A lifetime trust set up with a nominal amount (usually £10) which does not become active until further funds are added subsequently. It is very common to establish a trust in this way. The initial sum gets the trust started so that it is ready to accept the main assets at a later date.

A pilot trust is a lifetime trust set up with a nominal amount (typically a small sum of cash such as £10) which does not become active until further funds are added subsequently. It is very common to establish a trust in this way. The initial sum gets the trust started so that it is ready to accept the main assets at a later date. Pilot trusts in practice Many trusts start off as pilot trusts. The main trust assets may be added fairly soon after the pilot trust commences. For example, someone who wants to settle a property into trust could make a pilot trust first and shortly afterwards transfer UK land into the trust by a HM Land Registry transfer to the trustees. Alternatively, some pilot trusts will not receive further assets for some years and will effectively sit dormant in the meantime. For example, a pilot trust could be used as a vehicle which might later receive pension death benefits, should those benefits become payable. In the past a series of pilot trusts

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. Note–the Supreme Court refused Ping Europe Limited’s application to lodge an appeal on 20 May 2020. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by Ping Europe Limited against the CAT’s ruling upholding the CMA’s infringement decision finding it had breached Article 101(1) TFEU and/or the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 by preventing retailers from selling its clubs on their website. Latest developments On 20 May 2020, the Supreme Court refused Ping Europe Limited’s application to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 21 January 2020, which dismissed Ping Europe Limited's appeal against a ruling of the CAT upholding the CMA's decision that Ping Europe Limited's online sales ban constituted a restriction of competition by object under the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 TFEU. Permission to appeal was refused because Ping Europe Limited's application did not

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Appeal (C3/2018/2863) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by Ping Europe Limited against the CMA’s decision in relation to Ping’s online sales ban in the golf equipment sector (case number 1279/1/12/17). Latest development On 7 September 2018, the CAT issued it judgment. The CAT dismissed Ping’s arguments in relation to the substantive findings of the CMA, upholding the finding of an infringement; however, the CAT did rule that the CMA erred in the calculation of the fine, by treating director involvement as an aggravating factor, and therefore reduced the fine imposed to £1.25m.On 18 September 2018, the CAT issued an order extending the suspension of the CMA’s directions in relation to its infringement decision on Ping. Parties Ping Europe Limited (Ping) is a UK-based company that manufacturers a range of golf equipment, including clubs, bags and other accessories. Competition

PinqDR has launched as a new online dispute resolution platform. The platform aims to resolve disputes quickly with binding decisions being given between six to eight weeks utilising AI and high quality arbitrators to resolve business disputes through an online process. The platform has been set up by Guy Pendell, head of arbitration, CMS, and Ian Quirk KC, Essex Court Chambers.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into vertical restrictions on online sales of consumer electronic products imposed by Pioneer (Case AT.40182). Latest developments On 24 July 2018, the Commission issued its infringement decision against Pioneer, imposing a fine of €10.173m (following an ‘informal settlement’), for imposing fixed or minimum resale prices on their online retailers in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Pioneer is a Japan based company that manufactures digital entertainment products. Background The Commission opened its investigation in February 2017 as a result of information obtained during its e-commerce sector inquiry. Market(s) Markets for the manufacture, distribution and retail of consumer electronic products, in particular digital entertainment products. Decision The Commission found that Pioneer engaged in fixed or minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) by restricting the ability of its online retailers

The process of developing a pipeline of potential new clients is usually more successful when undertaken in a structured and systematic way. Keeping

General Date of meeting [Insert date] Chair/lead [Insert name and role] In attendance [Insert names and roles] Date of request for proposal (RFP)/invitation to tender (ITT) [Insert date] Prospective client [Insert name] Agenda Clarify:—scope of work we are being asked to tender for—any questions in the RFP/ITT that need answering—evaluation criteria/scoring system—submission date and time [Ensure you have complete clarity about the

Pitching for business has increased in significance. Many clients have limited funds for instructing lawyers and want to achieve ever lower prices and better value. As a result, law firms have to be more competitive and willing to offer more to win new clients and new business. The growing use of procurement managers has enabled commercial, institutional and public sector clients to implement challenging processes that achieve better value for money. With more clients going out to tender and competition intensifying, pitches need to be smarter than ever. This Practice Note sets out a framework for pitching for business and highlights best practices required to succeed in a competitive market. Requests for proposal and invitations to tender Opportunities to pitch for business come in two main forms. Requests for proposal (RFPs) tend to be general in scope and not very prescriptive. Typically an RFP is used for more complex procurement projects or where creative solutions may be required. Invitations to tender (ITTs) tend to be specific and exacting. An ITT is usually used

What is an employee ownership trust? An employee ownership trust (EOT) is a particular type of employee benefit trust that meets certain statutory criteria. The concept of an EOT was introduced under the Finance Act 2014, in conjunction with certain tax benefits that became available for companies that are owned by an EOT and for individuals who dispose of shares to an EOT. If the statutory criteria are not satisfied in relation to the EOT then these tax reliefs will not be available. For information on EOTs generally, including a summary of the main features and tax reliefs, see Practice Note: Employee ownership trusts. For more information specifically about the issues and considerations surrounding the sale of a company to an EOT including the documentation required and the sale process as a whole, see Practice Note: Sale of a business to an employee ownership trust. For more information about the considerations surrounding the sale by the trustees of an EOT of a company that is already

The smallest area of a television picture capable of being sampled, transmitted through a system and displayed on a monitor.

The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has announced key changes to enforcement and lawful development certificate (LDC) appeals, under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023). The Planning Act 2008 (Commencement No. 8) and Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/452, in force from 25 April 2024, bring the enforcement package set out in LURA 2023 into action. The key elements affecting LDC appeals include time limits for enforcement action, Enforcement Warning Notices, restrictions on appeals, appeal dismissals on the grounds of undue delay, and the activation of the Secretary of State’s authority to determine the procedure for LDC appeals.