Options for landlord This checklist sets out the options for a landlord of a commercial property with an insolvent tenant who is an individual and the impact of the restrictions under the different insolvency regimes. Where a landlord of a commercial property is seeking to take action against an insolvent tenant who is an individual, this checklist should be consulted to confirm whether the landlord is permitted to take such action. Type of insolvency process Type of action Individual voluntary arrangement (IVA)—no 'interim order' IVA—during moratorium—'interim order' IVA—after moratorium when IVA approved Post-IVA new

This Practice Note provides guidance on why a law firm might need finance and the ways in which such finance might reasonably be obtained. It also considers how much debt is healthy and when it becomes excessive. Why do law firms need finance? All businesses require finance and law firms are no exception. Finance is required so that the business can acquire the assets it needs to operate its trade. If you review the balance sheets of law firms you will see that the major assets that need to be financed are: • fixed assets • current assets Fixed assets The main fixed assets are: • property—many smaller law firms buy their property but this is less common with larger firms who are more likely to rent their office space • IT equipment—nearly all law firms appreciate the need to improve and upgrade their IT systems; while such equipment is sometimes leased it is also often purchased Other fixed assets may also be purchased, such as cars, vans and other equipment. Current

An options hearing is a procedural hearing at which the sheriff asks the parties to confirm what the next step in the case will be. In England and Wales such a hearing is referred to as a directions appointment or hearing.

Types of option agreement Reference is often made to ‘put’ option agreements and ‘call’ option agreements. A call option agreement is one where the buyer can call upon the seller to sell a property (or part of it) to the buyer. A put option is one in which the landowner can call upon the buyer to purchase the property. Under a pure call option, a buyer can call upon a landowner to sell the property to it at any time during the option period. A put option is the converse and is much less commonly encountered. It is possible to have a combination of both known as a ‘put and call’ or cross option where either party can call upon the other to buy or sell in the terms set out in the option agreement. Many option agreements include so many conditional elements (eg planning or other consents to be obtained) that rather than being ‘pure’ option agreements they are in effect more akin to conditional contracts. After an

Rules 14 and 15 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (Code) deal with the situation where an offer (principal offer) is made for equity shares of an offeree which has more than one class of share capital, and/or outstanding convertible securities, options, warrants and other rights to subscribe offeree shares. The Code imposes requirements upon offerors to make offers linked to their principal offer, as follows: • if an offeree has more than one class of equity shares, an offeror must make a comparable offer to the holders of each other class • if an offer is made for voting equity share capital or other transferable securities carrying voting rights, an offeror must make an appropriate offer or proposal for any outstanding convertible securities, options or subscription rights The fundamental principle underlying Rules 14 and 15 is equality of treatment, enshrined in General Principle 1: 'All holders of the securities of an offeree company of the same class must be afforded equivalent treatment; if a person acquires control of a company, the other holders

IP analysis: On 25 April 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in technical trial C in the Optis v Apple SEP/FRAND litigation, 17 months after the first instance decision of Mr Justice Meade dated 25 November 2021. In a split decision with a leading judgment by Lord Justice Arnold and a dissenting judgment by Lord Justice Birss, the court allowed Optis’s appeal and set aside the revocation of three patents of the same patent family, each concerned with radio resource allocation on the Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH), and in particular concerning a mathematical function to prevent ‘collisions’ and ‘blocking’. The court considered eight grounds of appeal brought by Optis by reference to claims 1 and 4 of EP 2 093 953 (the ‘Patent’). Ultimately, the court allowed the fifth ground of appeal, finding that the claims were therefore inventive over the prior art, meaning that yet another of Optis’ patents in these proceedings has been found valid, essential and infringed (Apple accepted from the outset that, if valid, the Patent would be essential and therefore infringed). Written by Neville Cordell, partner, and Sian Avery, associate, at Allen & Overy LLP.

Where a claimant withdraws some or all of his claim, a relevant respondent may apply to the tribunal to have the proceedings against him dismissed. ET Rule 25(4) provides that such an application must be made ‘in writing... within 28 days of the notice of the withdrawal being sent to the respondent’. However, where the claimant withdraws the claim orally at a hearing, the respondent may then apply orally at that same hearing for the proceedings to be dismissed, and the tribunal may rule upon the issue straight away, without the respondent making a written application, because the overriding objective requires that the rule should be interpreted in a way that does not prevent a tribunal from dealing with the question of dismissal then and there. EAT: Drysdale v Department of Transport (The Maritime and Coastguard Agency).

MLex: Orange, Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone should expect an EU initiative in2025 to boost the 27 Member State's telecom networks and connectivity—known as the Digital Networks Act, a senior European Commission official said on 4 December 2024. Under the new Commission, which began work on 2 December 2024, the EU executive will ‘work on a new Digital Networks Act to help boost secure high-speed broadband, both fixed and wireless’.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 19 May 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the planned acquisition by Orange of Jazztel (Case M.7421). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the mobile telecommunications market in Spain, where the parties are two of the four operators. The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 19/05/2015. Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 19 May 2015. The Commission has accepted the following commitments: • in relation to optical fibre, Orange has committed to divest an independent Fibre-to-the-Home (FttH) network covering 700,000 to 800,000 building units, which is similar in size to Orange's current FttH network in Spain–his network covers 13 urban districts located in five of the largest Spanish cities (Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Seville and Malaga) • in relation to copper, Orange has committed to grant the purchaser of the FttH network wholesale access to Jazztel's national ASDL network for up to eight years; this is

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 February 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed creation of a joint venture between Orange S.A and MasMovil Ibercom S.A.U. (M.10896). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the markets for the retail and wholesale supply for fixed broadband and mobile services. Latest developments On 20 February 2024, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments. The Commission was concerned that: (i) the transaction will create the largest operator by customer numbers; (ii) the parties are close competitors; and (iii) the transaction may have led to significant price increases for consumers in Spain.To address the Commission’s concerns, the parties offered to: (i) divest spectrum held by held by MásMóvil to Digi across three frequency spectrum bands, two medium frequency bands (1,800 MHz and 2,100 MHz) and one high frequency band (3.5 GHz); and (ii) enter an optional national roaming agreement, which Digi can decide to use or not. Parties •

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of VOO SA and Brutélé by Orange Belgium SA (M.10663). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the market for the supply of retail mobile and fixed telecommunication services. Latest developments On 20 March 2023, the Commission cleared the merger subject to commitments. The Commission was concerned that the transaction would: (i) reduce the number of operators from three to two in areas covered by VOO and Brutélé's own fixed networks, so eliminating Orange as an innovative and significant competitive constraint; (ii) significantly reduce competition in the markets where Orange, VOO and Brutélé are close competitors (fixed internet access, audio-visual services and multiple-play bundles) in the areas covered by VOO and Brutélé's own fixed networks; and (iii) increase the likelihood of coordination on the affected retail markets between the remaining operators in areas covered by VOO and Brutélé's own fixed networks.To

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION OR KING’S BENCH DIVISION] [Insert court, list or sub-list and venue as appropriate] THE