An IPO is the official term for ‘going public’. It occurs when a privately held company—owned, for example, by its founders plus perhaps its private equity investors—lists a proportion of its shares on a stock exchange. IPOs are an exit route for private equity firms. Companies that do an IPO are often relatively small and new and are seeking equity capital to expand their businesses.

An initial meeting between a party and a collaborative lawyer whereby the available options are explored and explained and the suitability of the collaborative process ascertained.

The personal representatives (PRs) of a deceased individual’s estate must identify: • all the assets in the estate, and • any liabilities in the estate The PRs should send preliminary letters, emails or online enquiries to all those: • holding assets • claiming debts, or • with relevant knowledge of the deceased’s affairs The correspondence should: • notify them of the death, setting out: ◦ deceased’s full name, including any aliases or former names ◦ deceased’s last address ◦ if relevant, account number(s) and sort code(s) of known account(s) • include an office copy of the death certificate (or, where this is not available, the deceased person’s date of birth and their date of death), • where corresponding with a financial services firm (FSF), also include: ◦ registration details of the individual acting as the probate practitioner, including a link to the relevant register, the individual’s registration number and confirmation of certificate validity ◦ registration details of the probate practitioner’s firm’s entry on their regulatory body’s register,

The document by which the divorce or dissolution proceedings in Scotland are initiated in the sheriff court. In England and Wales this would be termed a petition (or application for a matrimonial order).

This Practice Note covers how to initiate an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process. It considers the situation where the parties are or are not bound by an ADR clause in a contract, and if they are, whether the ADR clause specifies how the ADR process is to be initiated. Are the parties bound by an ADR clause? If the dispute between the parties arises out of a contract, the contract may contain a ‘dispute resolution clause’ or an ‘ADR clause’ which requires the parties to use a particular type or types of ADR process to resolve any dispute before resorting to litigation or arbitration. For information on the different types of ADR, see Practice Note: Which form of ADR? For information on the different types of dispute resolution clause, see Practice Note: Types of dispute resolution clauses—litigation, mediation, multi-tier, hybrid and carve-out clauses. Where there is an ADR clause, it is important that you follow the precise procedures set out in the clause, including when and how to initiate the ADR. If there is any ambiguity

Term used in safety engineering to refer to an initiating cause, when assessing consequences and outcomes. An initiating event can be defined as a challenge to plant operation. Event Tree Analysis involves the analysis of initiating events and their consequences.

A discretionary remedy whereby the court orders a defendant to do (mandatory injunction), or refrain from doing (prohibitory injunction) something.

IP analysis: This case involved a High Court ruling that the defendant had repeatedly wrongly issued complaints (referred to as copyright ‘Strikes’) to YouTube in respect of alleged infringement of copyright by the claimants on their YouTube accounts. The court held that the defendant had fraudulently issued Strikes in respect of various songs which the defendant falsely claimed he had written. The court further found that the defendant’s fraudulent complaints caused loss to the claimants resulting from the disabling of their YouTube channels, an outcome which the defendant intended. The court ultimately granted a permanent injunction against the defendant preventing him from issuing further Strikes to YouTube and enabling the claimants to demonstrate to YouTube that the defendant was prohibited from issuing Strikes or encouraging others to do so on his behalf. The case highlights the availability of injunctive relief for claimants seeking to prevent the abuse of copyright policies on platforms such as YouTube. Written by Rebecca O'Kelly-Gillard, co-head of International Copyright and Designs Group and Nick Gorensweigh, trainee at Bird & Bird LLP.

TMT analysis: In the High Court case of Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) v Craig Steven Wright, the court ruled decisively against Dr Wright's claims of being the inventor of Bitcoin, an individual known as ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’. On the final day of the court hearing earlier this year, Mr Justice Mellor declared the evidence was ‘overwhelming’ that Dr Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, that he did not operate under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto from 2008 to 2011, that he did not create the Bitcoin system, and did not author the initial versions of the Bitcoin software. The recently published written judgment also grants wide-ranging injunctive relief against Dr Wright to prevent him for asserting or threatening legal claims based on his claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Mr Justice Mellor has also made a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of whether a prosecution should be commenced against Dr Wright for his ‘wholescale perjury and forgery of documents’. Written by Benjamin Bell, senior associate at Potter Clarkson.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In what appears to be a fairly novel application, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has granted an injunction restraining a party to a dispute from exercising its contractual right to an expert determination. The injunction was granted in circumstances where litigation in respect of the same dispute was before the court and was subject to a pending jurisdictional challenge. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Hardwicke.

Banking & Finance analysis: The High Court decided to grant an injunction restraining the beneficiary under a performance guarantee from demanding payment under that guarantee. The court held that the applicant for the injunction did not have to prove fraud where the other party was clearly not entitled to make a claim under the guarantee. In this case, the other party had accepted that the applicant was not to blame for their contract failing to proceed and had given the applicant a written undertaking to make a demand under the guarantee only if the applicant had breached the contract. Written by Robert Parson, partner at Clyde & Co LLP.

TMT analysis: In this judgment, the court refused to grant an interim injunction against the claimant’s brother on the basis it was not satisfied that the claimant was likely to succeed in a claim for breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) which arose out of emails sent by the claimant’s brother which referred to spent convictions of the claimant and which he alleged were ‘abusive, threatening and defamatory’. The court ruled that the claim was, in fact, a defamation claim being advanced under the guise of a harassment claim in order to avoid the defamation rule.