In short, no, a comfort letter is not the same as a properly drafted guarantee. Comfort letters are sometimes given as 'alternatives' to guarantees or performance bonds, but they do not offer lenders the same level of protection. Why are comfort letters used? Comfort letters are generally given by a parent company to its subsidiaries' lenders, intending to give 'comfort' to those lenders that the parent will continue to support each subsidiary in the context of a loan transaction by, for example, making sure that the subsidiary has funds available to make its interest payments under the loan. They may be used where the parent company is unable or unwilling to give a guarantee as a result of constitutional or contractual restrictions it is subject to or where the parent company has a policy limiting the amount of contingent

• we do not have a Precedent containing profit/revenue share provisions. However, we refer you to the Precedent: Collaboration agreement which you may be able to adapt for your purposes. For more information on collaboration agreements and contractual joint ventures,

Section 99 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) provides that: '(1) Any notice required or authorised to be given under this Part— (a) shall be in writing; and (b) may be sent by post.' There is no provision within the LRHUDA 1993 dealing with when the notice is deemed to have been given, if sent by post and,

An easement is a right granted to the owner from time to time of one piece of land (the dominant tenement) over another piece of land (the servient tenement) for the benefit of the former. This can include a right of access to enable the owner of land to access their property over the land of a neighbouring property, for example to clean, maintain and repair the rear, as in this scenario. The two pieces of land will normally need to be appurtenant to each other—in most cases this will mean that they are adjoining. Common easements are rights of way and rights of support. The leading case in respect of easements remains Re Ellenborough Park. This provides that it is necessary for the creation of an easement (a) that there

This Q&A considers warrants of control under the taking of goods procedure and focusses on where warrants of control (and/or writs of control) can be executed. From a practical perspective, one would be able to execute the notice/warrant at the judgment debtor’s business address. However, we are not aware of any direct authority on whether the court’s permission would be required to change the address on any warrant/notice. Where the authorisation for the bailiff from the court is in writing,

Service of Particulars of Claim out of the jurisdiction where permission to serve the Claim Form is not required. This Q&A addresses the question of whether permission is required to serve Particulars of Claim out of the jurisdiction where service of the Claim Form does not require such permission. The answer is fairly clearly that if the Claim Form does not require permission for service out of the jurisdiction, then permission is equally not required for service out of the jurisdiction of ancillary documents such as Particulars of Claim. This is logical. If a claimant can initiate and serve proceedings on

Section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967) relates to estate management schemes made within the two years beginning with the commencement of LRA 1967 (ie 1 January 1968). Such a scheme enables the landlord to retain powers of management where a tenant acquires the landlord's interest in any house and premises (whether as the result of an open market disposal or the exercise of the tenant's right to enfranchise under LRA 1967). In

Section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, an assured tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy (AST). HA 1988, s 1 provides that a tenancy under which a dwelling house is let as a separate dwelling to an individual or individuals who occupy as their only or principal home is an assured tenancy unless certain exceptions apply. See Practice Note: A summary of types of private residential tenancies. HA 1988, s 5 contains provisions relating to security of tenure. HA 1988, s 5(2) provides that where an assured tenancy (including an AST) which is a fixed term tenancy comes to an

In this Q&A, we have assumed that the individual is a remittance basis user by way of claim and the bonds are non-UK situs assets for the purposes of capital gains tax (CGT). For CGT purposes, a bond is a qualifying corporate bond (QCB) if it is a security the debt on which represents a normal commercial loan ‘expressed in sterling’ with no conversion into or redemption in another currency (section 117 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992)). Bonds

What is the status of occupation of the licensees and how can their interest be terminated? Licensee It should be considered whether or not the properties were

Under section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 a person cannot carry out a regulated activity, or purport to do so in the UK unless they are either an authorised person (ie authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and/or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)), or an exempt person (eg by being an appointed representative). For an overview of the regulated activities regime in the UK, see Practice Note: What are regulated activities? Activities are regulated if they are of a ‘specified kind’ (ie specified by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (RAO 2001), SI 2001/544) which is carried on by way of business. For more information about what it means to carry on a regulated activity by way of business in the UK, see Practice Notes: What does 'by way of business'

The Vice-President of the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Hayden, has issued guidance for judges and practitioners offering practical solutions to some of the issues being raised in connection with coronavirus (COVID-19), including this question. See Court of Protection: Guidance COVID-19. In this guidance, Mr Justice Hayden notes that Practice Direction 4A: Hearings makes it clear that the Court of Protection is able to direct the scope and ambit of the hearing. This has already led to earlier guidance making specific provision for telephone hearings and, in the present circumstances, the broad approach is that hearings of less than