Law360, Expert analysis: The year 2025 was expected to be a banner one for Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) related trials, but nine months in, this has not been the case. James Koukios, partner at Morrison Foerster LLP discusses how recent and upcoming FCPA trials reveal the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) reliance on four key prosecutorial themes.

Law360, London: On 2 April 2025, The UK Supreme Court heard arguments in the joined test cases of Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court set aside a liquidator’s rejection of a proof of debt and approved over 70% of the sums claimed, with costs recoverable under the lease to be assessed at a further hearing. The proof of debt related to a claim for breach of covenants not to alter, by a creditor (the Landlord) against a former tenant (the company in liquidation). In its decision, the court accepted that the Landlord was entitled to the cost of restoring the property to the condition that it was in when it was first let (expectation loss), rather than only the diminution in the value of the property consequent on the alterations (reliance loss). The court also found that it was entitled to award the Landlord the costs of proving for the debt under the lease, where rule 14.5(a) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, would otherwise require the creditor to bear the costs of proving for its debt. Written by Rebecca Farrell, barrister at 3 Paper Buildings.

Expected value of portfolio losses due to default over a specified time.

Andrew Jones, HMCTS Head of Operations for the North West, has issued a further update concerning Alexandra House:

The anticipated average future return. The actual return will generally differ.

This Practice Note considers the use of expedited (or fast-track) arbitration procedures in international arbitration. For guidance on the related topic of the early dismissal of claims and defences in international arbitration, see Practice Note: Early dismissal, summary dismissal and strike out in arbitration proceedings. Why choose expedited (aka fast-track) arbitration proceedings? Parties looking to avoid a lengthy dispute resolution procedure and excessive expenditure may agree to a fast-track procedure; this reasoning may apply even for large, complex disputes. An expedited procedure usually involves agreeing shorter time periods in which submissions and evidence will be exchanged and limiting the amount of evidence submitted. While it is possible to agree an expedited procedure as part of an arbitration agreement at the time of drafting, as the scope and circumstances of the dispute leading to arbitration cannot be known at that time this is not usually advisable (although there may be scope for agreeing to resolve certain categories of disputes by way of fast-track arbitration). In some cases, an expedited procedure may be mandatory. For example, the International

A bankruptcy petition that is presented notwithstanding that the period for complying with a statutory demand served upon the debtor has not yet elapsed.

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. The court’s power to expedite trial The court has the power to bring forward a hearing pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(b). The issue whether to grant expedition, and if so how much and on what terms, is a matter for the discretion of the judge (Wembley National Stadium Limited v Wembley (London) Limited) and will depend on the particular facts of the case. Wembley National Stadium Limited concerned a fairly clear case of urgency, concerning the rectification of a lease which if not rectified, prevented work commencing on a new stadium for two years where the consequences of delay could have been disastrous and the trial would result in the final resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court of Appeal upheld a case management decision to order an expedited trial. For information on expediting

Unit deductions made typically on a monthly basis representing the charge made by the life company to cover the cost of maintaining the policy.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: at Spring Budget 2023, the government announced that it will deliver IT systems which will enable tax agents to payroll benefits-in-kind on behalf of employers. This is intended to reduce burdens on employers and enable agents to support their clients more effectively, and is part of the government’s long-term strategy to simplify the tax system for taxpayers and their agents. In addition to salary and other pay-related items such as overtime and bonuses, many employers will reimburse employees for work-related expenses and provide benefits for both incentivisation and reward. The tax treatment of non-cash earnings is discussed in Practice Note: How employment income is taxed—non-cash earnings or benefits. This Practice Note sets out the payroll operation on expenses and benefits as it currently stands, following a simplification of the regime that took effect from 2016. This Practice Note also has a brief description of the aspects of the payroll regime for benefits that were abolished from April 2016 (see below). How expenses and benefits are generally dealt with for payroll purposes In practice, the distinction

Since April 2014, this is the agency that has been given the job by the Pension Protection Fund of rating the insolvency risk of employer sponsors of pension funds. This rating, which is known as a Pension Protection Score, determines the amount of risk-based levy payable by the pension fund to the Pension Protection Fund.