The co-arbitrators in VC Holding II S.a.r.l. and others v. Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/39) have announced that the proposal for the disqualification of arbitrator Charles Poncet is declined. In October 2022, Italy (the respondent) filed a proposal for Charles Poncet to be disqualified and the proceedings were suspended in accordance with ICSID Arbitration Rule 9(6). Poncet’s co-arbitrators on 21 April 2023 declined the proposal and proceedings have resumed. The reasoning for this decision has not yet been made publicly available.

Order made by the Pensions Regulator under section 29 of the Pensions Act 1995 disqualifying a person from being a trustee. See prohibition order.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Secretary of State sought a disqualification order against two directors of an insolvent company. It was alleged that their conduct at the time of and following a bond issue made them unfit to be directors. The main allegation was that they failed to ensure a guarantee was in place despite marketing the bonds as ‘fully secured’. However, it was found on the facts that such a guarantee had been obtained, and that in any event the directors had carried out adequate checks, particularly in light of the professional advice they had received. No disqualification order was made. Written by Nora Wannagat, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings.

The legislation surrounding director disqualification applications under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) can be found under: • CDDA 1986, s 6 • the Insolvent Companies (Disqualification of Unfit Directors) Proceedings Rules 1987, SI 1987/2023 (Disqualification Rules 1987) • these are supplemented by the Practice Direction: Directors Disqualification Proceedings (PDDDP), which was last updated in January 2017 Note also that directors of dissolved companies that have not been through an insolvency process can also be disqualified as a result of amendments to CDDA 1986, s 6 by the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, though such disqualifications fall outside the scope of this Practice Note. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) also apply to director disqualification proceedings, though to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Disqualification Rules 1987, the Disqualification Rules 1987 will take precedence. The claim is commenced under Part 8 of the CPR. For information on when proceedings under

The claimant's evidence An application for a disqualification order must be supported by written evidence. That evidence should be by affidavit, except where the official receiver (OR) is a party, in which case, their evidence may be in the form of a written report (with or without affidavits by other persons) which shall be treated as if it had been verified by affidavit by them. See paragraph 8 of the Practice Direction: Directors Disqualification Proceedings (PDDDP). For an example see: Form 12 Affidavit by Chief Examiner in support of application for disqualification order under CDDA 1986, s 6: Mithani: Directors' Disqualification (Division X) [601]–[650]. The claimant's evidence should include a statement of matters of unfitness and the affidavit of the Secretary of State (SoS) (or report by the OR, as the case may be), which shall be prima facie evidence of any matter contained in it. For more discussion on evidence gathering and investigation, see Practice Note: Directors disqualification—pre-action

Miscellaneous procedural points Disclosure There is normally no formal standard requirement for disclosure of documents under the Part 8 procedure. A party to disqualification proceedings is not, therefore, required to disclose documents unless they are specifically ordered to do so, or these are referred to in their written evidence. If the Secretary of State (SoS) is asked to provide disclosure, this does not extend to documents which are not held by them personally, but may be with the insolvency practitioner (IP) or another third party. Disclosure would need to be sought separately directly from those parties. The SoS will inevitably disclose everything that they are able to, in accordance with their duty of fairness, and will always produce documentary evidence of anything that they rely on in their affidavit if it is available. If the SoS obtains documents from third parties during the course of their investigation, they will inevitably also provide copies of such documentation

In relation to independent advice under Rule 3, the Panel will not regard as an appropriate person to give independent advice a person who is in the same group as the offeror's financial or other professional adviser (including a corporate broker) or who has a significant interest in or financial connection with either an offeror or the offeree of such a kind as to create a conflict of interest.

Describes a pension credit where the pension member has taken benefits prior to the pension sharing order so that no tax-free lump sum is available to the pension creditee.

When building work is not necessarily late but more workers or resources have to be applied to a job to meet deadlines because of the way in which work was actually carried out.

Law360: The use of confidentiality clauses and nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, by employers (whether as stand-alone agreements or forming terms within employment contracts, settlement agreements, or so-called COT3 conciliatory agreements) has been subject to considerable scrutiny in the U.K. in recent years, despite existing professional obligations on U.K. regulated lawyers not to advance all-encompassing, unlimited NDAs.

Dissenting.

In arbitration proceedings presided over by three-member arbitral tribunals, there may be circumstances in which the arbitrators cannot reach a unanimous decision on the substantive dispute or significant issues such as jurisdiction. In those circumstances, in arbitrations under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and under the leading arbitration rules, arbitral awards can be rendered by a majority of the tribunal. What is the value of a dissenting opinion? Dissenting opinions do not give grounds for any form of challenge or appeal of an arbitral award unless the parties, by agreement or by adopting particular sets of arbitration rules, have decided that an award must be made unanimously. However, a dissenting opinion does have some value to a dissatisfied party as, for example: • in the context of a challenge or appeal to an arbitral award, a dissenting opinion may be admissible as evidence in relation to procedural matters (eg, B v A—see News Analysis: What is the status of a dissenting opinion in arbitral award? What challenge may be brought if an error as to the application of