Derivative meaning

Free and open source software (OSS) Free and open source software (OSS) is a collective term for software released under a licence that gives the recipient rights to use, alter, and share it—whether in its original form or a derivative—usually without charge or royalty, and for which the software’s source code is accessible. This stands in contrast to the software licences lawyers are more accustomed to, which may seek to stop the licensee from accessing the source code, using the software across multiple users, locations or computers, and from making and distributing copies. Free and open source software (often called ‘FOSS’) emphasises freedom rather than restriction. Although it is typically provided free of charge (gratis), the ‘free’ in ‘free software’ is intended to indicate liberty, not price. Another acronym, ‘FLOSS’, is occasionally used, where the ‘L’ stands for ‘libre’. While there are many advantages to employing OSS (and many widely adopted OSS projects are stable, well-developed and cost-effective), there are some downsides, as well as considerations to weigh during...

This checklist sets out the principal points to weigh up when guiding a prospective party about a possible dispute arising from a derivative contract. It is intended for use with derivatives documented under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreements; take care when applying it to non-ISDA based derivative contracts. Read this checklist together with Practice Note: Dispute resolution and derivatives...

In this issue: Brexit headlines Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Judicial review Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Information law Other Public Law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit headlines Court of Appeal restricts education-based residence right under UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement—R (Ayoola) v Home Secretary In R (Ayoola) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1519, the Court of Appeal held that Articles 24(2) and 25(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement do not confer fresh residence entitlements; they merely safeguard education‑linked derivative residence rights that existed before withdrawal from the EU. Specifically, children of EU nationals had residence rights under Article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 (later Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011). Their third‑country national parents held residence rights only where their presence was required for the child. CJEU case law acknowledged and reinforced those derivative entitlements. Nonetheless,...

In this issue: UK, EU and international regulators and bodies Authorisation, approval and supervision Accountability, culture and social governance Prudential requirements Operational resilience Financial crime and sanctions Complaints, compensation and claims management Investigations, enforcement and discipline Regulation of capital markets Regulation of derivatives Banks and mutuals Investment funds and asset management MiFID II Regulation of insurance Payment services and systems Fintech and cryptoassets Financial Services Enforcement Database Daily and weekly news alerts Intraday news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary UK, EU and international regulators and bodies ESAs highlight role of behavioural insights in supervisory and policy work The three European Supervisory Authorities — the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) — have issued a joint report arising from their February 2024 workshop on integrating...

Tianrui (International) Holding Company v China Shanshui Cement Group (Cayman Islands) [2024] UKPC 36 What are the practical implications of this case? The Privy Council has now articulated the juridical basis on which a shareholder may bring a personal claim to hold a board to the company’s constitution, without resort to a derivative action, following an allotment of shares. As the judgment explains (paras [3]–[4]), authorities of the highest level — from the Privy Council, the UK Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia and other appellate courts — have long recognised that shareholders may proceed personally to contest such allotments, rather than by derivative action on the company’s behalf, notwithstanding that the directors’ duty to exercise the power of allotment for proper purposes is owed to the company alone, not to shareholders individually. Although that personal standing had rarely been doubted, the precise juridical rationale had seldom been determined or even closely discussed; this decision supplies the explanation...

What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note outlines the principal provisions that apply to both the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement (Multicurrency—Cross Border) (the 1992 Agreement) and the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement (the 2002 Agreement), together with their accompanying schedules. Unless indicated otherwise, any reference here to the master agreements (the ISDA master agreement) should be read as a reference to both the 1992 and 2002 Agreements. For a comparison of the two forms, see Practice Note: ISDA documentation—comparison of the 1992 and 2002 master agreements; for the broader ISDA documentation framework, see Practice Note: Derivatives—ISDA documentation framework. The key concepts underpinning the ISDA master agreement The ISDA master agreement rests on three core concepts, outlined briefly below: single agreement flawed asset close-out netting Single agreement Under ISDA’s documentation architecture, every derivative transaction between a pair of counterparties is captured under one overarching agreement (implemented through multiple layers of documentation), as provided in Section 1(c) of the...

The most common reasons for entering into derivatives are for the purposes of: Speculation — when a party seeks exposure to a given variable, for example taking a view on a commodity’s future price on the assumption it will rise or fall over a chosen period Hedging — aiming to offset exposure to the risk of an unfavourable shift in a variable, or to stabilise expected outcomes over time Arbitrage — seeking to take advantage of price discrepancies (between markets, or within the same market over time) to earn profit or cut costs, or where one participant can reach a price or market unavailable to another, including where prices differ over time Exposure to asset classes — obtaining access to a target market (eg commodities, shares, property) without incurring the expense, complexity and formalities associated with those markets, avoiding the same costs and complications Derivatives are commonly used alongside lending arrangements for hedging purposes in practice. In this context, the primary...

Film and TV glossary A–B Film and TV glossary E–H Film and TV glossary I–L Film and TV glossary M–P Film and TV glossary R–S Film and TV glossary T–W CAP Code for non-broadcast media The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (the CAP Code) serves as the principal framework governing non-broadcast adverts, promotional sales activity and direct marketing messages. It is drafted by the Committee on Advertising Practice (CAP), a self-regulatory body whose membership comprises organisations representing advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing and media industries. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) polices the CAP Code and may require the withdrawal or amendment of any advertisement that contravenes these standards. Refer to Practice Note: Advertising law and regulation. Channel 4 Channel 4 operates as a ‘publisher-broadcaster’: it produces no programmes internally, commissioning content from production companies across the UK. Cinematograph film Under the Copyright Act 1956 (CA 1956), films gained protection as...

Under common law, the general rule is that forfeiting a headlease brings to an end any interests that flow from it, including subordinate derivative arrangements like a sub-lease...