Arbitration analysis: It is well established that an anti-suit injunction (ASI) can be granted in support of arbitration proceedings seated in England. However, the courts are cautious about granting interim relief in support of foreign arbitrations. SQD argued that the English court should grant an ASI in this case because (i) the agreement to arbitrate is subject to English law and the English courts have an interest in securing the performance of an English law contract; and (ii) an ASI could not be obtained in France. The judge observed that the English courts will not act in every case where the relevant agreement is subject to English law and held that an English court should not grant an interim ASI where an ASI would be inconsistent with the curial law of the arbitration and with the choice of the parties. As the evidence indicated that French law objects to ASIs, would not recognise an English ASI and indeed might even grant an anti-ASI injunction, the judge dismissed the claim. The decision underlines the principle that the English court will defer to the courts of the country of the seat in relation to interim relief. Written by Jennifer Haywood, arbitrator and mediator at Serle Court.

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from an application for an anti-suit injunction aimed at preventing the defendant, GEC Petroleum Development Company Ltd (‘GEC’) from continuing foreign proceedings brought in breach of obligations to arbitrate. By way of background, in late 2020 and 2022 respectively, GEC commenced proceedings in the Nigerian court in breach of a London-seated agreement to arbitrate under the rules of the ICC. In response to these breaches, the claimant, Nigeria Agip Exploration Ltd (‘Agip’) approached the English courts and successfully obtained four different orders (including a final mandatory injunction) preventing the Nigerian proceedings from continuing. Agip also successfully obtained by way of final injunctive relief, a continuing prohibitory injunction in respect of the commencement, pursuit or assistance of further proceedings otherwise than in arbitration or before the English courts. In the final hearing, the court concluded by awarding the Agip’s cost on an indemnity basis as the court considered the GEC’s breaches to be deliberate and blatant. The decision is significant as it reiterates the English court’s attitude to an application for anti-suit injunction. It also emphasizes the significance of the seat of arbitration and the role of the designated court at the seat of arbitration in relation to proceedings seeking to set aside an arbitration award. Finally, the proceedings show the extent to which the English court is prepared to go to prevent a recalcitrant party from frustrating a lawfully made arbitration agreement and award. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate at Hogan Lovells, London.

Arbitration analysis: This decision arises from Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Ltd’s (Renaissance) application to vary an anti-suit injunction (ASI) previously granted by the English court in November 2023. The ASI had been granted by the English court to prevent the six defendants in the underlying dispute (the defendants) from proceeding against Renaissance in the Russian courts or any other court or tribunal, in breach of parties’ agreement to arbitrate under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). Following the ASI in November 2023, the second and sixth defendants (the Minority Defendants) commenced claims in Russia for damages against certain companies affiliated with Renaissance (the RREs), who were not parties to the arbitration agreement between Renaissance and the defendants. In response, Renaissance filed an application at the English court in which the main issue for determination was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant an ASI preventing the defendants from continuing and/or commencing claims against the RREs before the Russian courts. The English court, applying the English rules of construction and interpretation of contracts, held that the arbitration agreements between Renaissance and the defendants were never intended to apply to claims by or against third parties. The court also held that the Minority Defendants’ claims against the RREs were not vexatious or better suited to an alternative jurisdiction, as to require an order of the English court prohibiting the Minority Defendants from continuing the Russian proceedings against the RREs. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and Adeleresimi Philips-Adeleye, senior associate at ALN Nigeria|Aluko & Oyebode, Nigeria.

The Entrepreneurs Network (TEN) has published a report analysing the impact of foreign-born founders on the UK’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, titled ‘Job Creators 2025’. The report finds that 54 of the UK’s 100 fastest-growing companies have a foreign-born founder or co-founder, the highest proportion since the research began in 2019. Of the 219 founders examined, 91 (42%) were born overseas. It notes that, among the 54 immigrant-founded or co-founded companies, 24 were established entirely by foreign-born teams, while 30 were joint ventures between British-born and immigrant co-founders. The findings suggest that immigrant founders complement, rather than compete with, their British-born counterparts, helping to drive innovation, competitiveness and job creation. However, the report warns that recent immigration restrictions could deter the highly skilled individuals essential to sustaining the UK’s startup economy. It highlights the need for an immigration system and wider policy environment that remain navigable and attractive to global entrepreneurial talent

Title Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Act 2026 Key date Royal assent: 27 April 2026 Subject Environmental principles, governance, regulation, air pollution, waste and plastics, biodiversity, water and resource planning Context The Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Act 2026 (E(PGBT)(W)A 2026) received Royal Assent on 27 April 2026. It is subject to a phased commencement, with most provisions in effect from 27 June 2026 and section 3 in force from 31 March 2027. Sections 7(1)(c) and 11 to 29, together with paragraphs 10 and 21 of Schedule 1 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (and section 45 insofar as relating to that paragraph), all come into force on a day appointed by Welsh Ministers in an order made by Welsh statutory instrument. At the latest, they are due to commence on 27 April 2028. In preparation for the Bill, the Welsh Government consulted on its White Paper ‘Securing a Sustainable Future: Environmental Principles, Governance and Biodiversity targets for a Greener Wales’

The Equator Principles (EPs) are a risk management framework for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in project financings. Introduced by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in 2003 with the support of ten financial institutions, they have since become a financial industry minimum standard for due diligence and monitoring to support responsible risk decision-making. Financial institutions adopt the EPs to ensure that the projects they finance are developed in a socially responsible manner, reflecting sound environmental management practices, and once adopted, undertake to provide financial services to project financings only if they meet the EPs criteria. The EPs have focused the project finance market’s attention on social/community standards and responsibility, including robust standards for indigenous peoples, labour standards, and consultation with locally affected communities. They have also promoted convergence around common environmental and social standards and helped spur the development of other responsible environmental and social management practices across the financial sector and banking industry. Lawyers advising on large project finance transactions should be aware of and understand the guidelines in the EPs, not least because

The Euro Interbank Offered Rate—the rate of interest published by the European Banking Federation on a daily basis, which reflects the rates at which Eurozone banks are willing to lend money, ie offer deposits to other institutions.

Directive (EU) 2019/882, also known as the European Accessibility Act (the EAA), was adopted in the EU in April 2019. It is a landmark piece of EU law, born in the context of a market with growing demand for accessible products and services and an ever-increasing number of citizens with disabilities; a by-product of EU citizens' increased life expectancy. The EAA is derived from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which was the first international, legally-binding instrument setting minimum standards for rights of people with disabilities. It is part of the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030, which aims to improve the lives of persons with disabilities in Europe and around the world, and builds on the previous European Disability Strategy 2010–2020. The EAA was originally proposed to complement Directive (EU) 2016/2102, the EU Web Accessibility Directive (which was adopted in 2016 and aimed to make public-sector websites and mobile applications more accessible), and to harmonise EU standards so as to reduce barriers

The European Central Bank (ECB) represents the core institution for the Eurosystem and the European System of Central Banks (ESCB). The ECB became the successor of the European Monetary Institute on 1 June 1998, and assumed its full responsibility for the monetary policy decision making for the euro zone on 1 January 1999. In 2014, the ECB assumed full responsibility and supervisory tasks for the banks in Member States participating in the Single Supervisory Mechanism. The ECB works in conjunction with the European Supervisory authorities, especially the European Banking Authority (EBA). The main task of the EBA is to contribute to the creation of the European Single Rulebook in banking whose objective is to provide a single set of harmonised prudential rules for financial institutions throughout the EU.  Background to the ECB The ECB was established by Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a specialised and independent organisation for conducting monetary policy. The ECB, alongside the national central banks of Member States that have adopted the euro constitute

STOP PRESS: On 3 June 2026, the Commission published a proposal for a Chips Act 2.0 that is intended to replace the existing European Chips Act. The proposal, which forms part of a wider EU technological sovereignty agenda, builds on the European Chips Act, combining continued support for existing strengths with new investments and measures targeting cutting-edge semiconductor technologies, see LNB News 03/06/2026 61. This Practice Note reflects the current legislative position and will be updated when the proposal is finalised. To track the progress of the Chips Act 2.0 through the legislative process, see Practice Note:EU Media, digital and telecoms tracker—horizon scanner. This Practice Note considers Regulation (EU) 2023/1781 (the European Chips Act), legislation designed to strengthen the EU's semiconductor ecosystem, support technological leadership, improve resilience and security of supply, and reduce strategic dependencies on third country chips and related technologies. Background and objectives Semiconductors (materials used to make electronic components such as chips) are the building blocks of modern digital products. As chips are used across consumer electronics, healthcare, transport,

The European Commission has approved the first Important Project of Common European Interest (IPCEI), under EU State aid rules, to support research, innovation and the first industrial deployment of healthcare products, as well as innovative production processes of pharmaceuticals. The project, named ‘IPCEI Med4Cure', was jointly notified by six Member States: Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia and Spain. This follows the March 2022 joint Manifesto towards a heath IPCEI, signed by 16 Member States. Member States will provide up to €1bn in public funding, which is expected to unlock additional €5.9bn in private investments, and this funding is for the first IPCEI projects. It focuses on innovation in production technologies of medicines, tackling antimicrobial resistance, rare diseases and emerging health threats and development of cell and gene therapies. Overall the IPCEI involves 14 projects from 13 companies, which is intended to foster 70 collaborations, and around 6000 with an overall completion plan for 2036. In addition to the IPCEI Med4Cure, the Commission also approved the IPCEI Hy2Move, on the basis of the 2021 IPCEI Communication, where several Member States can support transnational projects of strategic significance for the EU under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

EU Law analysis: Theresa Ehlen, Lutz Riede, Janet Kim, Rachael Annear, Laura Knoke, partners, Fiona McHugh, Tristan Lockwood, senior associates, Felix Müller-Eising, associate and Philip Kroner, principal associate of Freshfields LLP discuss the European Commission’s final guidelines on its interpretation of Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the EU Digital Services Act (EU DSA), published on 14 July 2025.