At 11pm UK time on 31 January 2020 (exit day), the United Kingdom left the European Union in accordance with a ratified Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. The UK is now regarded by the EU as a ‘third country’, ie it is a country that is not an EU Member State or a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). During the implementation period (until 11pm UK time on 31 December 2020), the UK and the EU sought to negotiate and enter into an agreement that would govern their future relationship. The framework for a future relationship was set out in a political declaration, the terms of which were agreed at the same time as the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), ie the post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and the EU, was finally agreed just days before IP completion day. Further to the agreement of the TCA, the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill was introduced to Parliament on 30 December 2020, and having completed all its Parliamentary stages

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the impact that Brexit will have on obtaining evidence from an EU Member State for use in English court proceedings or providing evidence for use in proceedings in an EU Member State court when the UK leaves the EU. It considers the current position using Regulation (EC) 1206/2001, the Taking of Evidence Regulation and summarises the UK and EU’s respective positions and considers the likely potential outcomes, based on the information available. The Practice Note then considers potential issues which may arise when the UK exits the EU and potential regimes which may assist when seeking to obtain evidence. For an understanding of how a deal or no deal position may be reached, the House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee report: The progress of the UK’s negotiations on EU withdrawal (June to September 2018) at para [35] provides a useful flowchart. Current position It is often necessary to obtain evidence from overseas when dealing with disputes involving international

This archived Practice Note looked at the impact of Brexit on the UK corporate governance regime. It has not been maintained since May 2022. At 11pm (GMT) on 31 January 2020 (exit day), the United Kingdom left the European Union in accordance with a ratified Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. From this point, the UK was regarded by the EU as a ‘third country’, ie a country that is not an EU Member State or a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Under the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK remained bound by existing and new EU laws and subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union for a transition period (referred to in the UK as the implementation period) following exit day. However, it was no longer a member of the political institutions or governance structures of the EU. The implementation period ended at 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day). On 24 December 2020, the UK and the EU announced they had

On 23 June 2016, the UK held a referendum on its membership of the EU, with a majority voting in favour of the UK leaving the EU, a process known as Brexit. On 29 March 2017, the UK government served formal notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) to terminate the UK’s membership of the EU. Negotiations between the UK and the EU relating to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU commenced in June 2017 and culminated in the Withdrawal Agreement, an international treaty implemented in domestic law by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (EU(WA)A 2020). Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, as of Exit Day (11 pm on 31 January 2020) the UK ceased being a EU Member State. However, in accordance with the transitional arrangements provided in Part 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK entered an implementation period during which the UK continued to be treated by the EU as a Member State for many purposes, see: Brexit—introduction

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The UK public procurement regime derives from EU procurement laws and is therefore impacted by Brexit. As of 31 January 2020 (exit day), the UK ceased to be an EU Member State and its relationship with the EU became subject to the Withdrawal Agreement, which came into effect on 1 February 2020 (see below). For background analysis, see: Exit day—the practice area/sector view. The Withdrawal Agreement contains transitional arrangements, which provided for a transition period (referred to in the UK implementing legislation as the implementation period), which ran from exit day until 31 December 2020 (IP completion day). During this period, the UK continued to be treated as a Member State for many purposes, including public procurement. As a third country, the UK can no longer participate in the EU’s political institutions, agencies, offices, bodies and governance structures (except to the limited extent agreed), but during transition, the UK continued to adhere to EU law and submit to the continuing jurisdiction

BREXIT: 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 (‘IP completion day’) marked the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Following IP completion day, key transitional arrangements come to an end and significant changes begin to take effect across the UK’s legal regime. This document contains guidance on subjects impacted by these changes. Before continuing your research, see: Brexit and financial services: materials on the post-Brexit UK/EU regulatory regime [Archived]. This Q&A considers the impact of Brexit on passporting in the insurance sector, what options are available to insurers to continue to access the European Economic Areas (EEA) and the factors for insurers to take into account in their contingency planning. This Q&A is produced in partnership with Clare Swirski at Clifford Chance. What are the main aspects of passporting under Solvency II? The activity of providing insurance on a cross-border basis within the EEA is described as 'passporting' and, under Solvency

The Bribery Act 2010 consolidated and reformed the law on bribery.

The Bribery Act 2010, which seeks to modernise and consolidate the law on bribery and corruption in the UK, creating two new offences of bribery (bribing someone or being bribed), a new distinct offence of bribery of a foreign public official, and introduces a new corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery, comes into force on 1 July 2011.

This Practice Note provides a summary of key bribery convictions and alternative disposals in England and Wales since the implementation of the offences under the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010). For more information on the prosecution of bribery and corruption offences generally, see Practice Notes: The Bribery Act 2010—an introductory guide, Active bribery, passive bribery and bribing foreign public officials and Failure to prevent bribery—the offence. The cases below demonstrate that disposals for offences under the BA 2010 can take a variety of forms: • prosecution proceedings can be commenced against an individual or corporate entity suspected of bribery • as an alternative to prosecution, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) may agree a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with a corporate entity, for more information, see Practice Notes: DPAs entered into to date—tracker, Deferred prosecution agreements, Terms and content of a DPA and DPAs in practice • as happened in the case of Glenrothes (Brand–Rex) (see below), a civil recovery settlement could be agreed between the prosecutor and a corporate entity who self-reports bribery offences, in respect

Bribery Act 2010—territorial application The Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) creates a choice of jurisdiction where part or parts of the offence occur in part or parts of the UK and/or where the offending takes place abroad, albeit this may require a close connection to the UK. For more information, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction in respect of allegations of bribery. In summary, the territorial application for the prosecution of offences is set out in BA 2010, s 12. Offences contrary to BA 2010, ss 1, 2 and 6 should be prosecuted in either England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland depending on whether any act or omission which forms part of the offence takes place in that part of the UK (BA 2010, s 12(1)). Where bribery occurs overseas and there is no act or omission within the UK but the person who committed an act of bribery is subject to BA 2010, proceedings for the offence may be taken at any place in the UK. A person is subject

Corporate Crime analysis: Mr Cook was a senior civil servant within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) who was convicted of misconduct in public office but acquitted of a more serious charge of corruption. The case related to his acceptance of commissions in relation to the award of a contract by MOD. Having been convicted of the lesser offence, the judge sentenced him to 30 months’ immediate custody having closely followed the Bribery Sentencing Guideline. The approach to sentencing in this case, and the difficulties faced by the judge in reaching the sentence provide a useful moment to reflect on the need for reform of the common law offence of misconduct in public offence. Written by Tayyiba Bajwa, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers.

Why you need to manage this risk Under the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) it is a criminal offence to pay or receive a bribe. In addition, BA 2010 includes two offences designed to target commercial bribery: • an offence of bribing a foreign public official • a separate corporate offence of failure to prevent bribery The corporate offence of failure to prevent bribery can be committed by a commercial organisation where a bribe is paid by a person associated with it with the intention of obtaining or retaining business or business advantage for the organisation—see Practice Notes: The Bribery Act 2010—an introductory guide and Failure to prevent bribery—the offence. An organisation may also face criminal liability where the relevant offence is committed by a senior manager of the organisation where that senior manager was acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority. For further information, see subtopic: Corporate criminal liability—managing the risk. It is a defence to the corporate offence of failure to prevent bribery to have adequate procedures in place