Law360: It has been four years since the UK first entered lockdown to combat coronavirus (COVID-19), leaving offices eerily empty, shops shuttered and lawyers discussing how to argue business interruption claims.

With the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to cause significant economic turmoil, many listed companies may need to raise funds quickly through equity capital fundraisings. Equity fundraisings can be split into two different types: pre-emptive offerings and non-pre-emptive offerings. In a pre-emptive offering, such as a rights issue or an open offer, shareholders are given the opportunity to subscribe in the fundraising pro-rata to their existing shareholdings. In a non-pre-emptive offering, such as a placing, shares are offered to selected investors and this will see the holdings of existing shareholders in the company diluted. The key types of secondary fundraisings which a listed company may consider in an emergency situation are discussed below. Placing In a placing, shares are usually offered to a selected group of institutional investors for cash. The placing is generally structured so that it falls within one of the exemptions from the requirement to publish a prospectus which saves time and cost. There is an exemption from the requirement

Unlike company general meetings and annual general meetings, there are no provisions in the Companies Act 2006  regulating board meetings or prescribing who can call a board meeting or any notice period that has to be given to directors when convening a board meeting. Instead, the procedure for calling and conducting board meetings is usually set out in the articles. For comprehensive information on the convening and holding of board meetings under normal circumstances see Practice Notes: • Directors’ board meetings—fundamentals • Directors’ decision-making—convening board meetings • Directors’ decision-making—conduct at board meetings • Directors’ decision-making—written resolutions and decisions by sole directors On 26 March 2020, compulsory measures (the 'Stay at Home Measures') prohibiting, among other things, public gatherings of more than two people were passed into law in England

The cirumstances created by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic raise particular challenges for the creation of lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) due to their strict execution requirements, with the donor, their certificate provider(s) and each attorney and replacement attorney being required to sign the LPA form in the presence of a witness. For detailed guidance on LPA execution formalities, see Practice Note: Creating a valid LPA—Execution requirements. The creation of electronic LPAs has been the subject of much discussion and consultation over the years. The 2013 Ministry of Justice consultation Transforming the Services of the Office of the Public Guardian—enabling Digital by Default stated that it was the Office of the Public Guardian’s (OPG’s) ambition to deliver a fully digital process for making and registering an LPA, where the whole process could be completed online, removing the need for paper forms. However, these proposals received strong criticism from leading professional bodies and the consultation was consequently

Law360: A Lloyd's of London syndicate has sued several underwriters and insurance companies for at least US$90m to recover losses it claimed it incurred when the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic shuttered venues across the US and UK.

As a result of measures to slow down the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19), many countries including the UK are in lockdown. For employees, this often means that travel to and from work has been restricted so that only those who cannot work remotely are allowed to travel to work and then only where travelling to work is absolutely necessary—for instance, key workers like healthcare staff. Consequently, many employees are working remotely, whether from their home or from another country in which they find themselves during a lockdown. Some employers chose to require their employees to work from home even before any lockdown was announced. Employees who are perhaps seconded to other countries badly affected by the virus may already have relocated back to their home or may wish to do so, or may have been requested to do so by their employers. These scenarios may give rise to potential tax issues. Where an employee

In light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the government’s guidance relating to social distancing and staying at home, HMRC has relaxed its rules relating to conditionally exempt property. Heritage property usually open to the public Where the owner of a heritage property was not able to open to the public for a sufficient number of days in 2020, HMRC will not consider that the terms of conditional exemption have been broken, even if it means that some of the period covered by the agreement is missed or the property was not open at all in 2020. HMRC initially indicated that it would expect the property to be open later in 2020 to make up for any lost days, if possible. However, if this was not possible, additional open days in 2021 would not be expected to make up for missed days in 2020. The guidance was updated in December 2020 to confirm that the terms of conditional

To: [name of landlord] of [address] Lease dated [date] and made between (1) [name of (original) landlord] and (2) [name of (original) tenant] (the 'Lease') of [describe the premises] (the 'Premises') We act for [name of tenant], your tenant of the Premises under the Lease. On behalf of our client, we give you notice under section 10

Law360: A legal battle between rival developers of coronavirus (COVID-19) jabs over the technology underlying the vaccine could set the tone for future litigation, as intellectual property lawyers expect a pledge made by Moderna at the height of the pandemic to dominate proceedings.

When addressing this question, it will be relevant to consider: • current public health guidance • the nature of the duty to make reasonable adjustments • what adjustments are required • the question of furlough as a reasonable adjustment Public health guidance for clinically extremely vulnerable individuals to shield during the coronavirus pandemic Under the national lockdown restrictions that apply in England from 5 November–2 December 2020, individuals who have been identified as clinically extremely vulnerable have been strongly advised to shield, ie: • to work from home, and • if they cannot work from home, not to attend work while the lockdown restrictions are in place Those who cannot work from home may, subject to eligibility, be able to claim Statutory

The response of the courts to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been patchy and confused. The position changes from day-to-day as to whether hearings should go ahead, whether they should be in person, and whether non-urgent cases should simply be adjourned or conducted remotely. At the time of writing the guidance suggests that where cases can be heard remotely, they will be—see: Coronavirus (COVID-19)-Civil and Family Courts guidance from Lord Chief Justice—LNB News 19/03/2020 93, and Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Guidance on telephone and video hearings updated—LNB News 19/03/2020 18, but the ability of the various court buildings to provide for this is highly questionable. In ongoing litigation there will be circumstances where a hearing is required within a particular time—for example an application to adduce expert evidence will be required

Law360, London: The chancellor said on 3 December 2024 that Tom Hayhoe, a health service and regulatory veteran, has been appointed as the coronavirus (COVID-19) corruption commissioner to claw back money wasted in pandemic-era fraud with a potential cost of up to £7.3bn.