Law360, London: Former Barclays boss James 'Jes' Staley's bid to salvage his reputation has backfired in the face of a London tribunal's findings he 'lacked credibility' due to the 'overwhelming' evidence of his close relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Law360, Expert analysis: On 1 August 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered its much-anticipated judgment in the motor finance commission test cases of Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33. Tom Grodecki, Suzanne Bell and Robert Cannon, partners at Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP, examine the implications of this landmark ruling while addressing the scope of motor finance claims and commission arrangements in the UK automotive finance sector. The article was prepared with contributions from fellow Cadwalader partners Sabah Nawaz and Bevis Metcalfe.

Law360, London: In January 2025, the UK Supreme Court heard two appeals under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018), those of Dalston Projects Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport and Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs [2024] EWCA Civ 172.

MLex: While the UK government has delayed a plan to fold the dedicated Payments Systems Regulator (PSR) back into its parent agency, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and ministers have said little publicly about how responsibilities will be divided, a clearer picture of the future regulatory landscape is nevertheless starting to emerge. Alongside a consultation on legislation to bring the PSR largely within the FCA, however, other regulatory changes are on the horizon.

Law360, Expert analysis: On 7 April 2025, HM Treasury published a consultation on regulations for alternative investment fund managers, or AIFMs. On the same day, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a call for input on the future regulation of AIFMs. Leonard Ng, partner at Sidley Austin LLP, discusses the key implications of the proposals for private fund managers, which set out a new approach to regulation of AIFMs in the UK.

Law360: On 28 May 2026, the government confirmed that its planned reforms to unfair dismissal rights will take effect from 1 January 2027, with contributions from Dominic Blaxill and Hugo Laing both partners; and Sam Whitaker, counsel of Debevoise & Plimpton

This Practice Note sets out the position of an employee when the company they are employed by enters a formal insolvency process, such as compulsory liquidation, voluntary liquidation, administration, administrative receivership or the appointment of a receiver and manager by the court. It deals with what an employee’s legal position is at that point, the priority of their claim against the company for any unpaid wages and other remuneration and claims which might be made against the National Insurance Fund, HMRC and insurance. Forthcoming changes The Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025 and is being brought into force in stages. Some of the future changes it introduces are relevant to employee claims in insolvency. In particular, ERA 2025 creates new rights in relation to zero-hours and shift-working arrangements, including payment for short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of shifts. For insolvency purposes, ERA 2025 amends Schedule 6 to the Insolvency Act 1986 and section 184 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that, when the amendments

Dispute Resolution analysis: In The Huntsworth Wine Company Ltd (Huntsworth) v London City Bond Ltd (LCB) there are some stark reminders about the effectiveness of valid Part 36 offers and the costs consequences of not beating them. The judgment also demonstrates that a party who becomes the defendant in the subsequent claim may make a pre-action offer under CPR 36, and attract the benefits of a claimant’s offer, despite the other party, the eventual claimant, having already made a claimant’s offer. Written by Kate Andrews, partner at Hamlins.

The purpose of this Practice Note is to: • summarise section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) • discuss the exceptions to that section and how those exceptions can be used in practice For key cases and associated relevant content, see Practice Note: Prohibited names—key cases. What is the prohibited name rule? IA 1986, s 216 applies to a person where a company has gone into insolvent liquidation (the liquidating company) and they were a director or shadow director of the liquidating company at any time in the period of 12 months ending with the day before it went into liquidation. For the purpose of IA 1986, s 216, a name is a prohibited name in relation to such a person if it is a name: • by which the liquidating company was known at any time in that period of 12 months, or • which is so similar to the name of the liquidating company so as to suggest an

The position of a personal pension on bankruptcy A bankrupt’s estate automatically vests in the official receiver (or an insolvency practitioner if instead appointed at the time) as first trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) on the making of a bankruptcy order. Various items are excluded in this respect, including tools and equipment required by the bankrupt for business purposes, and clothing etc necessary for satisfying the bankrupt’s basic domestic needs. This Practice Note addresses the issue of what happens to an individual’s pension rights on the making of a bankruptcy order. It considers the effect of bankruptcy on occupational, personal and state pension arrangements. Bankruptcies predating 29 May 2000 This section applies to persons made bankrupt as a result of bankruptcy petitions presented before 29 May 2000. Rights acquired in relation to both personal pension schemes and occupational pension schemes are ordinarily recoverable by the bankrupt’s trustee. A debtor’s contractual rights under such schemes are regarded as choses in action falling within the wide definition of property provided

The Definitive Map is a map prepared by a local authority which is a legal record of public rights of way (PROW) in a specified area. If a PROW is shown on the map, it is legal evidence that the public had those rights at the date of the map, and it remains in existence unless a legal order has subsequently been made to amend it. For further information on the Definitive Map,

This Practice Note explores the different ways in which an administration can come to an end, depending on the specific circumstances of the administration. The exit routes include automatic exit after 12 months, ending the administration when the purpose of the administration has been achieved, and dissolution of the company. The company may also move into another insolvency procedure, such as liquidation, or use a restructuring procedure as an exit route. In addition, a creditor may apply to court to end administration for reasons of improper motive. The starting point is that an administration should not last longer than 12 months—the administration will come to an automatic end at the end of 12 months unless another exit route is taken. Following expiry of the administration term, the former administrators have no standing to exercise any of the powers conferred on administrators under Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Actions taken by former administrators under the impression that their appointment is continuing may leave the administrators open to potential personal liability for trespass