This month has seen a large increase in the notification thresholds in the Philippines for a two-year period, cabinet approval of amendments to the merger control regime in Germany and the announcement by the EU’s Competition Commissioner that referrals will be accepted from Member States even where national notification thresholds are not met. Philippines—notification thresholds increased for two years The notification thresholds in the Philippines have been increased for two years – now, all transactions are exempt from the requirement to notify the PCC where the value of the transaction is less than PHP 50 billion (approx. €870.9m/US$1,026.6m) (ie target has either annual turnover in, into and from the Philippines or assets in the Philippines in excess of PHP 50 billion). In addition, for one year, the PCC’s discretionary power to review transactions under the thresholds has also been suspended. Comment: The change, which has now been ratified by the President, is in place for two years and is intended as an economic stimulus following the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This change will drastically reduce

This Practice Note provides information about the ‘Recommendations to achieve best practice in the child protection and family justice systems’ report (the PLWG report) prepared by the Public Law Working Group (PLWG) and endorsed by the President of the Family Division on 1 March 2021. It includes information about the background to the PLWG report, recommendations, details of the best practice guidance and templates attached to the report and the conclusions reached by the PLWG. Background to the PLWG and the report The PLWG was formed to investigate the steep rise in public law children cases coming to the Family Court and to offer recommendations for improving the system’s ability to address the needs of the children and families at the centre of these cases. The additional pressures on the child protection and family justice systems arising from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic have underlined the need for new ways of working. The objectives of the PLWG were to: • recommend changes to current practice and procedure to be implemented swiftly, without the need for primary or

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of Re E (Section 37 Direction) on the scope of the court's powers under section 37(1) of the Children Act 1989 to direct an LA to carry out an investigation into a child’s circumstances and the consequential power to make interim public law orders under section 38(1)(b). Case reports include R (AA) v Waltham Forest LBC, in which the court ruled on an application for judicial review of a HNAPHP prepared by the LA for alleged failures to fulfill duties under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996; Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership (SSHCLG intervening), in which the court dismissed an appeal finding it just and equitable to make RCOs which can be made in respect of costs incurred before Building Safety Act 2022 came into force; Rose (Mill Road Bridge 2) v Cambridgeshire CC, in which the court considered a judicial review application concerning the validity of a council-ordered traffic regulation; and R (John Morley) v Surrey Heath BC, in which the court ruled on recovery of council tax arrears by the LA but the summons was found to be unlawful and relief refused as it demanded costs for obtaining a liability order and alternatives to judicial review were available. It also includes coverage of the government’s ten-year health plan, the 2025 Keeping children safe in education statutory guidance, Uber’s fights to overturn taxi contract ruling at the UK Supreme Court and the Coronavirus (COVID-19) inquiry Module 1 implementation update. It also includes further updates on Children’s social care, Healthcare, Education, Licensing, Social housing, Highways, Local government finance, Governance, Social care and Planning.

A–B | C–D | E–H | O–P | Q–V. Immunological medicinal product Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/83/EC (the Pharmaceutical Code) defines immunological medicinal product as any medicinal product consisting of vaccines, toxins, serums or allergen products: • vaccines, toxins and serums cover in particular: ◦ agents used to produce active immunity, such as cholera vaccine, BCG, polio vaccines, smallpox vaccine ◦ agents used to diagnose the state of immunity, including in particular tuberculin and tuberculin PPD, toxins for the Schick and Dick Tests, brucellin ◦ agents used to produce passive immunity, such as diphtheria antitoxin, anti-smallpox globulin, antilymphocytic globulin • ‘allergen product’ means any medicinal product which is intended to identify or induce a specific acquired alteration in the immunological response to an allergising agent In vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD) In vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) are tests done on samples such as human blood or tissue to detect diseases or conditions and can be used to monitor a person’s health or for precision medicine purposes. Examples include, genetic, genomic and coronavirus

This Practice Note examines the legal and practical issues for an employer to consider in relation to hybrid working, sometimes known as agile working, blended working or split working patterns or arrangements, where staff attend the workplace for part of their working time and work from home or elsewhere remotely for part of their working time. Hybrid working can be distinguished from pure home working, where the worker works entirely from home, although some employers have had partial homeworking arrangements in place for some time. The concept of hybrid working has emerged from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, during which many employees have been working entirely, or primarily, from home, and it is envisaged that employees will continue to work for part of the time at home, while returning to their workplaces for the remainder. The employer’s approach to hybrid working will vary depending on a number of factors, primarily the nature of the organisation and what it does. For example, it may be relatively straightforward for an office-based employer to offer hybrid working to nearly all of its

In recent years, the annual bonus structures for executives have come under particularly close scrutiny, causing remuneration committees to rethink their approach. The abnormal economic conditions brought about through the coronavirus pandemic and cost of living crisis have raised the spectre of bonus payments to an even higher level of scrutiny. This Practice Note provides a practical analysis of the items that will need to be considered by companies as they review the nature and the structure of their executive annual cash bonus schemes. Does the cash bonus still have a role? With the dramatic escalation in share-based type rewards over the last 30 years or so, notably in the form of the long-term share incentive plan, does the executive cash bonus still have a role? The answer is that the short-term incentive, defined as the basis for rewarding the achievement of short-term goals after the end of a 12-month financial year, will usually include a substantial element of cash bonus. It would actually not be unusual for the whole amount of the short-term incentive

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO UK DEFINED BENEFIT (DB) OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It considers the Pensions Regulator’s approach to funding defined benefit pension schemes for scheme valuations with an effective date before 22 September 2024, in accordance with the Code of Practice on funding defined benefits dated 29 July 2014 and relevant annual funding statements. It also summarises the Pensions Regulator’s approach before July 2014. For information on the Pensions Regulator’s approach for scheme valuations with an effective date on or after 22 September 2024, see Practice Notes: DB pensions funding reforms 2024 and The scheme-specific funding regime. When considering scheme funding matters, trustees and employers should take into account the Pensions Regulator's approach to funding defined benefits (DB benefits). How would the Pension Regulator communicate its approach to DB scheme funding? The Pensions Regulator's approach in relation to DB scheme funding was set out mainly in the following documents: • a code of practice on funding defined

This week's edition of Life Sciences weekly highlights includes news that the UK AI Bill completed its second reading on 22 March 2024 and the Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou’s Opinion regarding the Illumina-Grail merger cases was published recommending that the Court of Justice should set aside the General Court’s judgment which it found to be a misinterpretation of the Merger Regulation. Also included is news that the MHRA released guidance on the clinical investigation of electrical aspects of medical devices for certification markings, and news that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint regarding a misleading ad for cranberry tablets which was found to make unsubstantiated health claims about their impact on bladder and urinary tract health, among other stories.

This week's edition of Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights includes: Case analysis written by Jennifer Haywood, barrister, arbitrator and mediator at Serle Court in relation to irreconcilable arbitral awards and judgments; Case analysis written by Crispin Winser KC, barrister at Crown Office Chambers on property insurance in relation to CAR policies; Top UK court won’t hear Excel business interruption test case; Arsenal, Liverpool settle with insurers in COVID-19 dispute; Early settlements could cut Russia aviation claims by US$10bn; Insurance losses from Baltimore bridge pinned at US$1.5bn; Global insurance prices dip for first time since 2017; The biggest developments in insurance in 2024; PRA corrects error in Solvency II standard formula mass lapse life underwriting risk rule; EU Solvency II: ESRB advice to EIOPA on criteria for identifying exceptional sector-wide shocks; EIOPA publishes strategic plan and work programme for 2024–2026; IRRD and Solvency II amendment published in Official Journal; cases and decisions; key dates for your diary; and other news highlights reported over the past week.

What is the National Health Service Pension Scheme? The NHSPS is an unfunded, public service occupational pension scheme that provides retirement benefits to persons employed as health service workers on a salary-related or defined benefit (DB) basis. Since 1 April 2015, there are two separate NHSPS schemes: • the reformed NHSPS (sometimes referred to in NHS literature as the ‘2015 Scheme’), which was established on 1 April 2015 as a career average revalued earnings (CARE) scheme. New joiners have become members of this scheme since 1 April 2015. This scheme is the subject of this Practice Note • the legacy NHSPS (sometimes referred to in NHS literature as the ‘1995/2008 Scheme’). The scheme is composed of two separate final salary sections, the 1995 Section and the 2008 Section, which are closed to future accrual subject to the retention of a final salary link in that scheme. For further information, see Practice Note: The legacy National Health Service Pension Scheme Note that there are separate schemes in Scotland and Northern Ireland which are

STOP PRESS: Directive (EU) 2026/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2026 amending Directive (EU) 2015/2302 to make the protection of travellers more effective and to simplify and clarify certain aspects of that Directive was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 8 May 2026. Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (the EU Package Travel Directive) sets out rules on package travel contracts, including traveller information requirements, cancellation rights, refunds, liability for performance of travel services and insolvency protection. The new Directive amends the EU Package Travel Directive to strengthen traveller protection, simplify the legal framework and address issues identified since its application began, including issues relating to cancellations, refunds, vouchers and insolvency protection highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. See: LNB News 11/05/2026 27. This Practice Note will be updated shortly to reflect the changes introduced by the new Directive. This Practice Note provides guidance on Directive (EU) 2015/2302 on package travel and linked

What is the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST)? The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST) is part of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (the Tribunal)). Appeals in respect of decisions of the FTT are made to the Upper Tribunal (UT). The FTT deals with appeals in relation to children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) as well as claims of disability discrimination in relation to school and local authorities (LAs) (such as exclusions from schools). How is a panel constituted? Panels of the FTT are usually made up of three members (although increasingly there are two member panels). The panel always has a legally qualified chair, and the other members are experienced in SEN and disability issues. The UT is comprised of one legally qualified member. When can an appeal be made to the First Tier Tribunal? All parents/guardians and young people have a right to appeal to the FTT: • against any amendment to an education, health and