The need to value employee shares When considering offering shares to employees, whether directly and/or pursuant to a share plan, employer companies and company shareholders need to consider what the value of the shares may be for a number of reasons including: • to calculate how many shares they may need to achieve their objectives (valuing existing shares can often lead to a need to sub-divide existing shares and/or create a new class) • to assess the amount of tax that may arise on the acquisition of the shares and any subsequent chargeable events (for example, for PAYE purposes and/or to allow an employee and the company to decide whether to enter an election in relation to restricted shares) especially in relation to: ◦ convertible securities ◦ restricted securities ◦ securities with artificially depressed/enhanced market values ◦ securities acquired for less than market value, and ◦ securities disposed of for more than market value • to provide information to an employee acquiring restricted shares and the employing company which is considering entering into

This Checklist outlines the issues a practitioner should consider when valuing general damages. It looks at different heads of damage including pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA), Smith v Manchester awards, loss of congenial employment, loss of use, holiday disruption, damage to relationships, loss of marriage prospects, aggravated damages, unnecessary treatment, fatal accidents and interest. Head of Damage Valuing the claim Further Reading PSLA Pain and suffering is the subjective experience of the victim.Loss of amenity is the reduction in the ability to perform everyday tasks.Damages are awarded for physical and/or psychiatric injury and encompass suffering from the past, present and future.There is no formula.When assessing PSLA, certain factors will be relevant including:—severity and extent of the injury—whether there are multiple injuries—physical pain caused by the injury including by any medical treatment, eg an operation—age of the claimant—duration of symptoms—degree of incapacity—mental distress—loss of the enjoyment of life—disfigurement or scars—ability to resume hobbies including sport, DIY and gardening—pre-existing illness or disability, or exacerbation of the sameWhen

This Practice Note details how pension rights may be valued and the factors to be taken into account in the context of family proceedings. It also deals with requirements when instructing an expert regarding pension values and the implications of internal and external transfers of pension credits. Prescribed valuation method Whether a pension is to be the subject of offsetting, attachment or sharing, the prescribed method of valuation is the cash equivalent (CE) value. If the pension is in payment, this may be referred to as the cash equivalent of benefits (CEB). The provisions for calculating and verifying CEs are set out in the Pension Sharing (Valuation) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1052: • reg 4 specifies how CEs in respect of rights in occupational pension schemes may be calculated and verified • regs 5 and 7 specify how CEs in respect of rights in pension arrangements other than occupational pension schemes may be calculated and verified The date that the CE is calculated will be the date when the request is received

This Practice Note provides guidance on valuing serious brain injury claims. The common types of expenses or losses incurred in brain injury cases are considered together with the expert and witness evidence which will be required to support such claims. General damages General damages are those damages which cannot be precisely calculated and an assessment of an appropriate sum is made. They include non-pecuniary loss (past and future) such as pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) and future pecuniary loss. For a more detailed definition of general and special damages, see Practice Note: Common recoverable losses in personal injury cases—What are general damages and special damages? Assessment of PSLA PSLA is assessed by reference to: • the nature and severity of the brain injury • the degree of cognitive, behavioural and psychiatric impairment • any physical sequelae • the extent of loss of independence, and • the impact on the claimant’s enjoyment of life The Judicial College

The Vancouver Maritime Arbitrators Association

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 August 2026; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Vandemoortele Group of Délifrance S.A. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the supply of frozen laminated dough (LD) products. Latest developments On 20 August 2026, the CMA issued its final report finding that the merger may be expected to result in an SLC in the supply of frozen laminated dough products to retail and foodservice customers in the UK. To remedy the SLC, the CMA has accepted a remedy where Vandermoortele group will be required to sell its laminated dough production facility in Worcester and its current sales operation in Staines-upon-Thames to a suitable purchaser. Parties • Vandemoortele Group (Vandemoortele): Vandemoortele is a Belgian company that is headquartered in Ghent. It offers breads, cakes, biscuits, pasteries, and other products. • Délifrance S.A. (Délifrance): Délifrance is a French company based in Ivry-sur-Seine. It offers breads, pastry, tartlet, crunch chocolates, cheese

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 11 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Vanilla Group Ltd (JLA) of Washstation Ltd. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for the rental and maintenance of washing machines and tumble dryers to universities, colleges and student accommodation providers for use by students. Latest developments On 14 March 2019, the CMA published a notice (dated 8 March 2019) of a penalty imposed on JLA and Vanilla for failure to comply with an initial enforcement order issued by the CMA on 13 December 2017. A total fine of £120,000 was imposed.By way of background, during the course of the CMA’s phase 2 investigation, the monitoring trustee (appointed by JLA) reported to the CMA in June 2018 that a number of laundry machines had been sold by JLA to the former owner of Washstation in January 2018.After investigating the above matter, the CMA decided that, after the IEO

Law360: Vannin Capital has rejected the argument that it can't use its litigation funding agreements (LFAs) to claim a share of the £200 million ($280.6 million) won by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) PLC shareholders in a settlement over the bank's 2008 rights issue, denying that its agreements amounted to unenforceable insurance contracts.

Law360, London: Litigation funder Vannin Capital PCC has resolved its English lawsuit seeking £14m (US$18m) from the shareholders who won a £200m settlement from Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) over its 2008 rights issue.

Law360, London: A London court on 21 May 2025 blocked a vape company from threatening to sue retailers for trademark infringement amid its dispute with a Chinese rival over the rights to the 'Crystal' brand name.

Raw data required Data Figure Total number of full-time fee earners [Insert number] Total number of part-time fee earners [Insert number] Total number of days per

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: An application for a variable periodical payment order pursuant to the Damages (Variation of Periodical Payments) Order 2005 (the 2005 Order) was made by the defendant. The court was satisfied that there was a chance that the claimant could deteriorate to the point of being institutionalised, meaning a significant reduction in her care needs. Despite the claimant’s wish for certainty in respect of the future level of payments, the court made a variable periodical payment order. Separately, the court considered whether the claimant who has capacity but is vulnerable to potential exploitation is entitled to an award in respect of the cost of a personal injury trust (PIT). The court rejected the submission that its protective jurisdiction extended to such a claimant. In any event, as a bare trust, a PIT did not safeguard against a vulnerability to exploitation of the claimant who has capacity. Damages in respect of the cost of a PIT were not recoverable. Written by Nadia Whittaker, barrister at Crown Office Chambers.