All firms claim to be different from all other firms. While this is true to a degree, there are likely to be huge similarities between a particular firm and certain other peer-group

Benchmarking is the process by which the services of an existing outsourcing supplier are compared to the same or similar services of other suppliers. A customer may want to undertake this kind of comparison to establish whether or not the services provided by its existing outsourcing supplier are of an equivalent price and quality compared to the market generally and to check that it is still receiving value for money. This Practice Note considers the following legal and commercial aspects of benchmarking in outsourcing deals: • When are benchmarking provisions used? • Key considerations • Consequences of benchmarking • Supplier considerations • Customer considerations For a template benchmarking schedule see Precedent: Benchmarking schedule. See also, the ‘Benchmarking’ section of Practice Notes: Negotiation guide—services agreements and Negotiation guide—IT contracts. When are benchmarking provisions used? Benchmarking provisions are often found in outsourcing agreements (particularly IT-related outsourcing agreements) which are: • bespoke deals between a customer and supplier (rather than being on essentially the supplier's standard terms and conditions) • relatively long-term (eg three years or more) • relatively high

This Precedent provides a mechanism that benchmarks a contractor's carbon footprint against the market. These sustainability clauses were produced by The Chancery Lane Project (TCLP) as ‘Izzy's Clause’ and are

The European Banking Authority (EBA) is consulting on amendments to the Implementing Regulation on the benchmarking of credit risk, market risk and IFRS9 models for the 2025 exercise. The most significant change is in the market risk framework, where the EBA is proposing brand new templates for the collection of the internal model approach (IMA) risk measures under the fundamental review of the trading book (FRTB). For credit risk only minor changes are being proposed. Responses are sought by 27 March 2024.

Schedule—Benchmarking 1 Introduction 1.1 This Schedule describes the processes and procedure for benchmarking the Supplier’s services. 1.2 In this Schedule, the following terms shall have the meanings set out below: Benchmarked Services • in relation to a Benchmark Review, means those parts of the Services that the Customer specifies (in the notice referred to in paragraph 3.1 of this Schedule) should be subject to that Benchmark Review (these may, for the avoidance of doubt, be all the Services); Benchmarker • in relation to a Benchmark Review, means the third party appointed as such under paragraph 4.3 (as that person may be replaced from time to time under paragraph 4.4); Benchmarking Report • means a written report, carried out pursuant to a Benchmark Review in accordance with this Schedule, as to whether: (a) (for Charges Benchmark Reviews) the Charges for the Benchmarked Services are Market Competitive; or (b) (for Performance Benchmark Reviews) the Performance Standards for the Benchmarked Services are Market Competitive; Benchmark Review • means a Charges Benchmark Review and/or a Performance Benchmark Review; Charges Benchmark Review • means any benchmarking of the Charges for Benchmarked Services, carried out in accordance with this Schedule; Costs

This Practice Note provides information about different ways of measuring financial performance in a law firm. It also provides guidance on how to analyse and benchmark financial data to compare performance against previous years and competitors. What key aspects of performance need to be measured? Law firms need to consider both income and expenditure together with cash flow to ensure the firm does not run out of money. This financial information needs to be reviewed regularly, at least monthly. Budget holders should be tasked with monitoring any figures for which they are responsible. Fee income The amount of fee income generated by a firm is variable and this influences the profit earned. There should therefore be close scrutiny of the fees generated, ideally on a monthly basis. Declining fee income could signify the firm may be approaching difficult times, especially if expenses remain static or increase and/or the firm is experiencing increased competition in the marketplace; see Precedent: Fee income monitoring. Expenses Expenses

This timeline has been archived. For developments from January 2024 onwards, see EU Benchmarks Regulation—timeline if they relate to the EU Benchmarks Regulation, or UK Benchmarks Regulation—timeline if they relate to the UK Benchmarks Regulation, For further guidance on the EU Benchmarks Regulation, see Practice Notes: EU Benchmarks Regulation—one minute guide and EU Benchmarks Regulation—essentials. For further guidance on the UK Benchmarks Regulation, see Practice Notes: UK Benchmarks Regulation—one minute guide and UK Benchmarks Regulation—essentials. Date Source Document Description 20 December 2023 Council of the EU Benchmarks: Council agrees its negotiating mandate The Council of the EU has agreed its negotiating mandate on a regulation amending the EU Benchmarks Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/1011). The proposed amendments concern the scope of the rules for benchmarks, the use in the EU of benchmarks provided by an administrator located in a third country, and certain reporting requirements. The proposal aims to reduce the regulatory burden on administrators of benchmarks that are not economically significant in the EU by removing them from the scope of current rules. It also intends to significantly reduce the scope of benchmark administrators subject

The holder of a beneficial interest is entitled to enjoy the use of the property in issue although not necessarily being the legal owner of the property.

Property analysis: How do the principles established in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott apply to the beneficial ownership of jointly owned commercial property such as a farm? The Court of Appeal has confirmed that there is no presumption of beneficial joint tenancy. Instead, the presumption is beneficial tenancy-in-common. Written by James Pearce-Smith, barrister at St John’s Chambers who acted for the successful respondent.

A beneficial owner is the person who ultimately enjoys the benefit of property or an asset, even if legal title is held in another name (for example, by a nominee, trustee or company). In practice, the term is central to trust, company, banking, tax and anti‑money laundering work, where identifying the “real” owner is critical.Across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept is broadly consistent, though specific statutory definitions vary by context. UK and Irish anti‑money laundering and transparency regimes define “beneficial owner” for companies, trusts and other legal entities (for example, persons with more than a specified percentage of shares, voting rights or control). Trust law distinguishes between legal owners (trustees) and beneficial owners (beneficiaries with equitable or beneficial interests).Beneficial ownership analysis underpins due diligence, sanctions screening, corporate structuring, tax planning, trust drafting and disputes about entitlement to assets. It is also key for registers of people with significant control (PSC), registers of beneficial ownership of companies and trusts, and disclosure obligations to regulators, tax authorities and financial institutions.

Equitable (as opposed to legal) ownership.

Banking & Finance analysis: This case considers the entitlement of a surviving joint bank account holder to the beneficial interest in the monies represented by that account where the deceased joint account holder provided all the funds for the account.