Fixing date meaning

Wagstaff, 53, accepted that defence solicitors are uneasy about the process. Speaking to Law360 at the SFO’s offices overlooking Trafalgar Square, he said issues with the agency’s legacy software — which missed potentially relevant material the SFO was legally bound to disclose to defendants in court cases — have produced more smoke than fire. He added that the review’s findings so far are heartening and that the SFO has not, as yet, found anything that would call the safety of any conviction into question to date. The agency began the review — the latest disclosure setback — in 2024, after revealing it was fixing an encoding fault in its newer system, OpenTextAxcelerate software. Behind closed doors, and at times in open forum, publicly, defence lawyers have wondered whether the agency has minimised the scale of the technical problems. Flaws in the former platform, Autonomy Introspect, which failed to recognise full stops and colons, helped bring down the SFO’s case against ex-executives at security group G4S. That prosecution faltered after defence...

DFL Ltd & another v Koncar Generators and Motors Ltd 2024 INSC 593, Supreme Court of India What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores the importance of managing exposure to currency volatility throughout enforcement. For commercial lawyers, it is essential to counsel clients to embed precise currency provisions within their agreements, so as to avert difficulties triggered by interpretations under domestic law. Doing so ensures the parties’ chosen currency terms take precedence over statutory mechanisms, delivering certainty and lowering the likelihood of disputes. The judgment sets out clear guidance for practitioners on fixing the exchange rate for assessing claims, thereby averting unnecessary litigation. For arbitration practitioners, the court confirms that a foreign arbitral award becomes enforceable once challenges are conclusively determined. This bears upon how advisers direct clients on the timing of deposits and withdrawals during enforcement proceedings, as timing can materially influence the ultimate financial outcome. In sum, the decision strengthens predictability and clarity around the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, which is...

Antitrust Court of Justice issues judgment in national reference from Italy on whether EU law precludes non-mandatory investigation deadlines in antitrust proceedings under Article 101 TFEU The Court of Justice delivered its ruling in Case C‑588/24, Imballaggi Piemontesi, on a reference from Italy. The question was whether Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms prevent national provisions which, in competition proceedings, allow the Italian Competition Authority to extend the period for concluding a case without any automatic obligation to do so, where the prolongation is warranted by specific circumstances. The Court confirmed that EU law does not bar such a framework, provided that any departure from the initial investigative time limit meets certain guarantees, namely that it is: supported by reasons; notified before the original deadline lapses; fixing a new date for closure; open to judicial scrutiny; and compatible...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 March 2014; it is no longer maintained See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of the OFT’s Chapter I investigation into Pride Mobility Products and retailers concerning mobility scooters (Case CE/9578-12). Latest developments On 27 March 2014, the OFT delivered its infringement decision and instructed the companies to cease the arrangements (where this has not already occurred) and to refrain from entering comparable arrangements in future. No fines were imposed, as the agreements qualified as a ‘small agreement’ exempt from penalties—this applies where the parties’ combined turnover is below £20m and price fixing is not involved. The OFT has issued its statement of objections, and the parties will now have the chance to respond...

CASE HUB (date of judgment—12/01/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this case hub is frozen as at the decision of 12 January 2017 and is not being maintained Outline Appeal lodged against the General Court’s judgment, which upheld the Commission decision of 20 July 2010 finding breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and levying a €59.85m fine, jointly and severally, on CFPR and its subsidiary Timab for the latter’s alleged role in a market‑sharing and price‑fixing cartel relating to animal feed phosphates supplied across the EEA between 1969 and 2004 (‘Animal feed phosphates cartel’). The Commission’s inquiry culminated in a ‘settlement procedure’ in which every implicated undertaking, apart from CFPR/Timab, took part and concluded a settlement with the Commission. On 12 January 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed CFPR/Timab’s appeal in full, confirming in particular that the Commission was entitled to impose a higher penalty on CFPR/Timab than would have applied had CFPR/Timab accepted the...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 13 September 2013 and is no longer updated. See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—13/09/2013 Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or a cut in the level of the individual penalties imposed arising from the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2008. That decision found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and levied a €128.163m fine on Total France, jointly and severally with Total SA, for alleged participation in a price-fixing and market/customer allocation cartel involving paraffin waxes across the European Economic Area (EEA) and slack wax in Germany between 1992 and 2005 (‘Candle waxes cartel’). On 13 September 2013, the General Court rejected Total’s case in full but granted a small decrease to Total Raffinage’s penalty due to errors in the fine calculation, notably as regards duration...

[ Date ] [ Transferor's name and Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR) ] [ Transferee's name and UTR ] Election to apportion the price of fixtures under section 198 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 Please take notice that a joint election has been made in accordance with section 198 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (CAA 2001). This election is entered into by [ name of transferor ], as transferor (the Transferor), whose Unique Taxpayer Reference is [ UTR ], together with [ name of transferee ], as transferee (the Transferee) whose Unique Taxpayer Reference is [ UTR ]. The election concerns the property identified as [ details of property and the address ], recorded with HM Land Registry under title number [ title number ] (the Property)...

Date [ insert date ] Parties [ insert name of First Owner ], of [ insert address ], [ incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with company registration number [ insert company registration number ] ] (the First Owner) [ insert name of Second Owner ], of [ insert address ], [ incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with company registration number [ insert company registration number ] ] (the Second Owner) [ insert name of Mortgagee ], of [ insert address ], [ incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with company registration number [ insert company registration ...