A stream of cash flows that theoretically will last for ever.

Title Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC* latest consolidated version — September 2016 Entry into Force 20 May 2004 Transposition Deadline n/a Amendments • Council Regulation (EC) No 1195/2006 of 18 July 2006 amending Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants (Text with EEA relevance) • Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2007 of 16 February 2007 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants (Text with EEA relevance) • Commission Regulation (EC) No 323/2007 of 26 March 2007 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) • Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 of 11 March 2009 adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny —Adaptation to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny—Part Two • Commission

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A is a creditor of FX Solutions Ltd and GlobalFX.Com Ltd which both entered liquidation in 2009. R2 controlled both companies. R1, his wife, was a director but not controller. In 2010, Mr Justice Flaux gave judgment for A against R2 in deceit: Lindsay v O’Loughnane. A achieved only partial satisfaction by way of enforcement. In 2022, he obtained an order attaching R2’s pension. In 2019, A applied under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) for an order that R1 and R2 repay three amounts wrongly taken from the companies. In 2021, A applied for summary judgment. Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Baister gave judgment against R2 to repay the first amount but allowed the remaining claims to proceed to trial. Written by Duncan Macpherson, barrister at 1EC Barristers.

Introduction Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are potentially dangerous chemical substances which may cross international boundaries, are found often far from their emission sources, persist in the environment, bioaccumulate (ie become concentrated inside the bodies of living things), and consequently pose a threat to human health and the environment. They are poisonous chemical substances that break down slowly and get into food chains. These priority pollutants consist of pesticides, industrial chemical and unintentional by-products of industrial processes. POPs are usually transported across international boundaries by air and water far from their sources, even to regions where they have never been used or produced, affecting ecosystems. For more information on POP emissions, see the data, trackers and indicators on the European Environment Agency website. Efforts to control and ban POPs International At international level there are two major Conventions (international treaties) that are the basis of more focused control measures. Those are: • Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on POPs (the Protocol) • Stockholm Convention on POPs (the Stockholm Convention) They lay down

A lodger will generally be a licensee rather than a tenant. The standard test in law for whether a person has a licence or a tenancy comes from the case of Street v Mountford. In that case, the House of Lords described the situation of a lodger in the following terms: ‘An occupier of residential accommodation at a rent for a term is either a lodger or a tenant. The occupier

A split reversion (also known as a severed reversion) most commonly arises when a landlord, after granting a lease of a property, disposes of their reversionary interest in part of the property by selling part of the property to a third party. As a result of that dealing, the tenant (who remains in occupation of the whole property under the original lease) finds themselves with two landlords in respect of different parts of the property (Jelley v Buckman). Although a split reversion most commonly arises

Pursuant to section 3 of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996), a party is obliged to serve a party structure notice on an adjoining owner, prior to carrying out

Where a person (A) leaves their estate to another (B), then, unless there is a contrary provision in the Will, B will be entitled to receive that estate even if they die before the estate of A is administered. Many Wills will contain what is termed a survivorship clause, which requires B to survive more than a set period of time (usually 30 days) by which, if B dies within that period of A, they are treated as having predeceased, so that they do not receive the legacy. This is to prevent a legacy being given that cannot be enjoyed, and which might

Types of enforcement Generally, where a person has a judgment and wishes to enforce against the judgment debtor, they can execute their judgment by using one or several enforcement methods at once (some methods are mutually exclusive). The available options are set out in CPR 70, and guidance on the enforcement options are set out in Practice Note: Which enforcement of judgment method should I choose? Apart from third party debt orders (TPDO) (as to which see below), you may find it useful to refer

A person who is a subscriber to a memorandum of association may be any one of a wide variety of persons under the law, and may even include minors.

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that from November 2025, the person at risk of violence (PARV) order fee will be removed, meaning that survivors of violence and domestic abuse will no longer have to pay a court fee of £318 to ensure their abuser cannot locate them via public records. A PARV order is a legal route to prevent personal details from being published. Individuals must demonstrate that disclosure of their address would reasonably expect to lead to violence. Currently, to apply for a PARV order, individuals must complete an application form which is accompanied by a witness statement, attend court and pay the court fee. They do not have to prove that they have experienced violence, only that they reasonably believe they may. For women fleeing domestic abuse, having the peace of mind that their abuser cannot search public records to find their new address is invaluable, yet the cost is a barrier to many. This announcement means the cost will no longer be an obstacle to their safety. The abolition of this court fee is the latest measure in the government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls within a decade and a key part of the Plan for Change to protect victims and restore faith in the justice system.

In summary (in the context of the UK market abuse regime) (i) a director of an issuer or (ii) a senior employee of an issuer who has regular access to inside information and the power to make managerial decisions. More specifically defined in the UK Market Abuse Regulation (Retained Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) as a person within an issuer, an emission allowance market participant or another entity referred to in Article 19(10) of the UK Market Abuse Regulation who is either of the following: —a member of the administrative, management or supervisory body of that entity, or —a senior executive who is not a member of those bodies but who has regular access to inside information relating directly or indirectly to the issuer and power to take managerial decisions affecting the future developments and business prospects of the issuer See Article 3(1)(25) of the UK Market Abuse Regulation.