Search results
21 results ordered by
How to comply with the FCA's new diversity and inclusion targets for listed companies
The FCA has finalised its new rules on diversity and inclusion on listed company boards and executive committees. The rules, which are set out in the FCA's policy paper PS22/3: Diversity and inclusion on company boards and executive management, are substantially in line with the proposals set out in the FCA's consultation paper CP 21/24. In scope listed companies are required to include a statement in their annual financial report on whether they have met specific board diversity targets on a ‘comply or explain’ basis, as at a chosen reference date within their accounting period.
Read moreBalance on the board: Eight things UK PLCs need to know about the FCA's diversity targets
The Financial Conduct Authority's proposals will mean UK listed companies need to disclose whether their boards and senior management teams meet new gender and ethnic diversity targets.
Read moreTakeover Code: What has changed?
On 5 July 2021, the most significant changes to the Takeover Code (the Code) since 2011 took effect. The changes are intended to standardise the treatment of regulatory clearances and simplify the offer timetable. An overview of the main changes is set out below.
Read moreUK Listing Review wants companies to stay at home
Recommendations will make it easier to list and fundraise on the London Stock Exchange
Read moreTime for public companies to come clean: New UK climate-related disclosures and ESG guidance
Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange's Main Market will need to include a statement in their annual report confirming if they have made climate-related disclosures consistent with the recommendations of Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Companies planning to IPO, or move from AIM to the Main Market, are also affected by these new Listing Rules.
Read moreThe November 2023 AI safety summit and the UK's direction of travel
The government has confirmed that the UK AI safety summit will be held at Bletchley Park on 1 and 2 November 2023.
Read moreTelecoms supply agreement excludes "loss of profit" claim under "anticipated profits" liability exclusion (EE v Virgin Mobile)
In line with a number of recent cases, in EE Limited v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Limited [2023] EWHC 1989 (TCC) the courts have shown that parties generally cannot avoid clear wording contained in exclusion clauses in order to recover losses that have been expressly excluded (in this case, loss of profits).
Read moreRolls-Royce entitled to hit the brakes in dispute over termination of a software services agreement (Topalsson v Rolls-Royce)
In Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited [2023] EWHC 1765 (TCC), the High Court has provided useful guidance on how to determine whether a software implementation timeline agreed by the parties is binding, when implementation is considered complete and in what circumstances failing to complete implementation by the contractual deadlines entitles the customer to terminate the contract.
Read moreA narrow escape – software services provider entitled to rely on single aggregate liability cap (Drax v Wipro)
When it comes to bespoke software development projects, a lot can go wrong. There's risk for the customer such as project delays, software defects, functionality issues and a lack of meeting of minds in terms of project requirements.
Read moreGinfringement: Success for M&S in the Court of Appeal in registered design spat with Aldi
M&S and Aldi's gin bottle battle over design rights has reached a conclusion (for now) as the Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the IPEC's decision that Aldi's bottle infringed M&S' design.
Read moreClear as gin: M&S and Aldi take liquor bottle battle to the Court of Appeal
Intellectual property enthusiasts' favourite supermarket adversaries were back at loggerheads this week as M&S and Aldi appear before the Court of Appeal. The pair sought to thrash out a first instance decision handed down in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) regarding alleged infringement of M&S' registered design rights in a gin bottle.
Read moreM&S v Aldi – lookalike claims lit up by design rights
As lookalike products rise in prominence, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court's (IPEC) recent ruling that the sale and advertisement of Aldi's 'Infusionist' range of favoured gins infringed M&S's UK registered designs protecting the light-up bottles containing its 'Snow Globe' gin range (Marks and Spencer PLC v Aldi Stores Limited [2023] EWHC 178) highlights the utility of registered design rights in circumstances where other intellectual property rights (IPR) are often less able to provide protection.
Read moreLookalikes and passing off—bottle design get-up claim (Au Vodka)
Currently there's significant activity in the lookalikes space. The Au Vodka claim (Au Vodka v NE10 Vodka [2022] EWHC 2371), which focuses on bottle design 'get-up', arrived in the courts for an interim injunction hearing in September 2022. Au Vodka's application was dismissed. The judgment shows that passing off—get-up claims based on shape can be challenging to bring, particularly at the interim stage, and prompts the question of whether it's possible to bring Cofemel and copyright into the lookalikes arena.
Read moreWeighty issues for diet app developers
2022 is set to be the year of the diet app. The distinction between what is a mere lifestyle app and what should in fact be a regulated medical product or service can be difficult to assess.
Read moreWilliam Grant & Sons v Lidl: where to be-gin?
On 25 May 2021, the Scottish Court of Session (SCOS) granted an interim interdict (akin to an interim injunction), which prevents Lidl from selling its own brand 'Hampstead gin' in Scottish stores, pending the outcome of the matter at trial.
Read moreStay on top of Intellectual Property
Whether you’re just starting out or launching a new product, there are a wealth of intellectual property issues to consider in the world of distilling. Here, Ciara Cullen, Ben Mark and Sarah Mountain outline those do’s and don’ts, the changing landscape and how to thrive in 2021 and beyond.
Read moreCorporate failure to prevent tax evasion update – a policy is not enough
It is no secret that the government has a laser focus on making corporates pay for their roles in "facilitating" tax evasion. Recent figures show that HMRC are serious in their drive to hold companies responsible for tax evasion; even companies with seemingly watertight procedures are susceptible. Now is the time to ensure that your regimes are watertight.
Read moreCorrado – Tribunal cancels follower notice penalties
In Giulio Corrado v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 275 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has set aside a follower notice penalty as the taxpayer's failure to take corrective action in response to a follower notice was reasonable in all the circumstances.
Read moreStamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance and corporate property deals – the importance of timing!
The First-Tier Tribunal has, in a recent decision, caused something of a stir for clients and advisors familiar with the well-trodden (and, usually, tax-efficient) use of offshore unit trusts to hold UK property.
Read moreHigh Court criticises HMRC's conduct finding that it breached taxpayer's legitimate expectation
High Court criticises HMRC's conduct finding that it breached taxpayer's legitimate expectation
Read moreFailure to comply with direction leads to strike out of taxpayers' appeals
In the recent case of Grindley & Others v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 0834 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has directed that the taxpayers' appeals be struck out for failure to comply with a direction issued by the FTT.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here