Search results
2483 results ordered by
Lawyers' Risks in Acting for Corporate Clients Without Authority
The recent decision in Rushbrooke UK Ltd v 4 Designs Concept Ltd [2022] EWHC 1687 (Ch) has highlighted the dangers for lawyers in acting for corporate clients on the instructions of a director without authority of the company. Most of the authority in this area has focused on commencement of litigation but the principles apply too to transactional matters.
Read moreLawyers Covered - August 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - July 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read morePLC QTRLY - Q2 2022
This is our regular quarterly update to help our listed company clients and other market participants keep up to date with key developments relevant to issuers on the Main Market and AIM market of the London Stock Exchange.
Read moreIs the FCA to blame for BSPS? MPs seem to think so
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) yesterday published a report entitled "Investigation into the British Steel Pension Scheme". The report makes a number of recommendations in light of its investigations in to the FCA's conduct and regulatory oversight at the time of the issues arising from the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) and in particular the decision by 7,834 members to transfer to a personal pension arrangement. The report is heavily critical of the FCA's handling of BSPS and its regulatory oversight of the defined benefit transfer market generally. Given the request in the report for an update from the FCA on its progress on the various recommendations and conclusions in 6 months' time, we wait to see how the FCA reacts to yet further criticism of its handling of BSPS at a time when it is reviewing responses to the consumer redress scheme consultation.
Read moreMoney Mirror Issue 2 - July 2022
Welcome to Money Mirror, RPC's new Payments & Consumer Credit publication. In our 2n edition, we take a look at the Payment Systems Regulator's first competition infringement decision, consumer credit financial promotions, the latest in Buy Now Pay Later, and access to cash.
Read moreLawyers Covered - June 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - May 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read morePLC QTRLY - Q1 2022
Post-Covid and post-Brexit changes are on the horizon for the UK's public companies. This is the first of our regular updates to help our listed company clients and other market participants keep up to date with key developments relevant to issuers on the Main Market and AIM market of the London Stock Exchange.
Read moreLawyers Covered - March 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreMoney Mirror Issue 1 - March 2022
Welcome to Money Mirror, RPC's new Payments & Consumer Credit publication. In our 1st edition, we take a look at interesting developments in these markets - operational resilience, Buy Now Pay Later, crypto advertising and access to cash.
Read moreDuties of Care to Third Parties in Tax Avoidance Schemes – Disappointment for Investors in McClean as Zacaroli, J Rejects Claims
Mr Justice Zacaroli has now handed down his judgment in David McClean and others v Andrew Thornhill QC [2022] EWHC 457 (Ch) - a ~£40m claim by investors in a tax scheme against one of the leading tax barristers in the country. The judge dismissed the claim in its entirety holding, amongst other things that the barrister did not owe a duty of care to the investors.
Read moreDuties of Care to Third Parties in Tax Avoidance Schemes – Disappointment for Investors in McClean as Zacaroli, J Rejects Claims
Mr Justice Zacaroli has now handed down his judgment in David McClean and others v Andrew Thornhill QC [2022] EWHC 457 (Ch) - a ~£40m claim by investors in a tax scheme against one of the leading tax barristers in the country. The judge dismissed the claim in its entirety holding, amongst other things that the barrister did not owe a duty of care to the investors.
Read moreSIPPs and FOS - does the Rowanmoor decision change anything?
Last week FOS published a decision it reached last year in a complaint against a SIPP provider involving advised sales. The FOS upheld the complaint, finding that the SIPP provider should have rejected business from the regulated financial adviser, CIB Life and Pensions Limited (CIB), given, broadly, red flags available to the SIPP provider with respect to the operation of CIB's business model including that CIB was not advising on the ultimate investment within the SIPP and as a result such introductions involved a significant risk of consumer detriment. The decision has received quite a bit of press attention - but has it moved the dial for SIPP complaints before FOS or not?
Read moreLawyers Covered - January 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreThe Future of Insolvency Regulation
On 21 December 2021 the Government launched a consultation into the future of insolvency regulation. The changes proposed in the consultation document will have a wide ranging impact on the insolvency profession (and its insurers) with the proposals including: the direct regulation of insolvency firms, the introduction of a single regulatory body with powers to order compensation against insolvency practitioners and firms, a new additional requirements regime, changes to the bond regime and a public register of insolvency practitioners and firms. Many of the changes proposed require primary legislation and so it may be some time before the changes to take effect (if adopted). But there does appear to be some wind behind these proposals given they follow on from the Call for Evidence in 2019 and a more general focus on insolvency issues in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Read moreLawyers Covered - November 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - July 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - October 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - August 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - May 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - April 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - March 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreBanking and Financial Markets Litigation Update - Summer 2024
This update is brought to you by RPC’s top tier banking and financial markets disputes practice in London, with specialists in all areas of financial markets litigation (and arbitration) and a wealth of expertise including frequent involvement in the most complex, high-value, and high-profile disputes in the sphere. Here, we take a look at some of the most important judgments in recent months.
Read moreCrypto damages quantification: valuation at the date of breach or date of judgment?
In Southgate v. Graham [2024] EWHC 1692 (Ch), the High Court addressed an appeal from the County Court concerning inter alia the appropriate date for assessing damages in a cryptocurrency loan dispute. Initially, the County Court determined that the damages should be based on the cryptocurrency's fiat value at the breach date. Due to the volatility of the cryptocurrency, this decision would have resulted in significantly lower fiat damages award than if the valuation were based on a later date. The High Court allowed the valuation date part of the appeal, directing a further hearing to establish the appropriate date.
Read moreSummary judgment against persons unknown – a tale of two crypto judgments
Two recent crypto judgements in the High Court, Mooij v Persons Unknown (February 2024) and Boonyaem v Persons Unknown (December 2023) reached different conclusions regarding whether a summary judgment could be granted against unidentified (and unidentifiable) fraudsters, with Mooji deciding 'yes' and Boonyaem deciding 'no'.
Read moreSupreme Court confirms no knowing receipt claim where equitable interest is destroyed: Byers v Saudi National Bank
In Byers v Saudi National Bank, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts by holding that a claim for knowing receipt cannot be made if a claimant’s equitable interest in the property in question has been extinguished by the time of the defendant’s knowing receipt of the property.
Read moreMerchants Beat Venice: Court of Appeal finds that local authority of Venice did have capacity to enter into Interest Rate Swaps
In a significant judgment in Banca Intesa Sanpaolo and Dexia Credit Local SA v Comune di Venezia [2023] EWCA Civ 1482, the Court of Appeal overturned the findings of the High Court
Read moreComing to a bank near you? How "investment AI" could transform financial mis-selling claims
Living under a rock is probably the only way anyone might have escaped the media attention given to ChatGPT and generative AI in recent months. Beyond the (considerable) hype, this technology could have a profound impact on financial mis-selling claims where financial institutions and fund managers turn to the new technology to help them select investments and products.
Read moreFraud not "some kind of open sesame" in Privy Council appeal to set aside judgment
An appellant was unsuccessful in his bid to set aside judgment on the basis of fraud as the Board of the Privy Counsel dismissed his claim as an abuse of process (1). The appellant had failed to show "fresh evidence" of fraud as he already had all of the information he was relying on to allege fraud at the time he entered into a final settlement agreement, and had not offered an explanation of why he had not deployed this information whilst the original dispute was live.
Read moreCaught out by APP fraud? Here's the 101 of what can be done
Dan Wyatt, partner at RPC, takes a look at the best strategy for APP fraud victims and their recovery options.
Read moreBinance successfully challenges interim proprietary injunction over deposited cryptoassets
In Piroozzadeh v Persons Unknown and Others [2023] EWHC 1024 (Ch), the cryptocurrency exchange Binance successfully applied to discharge an interim proprietary injunction obtained by a claimant whose misappropriated cryptoassets had been deposited at the exchange. This is the first recorded case of an exchange successfully having discharged such an injunction.
Read moreBanking and Financial Markets Litigation Update - Spring 2023
This update is brought to you by RPC’s top tier banking and financial markets disputes practice in London, with specialists in all areas of financial markets litigation (and arbitration) and a wealth of expertise including frequent involvement in the most complex, high-value, and high-profile disputes in the sphere. Here, we take a look at some of the most important judgments in recent months.
Read moreHigh Court favours English jurisdiction in bribery claim brought by Kuwaiti pension fund
The High Court recently rejected an application, brought by two defendants to an alleged bribery claim advanced by a Kuwaiti pension fund, that the claim should be heard before the Swiss courts, holding that England was the proper jurisdiction both in order to avoid the risk of fragmentation of proceedings, and in view of the close connection of the claim to England.
Read moreConsidering bringing an RFI application? Is it strictly necessary?
Andrew Ayres KC and Andrew Dinsmore (Twenty Essex), instructed by Parham Kouchikali and Suzie Kurdi of this firm, successfully resisted a Request for Further Information (RFI) in the High Court.
Read moreCourt of Appeal rejects timing and informed consent defences in bond bribery case
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal decided in Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (in liquidation) v James David Hadley and others that pleaded defences to a bribery claim were so fanciful as to entitle the claimant to summary judgment.
Read moreHigh Court rejects Group Litigation Order in FSMA litigation as it would not further the Overriding Objective
In a recent decision in Edward Moon & Ors v Link Fund Solutions, Mr Justice Trower dismissed an application by two groups of claimants, declining to make the Group Litigation Order (GLO) sought.
Read moreNo loss? No Quincecare claim … the Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank v HSBC
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank plc, deciding that there was no pecuniary loss suffered by the Claimant and therefore no basis for a Quincecare claim.
Read moreNo need for perfection: ISDA Master Agreement default notice still valid where some errors made
The High Court has decided that a default notice under an ISDA Master Agreement is still valid even if it does not contain wholly accurate statements of the amount of the payment not made, the confirmation of the trade, or the currency of the payment.
Read moreItalian Local Authority succeeds in swap claim before the English Court
In a significant judgment in Banca Intesa Sanpaolo SpA v Comune di Venezia [2022] EWHC 2586, the English Commercial Court has found that, as a consequence of the 2020 decision of the Italian Supreme Court in Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA v Comune di Cattolica (Cattolica), English law governed interest rate swaps entered into by the Municipality of Venice (Venice) were void for lack of capacity. Venice was therefore entitled to restitution for the amounts paid to the Banks under the interest rate swaps. However, the English Court also found that the Banks were in principle entitled to rely on a defence of change of position in respect of payments made under back-to-back swaps with other financial institutions which operates to reduce the sums recoverable by Venice.
Read moreBanking and financial litigation markets update - Summer 2022
In this overview we look at some of the most important judgments in recent months in the area of banking and financial markets litigation.
Read moreUpdated P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules launched for 2022
P.R.I.M.E Finance, the Hague-based Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance, has launched updated P.R.I.M.E Finance Arbitration Rules (the Rules), which come into force from 1 January 2022.
Read moreSummary judgment application does not amount to submission to English jurisdiction
Does applying for summary judgment application before the determination of a parallel application for a stay, amount to a step in the proceedings that results submission to the jurisdiction?
Read moreDisputes Yearbook 2021: Financial disputes
As part of the acclaimed Disputes Yearbook, Legal Business interviewed members of our disputes team exploring the litigation landscape and what RPC brings to the table.
Read moreProperty Digital Rights – A New Revenue Stream in a Digital World
Advances in technology are opening up exciting new frontiers for property owners and managers. Almost two billion people globally use augmented reality (AR) on their mobile phones and nearly 400 million engage in a virtual metaverse reality.
Read moreRansoms and Sanctions and Fines (oh my!)
Ransomware attacks are happening all the time. Just the other month, the Cl0p ransomware gang claimed responsibility for the exploitation of a zero-day vulnerability in the MOVEit Transfer tool.
Read moreRansoms and Sanctions and Fines (oh my!)
Ransomware attacks are happening all the time. Just the other month, the Cl0p ransomware gang claimed responsibility for the exploitation of a zero-day vulnerability in the MOVEit Transfer tool.
Read moreAccessory liability: when will directors be held liable for IP infringements committed by their companies – and what is counted as "profits"?
The Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Ahmed & Anor [2024] UKSC 17, has allowed an appeal by two company directors who were found liable as accessories to trade mark infringement by the company in which they were directors. The decision provides helpful clarification on the required elements for accessory liability in the context of IP right infringement claims and confirms the sums to be included in an account of profits if liability is established (spoiler alert: a director's salary is not considered to be "profit").
Read moreOnline platforms should Swatch out: Samsung found liable for infringing third-party content available on the Samsung Galaxy App store
The Court of Appeal in Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics [2023] EWCA Civ 1478 has dismissed Samsung's appeal and upheld a first instance decision which found it liable for trade mark infringement in relation to third-party watch faces available on the Samsung Galaxy App store. This judgment provides guidance on what constitutes "use" of a sign by an online app store and the applicability of the e-Commerce Directive hosting defence.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here