Arbitration analysis: While the spotlight of the CIS arbitration community is currently focused on the investment disputes between the Ukrainian claimants and the Russian Federation, which are moving to the jurisdictional phase in mid-July 2016, other CIS states have also provided some noteworthy developments. Elena Burova at the CIS Arbitration Forum discusses developments and trends in investment arbitration cases involving CIS States.

Pensions analysis: The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about a pension transfer. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

ARCHIVED: This content was published in 2020 and is not maintained. This Market Standards trend report, produced in association with White & Case and Activist Insight, with contributions from UBS Investment Bank, Georgeson and Greenbrook, looks at recent trends in shareholder activism in the UK, including a review of what happened in H1 2020. It also looks at how companies can prepare for an activist approach and provides tips on how activists can run a successful campaign in the UK. What does the Market Standards trend report cover? Topics covered include: • activity levels, including the number of companies targeted and the capital deployed on campaigns • target company profile, including industry sector and size • activist profile, including the number of first-time activists • the types of demands that are activists making • how successful activists are in achieving their demands • how companies can prepare for an activist approach • tips

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 December 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in the market for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (AT.39904). The cartel involved price-fixing and information sharing. Latest development On 12 December 2016, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the four manufacturers had settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the cartel. The fines imposed on the four manufacturers were: • Samsung SDI–full immunity (thereby avoiding a fine of €57,748,000) • Sony–€29,802,000,

The UK GDPR and EU GDPR include obligations to record and provide data subjects with details of the recipients or categories of recipients of their personal data in a number of situations. The GDPR regimes also refer to recipients in other contexts, including certain provisions concerning processing records, data transfers and enforcement. Under the GDPR regimes, ‘recipient’ is defined as meaning: ‘…a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or another body, to which the personal data are disclosed, whether a third party or not. However, public authorities which may receive personal data in the framework of a particular inquiry in accordance with [EU GDPR: EU or Member State/ UK GDPR: UK domestic] law shall not be regarded as recipients; the processing of those data by those public authorities shall be in compliance with the applicable data protection rules according to the purposes of the processing;’ (emphasis added)

A communications provider to whom customer number(s) are in the process of being, or have been passed or ported from a donor operator.

ARCHIVED: This archived precedent is a set of recitals for a deed of a trust-based pension scheme. The purpose of the recitals is to explain the background to, and purpose of, an agreement. The recitals are not usually legally binding. This precedent is not maintained. Recitals: (A) [Insert full name of scheme] (the “Scheme”) was established by an [interim OR definitive]

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 August 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by Reckitt Benckiser (RB) of Johnson & Johnson’s K-Y brand. The transaction involves a horizontal overlap in the market for the supply of personal lubricants to grocery retailers and national retail pharmacy chains. The CMA cleared the transaction subject to remedies after a phase 2 investigation on 12/08/2015. Latest developments On 12 August 2015, the CMA published its final report and cleared the transaction subject to remedies, after concluding that the transaction could lead to a SLC. Under the remedy ordered by the CMA, Reckitt Benckiser will be required to license the K-Y brand in the UK to a competitor for eight years. Parties Reckitt Benckiser supplies personal lubricants to a number of retailers under the Durex brand. RB is based in the UK and has operations in 66 countries worldwide. Johnson

Law360: The Court of Appeal will consider on 10 December 2024 whether shareholders in Reckitt Benckiser and drug company Indivior can pursue litigation linked to America's opioid crisis as a 'representative claim' that is similar to a US-style class action.

Recklessness is unjustified risk taking.

This Practice Note covers the law relating to criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove the mens rea on the basis of ‘recklessness’. In essence, recklessness means the taking of an unjustified risk by the accused that leads to unlawful harm or damage. The subjective test for recklessness was reaffirmed by the House of Lords in R v G. Before R v G, there were two tests for recklessness, with the applicable test depending on the substantive offence charged. The two tests were for: • subjective recklessness as established by R v Cunningham. This test required the prosecution to prove that the accused had foreseen the risk themselves • objective recklessness as established by R v Caldwell. This test required the prosecution to prove that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person. The prosecution was not required to prove that the accused themselves foresaw the risk The House of Lords in R v G

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant alleged that the defendant counsellor/well-being coach had abused his position as a result of verbal sexual abuse. The claimant claimed damages from the defendant for negligence, as well as damages and aggravated damages for the tort of intentionally causing harm by words (‘IHW’), from the case of Wilkinson v Downton. The claimant alleged that, because of the defendant’s actions, she suffered psychiatric injuries. The claimant succeeded in her claim for negligence. The judge found that the defendant had breached his duty of care, and that this had given rise to a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury which then eventuated. However, her claim for IHW failed. In particular, the judge determined that the level of intention necessary to make out IHW was not there on the facts. Written by Samuel David, partner, and Alex Stutt, solicitor at Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP.