Loan market and developments Please provide a brief overview of the current state of the loan markets in your jurisdiction and any significant recent market developments. The loan market has changed due to the effect of the economic and financial crisis. The financial crisis has highlighted the flaws of a corporate financing model centred largely on bank credit, pointing to a need for alternative sources of financing. As reported by the Bank of Italy, during the crisis, loans have reduced in particular to SME's, confirming the negative trend of the Italian market notwithstanding the increased liquidity in the system. Given the reduced amounts of loans, deals have been mainly structured as club deals or in the form of bilateral loans. Only in limited cases had financing been structured as syndicated loans. The Italian market has however seen a certain amount of activity in bond issuance by large non-banking enterprises. However, during the last few years, from a general point of view, the Italian banking system has been strengthening, and this strengthening is witnessed

Local Government analysis: Patricia Grinyer, partner in the finance department at Weightmans, outlines the history of lender option borrower option (LOBO) loans in connection with local authorities in the UK, explaining that these loans are a major element in the borrowing habits of councils and can potentially have harmful financial and reputational consequences.

IP analysis: Two recent decisions of the Courts of England & Wales demonstrate the difficulties encountered in determining ownership of innovation and illustrate the importance of clearly reflecting the intention of the parties in drafting collaboration agreements and service agreements with R&D individuals/employees. The first (Bionome v Clearwater) involved the determination of the construction of a collaboration agreement, and the second (Hill v Touchlight) a situation where the inventor was transferring from being an independent contractor to an employee and the point in that timeline at which the invention was created, and the implications for the ownership of that invention flowing from this. Jonathan Turnbull, partner, Kate Peck, associate, and Eren Ozenir, graduate solicitor, at Herbert Smith Freehills discuss the key takeaways from the judgments.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The case arose from a claim with a significant error: it was brought against the wrong party. Furthermore, that error was not discovered until after limitation had expired. The practical significance of this case is that the situation may be remediable by substituting the correct party for the original wrong party under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). The correct defendant was the claimants’ former solicitors, and the claimants had believed the original defendant, a successor firm, was legally liable for the former solicitor’s wrongdoing. The court permitted the amendment substituting the correct defendant. It held that the claimants were asserting the same professional negligence claim but pursuing it against a new party, as opposed to asserting a different claim. The court did not seek to ‘punish’ the claimants for the error of their legal representatives and was prepared to excuse the mistake. Written by Heather Murphy, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.

TMT analysis: The pseudonym Satoshi Nakomoto (Satoshi) is synonymous with Bitcoin. It is widely believed that it was Satoshi who invented Bitcoin. This is a defamation claim brought by Dr Craig Wright who is a computer scientist and businessman. Dr Wright is active in cryptocurrency and the blockchain and he says he is Satoshi. The defendant is the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency podcaster and blogger Peter McCormack. Mr McCormack published 15 tweets and it was common ground that the meaning of the tweets were that Dr Wright is not Satoshi and his claims to be Satoshi are fraudulent. Similar claims were made in a YouTube video. Mr McCormack had initially sought to rely on the truth defence. The defence of truth was withdrawn in late 2020. Mr McCormack had stated that he could not afford the fees for a long trial and therefore the court did not have to determine the identity of Satoshi. The court considered the issue of ‘serious harm’ and the ‘deliberately false’ case resulted in nominal damages in the sum of £1. Written by Dominic Walker, Solicitor at JMW Solicitors LLP.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18/01/2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline An appeal by J Sainsbury plc and Asda Group Limited against two decisions in relation to the procedural timetable for the proposed merger between J Sainsbury plc and Asda Group Limited. Those decisions related to: (i) the time by which the parties had to respond to various working papers; and (ii) the time for the parties’ main party hearing. Parties J Sainsbury plc (Sainsbury’s) and Asda Group Limited (Asda).Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Background On 12 December 2018, Sainsbury’s and Asda applied to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for a judicial review of the CMA’s timetable and process in the context of its investigation into the proposed merger between the parties (see further, J Sainsbury/Asda). The proposed merger was referred by the CMA for an in-depth phase 2 investigation on 19 September 2018, following a request from the parties to ‘fast

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 25 April 2019; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeal lodged by Sainsbury’s and Asda before the CAT (1300/4/12/18) See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated merger between J Sainsbury Plc and Asda Group Ltd. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in grocery retailing. Latest developments On 25 April 2019, the CMA issued its final report in its phase 2 investigation into the anticipated merger between Sainsbury’s and Asda, finding that the transaction would, on the balance of probabilities, be expected to result in an SLC a number of markets in the UK—namely, the supply of groceries in supermarkets on a national and local level, the supply of online delivered groceries on a national and local level, and the supply of fuel on a local basis. As a result, the CMA decided to prohibit the merger in its entirety.More specifically, the CMA concluded that the merger would lead to prices rises and/or a worsening of

The return pattern from a successful private equity fund as it matures. This return pattern occurs because there is no market in which to benchmark the value of private equity investments and they are often held at cost until it is possible to provide an objective valuation.

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has announced the commencement of applications for the position of UK judge to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The application window will close on 13 January 2025. The JAC emphasises the importance of this opportunity for suitably qualified individuals to contribute to this prestigious judicial position.

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute

Law360: JAMS announced in April 2024 that it has implemented new rules governing disputes involving artificial intelligence, making it the first organisation in the alternative dispute resolution industry to establish an AI-tailored legal framework.

Law360: JAMS announced in April 2024 that it has implemented new rules governing disputes involving artificial intelligence, making it the first organisation in the alternative dispute resolution industry to establish an AI-tailored legal framework.