Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note outlines the regulated activities of establishing, operating or winding up either a stakeholder pension scheme or a personal pension scheme, under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544, art 52 (RAO), and contains links to other material which details how funds are regulated. The regulated activities Establishing, operating or winding up: • a stakeholder pension scheme, or • a personal pension scheme are regulated activities under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544 (RAO). The regulated activity relating to stakeholder pension schemes was included in the RAO when it came into force. However, the regulated activity relating to personal pension schemes was not introduced until 6 April 2007 as a result of the implementation of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2006, SI 2006/1969. This amendment order introduced the specified activity of establishing, operating or winding up a personal pension scheme and the specified investment of rights under a personal pension scheme into

This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Schemes of arrangement—convening hearing and sanction hearing in light of the different role that the court undertakes in considering the question of jurisdiction at each stage. Jurisdiction—England and Wales—statutory provisions The jurisdiction to sanction a scheme of arrangement is contained in Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) and the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). CA 2006, s 895(1) states that the statutory procedure set out in CA 2006, Pt 26 applies to schemes proposed between a company and: • its creditors or any class of them, or • its members or any class of them CA 2006, s 895(2) states that the definition of company includes: • a company within the meaning of CA 2006, and • any company liable to be wound up under IA 1986 IA 1986, s 221 states that any unregistered company (defined at IA 1986, s 220(1) as including any company or association not registered in any part

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a judgment obtained against a company—using a prohibited name—in proceedings to which its directors/persons responsible for its management were not party, of itself establishes the ‘relevant debt’ of the company in subsequent proceedings brought against a director under section 217 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The Court of Appeal further held that for the purpose of IA 1986, s 217, the company incurs a liability when judgment is entered. In any event, it incurs a liability for damages at the time of breach, not the date of the contract. Written by Andrew Grantham KC, head of Business and Property Department Kings Chambers, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham, associate at Serle Court, and counsel for the respondent.

A limited class of people who were dependent in some way on the deceased (ie dependants) are entitled to bring a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976). See Practice Note: Law Reform Act or Fatal Accidents Act? If death is caused by negligence which would have entitled the person injured to claim and recover damages, the person who would have been liable if death had not occurred will be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured. When a claim is brought on behalf of the dependants, a fresh cause of action is created, although the claim will only succeed if it can be shown that the deceased would have recovered damages if they were still alive. Only one claim may be brought on behalf of all dependants. Damages, other than for bereavement, as awarded, are proportioned between the respective dependants according to their losses. Circumstances in which no claim can be brought There are various circumstances in which, because of events

Many in-house legal departments insist on being the portal through which the business has access to law firms. If the legal department is responsible for managing the budget for external spend, then this is understandable. However if the business user or beneficiary of the advice bears the cost and the need for access to advice is regular, direct access can make sense, as long as it is properly managed. This Practice Note provides practical tips for in-house lawyers around establishing processes for direct access by business people to external legal resources. Direct access—risks to avoid When considering establishing direct access to external legal advice there will be some risks that need to be closely managed or avoided, including whether the business person might: • ask the wrong question • provide incomplete or misleading input to the law firm • incur higher costs • misinterpret the advice they receive • ‘brush under the carpet’ unpalatable advice they receive Suggested pre-requisites for establishing direct access Good relationships One of the main

Corporate Crime analysis: The decision of the High Court in Vneshprombank LLC v Bedzhamov provides important guidance on the correct interpretation of sanctions legislation and how the courts are likely to consider evidence of potential breaches. Specifically, the decision confirms the interpretation of Regulation 11 of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 209/855 which prohibits a person, P, dealing with funds or economic resources that are owned, held or controlled by a designated person if P knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect that, that they are dealing with such funds or economic resources. Contravention of this prohibition is a criminal offence. The court held that the offence in Regulation 11 requires both—a ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ that funds or economic resources are owned, held or controlled by a designated person, and that any funds or economic resources are in fact owned, held or controlled by a designated person. The court also provided guidance to the level of critical scrutiny that needs to be applied when determining ownership and control in financial sanctions. Written by Ben Brandon, partner, barrister, at Mishcon de Reya LLP.

The Department for Education (DfE) has published its response to the consultation on establishing the Child Protection Authority (CPA) in England (a national body to improve child protection), alongside an analysis of consultation responses. The DfE confirmed that it will establish the new body to strengthen national leadership, oversight and improvement across the child protection system.

Family analysis: Richard Jones, barrister at 1GC|Family, explains the case of CS v SBH and others, in which he was instructed by Cafcass, where the court considered the test to be applied as to the competency of a child to instruct a solicitor.

Duty of care The duty of care to highway users is set out in section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980), which simply provides that the highway authority is under a duty to maintain the highway. The question for practitioners is whether the particular defect constituted a danger to the pedestrian or other road user likely to use that part of the highway. The duty was expressed in Rider v Rider: 'It is a duty to put and keep the highway in such a state that it does not entail danger to those who use it in the manner ordinarily to be expected.' The test for dangerousness is objective. Accordingly, the task for the claimant, as described by Steyn LJ in Mills v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, was to show that: ‘…the highway was in such a condition that it was dangerous to traffic or pedestrians in the sense that, in the ordinary course of human affairs, danger may reasonably have been anticipated from its continued use by

This table ties together source of funds and source of wealth requirements and recommendations contained in the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), as amended, the SRA Sectoral Risk Assessment—Anti-money laundering and terrorist financing, and Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG) AML Guidance for the Legal Sector. Note that further or different guidance may be issued by other regulators. Situation Source of funds Source of wealth Source In relation to ongoing monitoring of a business relationship, where necessary ✓ (where necessary) ☓ MLR 2017, SI 2017/692, reg 28(11)(a) Establishing a business relationship with a PEP ✓ ✓ MLR 2017, SI 2017/692, reg 35(5)(b) In

Corporate Crime analysis: Are doctors sufficiently protected from inappropriate criminal sanctions? Adrian Darbishire QC, barrister at QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers, advises that as a result of the decision in R v Sellu, trial judges will have to give the jury clear, robust guidance as to the nature of the negligence that must be proved to establish manslaughter.

A term used in (a) the EC Regulation on Insolvency/the Recast Regulation and (b) UNCITRAL Model Law regarding secondary proceedings.