Add new Article 14.7 as follows: 14.7 If the Company proposes to make an issue of Shares after the date on which the Articles are adopted (Further Issue) and: 14.7.1 a holder of Preferred shares

Law360, London: Margaret met the scammer while she was playing Scrabble.

A clause, usually in a sub-contract, whereby the contractor is only obliged to pay if the sub-contract works are certified under the main contract. This is irrespective of whether the sub-contract works have been satisfactorily completed. Following the amendments to the HGCRA 1996, these clause are now prohibited by HGCRA 1996, s 110(1)(a).

A clause, usually in a sub-contract, whereby one party is only obliged to pay the other if payment has been received from a third party. Ineffective under HGCRA 1996, s 113 except where the reason for non-payment is the insolvency of the third party.

Law360: The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) refused on 21 June 2024 to apply a much more restrictive statute of limitations that would dismiss government claims that Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck Ltd and generic drug manufacturers anticompetitively agreed to delay generic competition to an antidepressant.

The sale or purchase of the right to purchase a single event (eg a boxing match or a film) as distinct from subscribing to a channel or package of channels.

A television service where the viewer pays to watch a specific event (eg a sporting event, or film). Existing pay-per-view systems require the viewer to ring a customer management centre; impulse pay-per-view systems will enable viewers to purchase the right to see an event using an on-screen menu and their remote control and be authorised immediately.

Pay.UK has published its response to the national payments vision outlining its support of the government's strategy for the future of payments in the UK which focuses on innovation, competition, and security in the payments ecosystem. The response highlights Pay.UK's decision to cancel procurement for the New Payments Architecture in favour of a more flexible, modular approach to central infrastructure renewal.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the data of the penalty notice of 18 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by PayPal Holdings, Inc. of iZettle AB. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the supply of mobile point of sales devices in the UK. In addition, the CMA has also identified potential concerns in relation to ‘omni-channel’ payment services. Latest developments On 18 September 2019, the CMA issued a penalty notice to PayPal for failure to comply with the initial enforcement order (IEO) imposed by the CMA. A total fine of £250,000 was imposed. PayPal had sought, and been granted, a derogation to the IEO to permit it to engage in international integration activities that included conducting cross-selling pilot campaigns involving its non-UK businesses. However, despite its assurances and contrary to the derogation, PayPal conducted cross-selling pilot campaigns (intended to target customers in France and Germany) that led to it contacting UK potential customers; the CMA has

PayPal has committed to amending its terms and conditions to ensure they are more transparent and easier to understand for consumers, following a dialogue with the European Commission and national consumer authorities. The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC) commenced a dialogue with PayPal in May 2023. The CPC found that PayPal's terms and conditions were unreasonably difficult for consumers to understand. PayPal has agreed to address the issues raised by the CPC and to modify the problematic clauses of its User Agreement to ensure it complies better with the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. PayPal's commitments will ensure its practices are aligned with the requirements of EU consumer law.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 November 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further,timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Ofgem Article 102 TFEU/Chapter II investigation against PayPoint in relation to an abuse of dominance by including certain contractual terms with certain energy suppliers and retailers that conferred exclusivity to PayPoint for OTC payment services for prepayment energy customers.  Latest developments On 23 November 2021, Ofgem announced that it had decided to accept commitments from PayPoint, as well as a donation of £12.5m to Ofgem’s Energy Industry Voluntary Redress Scheme, and had closed the case. Parties PayPoint plc, PayPoint Network Limited, PayPoint Collections Limited and PayPoint Retail Solutions Limited (together, PayPoint): PayPoint provides OTC payment services to prepayment energy customers in the UK. For the purposes of collecting OTC payments, PayPoint operates a network of around 28,000 outlets in Great Britain, typically newsagents or local supermarket chains. Background On 17 August 2017, Ofgem launched its investigation and took a decision

Pay.UK has announced that PayPoint has joined the Confirmation of Payee (CoP) name-checking service. This will extend the offering to PayPoint’s local government and energy company customers to enable the delivery of cost-of-living support payments to more financially vulnerable people across the UK.