Sometimes parties other than the customer provide funding in a matter. This could be funding a transaction or paying your bill. CDD triggers If the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), SI 2017/692, as amended apply to your organisation, you must apply customer due diligence (CDD) measures when you: • establish a business relationship • carry out an occasional transaction: ◦ that amounts to a transfer of funds within the meaning of Article 3.9 of the funds transfer regulation exceeding €1,000, or ◦ that amounts to €15,000 or more, whether executed in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked (note that different financial limits apply to high value dealers, art market participants, certain cryptoasset exchange providers, certain custodian wallet providers and casinos) • suspect money laundering or terrorist financing, or • doubt the veracity or adequacy of documents or information previously obtained for the purposes

This Precedent is a template third party harassment risk assessment that can be used by an employer to document the harassment risks it identifies to its employees from other parties such as contractors, suppliers and customers. It details the measures that the employer will take to mitigate the risk of harassment

In a construction project, the contractor’s contractual relationship under the building contract is only with the employer. However, in most construction projects, there will be other third parties who will have an interest in the terms of the building contract, the way that the works are carried out and/or in the end-product. They do not ordinarily have any contractual nexus with the contractor under the building contract and therefore, if they suffer losses due to an act or omission of the contractor, cannot ordinarily claim for breach of the building contract unless they have enforceable third party rights. Therefore, both the third parties and the employer will want to ensure that their interests in the works are protected so that, in the event that they suffer losses, they have a route of redress. This Practice Note looks at third parties who are typically interested in construction projects and how their interests are commonly protected. It looks at how an employer can seek to pass down obligations under the agreements that it has entered into with third

Family analysis: This case addresses third-party beneficial interests in the family home within financial remedy proceedings. Following a 29-year marriage, the court considered the wife's mother's (R) claim to a beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home based on her financial contributions. While R's initial £130,000 contribution was deemed a gift, her subsequent funding of an annexe created a beneficial interest. The court awarded R 12% of the property's value and ordered its sale, providing a six-point checklist for dealing with third-party interests in the context of orders for sale. The case highlights the increasing prevalence of parental property investment and emphasises the importance of addressing third-party interests early in proceedings, including their consideration in nuptial agreements and the distinct costs implications for such disputes. Practical implications written by Laurie Kershaw of JMW Solicitors.

You remain accountable for compliance with the SRA regulatory regime where your work is carried out through others. This means you must be able to demonstrate clients introduced to your firm by a third party have not been acquired in a way that would breach the SRA regulatory regime. This applies even if the introducer is not itself regulated by the SRA. When members of the public or a section of the public are being introduced to you, it is unlikely to

What is it? Third party litigation funding (Funding) is the provision of funds by a third party (the Funder) towards some or all of the costs of litigation in return for a pre-agreed payment if the case is successfully won or settled. While Funding is quite simple, there are endless nuances and details, as well as options to be considered and compared before deciding what is best for a particular case. Funding is niche—the costs and the criteria mean that many cases are not suitable for Funding. There are an increasing number of Funders with varying criteria and target markets for their investments. Funding is not of itself regulated although many Funders are members of the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) (the ALF website can be viewed here) and subscribe to the ALF voluntary code of conduct. Many professionals involved in putting in place Funding, such as solicitors and brokers, are regulated. Any investment by a Funder will be subject to the terms of a litigation funding agreement

This Practice Note considers the third party litigation funding process. The application process Each third party funder (Funder) will have their own process, but a typical application for third party litigation funding (Funding) may proceed as follows. Non-disclosure agreement Funders will expect to be asked to enter into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before material documents and information are shared with them. Whether that is a simple exchange of emails or a more formal document, signed by each party or their solicitors, will be a matter for the parties. The NDA may well also cover any terms offered in due course or entered into in a litigation funding agreement (LFA). Proposal form and provision of documents The initial completion of a proposal form and the provision of documents will vary from Funder to Funder. It is a facet of the funding sector that many cases are declined for funding. With that in mind, many insolvency practitioners (IPs) and Funders may well prefer to have a simple exchange of what

What is third party litigation funding? Third party funding (TPF) has become an important feature of the litigation landscape in the UK. This Practice Note concerns TPF sought by a litigant under a litigation funding agreement (LFA) with either a commercial litigation funder or some other person who finances the litigation who is not party to the litigation. The motivation of a commercial funder is to invest in hopes of a return, while the motivation of a litigant seeking TPF is usually to enable the litigant to pursue litigation which it otherwise could not afford to bring (and thereby achieve access to justice) or to hedge its own financial risk in relation to the costs of pursuing litigation. Lord Justice Jackson (as he then was), who led the Civil Litigation Costs Review published in 2010, described TPF as: ‘The funding of litigation by a party who has no pre-existing interest in the litigation, usually on the basis that (i) the funder will be paid out of the proceeds of any amounts

Funders view insolvency disputes as attractive as: • claims generally have clear causation and are supported by strong documentary evidence • insolvency practitioners (IPs), as officers of the court, lend credibility and discipline to the process • recoveries can be substantial, particularly in director misconduct or asset tracing cases This Practice Note discusses seed funding and portfolio funding. For further reading on third party litigation funding more generally, see Practice Notes: • Third party litigation funding—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners • Third party litigation funding for insolvency practitioners • Third party litigation funding process for insolvency practitioners • Funding and litigating a claim vs selling or assigning a claim • Litigation funding agreements—pricing • Litigation funding agreements—adverse costs and security for costs • Litigation funding agreements—drawdown processes • Litigation funding agreements—representations and warranties • Litigation funding agreements—control • Litigation funding agreements—termination clauses • Litigation funding agreements—change of legal teams • Litigation funding agreements—dispute resolution • Litigation funding agreements—priorities agreements • Litigation funding agreements—investment top-ups • Litigation funding agreements—co-funding Seed

A notice issued by the Pensions Regulator to a third party.

After the publication of a patent application, it is possible for third parties to make observations on the patent.

This Deed is made on [insert day and month] 20[insert year] Parties 1 [Insert name of Chargor], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (the Chargor); and 2 [Insert name of Lender] of [insert address] (the Lender). Recitals: (A) The Lender has agreed to make available a loan facility to the Company (as defined below) on the terms and conditions set out in the Facility Agreement (as defined below). (B) It is a condition precedent to the availability of the loan facility to the Company that the Chargor enter into this Deed for the purpose of providing security in favour of the Lender in respect of the Secured Obligations (as defined below). It is agreed as follows: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 Definitions In this Deed, unless otherwise provided: Company • means [insert name of borrower under the Facility Agreement], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address]; Facility Agreement