The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a speech delivered by its joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight, Therese Chambers, on the FCA’s enforcement priorities: addressing failures in anti-money laundering and sanctions systems and controls; prosecuting fraud committed by regulated firms and prioritising redress for fraud victims; market abuse; and tackling money laundering and misleading financial promotions in the cryptoasset sector. Chambers also focuses on international regulatory collaboration to address cross-border crime in financial services and the FCA’s focus on individual accountability and responsibility.

The question specifically asks about the obligations required to be met for a valid notice under section 21 Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) where a landlord sells a property with an existing AST and the incoming landlord acquires the property subject to that tenancy. The requirements outlined above are covered by HA 1988, s 21A (‘Compliance with prescribed legal requirements’) and HA 1988,

Law360: A London court refused on 23 February 2024 to end a law firm's claim that litigation funder Therium breached a confidentiality agreement for group emissions litigation against Volkswagen (VW), even though the case involves some facts similar to one decided by the UK's top court.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 8 March 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into four cartels in markets for air conditioning and engine cooling components (AT.39960). The cartels involved coordinating prices or markets and information sharing. Latest development On 8 March 2017, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the six manufacturers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the four cartels. Total fines totalling €155m were imposed. Total fines imposed on each manufacturer were: • Behr–€62,135,000 • Calsonic–€1,747,000 • Denso–€322,000 (as a result of being granted immunity, Denso was not fined for its involvement in three of the cartels) • Panasonic–€0 (as a result of being granted immunity, Panasonic was not fined for the one cartel it was involved in) • Sanden–€64,605,000 • Valeo–€26,766,000. Parties • Behr, based in Germany• Calsonic, based in Japan• Denso, based in Japan• Panasonic, based in Japan• Sanden, based in Japan• Valeo, based in France Background The

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 June 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc of Gatan Inc, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Roper Technologies Inc. Gatan Inc’s technologies are used in materials science, electronics and life sciences to enable electron microscopy workflows—from specimen preparation and manipulation to imaging and analysis. These solutions, which are platform agnostic, include filter systems, cameras and proprietary software. Latest developments On 10 June 2019, the parties abandoned the transaction. On the same day, the CMA cancelled the merger reference. Parties Thermo Fisher Scientific (Thermo Fisher): Thermo Fisher is an American biotechnology product development company and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. It was created in 2006 by the merger of Thermo Electron and Fisher Scientific. Thermo Fisher manufacturers, amongst other things, high-tech electron microscopes used for scientific research. Roper Technologies Inc (Roper): Roper is a technology company

A company is said to be 'thinly capitalised' when its capital is made up of a much greater proportion of debt than of equity, ie, its gearing or leaverage is too high.

Things in action are intangible personal property rights realised by enforcing a claim, typically through court proceedings rather than physical possession. Also called choses in action, they include debts and receivables, contractual rights, bank balances, shares, insurance claims and the right to recover damages.The expression is rooted in the common law and used across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Statutes also adopt it: the Sale of Goods Acts exclude things in action from goods; in England and Wales section 136 Law of Property Act 1925 enables legal assignment of a debt or other legal thing in action. Comparable assignment rules apply in Northern Ireland and Ireland, while Scots law treats them as incorporeal moveables transferable by assignation (with intimation to the debtor; reforms under the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023).Key features and practice points:- Transfer generally occurs by assignment; notice to the debtor is needed for a legal assignment at law.- Bare rights to litigate (e.g., personal injury claims for unliquidated damages) are not freely assignable.- Classification matters for security, insolvency, trusts, conflict of laws (situs of debts) and transactional structuring.

The High Pay Centre has published a report analysing the pay of FTSE 100 executives in 2023. While growth in CEO pay levels have slowed following the post-pandemic bounce, results reveal that the median pay has reached a new high, increasing from £4.1m in 2022 to £4.19m in 2023.

IP analysis: Businesses seeking to offer AI-powered products under their own brand often turn to white-labelling third-party AI systems as a faster route to market. However, under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act), applying your trade mark to someone else's AI system can trigger a fundamental shift in legal responsibility: rather than operating as a deployer, you may become the system's legal provider, taking on the full weight of regulatory compliance. For high-risk AI systems, this includes conformity assessments, quality management obligations, and the risk of fines of up to €15 million or 3% of global turnover. Businesses must also ensure trade mark portfolios are fit for purpose and that contracts with the original provider adequately address liability and intellectual property risks. Written by Raj Shah and Louisa Dixon of Mishcon de Reya.

Arbitration analysis: Mealey’s: A Third Circuit US Court of Appeals panel affirmed the denial of a petition to confirm an international arbitration award in a medical devices dispute after finding that the tribunal that issued the award was not the one the parties agreed to arbitrate before.

This Practice Note considers the key provisions of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010), which replaced the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (TP(RAI)A 1930) from 1 August 2016. The provisions may assist where the insured has become insolvent as it allows a third party which has suffered loss to make a claim against another party’s insurer directly in certain cases (the claimant is called the third party as they are not a party to the insurance contract). This is a huge advantage to the third party who may potentially recover 100% of their claim from the deep pockets of the insurer, rather than having to claim in the insolvency of the insured and rank as an unsecured creditor where they may only recover a fraction of the original claim. In essence, the legislation allows the intended beneficiaries of an insurance policy to benefit from the insurance. It applies to all types of liability insurance (for a summary, see Practice Note: Third Parties (Rights against Insurers)

Purpose of TP(RAI)A 2010 The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010) repealed and replaced the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (TP(RAI)A 1930). The purpose of TP(RAI)A 1930 was to ensure that, where an insured had incurred an insured liability to a third party but subsequently became insolvent, the insurance money would be paid to the third party rather than become an asset in the insolvency to be shared among all the insured's creditors. Like its predecessor, TP(RAI)A 2010 transfers to the third party some of the insolvent insured's rights under the insurance policy and allows the third party to bring proceedings directly against the insurer. The key change in TP(RAI)A 2010 is that a third party can bring proceedings directly against the insurer or seek information about the insurance position at an early stage, without first establishing the liability of the insured. For detailed guidance on the key provisions of TP(RAI)A 2010, see Practice Note: Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. See also: Third