A regulatory regime under which companies must register details of persons who have ‘significant control’ over the company.

Practice Management analysis: Technology has the potential to revolutionise legal services but many law firms remain cautious when it comes to investing. Jenny Rayner talks to a range of experts about what the obstacles are, and how junior lawyers should go about making a case for increased use of technology.

Persuasive authority describes legal sources that a court may, but is not required to, follow when interpreting the law or deciding a case. It contrasts with binding precedent. The term is descriptive rather than formally defined in legislation or case law, but is widely used in civil and common law reasoning across the UK and Ireland. Persuasive authority typically includes: decisions of courts in other UK or Irish jurisdictions (for example, Irish Supreme Court decisions in English courts), judgments from the Privy Council, lower‑level or coordinate courts, obiter dicta, foreign case law from other common law systems, academic writing, Law Commission or Law Reform Commission reports and, in some contexts, regulatory guidance. Courts in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland assess persuasive weight by reference to the status of the source, quality of reasoning, similarity of legal framework and factual comparability. Higher appellate courts’ obiter dicta and closely reasoned comparative common law judgments are often given significant persuasive value. Usage of the term “persuasive authority” is broadly consistent across all four jurisdictions and is central to legal research, advocacy and judicial development of the common law.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Peru and throughout the world are met, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Peruvian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other 'hot' merger control issues in Peru? On 30 December 2020, the Peruvian Congress approved the new Merger Control Law 2021 (MCL 2021), which came into force on 14 June 2021 (following the issuance of complementary regulations). Previously, in terms of the Antitrust and Antioligopoly Law for the Electricity Sector 2009 (as amended) (AAL 2009), Peruvian law only imposed mandatory pre-notification and clearance requirements for vertical or horizontal concentrations occurring in the fields of electricity generation, transmission or distribution. The AAL and the Urgency Decree No 13/2019 were abrogated once the MCL came into force. Among others changes, the MCL provides that the authority may intervene in a concentration ex-officio (even if the transaction does not meet the thresholds) if it determines that there is reasonable evidence that such concentration could result

Arbitration analysis: The 2025 Arbitration Rules of the Lima Chamber of Commerce (CCL) introduce several reforms aimed at aligning with international arbitration standards, including the scrutiny of awards, revised rules for arbitrator appointments in multi-party cases and mandatory procedural calendars with fixed dates. While these changes represent a move toward greater efficiency and quality control, the work is still in progress. Although these reforms are well-intentioned, their effectiveness will depend on how they are implemented in practice. Without further clarification through practical guidelines or supplementary rules, there is a risk that some provisions (particularly the scrutiny mechanism) will remain underutilised or inconsistently applied. Written by Alfredo Bullard Gonzalez and Uber López Montreuil.

Arbitration analysis: The Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima) annulled the arbitral award between Ingram Micro SAC and the Public Ministry, citing motivación aparente (apparent reasoning) in the arbitrator's decision. In the 2020 dispute over computer equipment delivery delays due to the pandemic, the Ministry terminated the contract and imposed penalties. The arbitral tribunal sided with Ingram Micro, rejecting the contract termination and penalties. However, the court's decision underscores the need for coherent and well-founded reasoning in arbitral awards. It highlights the delicate balance between arbitration autonomy and judicial oversight, emphasizing the importance of avoiding apparent reasoning. This case sets a precedent for arbitration in Peru, urging parties to provide thorough justifications to mitigate the risk of annulment based on perceived lack of substance in the arbitral decision Written by Seguimundo Navarro, partner at inARB | Arbitrator | MCIArb | ArbP | LLM, Spain.

A concept which describes a situation in which computing capability is embedded into numerous different devices around the home or office (eg fridges, washing machines, cars, etc). Also referred to as ubiquitous computing. Pervasive communications implies that the microchips in these devices are also able to communicate, for instance their location and status.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The applicants, who were creditors of Mr and Mrs Brake (the Brakes), applied for an order under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) directing the trustees (the Trustees) of the Brakes’ bankrupt estate (the Estate) to apply to be joined into and take steps in relation to proceedings concerning a property called West Axnoller Cottage (the Cottage) which was an asset of the Estate. The applicants objected to the Brakes potentially being able to regain possession of the Cottage and wanted the Trustees—who had been reluctant to get involved, to take steps to intervene in proceedings pending in the Court of Appeal between the Brakes and The Chedington Court Estate Ltd (Chedington) in which the Brakes applied for possession of the Cottage (the Eviction Proceedings). The court granted the application and disapproved of the Trustees lack of action and unwillingness to involve themselves in the Eviction Proceedings, the subject of which was clearly relevant to the Estate and found their decision making in this regard to be perverse. Written by Ben Rutledge, associate at Keidan Harrison LLP.

Elements of the offence of perverting the course of justice Perverting the course of justice is a common law offence which can only be tried on indictment in the Crown Court. The elements of the offence are: • a person acts or embarks on a course of conduct • which has a tendency to • and is intended to • pervert the course of public justice Acts or embarks on a course of conduct The offence requires a positive act or series of acts; omission or simple inaction is insufficient (eg failing to point out a mistake). Acts tending (and intended) to obstruct, divert or disrupt criminal proceedings or police investigations generally may suffice—the offence does not need to have taken place in respect of a particular trial or investigation. Tendency to pervert The fact that an attempt to pervert the course of justice ultimately fails does not prevent a prosecution provided that the accused’s actions have created a risk, without further action by them, that injustice would result. Intention The prosecution

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has published a letter sent by the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle, to the CEO of Ofcom, Dame Melanie Dawes. In the letter, Kyle emphasises the importance of the Illegal Harms Codes of Practice and Risk Assessment Guidance being finalised by Ofcom by the end of 2024, the publication of the Children’s Access Assessment Guidance in early 2025 and the Protection of Children Codes by Summer 2025 in ensuring users of online platforms are adequately protected. The Secretary of State also stated that he fully supports Ofcom in using its enforcement powers under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023), and requested that Ofcom provides an update on the assessment it has made about how illegal content spread during the period of disorder in the UK during July and August 2024.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced that Peter Currie and Andrew Currie have been sentenced to 5.5 years and 2.5 years imprisonment respectively, for fraud and money laundering following prosecution by the FCA.

Unlike England, Scotland has not done away with the requirement to petition for a court appointed administrator. In England, administration petitions were replaced with applications by the Enterprise Act 2002. Both jurisdictions allow the Enterprise Act 2002 court form ‘out of court’ filing processes on similar procedural rules. The distinction to a ‘petition’ in England was important as a ‘petition’ is a class action which can be joined or taken over by any person in the same class, eg a creditor. In practice, there is little material difference