The Vice-President of the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Hayden, has issued guidance on visits to protected persons by judges and practitioners during the coronavirus pandemic. See Court of Protection: Guidance COVID-19. This guidance recognises the particular

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

As a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, over the coming weeks and months an increasing number of UK companies are expected to seek to preserve their cash by suspending and/or cancelling dividends. This Q&A considers the relevant law, guidance and practice. For information on dividends generally, see Practice Notes: Dividends—the legal framework and Distributions. For further details of the rules and guidance that apply to a listed company or an AIM company proposing to pay a dividend, see Practice Note: Dividends—listed and AIM companies. Declaration of dividends It is usual for a company's articles of association to provide that: • its directors may recommend a final dividend (ie one to be paid after the financial year to which the profits being distributed relate), which is then declared by the approval of the shareholders, usually by ordinary resolution, the amount declared not exceeding the amount recommended by the directors, and • its directors may decide to pay an interim dividend (ie one to be paid during

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

The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and the Overseas Territories of Bermuda, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands (collectively referred to as the CDOTs), have all introduced new legislative economic substance requirements for companies and other entities with a presence in their respective jurisdictions. The legislation has been designed to address concerns that companies could be used to artificially attract profits that are not commensurate with economic activities and substantial economic presence in the CDOTs. With this in mind, the legislation requires certain companies to demonstrate they have substance in relevant jurisdiction by: • being directed and managed in the jurisdiction • conducting core income generating activities in the jurisdiction, and • having adequate people, premises and expenditure in the jurisdiction For detailed information, see Practice Note: Economic substance legislation in the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories—summary. Jersey Jersey has issued the following guidance on the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19)

Professional indemnity insurance (PII) is a vital part of protecting the financial interests of clients. Some firms may not be able to secure PII because of practical difficulties due to the impact of a pandemic. This Q&A sets out the requirement to have adequate PII in place and contains guidance on failure to secure PII during a pandemic. Regulatory requirements The main PII obligations can be found in the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules, which apply to law firms regulated by the SRA and their principals. Law firms regulated by the SRA must have: • qualifying insurance with a participating insurer, and • adequate and appropriate cover Qualifying insurance with a participating insurer Qualifying insurance means a policy that provides PII cover satisfying the minimum terms and conditions set out by the SRA (often referred to as the MTC). The MTC are set out in Annex 1 of the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules. Qualifying insurance must be taken out with a participating

Definitions (General) Competent Authority • any authority having jurisdiction in relation to the Property, its occupation or use; Restricted Period • any period [exceeding [number] [continuous] weeks] during

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The High Court’s decision in the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption (BI) test case will be published on 15 September 2020. The decision is widely expected to be appealed, whatever the High Court decides. Accordingly, the wait for the legal certainty needed to adjust and settle valid coronavirus BI claims is set to continue for several months yet. Pamela Freeland of Weightmans and the Lexis®PSL Insurance & Reinsurance team consider the implications of this impasse for coronavirus BI claims advanced in other forums, such as the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), arbitration or separate actions in the County Court and the High Court—all the time while the coronavirus saga continues to unfold and produce new conundrums, such as the gradual withdrawal of government support through the coronavirus job retention scheme. We also take a step back and consider the essence of the parties’ respective positions on the critical issue of causation, and the implications that the courts’ final reckoning on the issue might have for insurance law.

Pandemics cause difficult business conditions and uncertainty for many law firms and solicitors. Often they involve doing all you can to close your office and work from home, and that results in an unprecedented number of solicitors and staff working from home and providing their services digitally, some having rarely or never done so before. The SRA acknowledges that this will present many with new cyber security challenges. Legal requirements The SRA expects you to identify, monitor and manage all material risks to your business. See Practice Note: How to identify and evaluate risk across the business. Information and cyber-security are important risks to consider for most law firms. Confidentiality You must keep the affairs of clients confidential unless disclosure is required or permitted by law or the client consents—see subtopic: Confidentiality and disclosure. All firms must have measures in place to keep client’s information confidential. Most firms will already have in place arrangements to protect client information for

Corporate Crime analysis: Niall Hearty assesses the possible effectiveness of recently-announced measures to target those involved in coronavirus fraud.

What issues might arise? Businesses who manufacture products using chemicals managed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) may be experiencing disruptions to their normal working schedules due to staff and resources shortages. ECHA acknowledges that in these circumstances timely compliance with its decisions may not be possible. The supply of disinfectants, which are biocidal products regulated by the ECHA, has also been affected due to increased demand for such cleaning agents. How is ECHA responding? The normal functioning of ECHA has been disrupted as a result of restrictions set by national governments to help contain the spread of the virus. According to the chemical and safety regulatory intelligence network Chemical Watch, all ECHA meetings with external participants from abroad are being held remotely or cancelled ‘until further notice’. The European Commission conference on alternatives to animal testing originally due to run from 12–13 May 2020 has also been rescheduled. ECHA has been publishing information on its response to the current situation (COVID-19) to thededicated

Tax analysis: In 3D Crowd CIC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found that a business could only recover some of its input tax, as the input tax that related to the giving away of free personal protective equipment (PPE) during the pandemic was not directly linked to a taxable supply.