This Checklist summarises the issues to consider when assessing non-compete clauses in vertical agreements (such as supply agreements) under the UK’s vertical block exemption: The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022, SI 2022/516 (VABEO). For an overview of the VABEO generally, see Introduction to the application of Chapter I to vertical agreements and, for full detail (including on non-compete clauses), see The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022. For a checklist on non-compete clauses under the EU’s equivalent block exemption, Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720, see Assessing non–compete clauses in vertical agreements under the EU’s Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720—checklist Is there a 'vertical agreement' and would the VABEO apply? For the purposes of this Checklist, we assume that there is a vertical agreement in place. For completeness: • Under the VABEO, a 'vertical agreement' is an agreement or concerted practice: ◦ between two or more undertakings ◦ where those undertakings operate, for the purposes of the agreement or

This Checklist summarises the issues to consider when assessing non-compete clauses in vertical agreements (such as supply agreements) under the EU’s Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 (VBER 2022). For an overview of the VBER 2022 generally, see Introduction to the application of Article 101 TFEU to vertical agreements. For full detail (including on non-compete clauses), see The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720. For a Checklist on non-compete clauses under the UK’s equivalent block exemption, The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022, see Assessing non–compete clauses in vertical agreements under The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022—checklist. Is there a 'vertical agreement' and would the VBER 2022 apply? For the purposes of this Checklist, we assume that there is a vertical agreement in place. For completeness: • under the VBER 2022, a 'vertical agreement' is an agreement or concerted practice: ◦ between two or more undertakings ◦ where those undertakings operate, for the purposes of the agreement or concerted practice, at different levels

Law360, Expert analysis: Private credit markets have experienced significant disruption. In February 2026 Market Financial Solutions (MFS) a UK mortgage company, entered into bankruptcy after creditors alleged fraud and the double-pledging of assets. MFS had significant debt from private credit and its collapse resulted in losses of several hundred million dollars for investors. Javier Bleichmar and Evan Kubota, partners and Brandon Slotkin, associate, all at Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, examine the risks associated with private credit investments and potential avenues for investor recovery.

Public Law analysis: The Supreme Court finds the Guidance published by the Parole Board for England & Wales, concerning allegations that may be made against a prisoner being considered for release or a move to open conditions, to be lawful. The issue in dispute was whether, when the Board makes a decision as to a person’s liberty, any weight and regard (‘concern’) could properly be given to an alleged fact that had not been shown to be probably true. Overruling a unanimous Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court decides that only facts in issue (in the legal meaning) need be proven as a general principle. It rules that assessments and decisions about risk are not restricted to established facts but can be lawfully and fairly reached, in certain circumstances, by having regard to the unproven matters also. Nonetheless, despite finding the Parole Board’s Guidance to be lawful the court encourages the Board to revisit the terms of its Guidance and make changes. This is because the court rejects the utility of the concepts of a ‘mere allegation’ contrasted with one for which there is ‘some’ factual foundation. Written by Philip Rule, King’s Counsel at No5 Chambers.

TMT analysis: This case involved a slander claim based on a statement made after a heated exchange between two locals at a pub, in which it was alleged the Claimant was a paedophile. Although the single meaning of the statement was considered defamatory at common law, the claim was dismissed on the basis that the claimant could not meet the thresholds for serious harm and special damages. This case explores the elements of slander and libel, and provides timely guidance for claimants seeking to establish, and defendants hoping to defend, a claim in slander following the Court of Appeal and High Court's decisions in Blake v Fox. Written by Michael Frost, partner, and Joanna Lonergan, trainee in Reputation Protection and Crisis Management at Mishcon de Reya LLP.

Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note highlights key aspects of key materials produced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and its predecessor, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) since March 2011 about the advice process. The FCA has also published a web page which brings together in one place key material about the advice process and assessing suitability and should be an important reference point. In particular, this Practice Note considers: • FSA-finalised guidance FSA FG11/5 on assessing suitability—establishing the risk that a customer is willing to take and making suitable investment decisions (the March 2011 Guidance) • FSA-finalised guidance on assessing suitability—replacement business and centralised investment decisions (the July 2012 Guidance) • FCA thematic review report for wealth management firms and private banks—suitability of investment portfolios (the December 2015 Report) • FCA thematic review report on assessing suitability—research and due diligence of products and services (the February 2016 Report) • FCA-finalised guidance on streamlined advice and consolidated guidance (the 2017 Guidance) This Practice Note also looks at the ‘Assessing Suitability Review’ carried

This Checklist can be used to help assess the compliance with EU competition law of technology transfer agreements where one party (a licensor) grants to another party (the licensee) the right to exploit technology rights, including patents, know-how, design rights, utility models and/or software copyright. See further, Assessing IP-related agreements under the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation. Framework for assessment On 1 May 2026, the European Commission (Commission) adopted the revised Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBE) and accompanying guidelines (TTBE Guidelines) which assist parties in assessing the application of the TTBE. When considering the exercise and licensing of intellectual property rights (IPRs), it is necessary to consider the following: • Article 101 TFEU ◦ the first question is whether the agreement is caught by Article 101(1) TFEU at all (in practice TTBE (and relevance of other block exemptions) may often be considered before Article 101 TFEU). It will be necessary to consider: ‣ whether the agreement is liable to affect trade between Member States ‣ whether the agreement restricts competition at all as some forms of licence,

Immigration analysis: The lawfulness of detaining a member of an EEA national’s family pending a deportation decision is examined by barrister David Chirico, of 1 Pump Court, in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment in R (on the application of Nouazli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Public Law analysis: Is detention for a short period to prevent a breach of the peace lawful? Ruth Brander, barrister, of Doughty Street Chambers, examines the Supreme Court’s answer in R (on the application of Hicks) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.

This questionnaire should be completed by managers and partners to help identify unconscious bias and raise self-awareness. It is for personal use only and does not need to be shared with anyone else. Please select one response only from the three provided choices to each question. Based on your answers to this questionnaire, you may decide to set yourself a personal action plan to address any issues identified. Questions I give some employees access to career-enhancing opportunities more than others, eg involvement in high profile cases Always Sometimes Never I seek buy-in to decisions from some colleagues more than others Always Sometimes Never I perceive part-time workers to be less committed than others Always Sometimes Never I perceive working mothers to be less committed than employees without children Always Sometimes Never I perceive working fathers to be less committed than employees without children Always Sometimes Never I informally sponsor, support or give time to some employees more than others Always Sometimes Never I informally

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Licensing Act 2003 (LA 2003) governs the sale of alcohol, provision of regulated entertainment and the provision of late night refreshment (hot food and/or hot drink between the hours of 23.00 and 05.00 daily). The playing of live music is, subject to conditions and exceptions below, regulated entertainment for the purposes of LA 2003. If live music is not regulated entertainment, or is exempt under LA 2003, no licence is normally required. Exemptions for live music have been introduced and expanded in recent years. In October 2012, the Live Music Act 2012 (LMA 2012) removed the requirement between 08.00 and 23.00 for live unamplified music to be licensed in any location (with no restriction on audience numbers); and for live amplified music in on-licensed premises, open for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises or workplaces for audiences of up to 200 persons.

Corporate Crime analysis: Mr Khan challenged the decision of the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal (‘the MPT’) to erase him from the Register, following a finding that he had engaged in sexual conduct towards colleagues. There are two important and unusual aspects to the appeal. Firstly, it focuses on how the tribunal of fact should properly assess a witness’s evidence where their credibility is in issue; a mere impression that the witness was confident and ‘credible’, without a detailed examination of the content of their evidence, is not sufficient. Secondly, while the appeal had to be brought against the erasure, the substance of the appeal focused on the underlying facts; the court clarified the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to depart from the factual findings of the MPT, notwithstanding that the court on appeal does not have the benefit of hearing the oral evidence first hand. Written by Carolina Bracken, barrister at 5 Paper Buildings.