Cs-137 meaning

This Checklist This Checklist provides points to weigh up when preparing and seeking sign-off for a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) involving the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). It draws on PPF Guidance Note 5 issued in 2018 (see PPF Guidance Note 5: CVAs). When an employing company (or all participating employers in a last man standing scheme) files a CVA proposal with the court, a PPF assessment period begins. Under section 137 of the Pensions Act 2004, the PPF assumes the pension trustees’ voting entitlement (see Practice Note: The Pension Protection Fund—eligibility and entry). In practice, the PPF will typically cast a vote for or against the proposal rather than refrain. The PPF is consistently focused on avoiding any precedent that might allow pension schemes to be diluted where potential PPF entry could arise in the near future (the PPF observes that this has occurred in numerous prior CVAs). The PPF also anticipates that pension trustees will appoint their financial advisers to produce a report addressing the areas of concern...

Checklist Use this Checklist when assessing online advertising terms and conditions, where a publisher (the owner of a website, app or other digital platform) sells advertising space on its platforms to advertisers (brands or advertising/media buying agencies acting for those brands) on a direct basis (Programmatic Direct). Where appropriate, this Checklist may operate as the starting point for straightforward, non-binding heads of terms. For direction on preparing these, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. For a specimen set of a publisher’s standard terms, see Precedent: Online advertising terms and conditions. As you work through the Checklist, the third column can be used to note observations or comments. Employ it to record notes while progressing through each item. Further information Notes (if any) Parties ☐ Verify each party’s legal status and whether the advertiser will contract in its own capacity or via an advertising agency. In some situations an advertiser will enter into the agreement itself; in others, it may appoint an...

If companies A, B and C are within the same capital gains group, and company A passes its shares in company B to company C in return for an issue of shares by company C to company A, the transaction can have the following tax effects: any chargeable gain potentially arising to company A could be exempt under the substantial shareholdings exemption (SSE) in Schedule 7AC to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992). For guidance on when the SSE applies to a disposal of shares, see Practice Note: Substantial shareholdings exemption for tax purposes, the share exchange might be treated as not involving a disposal by company A of its shares in company B, provided the conditions in TCGA 1992, s 135 are met and the anti-avoidance condition in TCGA 1992, s 137 does not apply...

Flowchart This Flowchart serves as a guide to identifying which Precedent agreement for the supply of goods is the most suitable to adopt in a particular situation. A quick-reference, at-a-glance table also summarises the key underlying drafting assumptions within each of the Precedent agreements, providing an alternative way to determine the most appropriate Precedent for use in a given situation. Both the Flowchart and its companion table consider business to business (B2B) Precedent options only...

Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd [2024] EAT 137 What are the practical implications of this decision? The practical effect is that uncertainty endures as to whether a claimant can contend both that a co-worker imposed the detriment of dismissal and that the employer bears vicarious responsibility for that misconduct, even though the employer could not itself be personally liable for the detriment of dismissal. Pursuing such a formulation assists the claimant owing to the approach to causation, and because compensation for injury to feelings is available on a detriment claim but not for an unfair dismissal claim issued directly against the employer. In this appeal, HHJ Barklem indicates adherence to the unambiguous language of paragraph 91 in Osipov, which points to vicarious liability being capable of arising in these circumstances. That conclusion directly clashes with Bourne J’s judgment in Wicked Vision, which reached the reverse view on the footing that paragraph 91 did not form part of Osipov’s ratio. The consequence is a continuing lack of clarity pending...

In this issue: EU fundamentals Data protection Energy Environment Financial services Life sciences LexTalk®EU Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers EU fundamentals European elections—what’s next? From 6–9 June 2024, EU citizens headed to the polls to choose the tenth European Parliament. After negotiations on group line-ups—featuring parties changing blocs and several previously non-aligned MEPs joining political groups—the make-up of the 2024–2029 Parliament is now apparent. As forecast, the chamber has moved to the right. But what does that entail? Lavan Thasarathakumar, senior adviser at Hogan Lovells, has contributed to this assessment. See News Analysis: European elections—what’s next? Data protection Dutch DPA fines Clearview €30.5m for violations of EU GDPR The European Data Protection Board announced that the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) has issued a €30.5m fine to Clearview AI Inc for infringing multiple provisions of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation,...

Star Engineering Pte Ltd — Applicant; and (1) Pollisum Engineering Pte Ltd (2) Great Eastern General Insurance Ltd [2024] SGHC 137 What are the practical implications of this case? The High Court’s ruling reinforces the Singapore judiciary’s enduring commitment to honouring parties’ bargains to arbitrate—the courts will shield parties’ fundamental freedom to decide both the cause of action and the forum in which to proceed under valid arbitration agreements. In the more specific setting of resisting a call on a performance bond (which the Court described as a functional, mechanical instrument giving effect to the construction contract), the judgment delivers a firm message: notwithstanding a non‑exclusive jurisdiction clause in the bond, the Singapore court is ready to halt court proceedings in favour of arbitration. That stance holds even if the controversy could be resolved more quickly were it to be determined by the court on a substantive basis. In short, valid arbitration agreements prevail, and litigation is stayed accordingly...

For comprehensive analysis of the regulation, consenting and incentivisation of the net zero energy transition under the laws of England and Wales, see also: Collinson and Hockman on Energy Law: Regulating, Consenting and Incentivising the Energy Transition. That textbook offers an in-depth exploration of matters addressed in this Practice Note. What is carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS)? The term CCUS is sometimes described as ‘carbon capture and storage’ (CCS); broadly, CCS represents a narrower subset within the same sector. CCS describes a range of processes that capture and store CO 2 emissions from industrial activities...

What is a hackathon? A hackathon is usually a 12–48-hour sprint where multidisciplinary teams—coders, developers, strategists, data scientists, subject-matter specialists and innovators—work intensively to tackle a defined problem in a short window. The aim is to generate fresh concepts, tools or platforms, often ending with a functional prototype or a concept pitch. They trace their lineage to tech culture: the first officially recognised hackathon took place in 1999 in Calgary, though collaborative meet-ups go back to the 1970s with groups such as the Homebrew Computer Group, where the first Apple computer was unveiled. Today, hackathons cut across many sectors and goals, and are not exclusively technology-focused. The author once ran an inspiring game jam—a game development focussed hackathon—designed to speed up cancer cures by turning cancer data analysis into gameplay, delivering scientifically robust outputs thanks to watertight algorithms. Whatever the topic, the core principles and structure are largely consistent. In law, they are increasingly used to drive innovation, widen access to justice, and connect with legal...

Highway authorities have a statutory obligation to act to prevent, so far as practicable, the stopping up or obstruction of highways within their areas. This Practice Note sets out guidance on obstructions under the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980) arising from placing building works, scaffolding or skips on the highway. For broader coverage of highway obstruction, see Practice Note: Obstruction of highways. For details of the tools available to local authorities to address highway obstructions, see Practice Notes: Local authority powers to manage highway obstructions—criminal offences and Local authority powers to manage highway obstructions—civil remedies. Licences for building works, scaffolding and skips Positioning scaffolding, hoardings or skips on the highway (including pavements) constitutes an obstruction and may amount to a nuisance. Under HiA 1980, s 137(1), a person who, without lawful authority or excuse, wilfully obstructs free passage along a highway commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine, or both. See Practice Note: Obstruction of highways. That...

STOP PRESS: We are revising this document to align with the coming into force of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025), which modifies the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. For further help on the compliance implications of DUAA 2025, refer to Practice Note: Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—compliance implications. 1 Consent to terms and conditions—not data processing consent [ Insert the terms and conditions for which you are requesting consent, eg your T&Cs in relation to the product/service you are providing ] Please confirm that you have read and accepted these terms and conditions [ before proceeding ]. [ You are required to accept the terms and conditions [ state reason, eg to continue with your purchase ]. ] ☐ I agree to these [ [ insert description, eg Retail ] ] terms and conditions 2 Mailing list consent—not marketing We would like to provide you with [ occasional ] news and...

[ Team Leader ][ insert HMRC address ][ insert date ] Application seeking advance clearances under [section[s] 138[ and 139(5)] Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992][ and ][section 701 Income Tax Act 2007[ and section 748 Corporation Tax Act 2010]] 1 Introduction 1.1 We represent [ insert name of the target company ] ( Company A ) [ and also the shareholders of Company A ]. This letter relates to the proposed steps outlined below (the Transactions) and requests confirmation under: 1.1.1 [ section 138 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 ( TCGA 1992 ) that section 137 TCGA 1992 will not be applicable; ] 1.1.2 [ section 139(5) TCGA 1992 that that subsection is not to apply; ] 1.1.3 [ section 701 Income Tax Act 2007 ( ITA 2007 ) that a counteraction notice should not be issued under section 698 ITA 2007; and ] 1.1.4 [ section 748 Corporation Tax Act 2010 ( CTA 2010 ) that a counteraction...

Disputes regarding liability for an adjudicator’s fees and expenses Such disputes often present intricate issues, and comparatively few judgments explore them in depth. From the outset, parties to adjudication should keep in mind two dimensions of their exposure for the adjudicator’s fees: their liability to the adjudicator; and their liability to one another. In the majority of matters, where the adjudication follows its usual path and an enforceable decision is issued: the parties’ liability to each other is decided by the adjudicator within the award. The adjudicator generally has discretion to apportion their own fees as they see fit. Commonly, the losing party is directed to pay all, or a greater proportion, of those fees the parties’ liability to the adjudicator is governed by the contract made with the adjudicator. That agreement may rest on bespoke terms and conditions (T&Cs) provided by the adjudicator or, where no T&Cs are supplied, on implied terms arising from a contract formed...

This could be the appropriate method to secure lawfully an access right from B’s property across C’s property...

Trade union recognition An employer can recognise a trade union for a number of different purposes, and at a variety of different levels. Where negotiating rights exist at the highest tier of recognition, any decisions on subjects within those rights must be settled jointly by the employer and the union, and cannot be taken by the employer alone, acting unilaterally. This is commonly described as recognition for collective bargaining. For further information, see Practice Note: Trade union recognition, within the main section covering ‘Recognition for collective bargaining’. An employer may: recognise a trade union wholly on a voluntary basis (voluntary recognition) be required to recognise the union by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) under the statutory recognition procedure (see Practice Note: Reference to Central Arbitration Committee), or recognise it on a semi-voluntary basis as part of the statutory recognition procedure (see Practice Note: Reference to Central Arbitration Committee, within the main section addressing ‘Voluntary recognition following request for statutory recognition’) ...