A lump sum benefit paid to a member of a registered pension scheme because their pension entitlements (under both that scheme and other such schemes) are deemed trivial. This lump sum must meet the conditions of the Finance Act 2004, Sch 29, paras 7–9.

A lump sum benefit paid to a dependant of a scheme member of a registered pension scheme because that dependant's entitlement under that scheme is deemed trivial. This lump sum must meet the conditions of the Finance Act 2004, Sch 29, para 20.

Allows a pension scheme member to withdraw all pension benefits as a lump sum.

STOP PRESS: Significant reforms to the UK prospectus regime came into force on 19 January 2026. The new rules governing public offers of securities and admissions to trading in the UK are principally set out in the Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024, SI 2024/105, (the POATRs) and FCA sourcebook, The Prospectus Rules: Admission to Trading on a Regulated Market (PRM).  The UK Prospectus Regulation and the FCA Prospectus Regulation Rules have been repealed. The reforms are designed to simplify capital raising and significantly reduce the occasions when a company is required to publish an FCA approved prospectus for a further issue of shares. For full information on the changes see Practice Note: UK prospectus regime reform. This Practice Note reflects the prospectus regime in force prior to 19 January 2026. This Practice Note explains the nature and typical structure of a trombone rights issue. It also explains why and when a company may carry out a trombone rights issue. See Practice Note: Rights issues—key considerations for further information on rights issues. What

Commonly used where a listed company wishes to fund an acquisition by a rights issue (usually in the form of convertible securities), but the acquisition is subject to condition(s) which cannot be fulfilled before the rights issue is launched. A listed company will typically structure the acquisition and the rights issue so that (i) the acquisition and the rights issue are inter-conditional, or (ii) the rights issue is not conditional on completion of the acquisition, so as to avoid the risk of being left with the proceeds of a rights issue if the acquisition does not complete for any particular reason. A trombone rights issues overcomes the problem of the acquisition and the rights issue being conditional as it is typically structured so that the offer is paid up in two instalments (ie the first instalment is paid when the rights issue offer closes, and the second instalment is paid up if and when the relevant condition is satisfied (and the acquisition can proceed to completion)). When compared to normal rights issue structures, trombone rights issues are relatively rare.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of Cristal by Tronox (Case M.8451). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for titanium dioxide. Latest developments On 4 July 2018, the Commission conditionally approved the transaction, subject to commitments.Under the commitments, Tronox will divest its global business in titanium dioxide pigment for paper laminate. Tronox will only be permitted to close the transaction once the Commission has assessed and approved the divestiture to a suitable purchaser. Parties Tronox is a company registered in Australia and headquartered in the US. Tronox is active in the mining and production of minerals and chemicals (including titanium dioxide). It owns mines in Australia and South Africa and has production facilities in Europe, the US and Australia. The National Titanium Dioxide Company Ltd (Cristal) is headquartered in Saudi Arabia and is owned by the Tasnee industrial company. Cristal is active in the mining

IP analysis: The claimants and defendants in this case provide property management services under the names ‘Urbanbubble’ and ‘Urban Evolution’, respectively. The claimants alleged that the defendants had infringed UK trade mark URBANBUBBLE and committed passing off by trading under the name ‘Urban Evolution’ in the same field as the claimants. The judge dismissed the claim in its entirety. He found that the limited evidence of apparent confusion (all of which was disclosed by the defendants) was not sufficient to prove a likelihood of confusion. Further, there was neither a benefit to the defendants nor a detriment to the claimants for the purpose of section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994). In addition, the judge found that the claimants had consented to the defendants’ use of the Urban Evolution name. Passing off was dismissed due to the lack of an actionable misrepresentation. Written by Kendal Watkinson, pupil barrister at Hogarth Chambers.

NOTE—appeals lodged by Scania before the General Court in Case T- 799/17 and by Creditall in Case T- 397/26 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the final decision of 27 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into an alleged cartel in the market for heavy and medium duty trucks (Case AT.39824). Latest development On 27 September 2017, the Commission issued its infringement decision against the sixth truck manufacturer under investigation, Scania, and imposed a fine of €880,523,000. Scania chose not to settle with the Commission. Parties • MAN• Volvo/Renault• Daimler• Iveco (a subsidiary of Fiat) • DAF• Scania Background The Commission carried out dawn raids in January 2011 following an immunity application made by MAN. On 20 November 2014, the Commission issued a statement of objections. On 19 July 2016, the Commission announced that five truck manufacturers (MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF) have settled with the Commission, acknowledged their involvement in the cartel and have been fined a combined

Under CA 2006, s 393, directors have a fundamental obligation not to approve the company's accounts unless they give a true and fair view of the financial position of the company. For further information in relation to this see the FRC publication: True and Fair, June 2014.

MLex: President Donald Trump’s administration took its most forceful action to date defending AI companies’ model training practices, telling a federal judge that a ‘narrow’ fair use analysis would undermine national security and dismissing a conflicting US Copyright Office report as ‘threadbare.’ The Trump administration had not previously directly addressed a court considering these issues.

MLex: President Donald Trump is leaning back into a pressure campaign in his trade war, threatening dozens of countries with high ‘reciprocal’ tariff rates by 1 August 2025 unless they reach an agreement with the US to open their market and reduce trade barriers.

MLex: President Donald Trump announced his administration is imposing reciprocal tariffs on imports from US trading partners amounting to half of a calculated rate meant to include monetary and non-monetary trade barriers that other countries have on US imports.