Various structures are typically used in LMEs including: drop downs, up-tiers, double dip and pari-plus—LMEs may use any one or more of these structures in a specific deal or may be hybrid deals (involving an out-of-court method together with an in-court method), see Practice Note: FAQs on Liability Management Exercises. As European LMEs are at an earlier stage of development than their US counterparts, the case law on potential challenges in Europe is still developing and therefore may present a greater and more unquantifiable litigation risk to LME proponents. For further details, see Practice Note: Challenging Liability Management Exercises. For some of these key European LMEs, we have created a set of deal debriefs illustrating the types of LME available and capturing certain metrics (where available) for each LME, including: key takeaways, key parties involved, the previous corporate structure (or debt stack), key jurisdictions involved, type and structure of the LME, post-LME structure (or debt stack), timeline, governing law, jurisdiction and centre of main interests (COMI), consent thresholds and documentation,

This document contains a list of trackers and timelines covering the most significant developments and regulatory regimes which impact financial services firms in the UK, including (i) key areas such as fintech and cryptoassets, sustainable finance and ESG, sanctions and the Consumer Duty, (ii) the most prominent financial services EU Directives and Regulations (tracking proposals, legislative processes, implementation and the related UK regimes), as well as a horizon scanner containing comprehensive lists of future developments in chronological order, organised by topic. For trackers and timelines related to financial services regulation in the EU, see: EU collection—Financial Services. UK Financial Services regulation—timelines • AML/CTF/CPF—timeline of UK legal and regulatory developments for financial services: this timeline outlines key developments relating to the anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) legal and regulatory regimes applicable to financial services firms in the UK. For supplementary FCA financial crime guidance materials, see: FCA financial crime guidance—supporting materials • Culture and social governance in financial services—timeline: this timeline sets out developments relating to culture and to diversity, equity and inclusion (D&I) including non-financial

This Tracker summarises key developments of interest to dispute resolution lawyers regarding the integration of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) into the civil litigation system in England and Wales. For tracking of dispute resolution developments more generally, see Practice Note: Tracker—legislation, consultations and other developments—Dispute Resolution. The development of compulsory ADR Ever since the Court of Appeal decision in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust, there has been debate about whether a court should be able to require or order parties to attempt to settle their dispute using ADR, and whether a court can impose cost sanctions on parties who unreasonably refuse to consider ADR. In Halsey, the Court of Appeal considered it inappropriate for the court to compel parties to refer their dispute to ADR against their wishes as this would ‘impose an unacceptable obstruction on their right of access to the court’. In July 2021, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published its report entitled ‘Compulsory ADR’ in which it concluded that compulsory ADR is not unlawful in that it is not incompatible with

This Tracker identifies key guidance, consultations and reports on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that will be of interest to dispute resolution lawyers within the context of civil court proceedings in England and Wales. It also considers reported judicial decisions on the use of AI by lawyers, litigants and judges. The Tracker also collates wider judicial commentary, press releases and legal analysis concerning the developing role of AI in dispute resolution. Judicial and professional body guidance on AI The following has been produced by way of judicial guidance: Guidance Key dates Details Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) warning notice: Misuse of AI 17 August 2026 The SRA has published a warning notice directed at all solicitors and law firms under its regulation. The notice addresses two identified areas of AI misuse—the submission of AI-generated false case citations to courts and breaches of client confidentiality through the use of public AI tools. The SRA emphasises that solicitors remain personally accountable for all AI-assisted outputs and warns that failure to comply with its standards may result

Fixed recoverable costs (FRC) prescribe an amount that can be claimed back from a paying party in litigation and have been implemented in an effort to ensure that the costs of litigation are both transparent and proportionate. The aim is that prospective parties are not put-off litigating simply because of the potential costs consequences. FRC have become part of everyday life for those operating in several areas of litigation, however, they do not apply across the board. This is an evolving area and the following tracker attempts to follow the key events in the reform of FRC and also provide detailed guidance on specific phases. CPR provisions on fixed costs For a summary of the current provisions on fixed costs and a roadmap to relevant content, see: Fixed costs (position on or after 1 October 2023)—checklist. Timeline of key events in fixed recoverable costs reform Date Event October 2025 (consultation closes on 5 January 2026) The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has launched a consultation on the effectiveness of the extension of FRC, inviting feedback as

This Tracker is for use when determining whether a country is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and whether the convention has come into force for that country. Tracker Country Signed Approval, ratified or accession In force Comments / Reference documents Albania In force: 1 October 2024Ratified: 25 June 2024Signed: 13 February 2024 HCCH website: Albania—the convention enters into forceHCCH website: Albania signs the Choice of Court Agreements ConventionHCCH notification: Albania ratifies the Choice of Court Agreements Convention Australia Signed: No The joint standing committee on treaties in 2017 supported the accession to the convention and recommended that binding treaty action be taken. For information, see Australian Parliament—Convention on Choice of Court accession. Bahrain In force: 1 July 2025Acceded 13 March 2025 For information, see: Bahrain accedes to the Choice Of Court Convention China Approval, ratified or accession: NoSigned: 12 September 2017 For information, see: HCCH website: China signs the Choice Of Court Convention Denmark In

This Tracker is for use when determining whether a country is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Hague Judgments Convention) and whether the convention has come into force for that country. The Tracker also sets out the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) prior to the adoption of the convention. Note that the convention came into force on 1 September 2023 for the EU and Ukraine and has since come into force for other contracting states. For guidance, see Practice Note: Hague Judgments Convention—Entry into force of the convention. Tracker for signatories and accession to the convention This Tracker is for use when determining whether a country is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Judgments Convention) and whether the convention has come into force for that country. Country Signed Approval, ratified or accession In force Comments / Reference documents Albania In force: 1 March 2026Ratified:

This Tracker sets out the work of the Hague Convention on Private International Law (HCCH) on the jurisdiction project. The project aims to conclude a convention dealing with jurisdictional matters in cross border civil and commercial disputes. The main objectives of the proposed convention are to address the following: • the grounds on which the courts of a state may be seised of the dispute • the grounds on which the courts of a state can exercise jurisdiction • reduction of the risk of parallel litigation in multiple states Note, matters relating to jurisdiction agreements are already covered by the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. For guidance, see Practice Note: Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—scope. Definitions The jurisdiction project involves the following bodies or groups: • Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the HCCH—CGAP meet annually to both set the work of the HCCH and review the progress of work being undertaken. The jurisdiction project is being undertaken at the request of the CGAP • Permanent Bureau (PB)—is the secretariat

ARCHIVED: This archived Tracker is for use when determining whether a country is a signatory to the Lugano Convention 2007 and whether it has come into force for that country. The EU has rejected the UK’s application to accede to the convention in its own right. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For detailed guidance on the extent to which the Lugano Convention 2007 will, following IP completion day (ie 31 December 2020, at 11 pm) and notwithstanding the EU rejecting the UK’s application to accede, nevertheless continue to be applied by the courts of England and Wales, as well as by the courts of the remaining contracting states to the convention in respect of proceedings with a UK element, see the following Practice Notes: • Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [Archived]—Jurisdiction • Lugano Convention 2007—application to the UK post IP completion day (jurisdiction) [Archived] • Lugano Convention 2007—application to third states [Archived] Definitions/abbreviations This Tracker using a number of definitions and abbreviations as follows: • Depositary—the Swiss Federal

ARCHIVED: This Tracker is for historical reference only. It was last updated in January 2015 and will not be subsequently updated. This Tracker sets out the stages which were undertaken in relation to the reform of the Brussels I (aka Judgments Regulation). Warning: on 10 January 2015 Brussels I was repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast). However, transitional arrangements were put in place. For information on those arrangements, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Brussels I, art 73, also known as the Judgments Regulation, provided that it should be reviewed within five years of coming into force to ensure that it was functioning as it should. That review was to result in a report which, if appropriate, should contain proposals to make adaptations to the regulation. A review took place and consequently a report and green paper were published on 21 April 2009. The proposed changes to Brussels I resulted in Brussels I (recast) which came completely into force on 10 January 2015; articles 75 and 76 came

This tracker provides a summary of the applicable legislation and guidance, and case law on the issue of out-of-court appointments of administrators and CE-filing. The cases are divided into two categories based on whether the purported appointment was made by the directors under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 22 or by a qualifying floating charge-holder (QFCH) under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 14. Many of the issues arising in the case law below were resolved as a result of the provisions of the Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction Supporting the Insolvency Practice Direction 2021 (MIPD 2021), which applies after 30 September 2021. MIPD 2021 remains in force unless amended or revoked and therefore provides an indefinite solution to the conflicting case law regarding the timing of administration appointments using the CE file. From 1 October 2025, CPR PD 5C (CE-File electronic filing and case management system) replaces the pilot under CPR PD 51O (the Electronic Working Pilot Scheme). For general information on CE-filing, see Practice Notes: • When and where is CE-File

This Tracker provides information on the developments and changes to the service provisions in CPR 6 and practice directions 6A and 6B since 2019. Judicial consultation on the time for responding to a Part 8 claim out of the jurisdiction The time for responding to a claim form is calculated by reference to the date of service of the particulars of claim. Difficulties arise in calculating the date for a response when dealing with Part 8 claims given that particulars of claim are not normally required for such claims. The CPR Committee (CPRC), in its minutes of February 2026, noted that Part 8 claims were in increasing in frequency, particularly in relation to cross-border disclosure requests such as service of Norwich Pharmacal orders. The fact that Part 8 claims were not covered by CPR 6.35 and CPR PD 6B was considered a ‘genuine lacuna’ which required amendment with the favoured approach being to amend the rules to provide a specific response period for Part 8 claims which would be determined