Law360, London: Major music publishers already suing Anthropic for copyright infringement filed a second, USD 3 billion claim against the artificial intelligence (AI) company on 29 April 2026, a move they say is necessary to hold Anthropic accountable for 'brazen', newly discovered mass infringement of sheet music and songbooks.

Law360, London: Anthropic PBC has asked a California federal judge to find that its use of materials in which copyright subsists to train its tool Claude is 'transformative' fair use under copyright law, comparing Claude's learning to how humans learn from reading and internalising the themes of various works.

Agreements and concerted practices between two or more undertakings (or associations of undertakings) which may affect trade and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.

A party may wish to obtain an anti-arbitration injunction where an arbitration has been commenced by a counterparty in breach of an agreed dispute resolution process, for example, by commencing the arbitration in the wrong seat, or where the parties had agreed to refer disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of specific national courts. This Practice Note considers the approach of the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used for convenience) to the granting of anti-suit relief in this context. For guidance on anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration (England and Wales). The court's jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction The court's jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction arises from its inherent powers under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) (Elektrim v Vivendi; Minister of Finance v IPIC) and the jurisdiction under sections 44 and 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025), which received Royal Assent

Arbitration analysis: In G v CNG, Madam Justice Mimmie Chan granted an anti‑arbitration injunction (AAI) restraining CNG from pursuing a new HKIAC arbitration (HKIAC/25187, the ‘25187 Arbitration’). In the 25187 Arbitration, CNG sought to (i) rescind the SPA/SHA (defined below) underlying the parties’ Hong Kong‑seated Original Arbitration (defined below) and (ii) avoid or set aside earlier partial final awards and restrain their enforcement, relying on newly alleged bribery and fraud claims. Her Ladyship also dismissed CNG’s stay summonses seeking to stay execution of Hong Kong enforcement orders granting leave to enforce Partial Final Award 1 (PFA1) and Partial Final Award 3 (PFA3). The decision upholds the finality of arbitral awards. It reaffirms that section 81 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (AO) provides the exclusive recourse against a Hong Kong‑seated award. The three‑month statutory limit to set aside an award is absolute, even if fraud is allegedly discovered after the deadline. Consequently, attempts to circumvent this regime by re‑casting a late challenge as a fresh arbitration were condemned as an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process. Written by Min Li, partner, Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP; Max Lam, associate, Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an appeal against the decision of the Moscow City Arbitrazh (Economic) Court, which issued an anti-arbitration injunction (AAI) and imposed substantial fixed penalties amounting to EUR 7.5bn for breaching the injunction. The injunction aimed to prevent Wintershall Dea GmbH, its legal representatives, and the appointed arbitrators from continuing an arbitration against the Russian Federation (RF) under the Energy Charter Treaty at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, Netherlands. The appeal did not seek to overturn the original court's decision but aimed to supplement it with findings regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of the appointed arbitrators and the impossibility of the RF obtaining a fair trial at the PCA. The Moscow District Arbitrazh (Economic) Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. However, the court also determined that the arbitrators lacked independence and impartiality, and that there were no prospects of the RF receiving a fair trial at the PCA due to political reasons. Additionally, the court confirmed that a sanctioned Russian entity, against which a court or arbitration claim is initiated outside of the RF, has the right to apply for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) or AAI in the RF without the need to provide evidence that its access to justice in a foreign jurisdiction is restricted. Written by Tatiana Menshenina, partner at Fladgate LLP and Julia Filippova, senior associate at Fladgate LLP.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved two applications before the court—an application for a stay for arbitration, and an application for an anti-arbitration injunction. The case is unusual in that it concerned two reinsurance contracts covering the same risk, period and parties, agreed only eight days apart. The first contract specified English law as the substantive law and contained an English courts’ exclusive jurisdiction clause. The second contract applied New York law, and contained a New York arbitration clause. The defendant, Partner Reinsurance, sought a mandatory stay for arbitration. The claimant, Tyson, sought an anti-arbitration injunction in respect of arbitration proceedings that had been commenced in New York some six months earlier. The court held that the parties had agreed as a matter of contract that the New York arbitration clause replaced the English jurisdiction clause, and there was therefore no basis for granting an injunction, and that in any event, the application came too late. Written by Brandon Malone, advocate, barrister and arbitrator at Quadrant Chambers and Arbitra International.

This is the term used to refer to the Pensions Act 2004 provisions aimed at preventing employers from using corporate structures to avoid pension liabilities.

The preamble to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) model tax convention (MTC) contains an explicit statement to the effect that, in entering into the double tax treaty (DTT), the contracting states do not intend to create opportunities for tax avoidance and are not obliged to grant the benefits of a DTT where there are arrangements that constitute an abuse of the relevant treaty. There are, broadly, two ways that DTTs counter abuse arrangements: • specific anti-avoidance provisions which prevent a particular treaty article applying to a transaction or item of income (eg the articles concerned with dividends, interest and royalties). These include ‘beneficial ownership’ requirements and anti-conduit rules which are intended to ensure that the legal recipient of the income is also the economic beneficiary, and • general anti-avoidance provisions that restrict the application of the treaty. This includes: ◦ the principal purpose test (PPT), which denies treaty benefits where one of the main purposes was to obtain those benefits, and ◦ the limitation of benefits (LOB) provision, which denies treaty benefits

The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) establishes a statutory scheme relating both to the transmission of the benefit and burden of lease covenants and the release of landlord and tenant covenants in relation to any ‘new tenancy’ (as defined in LT(C)A 1995, s 1, ie most leases granted on or after 1 January 1996). Between 2010 and 2016, a series of cases considered the comprehensive anti-avoidance provisions under LT(C)A 1995, s 25 in the context of the liability of guarantors. The cases highlighted that the anti-avoidance provisions, combined with the provisions relating to the release of guarantors under the statutory scheme, can cause significant issues when structuring transactions that involve the assignment of a ‘new tenancy’ and guarantors of the tenant covenants, particularly in the context of group companies. This Practice Note, looks at: • the principles established by those cases • how they should be applied in practice, and • transaction structures that should be avoided It includes diagrams illustrating the relevant principles and summaries of the

This Practice Note introduces the legal and regulatory framework designed to prevent bribery and corruption involving financial services firms. It provides an overview of: • the role of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the FCA’s requirements on authorised financial services firms to have in place systems and controls to prevent bribery and corruption • the FCA’s guidance to assist firms in their anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) compliance—the Financial Crime Guide (FCG) and Financial Crime Thematic Reviews (FCTR) • FCA enforcement action for ABC failures • the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) and the Ministry of Justice Guidance on BA 2010 • further guidance on ABC programmes relevant to financial services Key points • the FCA does not enforce BA 2010 • the FCA requires firms to have appropriate systems and controls in place to prevent financial crime, including bribery and corruption, but this is distinct from the provisions of BA 2010 • a firm’s senior management is required under the regulator’s Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) to ensure

Question Correct answer 1. How many new offences does the Bribery Act 2010 contain? (b) Four 2. What is the ‘bribing another person’ offence? (c) Offering or giving something to someone else in return for them doing something for you improperly 3. Would you be committing an offence if you were to accept a large sum