A financier who lends money to a borrower. To be distinguished from a receivables purchaser who provides funding through the purchase of receivables.

The original lender under the finance documents.

When providing finance for any development or construction project, the lender (or funder) and its advisers will use various methods to protect the lender’s position. The aim of these protections is to ensure, at the very least, that the lender is able to recover any finance it provides if the borrower (or developer) becomes insolvent or the project runs into difficulties. One of the key documents in a development financing is the contract between the lender and the borrower (‘the facility agreement’). This will include various detailed provisions relating to the development. For more information on the key construction issues to be dealt with in facility agreements, see Practice Note: Facility agreements—construction provisions. Another important aspect of a development financing involves the lender’s lawyers reviewing the construction documents prepared by the borrower and its lawyers to ensure that they are properly drafted and provide appropriate rights for the borrower and any interested third parties if they need to commence an action against any of the construction or professional team. In addition to ensuring that

This Practice Note contains links to the UK Finance Mortgage Lenders' Handbook (formerly known as the CML Lenders' Handbook) and the Building Societies Association Mortgage Instructions. Each of these provides comprehensive instructions for conveyancers acting on behalf of lenders in residential conveyancing transactions. UK Finance Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook UK Finance is the trade association which represents around 300 firms across the finance and banking industry operating in the

The lending of copies of the work available for use, on terms that it will or may be returned.

Leniency programmes offer the incentive of immunity or varying levels of leniency when setting fines in exchange for firms whistleblowing, i.e. voluntarily providing information relating to anti-competitive behaviour, normally relating to a secret cartel.

The European Commission’s (Commission) leniency program rewards undertakings involved in secret cartels (contrary to Article 101 TFEU) that come forward with evidence and information that enables the Commission to launch an investigation. Leniency is only available to undertakings involved in a secret cartel; it is not available in relation to other breaches of EU competition law. The two main principles underlying the Commission’s leniency programme are: • the earlier an applicant approaches the Commission, the greater the reward in terms of immunity from or a reduction in the fine, and • greater rewards will depend on the value added by the information supplied over that which is already in the Commission’s possession. There are two broad types of reward available under the Commission's leniency programme: • immunity, resulting in 100% reduction in fine, generally available to the first undertaking to provide information about the cartel, and • leniency, resulting in reductions in fines of up to 50%, generally available where the Commission already knows about the cartel, to undertakings that provide evidence that adds significant value

IP analysis: On 30 September 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Lenovo against an order by Mrs Justice Bacon dated 23 May 2024, denying Lenovo's application for an interim injunction to restrain Ericsson from infringing a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). The court applied the American Cyanamid principles and decided that damages would be adequate compensation for Lenovo for infringement of the SEP. The Court of Appeal considered the Judge was correct to reach that conclusion, and also rejected Lenovo's challenge to the application of the American Cyanamid principles in SEP disputes. The decisions of the UK court are of particular significance in Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) cases, given that it is one of the few jurisdictions in which global FRAND terms may be set by the court. The court affirmed that SEP holders committed to FRAND terms are generally not entitled to injunctions against a licensee that is willing to take the court-determined licence. Written by Ryan West, associate and Luke Maunder, associate director at Osborne Clarke LLP.

IP analysis: In this judgment, Mr Justice Richards dismissed Lenovo's application for an interim Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licence pending the substantive trial in the proceedings. The interim FRAND licence sought by Lenovo was based on a judgment by Mr Justice Mellor in previous proceedings, which determined a FRAND rate of US$0.175 per unit for a licence to InterDigital's portfolio of various 3G-5G standard essential patents (SEPs). That licence expired on 31 December 2023. InterDigital's application to stay part of the proceedings said to overlap with parallel proceedings in Germany was also dismissed on the basis that the pending German proceedings would not result in a court-determined FRAND licence. Written by Ethan Plumb, associate, Ryan West, associate and Luke Maunder, associate director at Osborne Clarke LLP.

Employment analysis: A part-time taxi driver was treated less favourably by the employer’s application of a flat rate circuit fee because, applying the pro rata temporis principle, the claimant was paying a higher circuit fee than his full-time comparator when considered as a proportion of his hours worked and/or was taking home a lower hourly rate of pay. However, because the part-time working was not the ‘sole’ reason for the less favourable treatment, the imposition of the flat rate fee did not breach the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551. Even though the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) preferred the test on causation set out by the EAT (England) in Sharma and Carl (that the part-time working has to be the ‘effective and predominant’ cause of the less favourable treatment) it nonetheless applied the test set out by the Inner House of the Court of Session (CSIH) (Scotland) in McMenemy (that the part-time working has to be the sole cause of the less favourable treatment) because of the legitimate public interest in having a consistent approach in cases both north and south of the Scotland/England border.

In practice, “lesser crime” is a descriptive label, not a term of art. Lawyers in the UK and Ireland usually say “lesser offence” or “lesser included offence”. It refers either to: (a) an offence of lower seriousness (for example, a summary offence rather than an indictable-only offence), or (b) an offence included within a more serious charge, where the lesser included offence contains some but not all elements of the greater (e.g., common assault as an alternative to assault occasioning ABH; theft as an alternative to robbery).The concept of the lesser included offence is recognised across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland through a mix of statute and case law permitting alternative verdicts where supported by the evidence. Judges may (and sometimes must) leave an alternative verdict to the jury; prosecutors may accept a plea to a lesser offence; and defence practitioners often seek jury directions on lesser included offences.Practically, the term matters for charging decisions, plea negotiations, jury directions, verdicts and sentencing scope. Usage is broadly consistent across the four jurisdictions, though terminology differs: England & Wales and Northern Ireland typically use “offence”; Scotland often uses “crime” in practice. Related search terms: lesser included offence, alternative verdict, summary offence, triable either way, indictable offence.

Law360, Expert Analysis: The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) fined trade repository REGIS-TR in a decision issued on 17 February 2026. Emilie Rogey and Grégoire Karila, partners at White & Case, examine the implications of ESMA’s decision against REGIS-TR, including its approach to dual-regime enforcement under EMIR and SFTR and the broader risks for trade repositories.