This Practice Note identifies some of the key differences between adjudication and litigation, arbitration, mediation and expert determination. Litigation Adjudication is a quick method of settling disputes on a provisional interim basis—it is binding until finally resolved by arbitration, litigation or agreement. The requirements of natural justice that are crucial in litigation are important in adjudication. However, in the adjudication context, the rules of natural justice are secondary to the requirement that the adjudicator must reach a decision in a very limited period. See Practice Note: Breach of natural justice in adjudication. Confidentiality In litigation the court’s judgment is made public. Adjudicator’s decisions rarely make it into the public domain due to their lack of authority in other proceedings. In addition, the parties to adjudication can enter into a confidentiality agreement. Procedure Litigation is regulated by the Civil Procedure Rules. The relevant legislation in relation to adjudication (governing,. among other things, its timescales and procedure) is Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1998 and, if applicable, the

Part 26A restructuring plans The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) introduced a new restructuring tool, namely a Part 26A restructuring plan. Consultation responses and discussions with stakeholders persuaded the government of the benefits of modelling the restructuring plan procedure on that of schemes of arrangements. As well as familiarity, this had the advantage of providing a long-established and tested body of jurisprudence that courts are able to draw upon when dealing with certain aspects of restructuring plans and considering matters such as class formation (ie relevant scheme case law is applicable to certain provisions of the new restructuring plan procedure, see: Schemes of arrangement—overview). CIGA 2020 introduced a restructuring procedure that allows a company to bind all creditors or members, including junior (or senior) classes of creditors even if they vote against the plan, through the use of a cross-class cram down (CCCD) provision if certain conditions are satisfied (see Practice Note: Cross-Class Cram Down under a Part 26A restructuring plan). The classes of creditors/members will be

If you enter into a retainer with a consumer client away from your office or without meeting them, it is likely that the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/3134 apply. This Practice Note will help you assess whether the Regulations apply and, if they do: • whether you need to comply with requirements about distance contracts or off-premises contracts • the differences in those requirements The flowchart below gives a high level overview of when the regulations apply: Which clients do the regulations apply to? To have the benefit of cancellation rights under the Regulations your client must be an individual acting for purposes which are wholly or mainly outside their trade, business, craft or profession. Which contracts do the regulations apply to? A client retainer is a contract for services for the purpose of the Regulations. The Regulations will apply if your retainer falls within the definition of: • an off premises contract, or • a distance contract What is an off-premises contract? The definition

Short selling: the two key types Regulation (EU) 236/2012 (the EU Short Selling Regulation) came into force on 25 March 2012 and applies from 1 November 2012. The EU Short Selling Regulation includes a definition of short selling in Article 2. Generally, short selling is understood to mean a technique whereby a trader arranges to sell a security that they do not own. The trader aims to make a profit from first short selling a security and, at some point in the future, buying it back at a lower price in order to return it to the original holder. Short selling exists in the cash equities markets and there are also derivative equivalents to short selling. For example, a short position can be taken through index futures and options and spread bets. In summary, there are two types of short selling: • covered short selling—this is a practice whereby a short seller borrows shares from a shareholder in return for a fee so that they can be delivered to a buyer at settlement.

Law360: Contradictory stances toward investment protection within Latin America—including at least one country completely reversing its previous position on the issue, illustrate that while investment arbitration is facing very legitimate criticisms, a country's stance on the issue isn't always black and white.

This Practice Note on following and tracing considers some of the more difficult aspects of the process, including tracing and chains of transactions, the concept of ‘backwards tracing’, cherry picking when tracing (mixed substitutions) and tracing in respect of digital assets. ‘Following’ and ‘tracing’ are not claims as such, but rather processes or evidential processes of locating and identifying assets against which a claim may be asserted. See Practice Note: Proprietary remedies—following and tracing. Following and tracing can be relatively straightforward, however, there are scenarios and occasions where it can be particularly conceptually and evidentially difficult. Some of these are considered below. Tracing and chains of transactions (inference in tracing gaps) Where payments are being traced through various bank accounts in different transactions, difficulties can present in establishing that the money that left one bank account is the money eventually held in another bank account such that a tracing claim can succeed. However, the 2014 decision of the Court of Appeal in Relfo v Varsani has assisted with this. Here there was no evidence of a

DR analysis: this appeal highlights the difficulties for defendants involved in multiparty proceedings where offers of settlement are available through Part 36 offers. The general proposition for parties is to consider ADR and, if appropriate, settle disputes. However, this can back fire, as it did here for the eighth defendant when it settled and suddenly found it self liable for 100% of the costs incurred by the claimant. This judgment sets out principles the courts should apply in such circumstances when dealing with the issue of costs which, given that all the relevant cases were first instance decisions, provides a helpful insight for practitioners as to the key issues to consider when determining whether to accept a claimant Part 36 offer where there are multiple defendants.

This Practice Note considers the different options that may be available to either the claimant when encountering difficulties with serving the claim form in time or to the defendant when either requiring the claimant to serve the claim form or seeking to challenge the court’s jurisdiction on the basis that service of the claim form was invalid or seeking discontinuance of the claim. Claimant—potential difficulties with service Unable to serve within the time required A claim form will only be valid for service if served within the relevant time frame provided for in either the rules within the CPR or set out as statutory time limits; the time limits for serving the claim form differ depending in whether the claim form is served in England and Wales or in a different jurisdiction. For guidance, see Practice Note: Service of the claim form—time periods for service. The authorities in this area show that the courts have little sympathy for a claimant who fails to serve the claim form in time. This view applies equally

This Practice Note contains a jurisdiction-specific Q&A guide to e-commerce in Austria published as part of the Lexology Getting the Deal Through series by Law Business Research (published: January 2020). Authors: DORDA—Axel Anderl; Andreas Zahradnik; Bernhard Müller; Paul Doralt; Christian Schöller; Elisabeth König; Nino Tlapak 1. How can the government’s attitude and approach to internet issues best be described? The recently elected Austrian government has announced it will: • support and enlarge its broadband strategy (including 5G technology); • affirm to EU’s net neutrality; • set up and support an Austrian Cloud solution that complies with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and data protection standards; • strengthen the Austrian Data Protection Authority; • support the Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive and Open Data Directive; • focus on AI and blockchain; and • support digitalisation and technical innovations. However, the new government in this regard will be measured not only on the basis of its composition and platform, but its actions. 2. What legislation governs business on the internet? In general, the provisions

A standard for cordless telephony originally established by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute).

Digital Europe, together with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs, the European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry, and MedTech Europe, have published a joint policy paper setting out recommendations on the implementation of the European Health Data Space to protect intellectual property, trade secrets and commercially confidential information while enabling the secondary use of health data for research, innovation and public health. The paper states that although the EHDS offers significant opportunities for data-driven innovation and improved patient outcomes, its success depends on a governance framework that balances data accessibility with the protection of proprietary information that underpins investment and innovation. It highlights that the EHDS extends data-sharing obligations to privately held and pre-commercial datasets and warns that, in the absence of implementing acts under Article 52, divergent national approaches risk fragmentation and a loss of trust among data holders.

Commercial analysis: 2025 is set to be a busy year in UK consumer protection law. With the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issuing its annual plan for 2025/2026 (the Plan) on 27 March 2025 and its new powers to enforce consumer protection law under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act (DMCCA 2024) to commence in April 2025, what do you need to know? In this article, Richard Shaw, partner, Merieke Datema and Alexandra Hildyard, counsels, and Anna Blest, knowledge counsel, at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP provide key takeaways from the CMA’s final guidance on the overhauled consumer protection regime and comment on the key areas where the CMA will shine its enforcement spotlight.