[ON YOUR LETTERHEAD] WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS [SUBJECT TO CONTRACT] [Insert date] [Insert name and address of other party’s solicitor] Dear [insert contact name] [Insert subject of letter] We refer to our open letter of [today’s date OR [insert date]]. 1 Our client is confident that, should it issue and pursue proceedings in respect of its claim (as set out in our letter of claim dated [insert date] (the ‘Letter of Claim’), our client would be wholly successful in [insert details of the remedy sought, eg recovering payment of the unpaid invoices plus interest, due to pursuant to the Agreement as set out in our open letter]. [Our client is also of the view that your client’s threatened counterclaim as asserted in your letter dated [insert date] (the ‘Counterclaim Letter’) is wholly without merit.] Nonetheless, our client

[ON YOUR LETTERHEAD] WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS [SUBJECT TO CONTRACT] [Insert date] [Insert name and address of other party’s solicitor] Dear [insert contact name] [Insert subject of letter] We refer to our open letter of [today’s date OR [insert date]]. 1 As set out in that letter, both we and our client are confident that our client will be wholly successful in defending your client’s claim[s] against it, in respect of the agreement between our clients dated [insert date] (the ‘Agreement’) as set out in your client’s claim [insert claim action number] and particulars of claim dated [insert date of particulars of claim] (together ‘the Claim’). [We are also confident that our client will succeed in respect of its counterclaim against your client for [insert details of the remedy sought in the counterclaim, eg re-payment or credit for sums paid to date in respect of the defective valves supplied by your client and the consequential losses to our client] for the reasons set out in our open letter and further detailed in our client’s defence and counterclaim dated [insert

[ON YOUR LETTERHEAD] WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS [SUBJECT TO CONTRACT] [Insert date] [Insert name and address of other party’s solicitor] Dear [insert contact name] [Insert subject of letter] We refer to our open letter of [today’s date OR [insert date]]. 1 As set out in that letter, both we and our client are confident that, should your client issue proceedings in respect of its alleged claim detailed in your letter of claim dated [insert date] (the ‘Letter of Claim’), our client would be wholly successful in defeating such claim. [Were your client to issue such claim, our client would both defend the claim and issue a counterclaim in the terms set out in our letter dated [insert date of letter setting out threatened counterclaim] (the ‘Counterclaim Letter’) and we are equally wholly confident that our client

A Calderbank offer is a settlement offer marked ‘without prejudice save as to costs’. Whether a Calderbank offer is admissible, and what weight will be given to it, will depend on the type of proceedings. It is named after the case of Calderbank v Calderbank. Where applicable, a Calderbank offer will only be brought to the attention of the court at the end of proceedings, after judgment has been given, and when the issue of costs is being considered. Therefore, if there is a possibility that a costs order may be made by the court (which will be determined by the type of proceedings that are taking place), the parties should consider making a reasonable Calderbank offer to settle which, if refused by the other party, will be considered by the court and may provide some costs protection to the offeror.

A Calderbank offer is a settlement offer marked ‘without prejudice save as to costs’. Whether a Calderbank offer is admissible, and what weight will be given to it, will depend on the nature of the proceedings. It is named after the case of Calderbank v Calderbank. Where applicable, a Calderbank offer will only be brought to the attention of the court at the end of proceedings, after judgment has been given, and when the issue of costs is being considered. Therefore, if there is a possibility that a costs order may be made by the court (which will be determined by the type of proceedings that are taking place), the parties should consider making a reasonable Calderbank offer to settle which, if refused by the other party, will be considered by the court and may provide some costs protection to the offeror. Prior to 2006, Calderbank offers were frequently made in family proceedings and it was common practice for judges to make costs orders at the conclusion of financial proceedings following a consideration

[ Address and other details ] Dear Sirs  WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS [ Heading indicating the dispute ] The Offer The offer contained in this letter is an offer made by B to A to settle the specified potential liabilities of both B and C to A and is made with C’s knowledge and authority. If accepted by A, A’s acceptance of the offer will be enforceable against A by B and C or either of them. Our client, B, offers to settle the entirety of the threatened claim of your client, A against B as set out in [your Letter of Claim] [and including the entirety of B’s threatened counterclaim against A as set out in our Counterclaim Letter] on the following terms (the ‘Offer’): 1 [Within [seven] days of our receiving written acceptance of the Offer by

[ON YOUR LETTERHEAD] Without prejudice save as to costs [Name and address of other party’s solicitor] Dear [insert contact name] [Insert subject of letter] 1 We refer to our [letter of [insert date] OR open letter of today’s date] regarding the dispute between our respective clients in relation to [insert details of the dispute, eg our client’s repudiation claim]. As set out in that letter, both we and our client are confident that [it will

A calendar year accounting period is an accounting period that runs from 1 January to 31 December in a given year, used for preparing accounts and calculating tax liabilities. In legal and tax practice across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it describes a factual pattern of accounting rather than a distinct statutory concept, although tax and company legislation in each jurisdiction proceeds on the basis that an accounting period may, but need not, match the calendar year.Companies, partnerships and sole traders may adopt a calendar year accounting period for financial reporting, corporation tax, income tax or capital gains tax computations, provided relevant statutory requirements are met (for example, notification to HMRC or Revenue, and consistency between periods). It is commonly used to align with group reporting timetables, international standards, or to simplify comparison of financial performance between years.The choice of a calendar year accounting period can affect tax payment dates, loss relief utilisation, interest on overdue tax and the interaction with changes in tax rates or rules applying from a specific tax year or fiscal year, which may not themselves follow the calendar year.

Arbitration analysis: On 17 October 2023, a California Court of Appeal ruled that a reasonable impression of possible arbitrator bias against a non-native English speaker supported vacatur of an arbitral award. Specifically, the appellate court ruled that it was improper for an arbitrator to make an adverse credibility determination on the basis that a party used an interpreter during proceedings, rebuked the arbitrator’s credibility analysis, and vacated the award accordingly. Written by David Earnest and Julian Cokic, Diamond McCarthy LLP.

Law360: A bill introduced in the California state Senate seeks to regulate lawyers' use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) statewide, including banning lawyers from entering private client information into public AI systems and prohibiting arbitrators from utilising AI in decision-making.

Arbitration analysis: A consumer filed for arbitration under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules against Valve, parent of the Steam digital gaming platform, alleging violations of federal and state unfair competition laws. The arbitrator dismissed all claims and issued a zero-dollar award. After the award was confirmed, the consumer sought to vacate it, arguing, inter alia, that the arbitrator delegated authority to AI. The court did not rule on the merits and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Badgerow, the court noted that the FAA established substantive rules governing arbitration agreements but did not itself confer federal jurisdiction or create a federal cause of action. Parties seeking to confirm or vacate an arbitration award would therefore need to demonstrate an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Since no such basis was established, the court dismissed the case. Written by Gizem Alper, International Legal and ADR Consultant.

Specifically a payment on a specified date on a partly paid stock, to be paid by the holder of the allotment letter. More generally, a requirement for an investor to make additional payments in order for an investment to be fully paid up.