Arbitration analysis: Starting in 2020, the world took a new approach to work due to the coronavirus (COVID 19) pandemic. Despite the inability to meet in person, work needed to continue, and this included arbitration hearings. This led to the heavy adoption of virtual meeting rooms and has had a significant impact on the way that arbitrations are conducted. The legal community is still learning how to deal with the impacts of switching to a virtual environment, a trend that has continued since COVID 19 due to its convenience. Amber Barto, summer intern at P.R.I.M.E. Finance explores the implications of virtual arbitration.

This Practice Note considers the scope of the reflective loss rule. It addresses the background to and implications of the rule against reflective loss with reference to the key decisions responsible for its development, including Prudential Assurance v Newman Industries, Johnson v Gore Wood, Giles v Rhind and Marex v Sevilleja. It also sets out a number of practical issues concerning the rule and how it has been applied by the courts post-Marex. Summary of the rule against reflective loss The rule has its origins in the principle derived from the case Foss v Harbottle, ie where an actionable wrong has been done to a company, the company is the proper claimant to recover any loss resulting from such wrong. In other words, where a breach of duty owed to a company causes it loss, only the company may sue in respect of that loss. The principle that reflective loss is not recoverable was first explicitly expressed in Prudential. In Marex, Lord Reed concluded that Prudential had effectively laid down a rule

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note summarises a number of key and/or illustrative cases relevant to reflective loss. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For guidance on the background to and principle underpinning this rule, as well as details of the key practical issues that it is sensible to have in mind should you have a case in which the rule might be relevant, see Practice Note: Reflective loss. col style="width: 26%;"> Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary Court of Appeal Burnford v Automobile Association Developments Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1943News Analysis: Claim right to be struck out on the principle that reflective loss cannot be recovered (Burnford v Automobile Association Developments Ltd) 14 November 2022 This appeal addressed whether the judge had been right to have reached the decision (in the judgment dated 28 February 2022, discussed below) to strike out a claim by the former shareholders of a dissolved company against an investor on the basis that it was barred by the reflective loss principle.The

Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis has had a significant impact on businesses around the world, putting many at real risk of insolvency. Some jurisdictions have made temporary changes to their insolvency laws to assist companies (and their directors) and individuals given the current uncertainty over how long the crisis will continue and what its lasting effects will be. This Practice Note considers the position in the UK. For details on the reforms in other jurisdictions, see: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Tracker of insolvency reforms globally [Archived]. Previous proposals for reform On 26 August 2018, the government issued a response to its consultations on Insolvency and Corporate Governance, announcing several proposed changes to UK insolvency legislation. The proposals include the introduction of: • a moratorium available to all companies to allow companies to formulate restructuring proposals without creditor pressure • a new ‘restructuring plan’, being a new formal process to enable companies to cram down dissenting creditors • a prohibition on enforcement of contractual provisions permitting termination for an insolvency event in contracts and licences for the supply

Financial Services analysis: In her Mansion House speech on 15 July 2025, Chancellor Rachel Reeves re-affirmed the government’s commitment to reforming the UK’s regulatory framework for individual accountability (the Senior Managers & Certification Regime (SM&CR)) as part of the broader Leeds Reforms aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector. At the same time, HM Treasury (HMT) published its consultation on proposed legislative changes to support these reforms, including the removal of the Certification Regime. In parallel, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published Consultation Papers CP25/21 and CP18/25, respectively. The regulators outline a two-phase approach to amending their rules and guidance to align with the Government’s legislative proposals. This analysis sets out the proposals for both Phases one and two, relevant stakeholder feedback and next steps.

Financial Services analysis: In her Mansion House speech on 15 July 2025, Chancellor Rachel Reeves re-affirmed the government’s commitment to reforming the UK’s regulatory framework for individual accountability (the Senior Managers & Certification Regime (SM&CR))as part of the broader Leeds Reforms aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector. At the same time, HM Treasury (HMT) published its consultation on proposed legislative changes to support these reforms, including the removal of the Certification Regime. In parallel, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published Consultation Papers CP25/21 and CP18/25, respectively. The regulators outline a two-phase approach to amending their rules and guidance to align with the Government’s legislative proposals. This news analysis sets out the proposals for both Phases one and two, relevant stakeholder feedback and next steps.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and HM Treasury are reforming the UK alternative investment fund managers (AIFM) regime, which is largely derived from the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (Directive 2011/61/EU) (AIFMD). The stated aim is to make the regime more proportionate and simplified, supporting growth in a sector in which UK asset managers oversee £1.8 trillion in alternative assets, while maintaining investor protection and market integrity. This Practice Note considers the proposed changes to the scope and authorisation of AIFMs, AIFM categorisation and the principal operational requirements, including valuation, leverage, liquidity risk management, delegation, investor disclosures and marketing. It also covers related reforms to reporting and remuneration, future proposals on depositaries, prime brokers, prudential requirements and authorised alternative investment funds (AIFs), and the expected implementation timetable. Key points • on 14 July 2026, HM Treasury and the FCA published a co-ordinated package of proposals to reform the UK AIFM regime. This included a draft statutory instrument (SI) that, if implemented, would establish a revised legislative framework for the regulation of managers of AIFs • HM Treasury’s proposals address the

This fundamentals note looks at the significant reform to the UK listing regime which came into effect on 29 July 2024. It also summarises the key provisions which apply to companies applying for, or with, a listing in the equity shares (commercial companies) category, the international commercial companies secondary listing category, the shell companies category and the transition category as set out in the UK Listing Rules sourcebook. What is the background to the UK listing regime reforms? Following Brexit and with the freedom to break away from EU capital markets regulation, the government announced an independent review of the UK listing regime in November 2020. The review was undertaken by Lord Hill, a former EU financial services commissioner, and its objective was to boost the UK as a destination for IPOs and enhance the capital raising processes for companies on the UK markets. The UK Listing Review Report was published in March 2021 and made a number of recommendations for the government and the FCA. The report highlighted how the number of IPOs in London

Tax analysis: There are a number of practical issues which arise from new Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) legislation relating to deliberate non-compliance measures. Tammi Broad, senior associate in Gateley Legal’s tax team analyses the new measures and considers the challenges they create for contractors and sub-contractors.

Law360: Pension reforms are necessary to ensure that savers can successfully navigate the 'risks and complexities' of managing their retirement savings in later life, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned on 1 April 2025.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced plans to reform weddings law in England and Wales, to create a more flexible legal framework that offers couples increased choice over where and how they marry. Under the proposed changes, the system would move from one based on regulation of buildings to one based on regulation of the officiants who conduct the ceremonies.

The revised EU Waste Shipment Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1157) and most of its provisions have now entered into application, including the launch of the Digital Waste Shipment System (DIWASS). Under the revised regulation, all waste shipments are now subject to the prior informed consent procedure (PIC), including hazardous waste, mixed municipal waste, waste destined for disposal and contaminated waste, which must be processed digitally through DIWASS. The regulation also includes a transitional period allowing operators to continue using paper procedures for green-listed waste until 31 December 2026. Additional measures include a simplified PIC process aimed at accelerating approvals by Member State authorities of shipments of hazardous and other ‘notified’ waste between EU Member States as well as stricter rules for plastic waste exports to third countries. From 21 November 2026, exports of plastic waste from the EU to non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries will be prohibited unless prior PIC approval has been obtained. The revised regulation further reinforces fast-track procedures for waste sent to pre-consented EU facilities for recovery.