Law360: Regulatory lawyers are not expecting a radical overhaul in pension policies if there is a change of government after this year's general election, but signals detected in the opposition Labour Party's policy language could hint at possible shifts in investment priorities for retirement savings in the UK.

Arbitration analysis: In Lancor Holdings Ltd v Prem Kumar Menon, the Supreme Court of India held that while mere delay in rendering an arbitral award is not an independent ground for setting it aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an inordinate and unexplained delay that materially affects the reasoning or renders the award unworkable may vitiate it on grounds of patent illegality or conflict with public policy. The court found that a nearly four-year post-hearing delay, coupled with contradictory reasoning and loss of adjudicatory coherence, defeated the fundamental objectives of arbitration - finality, fairness, and efficiency. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to avoid remanding a 16-year-old dispute to fresh arbitration, the court upheld the validity of the sale deeds executed by the developer but directed forfeiture of ₹10 crore in favour of the landowners as a condition for the developer reclaiming its contractual share. The ruling underscores that procedural legitimacy and timeliness are integral to arbitral justice, refining public policy review as limited safeguard against systemic arbitral failure rather than a vehicle for merits reappraisal. Practical implications written by Prasanth Raju of Chambers of Prasanth Raju.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was an application for the appointment of receivers to assist in the execution of an English judgment against a Vietnamese airline. The creditor’s attempts to enforce the judgment in various jurisdictions had been fruitless. Further, an application for recognition in Vietnam had failed. It was held that the appointment of receivers was justified (subject to further evidence as to the cost of this), including in relation to foreign assets. However, assets within Vietnam were to be excluded in the first instance, with potential for a further application relating to these in the future. Produced in partnership with Nora Wannagat of Tanfield Chambers.

Post-market surveillance is the monitoring by manufacturers of medical devices to ensure their health and safety for patient use at the later stage after authorisation and distribution on the market. Its purpose is to identify if any necessary corrective or preventive safety measures are required. See: Lifecycle of a medical device—flowchart. Although the previous medical device directives regulatory regime set out compliance requirements, it received criticism that it was not stringent enough in monitoring safety once devices are actually put into use by patients to feedback into the official device safety profile and its authorisation. The medical device scandal involving Poly Implant Prothése (PIP) breast implants throughout the early 2000s followed by a large-scale hip implant scandal resulting in harm to hundreds of thousands of patients in several countries, laid bare the inadequacy of the safety certification system patchily conducted by various Notified Bodies to protect patients, and prompted a complete overhaul of medical device regulation. A key focus of the regulatory overhaul for medical devices in Europe was

A post-nuptial agreement is an agreement entered into by the parties to a marriage (or civil partnership) subsequent to the marriage/civil partnership usually in relation to financial matters.

This document provides general guidance regarding post-nuptial agreements. Your family lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. What is a post-nuptial agreement? A couple who are already married or in a civil partnership may decide to enter into an agreement that shows what they intend to happen to their money and property if their marriage or civil partnership were to end. This may be because they didn’t enter into a pre-nuptial agreement before getting married, or where there has been a separation followed by a reconciliation. A separating couple may make an agreement on financial matters if they do not yet wish to divorce or dissolve their civil partnership: this type of post-nuptial agreement is called a separation agreement, but similar rules apply. The legal rules about these agreements come from the usual laws that apply to divorce/dissolution, and also a decision of the Supreme Court in 2010 (Radmacher v Granatino) where the court said: ‘The court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each

A statement made by an offer party in any document, announcement or other information published by it in relation to the offer relating to any particular course of action that the party intends to take, or not take, after the end of the offer period, other than a post-offer undertaking.

In order to effectively and fairly regulate takeovers of public companies, the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (Code) sets out a very clear timetable for steps to be taken by the offeror and the offeree as the bid progresses from initial announcement through to the final settlement of consideration if the bid is successful. If a potential offeror makes a 'no intention to bid' statement, or a bid made by an offeror lapses, is withdrawn or otherwise fails, it is equally important that the parties clearly know what they may or may not do. It is especially important that the offeree is able to get on with its business without unnecessary uncertainty or further disruption. This is inherent in General Principle 6 of the Code: 'An offeree must not be hindered in the conduct of its affairs for longer than is reasonable by a takeover bid for its securities.' This Practice Note summarises the key restrictions imposed under the Code: • on a potential offeror under Rule 2.8 following its making of a no intention

A statement made by an offer party in any document, announcement or other information published by it in relation to the offer relating to any particular course of action that the party commits to take, or not take, after the end of the offer period and which is clearly described by that party as a post-offer undertaking. Note that the term does not include commitments made directly to, and enforceable by, a specific party or to a government or regulatory body to obtain an authorisation or clearance. Under Rule 19.5(a), the making of a post-offer undertaking requires prior consultation with the Panel.

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re B-A (Placement Order and Contact Order) considered the local authority’s application to appeal the decision in the lower court to make an order under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) (a ‘section 26 order’) for contact between the father and his two subject children, following the making of final care and placement orders. The local authority sought for the section 26 order to be replaced with a non-binding recital (ie not enforceable), but the application to appeal was dismissed. The judgment comes at a time when the courts approach to post placement order contact is evolving, particularly in light of the calls for modernisation in the digital age, building on the guidance set out by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in Re S (Placement Order Contact) that in each case where placement orders are made, there needs to be a bespoke analysis of the future contact arrangements, in order to meet the complex and life-long needs of children who are to be placed for adoption. Gemma Adams, associate solicitor at Dawson Cornwell LLP, analyses the issues.

Family analysis: This case considered the sharing principle where the only significant issue involved the distribution of the sale proceeds of a software business established during the marriage and sold prior to trial, specifically whether and to what extent any of those proceeds were non-matrimonial. Crucially, the judgment demonstrates the willingness of the Family Court to disregard Mr Justice Mostyn’s ‘rule of thumb’ relating to assets existing at the time of separation as set out in E v L (see para [73]) ie that the end date for the purposes of calculation of the acquest should be the date of trial (save for in cases of undue delay) and that rule of thumb should apply forcefully to assets in place at the point of separation which have shifted in value between separation and trial. The judgment outlines that the application of such a rule would not have produced fairness in the case. A 57.5%/42.5% division of the sale proceeds in the husband’s favour was ordered, the judge having made findings in respect of the husband’s post-separation endeavour in respect of the business that justified the same. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

This Practice Note examines why post-termination restrictions (restrictive covenants) may need to be included in contracts of employment, and the various types that are typically used. For information: • on construing post-termination restrictions, see Practice Note: Construing post-termination restrictions • on determining whether a post-termination restriction has been incorporated into the contract, see Practice Note: Incorporation of post-termination restrictions • on determining the reasonableness of post-termination restrictions, see Practice Note: Post-termination restrictions—reasonableness • on key decisions on the enforceability of post-termination restrictions, see Practice Note: Decisions on post-termination restrictions and garden leave in employment contracts The need for post-termination restrictions During employment, including any period of garden leave immediately prior to the termination of employment (see Practice Note: Garden leave and the right to work), an employee will be under various implied obligations to their employer. These duties will include: • the duty of fidelity, including an obligation not to compete (see Practice Note: The duty of fidelity and fiduciary duties), and • an obligation not to misuse confidential information (see Practice Note: Confidential information and trade