The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has published a report detailing its findings of the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on EU trade mark (EUTM) filings. The report covers data sources, the macroeconomic environment during COVID-19, the evolution of total EUTM filings and the EUTM filings from Member States. The analysis revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic’s onset in 2020 and its continuation into 2021 had a temporary but noticable impact on the volume and nature of EUTM filings.

The Insolvency Service has reported that video game composer and sound designer Peter Connelly has been sentenced to 16 months in prison for fraudulently obtaining a second coronavirus bounce back loan (BBL). Connelly, who had already secured a legitimate loan of £22,000, inflated his company’s turnover from £58,000 to £150,000 during the pandemic to secure an additional £37,500. Connelly has also been disqualified as a company director for six years and entered an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) in June 2022 which remains active.

This Practice Note considers the power of the court to adjourn a hearing under CPR 3.1(2)(b) and a party’s ability to apply for such an adjournment. In particular, it sets out the five specific ‘Fitzroy Robinson’ factors the court will consider when determining an application to adjourn or bring forward a hearing, together with consideration of cases in which the Fitzroy factors have been applied. It also looks at other factors the court may take into account, including the timing of the application to adjourn, and examines the ill-health of a party or witness and what medical evidence must be provided when applying to adjourn on such grounds. For examples of court judgments that provide illustrations as to the approach of the courts to applications to adjourn the trial, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial—illustrative decisions. Depending on the court in which the matter is proceeding, the relevant court guide may provide further guidance which should be complied with—see: Court specific guidance. For information on: • adjourning an interim hearing, see Practice Note: Adjourning interim hearings

Coronavirus (COVID-19): Existing financings/utilised debt Does debt documentation in your jurisdiction typically foresee termination rights for the lender upon the occurrence of a crisis? If so, are eg customary material adverse effect (MAC) provisions enforceable in such instance? Yes, besides LMA standard debt documentation, Czech banks commonly include MAC related termination provisions either directly in their loan agreements or in their general terms and conditions (GTCs) that entitle the lender to one-sided termination, cancellation of commitments or change in fees and/or interest rates together with compensation for any new costs. Such MAC provisions generally include, among others, the inability to fulfil debtor´s obligations under the debt documentation, deterioration of debtor´s financial position or the value of provided collateral or the inability of the lender to enforce its rights and claims arising out of the debt documentation. The termination cannot be unjustified and as the current epidemic does not automatically constitute an event considered to have a material adverse effect, lenders should proceed cautiously and seek legal advice while formulating the reasons for MAC induced termination. This

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It gave a summary of the key legal developments which were expected to impact corporate lawyers during 2023. It is for background information only. Key developments to look out for during 2023 will continue to include those related to Brexit. To track Brexit-related legislation, including statutory instruments, see the Brexit legislation tracker [Archived]. It may also be useful to refer to the Brexit collection and Brexit timeline [Archived]. To track legal and regulatory developments relating to other specific topics, see: • Corporate governance horizon scanning—2023 and beyond • National Security and Investment Bill—progress tracker • UK listing and prospectus regime reform—progress tracker • SPAC tracker • Dual class share structure tracker • Listing Rules tracker • Prospectus Regulation Rules tracker • UK Prospectus Regulation tracker • EU Prospectus Regulation tracker (2001–2020) • Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules tracker, and • Transparency Directive tracker [Archived] • Market Abuse Regulation—timeline • Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR)—timeline (2007–2023) [Archived] • Coronavirus (COVID-19)—legislation tracker [Archived] • Coronavirus

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including that of the Court of Appeal in Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport (injunctions), Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima (admissibility of evidence), Morley v RBS (duty of care and economic duress) and Begum v Maran (duty of care for third party actions); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Appeals filed before 2 December 2024 This Practice Note applies only to: • appeals to the Supreme Court that were proceeding before 2 December 2024, and • applications for permission to appeal and notices of appeal that were filed before 2 December 2024 unless the court or Registrar directs that the SCR shall apply (SCR 62). Appeals filed before 2 December 2024 are subject to the Supreme Court Rules 2009 (revoked) and the Practice Directions as they were in force up to that date. References to those Rules and Practice Directions in this Practice Note are in the form ‘old SCR 23’ and ‘old SCR PD 2’. Copies of those Rules and Practice Directions may be found here: Appeals filed on or after 2 December 2024 Cases that do not fall within the categories noted above (or where the court or Registrar has directed that the SCR will apply) are subject to the SCR and the associated Practice Directions. For guidance on such cases, see Practice Notes: • Supreme Court—role, structure and powers—on or after

We have assumed that the reference to ‘TMO’ is to a traffic management order. TMOs are made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984) (see Practice Note: Road traffic—traffic regulation order procedure and notices). There are a variety of procedure regulations on TMOs (see Practice Note: Road traffic—traffic regulation order procedure and notices, in particular section: Procedure regulations), however, the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATO(P)(EW) Regs 1996), SI 1996/2489 is a typical example, with LATO(P)(EW) Regs 1996, SI 1996/2489, reg 16 setting out the procedure for making a TMO. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has also fuelled the creation of additional procedure regulations and guidance. For example, the Traffic Orders Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (TOP(C)(A)(E) Regs 2020), SI 2020/536, came into force on 23 May 2020 to temporarily amend the: • Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992, (RT(TR)P Regs 1992), SI 1992/1215 • LATO(P)(EW) Regs 1996, SI 1996/2489 • Secretary of State’s Traffic Order (Procedure) (England and

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19): Many arbitral organisations have responded to the coronavirus pandemic with practical guidance and/or changes to their usual procedures and ways of working. This Practice Note considers the issues arising out of multi-party and/or multi-contract arbitration proceedings under the 2017 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration (2017 ICC Rules). It also refers to the guidance in the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (ICC Note). The 2017 ICC Rules apply to any ICC arbitrations commenced on or after 1 March 2017, unless the parties have agreed to submit to the rules in force on the date of their arbitration agreement. The 2017 ICC Rules include: • an expedited procedure which automatically applies where the arbitration agreement is entered into after 1 March 2017 and the amount in dispute is below US$2m. In cases above this threshold, the parties must opt-in. For guidance on the ICC

Practice Compliance analysis: The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) published its Risk Outlook for 2021/2022 on 23 November 2021. In this latest Risk Outlook, subtitled ‘What is the new normal? Challenges and opportunities for law firms after the lockdowns’, the SRA has looked at what the new normal means for the shape of the legal market as it emerges from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

In this Practice Note, the terms ‘leave to enter/remain’ and ‘permission to enter/stay’ are used interchangeably. The word ‘permission’ replaces ‘leave’ in the Immigration Rules for simplified routes, but the former term is still used in other categories of stay and the relevant legislation. A person with permission to enter or remain in the UK, who wishes and is permitted to apply to stay beyond the date their current leave expires, or who wishes to change immigration route is generally required to make an application when in the UK to the Home Office to vary their permission. A person’s permission may be varied: • by restricting, enlarging or removing the limit on its duration, or • by adding, varying or revoking conditions attached to it. See Practice Note: Conditions of permission to enter or stay in the UK for further details This Practice Note covers the following types of application submitted in the UK: • extensions of stay, eg to extend permission in the applicant’s current immigration route • indefinite leave to remain, otherwise

This Practice Note considers the law and institutional investor guidance relating to the holding of entirely virtual or hybrid general meetings and annual general meetings (AGMs). The interest from shareholders and other company stakeholders in holding meetings via electronic modes of communication has notably increased in recent years. This structural trend then significantly accelerated during the coronavirus pandemic. Holding electronic meetings—Companies Act 2006 Even before the coronavirus pandemic, a small number of FTSE 350 companies had begun experimenting with electronic meetings, ranging from online broadcasts (webcasts) of physical meetings, or hybrid meetings where shareholders could choose to participate in either a physical or virtual space. In 2016 Jimmy Choo plc held the first entirely virtual AGM which triggered significant debate about the fairness and effectiveness of virtual participation. Hybrid or wholly virtual electronic meetings and AGMs are likely to be attractive to some companies and shareholders given the perceived ease of access for members, as well as the potential cost savings from not holding a physical meeting on the same scale, or at all.