Where a nil rate band Will trust has been established and the beneficiaries are the children only, an appointment out of the trust under section 144 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) for the benefit of the surviving spouse may not be possible, unless the surviving spouse can be added as a beneficiary or an indemnity for breach of trust is given on the appointment. The best course of action will depend on the precise terms of the trust instrument and the interaction between the trustees and (potential) beneficiaries. If an appointment under IHTA 1984, s 144 is properly made within two years of death, the consequences are two-fold. First, there is no inheritance tax

Arbitration analysis: The UAE’s Federal and Local Judicial Principles Unification Committee at the Supreme Court (the ‘Committee’) has resolved a conflict between UAE courts on whether arbitrators must sign every page of the operative part of an arbitral award. In Request No 1 of 2025, the Committee held that it is sufficient for arbitrators to sign the final page of the award, rejecting the stricter line of authority. This decision harmonises case law across the Emirates and brings greater certainty for parties, practitioners and arbitrators, reinforcing a pragmatic approach to arbitration formalities. The ruling reduces the risks of annulment, delay due to awards being referred back to the tribunal for signature, or enforcement refusal on purely technical grounds, aligning domestic law with international practice and the New York Convention. Written by Antonia Birt, partner at ReedSmith.

Law360: On 22 October 2024, an attempt by Egyptian businessman Michel Lakah to set aside a 2018 International Centre for Dispute Resolution award was rejected by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), marking what the respondent creditors hope will be the end of a saga that has dragged on for nearly 20 years.

What are the remuneration codes? The FCA Handbook currently contains four remuneration codes (Codes): • Alternative Investment Fund Manager (AIFM) Remuneration Code (SYSC 19B), which applies to Alternative Investment Fund Managers—see Practice Note: UK AIFM Remuneration Code • the Dual Regulated Firms Remuneration Code (SYSC 19D)—see Practice Note: Remuneration Code for Dual Regulated Firms • the MIFIDPRU Remneration Code (SYSC 19G)—see Practice Note: MIFIDPRU—Remuneration Code, and • Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Remuneration Code which is found in FCA Handbook SYSC 19E (the UCITS Remuneration Code) In addition, the CRR Remuneration Code is set out in the Remuneration part of the PRA Rulebook and applies to CRR firms (UK banks, building societies and designated investment firms). For information, see Practice Note: PRA remuneration requirements for UK banks, building societies and systemically important investment firms. Rules on the remuneration and performance management of sales staff are set out in SYSC 19F, which covers three sets of remuneration incentives: MiFID remuneration incentives (SYSC 19F.1.1 R); IDD remuneration incentives (SYSC 19F.2.1 R); and Funeral plan remuneration incentives

The UCITS framework The UCITS Directive is a detailed, harmonised framework for investment funds that can be sold to retail investors throughout the EU. This means that funds authorised in one Member State can be marketed in another Member State using a passporting mechanism. Originally introduced in 1985 under the first UCITS Directive (EC) 85/11(UCITS Directive), the UCITS rules have been revised several times, most recently via the UCITS V Directive 2014/91/EU (UCITS V) which came into force on 18 March 2016. UCITS V aims to bring the UCITS regime into line with the Alternative Fund Managers Directive 2011/61/EU AIFMD (AIFMD) on remuneration and depositary rules and introduce a range of corresponding measures: it clarifies the depositary role, introduces rules on remuneration policies to be applied to key members of the UCITS management company’s staff and harmonises minimum administrative sanctions for infringements to the UCITS rules. The AIFMD applies to managers of funds that are not UCITS, including hedge funds, private equity funds, and real estate funds. Taken together, the UCITS Directive and the

ARCHIVED:This Practice Note is Archived and is no longer maintained. UCITS VI UCITS VI describes the European Commission's Consultation on Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities issued 26th July 2012. For information on UCITS V see UCITS V [Archived]. The UCITS VI Consultation addresses product rules, liquidity management, depositary issues, money-market funds and long-term investments. It followed the European Commission's UCITS V legislative proposals, also published in July 2012 (see UCITS V [Archived]). In light of the European securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) Speech by ESMA Chair Steven Maijoor of 6th November 2014, the issues raised in UCITS VI are not being addressed in a single measure, ie via amendment to the UCITS Directive. For example, the then proposal for a regulation in relation to money-market funds (MMFs). For further detail regarding the Money Market Funds Regulation, see MMF Regulation—essentials. Mr Maijoor indicated that Member State authorities (NCAs) would need to first implement the UCITS V Directive (2014/91/EU) before the implementation of any UCITS VI measure. The European Commissions

A management company as defined in Article 2(1)(b) of the UCITS Directive (Directive 2009/65/EC).

FSMA 2000 activities and investments Under section 19 of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), no person may carry on a regulated activity in the UK by way of business, or purport to do so, unless the person is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and/or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or is an exempt person. Under FSMA 2000, s 22, a regulated activity is a specified kind of activity that is carried on by way of business in the UK and which relates to a specified investment or, depending on the activity in question, 'property of any kind'. Specified activities and investments are those activities and investments that have specified as such in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544 (as amended) (RAO). For more information about the general prohibition under FSMA 2000, s 19, its territorial scope and what it means to conduct regulated activities by way of business, see Practice Notes: The general prohibition and implications of its breach,

UCITS stands for ‘undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities’. The regulatory regime for UCITS is set out in Directive 2009/65/EC (EU UCITS Directive) and Retained Directive 2009/65/EC (UK UCITS Directive). UCITS funds can take a variety of forms and structures including the société d’investissement à capital variable (SICAV) and fond commun de placement (FCP). In the UK, UCITS funds may be organised as an open-ended investment company (OEIC, also known as an ‘investment company with variable capital’ (ICVC)), an authorised unit trust or an authorised contractual scheme (ACS). UCITs can be marketed to retail investors throughout the EEA and UK and are therefore highly regulated products.

University College London (UCL) has announced a lecture that will explore the role of the United Nations (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) and the work it has done in recent years. The speaker for the event is Professor of Public International Law, Professor Martins Paparinskis, who will be sharing insights on ILC's work in shaping international law and its impact on global relations.

The UCP is a set of standard terms and conditions developed by the International Chamber of Commerce which can be incorporated into a letter of credit. UCP stands for the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. Although internationally recognised, these standard terms and conditions do not have the force of law. They must be expressly incorporated into a letter of credit if the parties concerned wish to use them (they are not automatically incorporated).

Commercial analysis: A defendant applied for summary judgment to dismiss a claim that the satisfactory quality term implied by section 10(2) of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 (SG(IT)A 1973) under a hire purchase agreement was unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977). In dismissing the claim against the second defendant, Mr Justice Andrew Baker held that the contract between the parties included a provision that all conditions implied by law were excluded, and this exclusion covered the implied term of satisfactory quality under SG(IT)A 1973, s 10(2). In applying the reasonableness guidelines in UCTA 1977, Sch 2, the judge held that there was no inequality of bargaining position between the parties; the claimant had not received an inducement to agree to the clause excluding the implied term; and the claimant ought to have known about the presence of the excluding clause. Written by Michael Budd, partner and Zoe Loo, solicitor, Longmores Solicitors LLP.