or near-zero haircuts, and the build-up of leveraged positions. Responses are sought by 28 November 2025.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published its final report setting out draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) concerning the active account requirement (AAR) under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3). Based on feedback received during the public consultation, ESMA has adjusted the operational conditions and stress-testing requirements associated with the AAR. The report outlines simplified reporting requirements, clarifies the representativeness obligation, and provides further detail on the operational conditions. ESMA will submit the report and draft RTS to the European Commission, which has a three-month period for endorsement. The RTS will then be subject to review by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.

The Health & Care Professionals Council (HCPC) has published a blog on the subject of the importance of maintaining fitness to practise, wellbeing and seeking help where necessary. In the blog post, Head of Fitness to Practise, Laura Coffey, states: ‘We are increasingly aware of the demand and pressures on health and care professionals and indeed most recently with the added impact of the global [coronavirus (COVID-19)] pandemic. Increasing workload on professionals and healthcare services, combined with growing external scrutiny of their practise has often been linked directly to high stress and poor wellbeing.’ She also highlights that the HCPC is currently consulting on the standards of proficiency, and that ‘one key area of change being proposed within this consultation is the importance of our registrants maintaining fitness to practise as well as considering the role of mental health and being able to seek help where necessary’. This includes whether the standards should ‘mention mental health or wellbeing explicitly’.