Extraordinary resolution meaning

In this issue UK, EU and international regulators and bodies Authorisation, approval and supervision Prudential requirements Financial crime and sanctions Consumer protection Investigations, enforcement and discipline Regulation of benchmarks and IBOR reform Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs) Dispute resolution for financial services lawyers Sustainable finance and ESG Banks and mutuals Investment funds and asset management Regulation of insurance Fintech and cryptoassets Consumer credit, mortgage and home finance Amendments to EEA Agreement Annex IX (Financial Services) 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 The FCA has released policy statement PS24/5 confirming the final regulatory fees and levy rates for 2024/25, together with its feedback on CP24/6. Firms can determine their own charges using the FCA’s online fees calculator, with billing to commence...

At the High Court, Judge Victoria Sharp rebuked Sarah Forey and Abid Hussain for submitting authorities that did not exist, having failed to verify them in two separate matters. The cases were heard together to weigh possible contempt of court proceedings against the pair, which she ultimately declined to commence. Forey, then a pupil barrister at London set 3 Bolt Court, supplied five fabricated citations which she accepts may have been drawn from AI-generated digests of Google or Safari search results. Sharp criticised Forey’s ‘worrying lack of insight’ into the wrongfulness of her behaviour. The judge also censured Hussain, a solicitor at Manchester immigration practice Primus Solicitors, who filed a witness statement citing 18 invented cases after depending on research supplied by his lay client. Hussain has apologised, yet the court said it was ‘extraordinary’ that he relied on his client for the accuracy of legal research. ‘There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused,’ Judge Sharp...

High Court Judge David Foxton continued a worldwide freezing order against people alleged to have helped the perpetrators of the OneCoin fraud on investors, estimated to number in the millions, in one of the first hearings in the group action At an initial group action hearing, the worldwide freezing order was kept in place. No defendants have yet lodged a defence, as proceedings remain at an early stage, though responses are expected in due course. For the claimants, Anthony Peto KC of Blackstone Chambers pressed Judge Foxton to compel further disclosure from the defendants, contending that, given the ‘extraordinary’ context of the OneCoin scheme—possibly among the largest frauds ever committed—it ought to be allowed. He said: ‘It is extraordinary. If this is not extraordinary, what is?’ and emphasised ‘the excess of it, the amount of it, the number of victims’ as extraordinary. However, Judge Foxton declined the bid, ruling it was too sweeping for this preliminary phase of the claim...

The resolution to wind-up A company can move into voluntary liquidation only if one of the following applies: its fixed duration has ended, or an event specified in its articles as triggering liquidation has occurred, and the company has approved an ordinary resolution to wind up; or it passes a special resolution to be wound up voluntarily. See: 97 Notice of meeting to pass ordinary or special resolution to wind up: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents [1441] 103 Special resolution to wind up and appoint liquidator: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents [1452] The former practice of proceeding by extraordinary resolution is no longer available under the Companies Act 2006. Where the directors make a declaration of solvency under section 89 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the company may proceed by way of a members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL). For further information, see Practice Note: What is a members’ voluntary liquidation and when is...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Following the Autumn Budget 2024, the government instructed an independent examination of the loan charge, commissioning a review. Announced on 23 January 2025, its remit was to identify the barriers preventing people within the scope of the loan charge who have not already settled and paid their tax liabilities in full from reaching a final resolution with HMRC, and to outline recommendations on how they might be encouraged to settle with HMRC (see News Analysis: Autumn Budget 2024—Independent review of the loan charge). To support the review process, a call for evidence, targeted at those still subject to the loan charge (and their advisers), was issued on 28 March 2025. The Final Report of the review, together with the government response, was released at Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025. It concluded that the loan charge had failed as a mechanism to resolve the tax affairs of affected taxpayers, largely because it was not coupled with a settlement strategy that was proportionate to the extraordinary legislation enacted,...

This Practice Note provides an overview of air passenger rights in the EU. It outlines EU guidance on essential definitions, overarching principles, principal obligations, and the mechanisms for enforcing air passenger rights. The Note explains what travellers may expect when their journey is disrupted, covering: flight cancellation delay denied boarding lost baggage It also offers guidance on the legislation applicable to passengers with reduced mobility within the EU, outlining the framework and scope thereof...