Arbitration analysis: International arbitration associate, Jago Chanter and partner, Xavier Nyssen, at Dechert Paris consider the impact the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had on arbitration in Paris and whether it will result in any long-term changes to practice. This analysis is part of a series which considers the impact of coronavirus on commercial arbitration at key seats of international arbitration.

ARCHIVED: This Flowchart has been archived and is no longer maintained. This Flowchart shows the key steps in the process of an arbitration under the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 (CR(C)A 2022), including eligibility for arbitration, giving notice of intention to make a reference to arbitration, the appointment of an arbitrator and submission of formal proposals for relief from payment, the process whether or not an oral hearing is requested, the awards that the arbitrator may make, and the end of the moratorium on enforcement. It is drafted on the assumption that the tenant will make the reference to arbitration but applies equally if the parties are reversed. Some details have been omitted for clarity—for full guidance see Practice Note: Rent arrears recovery under the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 [Archived]. Note that the deadline for beginning a new reference to arbitration has now passed. See Practice Note: Rent arrears recovery under the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 [Archived]. Note 1—Is there a protected rent debt under

The obligation on the parties under CPR 3.13 is to ‘file and exchange’ budgets by the stated time. The rules use ‘exchange’ here rather than serve. This tends to suggest that the usual rules relating to service found in Part 6 of the CPR do not apply to cost budgets. Some caution should be adopted in relation to this approach, however. For example, in CPR PD 3E, para 7.7, there is reference to ‘re-serving’ a costs budget after budgeted costs have been approved or agreed. In cases such as BMCE Bank International Plc v Phoenix Commodities Pvt Ltd the requirement to ‘exchange’ has been assumed to be a requirement to serve.

Law360: As British authorities dial back their worst fears about the scale of fraud linked to coronavirus (COVID-19) relief loans, legal experts say the initial crackdown to prosecute rogue directors has faltered as the costs start to outweigh the benefits.

Invitations to attend an interview under caution on a voluntary basis are routine in regulatory crime investigations. Volunteers are defined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) as a person who, for the purpose of assisting with an investigation, attends a police station voluntarily or at any other place where a constable is present, or, who accompanies a constable to a police station or such other place without having been arrested. Volunteers are entitled to leave at will unless they are placed under arrest and, in accordance with PACE Code C, have specific entitlements whilst they are attending an interview conducted under PACE 1984. For information about voluntary attendance at interviews under caution under PACE 1984, see Practice

Life Sciences analysis: Ian Turner, senior associate, and Sarah Taylor, senior practice Development Lawyer at Pinsent Masons LLP offer insights into the mRNA coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine patent dispute initially brought by Moderna against Pfizer and BionTech. The Patents Court held one of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine patents (EP (UK) 3 718 565 (‘EP565’)) to be invalid on the grounds of obviousness and added matter, but held a second patent (EP (UK) 3 590 949 (‘EP949’)) to be valid and, by admission, Pfizer/BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine Comirnaty was held to be within the scope of the claims. The judge, Mr Justice Meade, also made some pertinent comments about case management where trials involve multiple patents and legal teams, and the instruction of experts. In a separate decision, the Patents Court held that Moderna’s pledge that it would not enforce its patents against those making coronavirus vaccines (the ‘Pledge’) amounted to an unusual partial defence to the infringement claim. The Pledge decision is not covered in this note.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: On 7 April 2020, the Singapore Government passed under a Certificate of Urgency the coronavirus (COVID-19) (Temporary Measures) Bill (Bill) in Parliament, in an effort to offer temporary relief to businesses and individuals who are unable to fulfil their contractual obligations due to coronavirus (COVID-19). The temporary relief granted is in five areas—(1) inability to perform contracts (2) financially distressed individuals, firms and businesses (3) conduct of meetings (4) court proceedings, and (5) remission of property tax. Written by Catherine Shen of the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI).

According to the Government’s coronavirus (COVID-19) guidance on getting tested, as well as testing patients to confirm their clinical diagnosis, it is also testing: • all essential workers, including NHS and social care workers with symptoms • anyone aged over 65 with symptoms • anyone with symptoms whose work cannot be done from home (for example, construction workers, shop workers, emergency plumbers and delivery drivers) • anyone who has symptoms of coronavirus and lives with any of those identified above Additionally, it is testing: • social care workers and residents in care homes (with or without symptoms) both to investigate outbreaks and, following successful pilots, as part of a rolling programme to test all care homes • NHS

While there has not yet, as far as we are aware, been clear and specific government guidance published about inheritance tax (IHT) exemption available for the estates of deceased key workers due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the existing IHT exemption for emergency personnel contained in section 153A of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) is likely to be available in certain cases. Similar to the IHT exemption for the estates of persons who die in the course of active military duty or police officers targeted due to their role (contained in IHTA 1984,

Banking & Finance analysis: Guy Dempsey, Of Counsel at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, and Carolyn Jackson, partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman UK LLP, and both P.R.I.M.E. Finance experts, discuss the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on OTC derivatives, including which OTC derivatives are most affected by the pandemic, whether market disruption or other circumstances could become Force Majeure events, defensive measures market participants should be taking and how derivatives regulators are responding.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this judgment, Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge (ICCJ) Agnello QC provided some helpful observations on the amended provisions in Schedule 10 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020), and the application of the ‘coronavirus (COVID-19) test’ as set out in CIGA 2020, Sch 10, para 2 (4)(a)–(b), and CIGA 2020, Sch 10, para 5. The only other main reported decision dealing with the coronavirus test is that of ICCJ Barber in Re A Company (application to restrain advertisement of a winding up petition). In Newman, Deputy ICCJ Agnello QC approved of the approach taken by ICCJ Barber in Re A company and confirmed that the threshold requirement found at CIGA 2020, Sch 10, para 5(1)(c) in satisfying the coronavirus test is intended to be a low one. While the threshold test may be low, the judge differentiated this case from the case in Re A Company. ICCJ Barber not only had documents, but the evidence before her was certainly more detailed which entitled her to find that the company had satisfied the low threshold test. In contrast, in Newman, despite the low threshold, the company had failed to demonstrate even a prima facie case of showing that coronavirus had a financial effect on the company. Written by Maria Mulla, barrister, at No 5 Barristers’ Chambers who acted for the petitioner in this case.

This Q&A considers whether it is possible to delay publishing your organisation’s annual slavery and human trafficking statement as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It also suggests some particular areas of modern slavery risk that may need to be addressed by your organisation and reflected in your statement. Slavery and human trafficking statements Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015) requires certain organisations to produce and publish an annual slavery and human trafficking statement. The statement must set out: • the steps you have taken during the financial year to ensure slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in any part of your supply chains or your own business, or • that you have taken no such steps The statement must be approved by, eg the board of directors of a company or the members of an LLP, and signed by an appropriate