<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Current Awareness &#187; company law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/category/company-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com</link>
	<description>from the Inner Temple Library</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:03:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Directors’ duties &#8211; A practical guide for  insolvency practitioners &#8211; 11 Stone Buildings</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/directors-duties-a-practical-guide-for-insolvency-practitioners-11-stone-buildings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/directors-duties-a-practical-guide-for-insolvency-practitioners-11-stone-buildings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:51:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84468</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;In this note Marcia Shekerdemian takes a closer look at the statutory codification of directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 (&#8216;CA&#8217;) by reference to key case law, making this a highly practical guide for IPs who are considering bringing misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (&#8216;IA&#8217;).&#8221; Full story (PDF) 11 [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In this note Marcia Shekerdemian takes a closer look at the statutory codification of directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 (&#8216;CA&#8217;) by reference to key case law, making this a highly practical guide for IPs who are considering bringing misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (&#8216;IA&#8217;).&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.11sb.com/pdf/insider-directors-duties-ma-june-2013.pdf">Full story</a> (PDF)</p>
<p>11 Stone Buildings, June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.11sb.com">www.11sb.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/directors-duties-a-practical-guide-for-insolvency-practitioners-11-stone-buildings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited 2013 UKSC 34 a victory for common sense &#8211; article by Elizabeth Darlington &#8211; Zenith Chambers</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/prest-v-petrodel-resources-limited-2013-uksc-34-a-victory-for-common-sense-article-by-elizabeth-darlington-zenith-chambers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/prest-v-petrodel-resources-limited-2013-uksc-34-a-victory-for-common-sense-article-by-elizabeth-darlington-zenith-chambers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;In summary, the Supreme Court (comprising Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption and Lady Hale) has unanimously upheld the wife’s appeal and found that the Respondent group of companies held the assets on trust for the Husband. The assets therefore constitute property to which the husband is &#8216;entitled, either in possession or reversion&#8217; for [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In summary, the Supreme Court (comprising Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption and Lady Hale) has unanimously upheld the wife’s appeal and found that the Respondent group of companies held the assets on trust for the Husband. The assets therefore constitute property to which the husband is &#8216;entitled, either in possession or reversion&#8217; for the purposes of section 24(1)(a) MCA.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/site/zenith_news/newsdetail/prest_v_petrodel_resources_ltd">Full story</a></p>
<p>Zenith Chambers, 12th June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk">www.zenithchambers.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/prest-v-petrodel-resources-limited-2013-uksc-34-a-victory-for-common-sense-article-by-elizabeth-darlington-zenith-chambers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Supreme Court grasps the nettle in  Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd &#8211; 11 Stone Buildings</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/the-supreme-court-grasps-the-nettle-in-prest-v-petrodel-resources-ltd-11-stone-buildings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/the-supreme-court-grasps-the-nettle-in-prest-v-petrodel-resources-ltd-11-stone-buildings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:22:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] 2 WLR 398 (a case in which a number of 11 SB members were involved). Unlike in VTB Capital, however, this time the Supreme Court grasped the nettle and gave some practical guidance as to the reach and limitations of the doctrine.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.11sb.com/pdf/insider-the-sc-on-prest-v-petrodel.pdf">Full story</a> (PDF)</p>
<p>11 Stone Buildings, June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.11sb.com">www.11sb.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/the-supreme-court-grasps-the-nettle-in-prest-v-petrodel-resources-ltd-11-stone-buildings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stripping Away the Veil of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel &#8211; Family Law Week</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/stripping-away-the-veil-of-deceit-prest-v-petrodel-family-law-week/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/stripping-away-the-veil-of-deceit-prest-v-petrodel-family-law-week/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:42:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;John Wilson QC of 1 Hare Court analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment in the landmark case of Prest v Petrodel and considers its implications for family lawyers.&#8221; Full story Family Law Week, 14th June 2013 Source: www.familylawweek.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;John Wilson QC of 1 Hare Court analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment in the landmark case of Prest v Petrodel and considers its implications for family lawyers.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed114454">Full story</a></p>
<p>Family Law Week, 14th June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.familylawweek.com">www.familylawweek.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/stripping-away-the-veil-of-deceit-prest-v-petrodel-family-law-week/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension &amp; Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/trustees-of-the-olympic-airlines-sa-pension-life-insurance-scheme-v-olympic-airlines-sa-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/trustees-of-the-olympic-airlines-sa-pension-life-insurance-scheme-v-olympic-airlines-sa-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EC law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[winding up]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension &#038; Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA [2013] EWCA Civ 643; [2013] WLR (D) 227 &#8220;The definition of &#8216;establishment&#8217; in article 2(h) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 was to be applied with care where one was seeking to determine whether jurisdiction lay for a secondary winding up [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2013-227">Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension &#038; Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA [2013] EWCA Civ 643;  [2013] WLR (D)  227</a></p>
<p>&#8220;The definition of &#8216;establishment&#8217; in article 2(h) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 was to be applied with care where one was seeking to determine whether jurisdiction lay for a secondary winding up of a primarily foreign-based company.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 6th June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/trustees-of-the-olympic-airlines-sa-pension-life-insurance-scheme-v-olympic-airlines-sa-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Group Seven Ltd v Allied Investment Corpn Ltd and others &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/group-seven-ltd-v-allied-investment-corpn-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/group-seven-ltd-v-allied-investment-corpn-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[civil procedure rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84358</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Group Seven Ltd v Allied Investment Corpn Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 1509 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 224 &#8220;A company which had a sole director, who also owned all its shares, did not hold or control its assets in accordance with that sole director and shareholder’s &#8216;direct or indirect instructions&#8217; within the meaning of paragraph [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2013-224">Group Seven Ltd v Allied Investment Corpn Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 1509 (Ch);  [2013] WLR (D) 224</a></p>
<p>&#8220;A company which had a sole director, who also owned all its shares, did not hold or control its assets in accordance with that sole director and shareholder’s &#8216;direct or indirect instructions&#8217; within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the standard form freezing order in the Civil Procedure Rules.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 6th June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/group-seven-ltd-v-allied-investment-corpn-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) v Prest (Appellant) &#8211; Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/petrodel-resources-limited-and-others-respondents-v-prest-appellant-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/petrodel-resources-limited-and-others-respondents-v-prest-appellant-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) v Prest (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 34 &#124; UKSC 2013/0004 (YouTube) Supreme Court, 12th June 2013 Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R04fGn2uDM">Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) v Prest (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 34 | UKSC 2013/0004</a> (YouTube)</p>
<p>Supreme Court, 12th June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt">www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/petrodel-resources-limited-and-others-respondents-v-prest-appellant-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prest v Prest: supreme court prepares to rule on landmark divorce wrangle &#8211; The Guardian</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/prest-v-prest-supreme-court-prepares-to-rule-on-landmark-divorce-wrangle-the-guardian/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/prest-v-prest-supreme-court-prepares-to-rule-on-landmark-divorce-wrangle-the-guardian/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Does a one-man company metamorphose into one man simply because the person with a wish to abstract its assets is his wife?&#8221; Full story The Guardian, 10th June 2013 Source: www.guardian.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Does a one-man company metamorphose into one man simply because the person with a wish to abstract its assets is his wife?&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/10/supreme-court-divorce-yasmin-michael-prest">Full story</a></p>
<p>The Guardian, 10th June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">www.guardian.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/prest-v-prest-supreme-court-prepares-to-rule-on-landmark-divorce-wrangle-the-guardian/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A fair split, or a &#8216;charter for cheats&#8217;? Supreme Court to rule in landmark divorce case &#8211; The Independent</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/a-fair-split-or-a-charter-for-cheats-supreme-court-to-rule-in-landmark-divorce-case-the-independent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/a-fair-split-or-a-charter-for-cheats-supreme-court-to-rule-in-landmark-divorce-case-the-independent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[assets recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Millionaire businessmen will be able to &#8216;stick two fingers up&#8217; at judges if the highest court in the land rules against a former wife in a high-profile divorce case this week, her lawyers said yesterday.&#8221; Full story The Independent, 9th June 2013 Source: www.independent.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Millionaire businessmen will be able to &#8216;stick two fingers up&#8217; at judges if the highest court in the land rules against a former wife in a high-profile divorce case this week, her lawyers said yesterday.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-fair-split-or-a-charter-for-cheats-supreme-court-to-rule-in-landmark-divorce-case-8650772.html">Full story</a></p>
<p>The Independent, 9th June 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk">www.independent.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/06/a-fair-split-or-a-charter-for-cheats-supreme-court-to-rule-in-landmark-divorce-case-the-independent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deferred Prosecution Agreements &#8211; No. 5 Chambers</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/deferred-prosecution-agreements-no-5-chambers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/deferred-prosecution-agreements-no-5-chambers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 15:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deferred prosecution agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentencing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=84020</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Following the Bribery Act 2010 the next instrument the Government is preparing in the ‘battle against economic crime’ is the Deferred Prosecution Agreement [‘DPA’]. Following a consultation in 2012 the Ministry of Justice inserted schedule 17 into the Crime and Courts Act 2013 [‘CCA 2013’]. Although the Crime and Courts Act 2013 received Royal Assent [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Following the Bribery Act 2010 the next instrument the Government is preparing in the ‘battle against economic crime’ is the Deferred Prosecution Agreement [‘DPA’]. Following a consultation in 2012 the Ministry of Justice inserted schedule 17 into the Crime and Courts Act 2013 [‘CCA 2013’]. Although the Crime and Courts Act 2013 received Royal Assent in April 2013, Schedule 17 is not yet in force.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.no5.com/news-and-publications/publications/214-deferred-prosecution-agreements/">Full story</a></p>
<p>No. 5 Chambers, 22nd May 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.no5.com">www.no5.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/deferred-prosecution-agreements-no-5-chambers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Companies will not be forced to publish results of equal pay audits, says Government &#8211; OUT-LAW.com</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/companies-will-not-be-forced-to-publish-results-of-equal-pay-audits-says-government-out-law-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/companies-will-not-be-forced-to-publish-results-of-equal-pay-audits-says-government-out-law-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 11:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equal pay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reports]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=83975</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Companies that are required to undertake equal pay audits would not be required to make the results of those audits public, the Government has proposed.&#8221; Full story OUT-LAW.com, 28th May 2013 Source: www.out-law.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Companies that are required to undertake equal pay audits would not be required to make the results of those audits public, the Government has proposed.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/may/companies-will-not-be-forced-to-publish-results-of-equal-pay-audits-says-government/?utm_source=feedly&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+out-law-NewsRoundUP+(OUT-LAW+News-RoundUP)">Full story</a></p>
<p>OUT-LAW.com, 28th May 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/companies-will-not-be-forced-to-publish-results-of-equal-pay-audits-says-government-out-law-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Multiple Derivative Actions in Company Law &#8211; Can You Or Can’t You? &#8211; New Square Chambers</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/multiple-derivative-actions-in-company-law-can-you-or-cant-you-new-square-chambers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/multiple-derivative-actions-in-company-law-can-you-or-cant-you-new-square-chambers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 08:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[derivative claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidiary companies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=83802</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;It has long been recognised in English law that as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle a member of a company may bring an action on its behalf against wrongdoers who exert control over the company and who are preventing it from enforcing its rights, i.e. the single derivative action. A multiple [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It has long been recognised in English law that as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle  a member of a company may bring an action on its behalf against wrongdoers who exert control over the company and who are preventing it from enforcing its rights, i.e. the single derivative action. A multiple derivative action potentially arises where the proposed claimant is not a member of the wronged company but is a member of the ultimate holding company. Since the coming into force of the Companies Act 2006, there has been considerable debate as to whether that legislation removed the common law double derivative action or even, in some quarters, whether such a common law action ever existed.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.newsquarechambers.co.uk/files/Publications/JB%20Multiple%20Derivative%20Actions%20in%20Company%20Law%2017%20May%202013.doc">Full story</a> (Word)</p>
<p>New Square Chambers, 17th May 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.newsquarechambers.co.uk">www.newsquarechambers.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/multiple-derivative-actions-in-company-law-can-you-or-cant-you-new-square-chambers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High Court Litigation Commercial Bargains and The Common Law &#8211; 11 KBW</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/high-court-litigation-commercial-bargains-and-the-common-law-11-kbw-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/high-court-litigation-commercial-bargains-and-the-common-law-11-kbw-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 09:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=83677</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Employment litigation in the High Court is one of the most interesting and dynamic areas of practice. The cases tend to be fought at the point where countervailing currents commercial and employment law meet and many of the cases turn on resolving the tension between a bargain struck between commercial men and the portmanteau term [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Employment litigation in the High Court is one of the most interesting and dynamic areas of practice.   The cases tend to be fought at the point where countervailing currents commercial  and employment law meet and many of the cases turn on resolving the tension between a bargain struck between commercial men and the portmanteau term of trust and confidence.  That tension presents an opportunity for the creative advisor and a pitfall for the unwary&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.11kbw.com/app/files/Articles/ELApaper11Mar13_do_.pdf">Full story</a> (PDF)</p>
<p>11 KBW, 10th May 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.11kbw.com">www.11kbw.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/high-court-litigation-commercial-bargains-and-the-common-law-11-kbw-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solvent or insolvent: the Supreme Court  lays down the test for s123 of IA 1986 &#8211; 11 Stone Buildings</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/solvent-or-insolvent-the-supreme-court-lays-down-the-test-for-s123-of-ia-1986-11-stone-buildings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/solvent-or-insolvent-the-supreme-court-lays-down-the-test-for-s123-of-ia-1986-11-stone-buildings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 09:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strict liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=83675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;In a unanimous judgment handed down on 9th May 2013, the Supreme Court confirmed that the ‘balance sheet’ test insolvency in section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is not a mechanical exercise of comparing the value of a company’s assets against the value of its liabilities; but a more sophisticated test requiring a judgment [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In a unanimous judgment handed down on 9th May 2013, the Supreme Court confirmed that the ‘balance<br />
sheet’ test insolvency in section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is not a mechanical exercise of comparing the value of a company’s assets against the value of its liabilities; but a more sophisticated test requiring a judgment as to whether the present assets of a company will reasonably enable the company’s present and future liabilities to be met. In so doing, their Lordships rejected the &#8216;point of no return&#8217; test formulated by Lord Neuberger MR in the Court of Appeal. Christopher Boardman reviews BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.11sb.com/pdf/insider-eurosail-sc-judgment-review.pdf">Full story</a> (PDF)</p>
<p>11 Stone Buildings, 13th May 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.11sb.com">www.11sb.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/solvent-or-insolvent-the-supreme-court-lays-down-the-test-for-s123-of-ia-1986-11-stone-buildings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Neuberger Berman Europe Ltd(on behalf of Sealink Funding Ltd) and others (Appellants); BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC (Appellant) &#8211; Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/bny-corporate-trustee-services-limited-and-others-respondents-v-neuberger-berman-europe-ltdon-behalf-of-sealink-funding-ltd-and-others-appellants-bny-corporate-trustee-services-limited-and-othe/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/bny-corporate-trustee-services-limited-and-others-respondents-v-neuberger-berman-europe-ltdon-behalf-of-sealink-funding-ltd-and-others-appellants-bny-corporate-trustee-services-limited-and-othe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 13:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[winding up]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=83588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Neuberger Berman Europe Ltd(on behalf of Sealink Funding Ltd) and others (Appellants); BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 28 (YouTube) Supreme Court, 9th May 2013 Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQcb0Nv5wlE">BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Neuberger Berman Europe Ltd(on behalf of Sealink Funding Ltd) and others (Appellants); BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 28</a> (YouTube)</p>
<p>Supreme Court, 9th May 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt">www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/05/bny-corporate-trustee-services-limited-and-others-respondents-v-neuberger-berman-europe-ltdon-behalf-of-sealink-funding-ltd-and-others-appellants-bny-corporate-trustee-services-limited-and-othe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insolvency of software sub-licensor did not end firm&#8217;s rights of use under that licence, rules High Court &#8211; OUT-LAW.com</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/02/insolvency-of-software-sub-licensor-did-not-end-firms-rights-of-use-under-that-licence-rules-high-court-out-law-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/02/insolvency-of-software-sub-licensor-did-not-end-firms-rights-of-use-under-that-licence-rules-high-court-out-law-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=81943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Businesses can retain the right to use copyrighted software under sub-licences awarded by head-licensees in circumstances where those head-licensees are subject of a termination or become insolvent, the High Court has said.&#8221; Full story OUT-LAW.com, 15th February 2013 Source: www.out-law.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Businesses can retain the right to use copyrighted software under sub-licences awarded by head-licensees  in circumstances where those head-licensees are subject of a termination or  become insolvent, the High Court has said.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/february/insolvency-of-software-sub-licensor-did-not-end-firms-rights-of-use-under-that-licence-rules-high-court/">Full story</a></p>
<p>OUT-LAW.com, 15th February 2013</p>
<p>Source:<a href="http:// www.out-law.com"> www.out-law.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/02/insolvency-of-software-sub-licensor-did-not-end-firms-rights-of-use-under-that-licence-rules-high-court-out-law-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does VTB v Nutritek foreshadow the Supreme Court’s approach to the Petrodel appeal on piercing the corporate veil? &#8211; Family Law week</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/02/does-vtb-v-nutritek-foreshadow-the-supreme-courts-approach-to-the-petrodel-appeal-on-piercing-the-corporate-veil-family-law-week/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/02/does-vtb-v-nutritek-foreshadow-the-supreme-courts-approach-to-the-petrodel-appeal-on-piercing-the-corporate-veil-family-law-week/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=81830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Emily Marshall, family law professional support lawyer at Irwin Mitchell considers the possible implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in a commercial case on the forthcoming appeal in the Petrodel appeal, to be heard in March.&#8221; Full story Family Law Week, 11th February 2013 Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Emily Marshall, family law professional support lawyer at Irwin Mitchell considers the possible implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in a commercial case on the forthcoming appeal in the Petrodel appeal, to be heard in March.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111708">Full story</a></p>
<p>Family Law Week, 11th February 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ho0">www.familylawweek.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/02/does-vtb-v-nutritek-foreshadow-the-supreme-courts-approach-to-the-petrodel-appeal-on-piercing-the-corporate-veil-family-law-week/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deferred Prosecution Agreements – Sir Anthony Hooper, Former Lord Justice of Appeal &#8211; Fulcrum Chambers</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/deferred-prosecution-agreements-sir-anthony-hooper-former-lord-justice-of-appeal-fulcrum-chambers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/deferred-prosecution-agreements-sir-anthony-hooper-former-lord-justice-of-appeal-fulcrum-chambers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:19:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bribery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deferred prosecution agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penalties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=81501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Since the early 90s US prosecuting authorities have been using deferred prosecution agreements. They are said to raise about $2.5bn a year in penalties, often in respect of criminal activities with little connection to the US. A deferred prosecution agreements involves the filing in court of agreed charges against a corporation, subject to a condition [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Since the early 90s US prosecuting authorities have been using deferred prosecution agreements. They are said to raise about $2.5bn a year in penalties, often in respect of criminal activities with little connection to the US.  A deferred prosecution agreements involves the filing in court of agreed charges against a corporation, subject to a condition that the charges will not be pursued if the corporation complies with the often stringent terms of the agreement for a specified period. Such terms will include the payment of substantial sums to reflect broadly the fine that would have been paid had the corporation pleaded guilty and to reflect the confiscation and compensation regimes.  Corporations are likely also to have to agree to the appointment of a monitor to ensure their adherence to proper standards of behaviour.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fulcrumchambers.com/deferred-prosecution-agreements-sir-anthony-hooper-former-lord-justice-of-appeal/">Full story</a></p>
<p>Fulcrum Chambers, January 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.fulcrumchambers.com">www.fulcrumchambers.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/deferred-prosecution-agreements-sir-anthony-hooper-former-lord-justice-of-appeal-fulcrum-chambers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eckerle and others v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH and another &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/eckerle-and-others-v-wickeder-westfalenstahl-gmbh-and-another-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/eckerle-and-others-v-wickeder-westfalenstahl-gmbh-and-another-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:07:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[locus standi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=81452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eckerle and others v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH and another: [2013] EWHC 68 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 24 &#8220;The holders of dematerialised shares in a public company were not entitled to the same protection under section 98 of the Companies Act 2006 as registered minority shareholders.&#8221; WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013 Source: www.iclr.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR Dailies/WLRD 2011/wlrd2013-024">Eckerle and others v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH and another: [2013] EWHC 68 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 24</a></p>
<p>&#8220;The holders of dematerialised shares in a public company were not entitled to the same protection under section 98 of the Companies Act 2006 as registered minority shareholders.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/eckerle-and-others-v-wickeder-westfalenstahl-gmbh-and-another-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>European Commission v Tomkins plc &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/european-commission-v-tomkins-plc-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/european-commission-v-tomkins-plc-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EC law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidiary companies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=81401</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[European Commission v Tomkins plc (Case C-286/11P); [2013] WLR (D) 17 &#8220;Where the liability of a parent company was derived exclusively from that of its subsidiary and where the parent and its subsidiary had brought parallel applications having the &#8216;same object&#8217;, the Court was entitled, without infringing the ne ultra petita principle—that European Union courts [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2013-017">European Commission v Tomkins plc (Case C-286/11P); [2013] WLR (D) 17</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Where the liability of a parent company was derived exclusively from that of its subsidiary and where the parent and its subsidiary had brought parallel applications having the &#8216;same object&#8217;, the Court was entitled, without infringing the ne ultra petita principle—that European Union courts could not rule on aspects concerning addressees other than those covered by the applicant’s application—to take account of the outcome of the action brought by the subsidiary and to annul the action brought by the parent on that basis, despite the fact that the scope of the applications and arguments presented in each application were different.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 22nd January 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/european-commission-v-tomkins-plc-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Certain Limited Partners in Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (a firm) v Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (a firm) and others &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/certain-limited-partners-in-henderson-pfi-secondary-fund-ii-llp-a-firm-v-henderson-pfi-secondary-fund-ii-llp-a-firm-and-others-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/certain-limited-partners-in-henderson-pfi-secondary-fund-ii-llp-a-firm-v-henderson-pfi-secondary-fund-ii-llp-a-firm-and-others-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:39:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[derivative claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partnerships]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=80568</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Certain Limited Partners in Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (a firm) v Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (a firm) and others [2012] EWHC 3259 (Comm); [2012] WLR (D) 348 &#8220;A derivative claim brought by limited partners in a partnership, in the partnership’s name, against the partnership’s manager was permitted where there were special [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2012-348">Certain Limited Partners in Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (a firm) v Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (a firm) and others [2012] EWHC 3259 (Comm); [2012] WLR (D) 348</a></p>
<p>&#8220;A derivative claim brought by limited partners in a partnership, in the partnership’s name, against the partnership’s manager was permitted where there were special circumstances to justify such a claim.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 16th November 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/certain-limited-partners-in-henderson-pfi-secondary-fund-ii-llp-a-firm-v-henderson-pfi-secondary-fund-ii-llp-a-firm-and-others-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Changes to Takeover Code working well, according to Panel report &#8211; OUT-LAW.com</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/changes-to-takeover-code-working-well-according-to-panel-report-out-law-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/changes-to-takeover-code-working-well-according-to-panel-report-out-law-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:12:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[codes of practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[takeovers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=80563</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Changes to the rules governing company acquisitions, introduced last year to protect shareholders in the event of a hostile takeover, have &#8220;operated satisfactorily&#8221; according to a report by the Takeover Panel.&#8221; Full story OUT-LAW.com, 28th November 2012 Source: www.out-law.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Changes to the rules governing company acquisitions, introduced last year to protect shareholders in the event of a hostile takeover, have &#8220;operated satisfactorily&#8221; according to a report by the Takeover Panel.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/november/changes-to-takeover-code-working-well-according-to-panel-report/">Full story</a></p>
<p>OUT-LAW.com, 28th November 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/changes-to-takeover-code-working-well-according-to-panel-report-out-law-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Petrodel v Prest: hiding assets behind the corporate veil? &#8211; Halsbury&#8217;s Law Exchange</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/petrodel-v-prest-hiding-assets-behind-the-corporate-veil-halsburys-law-exchange/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/petrodel-v-prest-hiding-assets-behind-the-corporate-veil-halsburys-law-exchange/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=80009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For a long time family lawyers and the family courts have made the best of the creaking mechanism for financial provision that is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) (much amended…). Procedural changes are made but in terms of the interpretation of the MCA 1973 itself, case law is king. The family courts “make [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For a long time family lawyers and the family courts have made the best of the creaking mechanism for financial provision that is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) (much amended…). Procedural changes are made but in terms of the interpretation of the MCA 1973 itself, case law is king. The family courts “make do and mend” so that the nearly 40-year-old primary legislation is fit for purpose. But the Court of Appeal last week decided that that the company law case of Salomon v A Salomon and Company, Limited [1897] AC 22 applies as much in the disposition of ancillary relief proceedings as in other proceedings.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/petrodel-v-prest-hiding-assets-behind-the-corporate-veil/">Full story</a></p>
<p>Halsbury&#8217;s Law Exchange, 1st November 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk">www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/petrodel-v-prest-hiding-assets-behind-the-corporate-veil-halsburys-law-exchange/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employee share ownership: proposals for the de-regulation of share buybacks by companies with employee shareholders &#8211; Employment Law Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/employee-share-ownership-proposals-for-the-de-regulation-of-share-buybacks-by-companies-with-employee-shareholders-employment-law-blog/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/employee-share-ownership-proposals-for-the-de-regulation-of-share-buybacks-by-companies-with-employee-shareholders-employment-law-blog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consultations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=80003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The Nuttall Review commissioned by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and published on 4 July 2012 identified key barriers to the uptake of employee ownership and made a number of recommendations on how to reduce these barriers.&#8221; Full story Employment Law Blog, 1st November 2012 Source: www.employment11kbw.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Nuttall Review commissioned by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and published on 4 July 2012 identified key barriers to the uptake of employee ownership and made a number of recommendations on how to reduce these barriers.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.employment11kbw.com/2012/11/employee-share-ownership-proposals-for-the-de-regulation-of-share-buybacks-by-companies-with-employee-shareholders/">Full story</a></p>
<p>Employment Law Blog, 1st November 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.employment11kbw.com">www.employment11kbw.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/employee-share-ownership-proposals-for-the-de-regulation-of-share-buybacks-by-companies-with-employee-shareholders-employment-law-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Divorce ruling branded ‘cheat’s charter’ &#8211; Law Society&#8217;s Gazette</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/divorce-ruling-branded-cheats-charter-law-societys-gazette/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/divorce-ruling-branded-cheats-charter-law-societys-gazette/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=79996</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Lawyers have branded as a ‘cheat’s charter’ a Court of Appeal landmark ruling that an oil tycoon need not hand over to his wife £17.5m in assets held by his companies.&#8221; Full story Law Society&#8217;s Gazette, 1st November 2012 Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Lawyers have branded as a ‘cheat’s charter’ a Court of Appeal landmark ruling that an oil tycoon need not hand over to his wife £17.5m in assets held by his companies.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/divorce-ruling-branded-cheat-s-charter">Full story</a></p>
<p>Law Society&#8217;s Gazette, 1st November 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk">www.lawgazette.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/divorce-ruling-branded-cheats-charter-law-societys-gazette/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Family Division 1 – Chancery Division 2: A consideration of Petrodel v Prest &#8211; Family Law Week</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/family-division-1-chancery-division-2-a-consideration-of-petrodel-v-prest-family-law-week/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/family-division-1-chancery-division-2-a-consideration-of-petrodel-v-prest-family-law-week/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=79987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Alison Burge, barrister, of Pump Court Chambers analyses the Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision in the watershed case of Petrodel v Prest.&#8221; Full story Family Law Week, 31st October 2012 Source: www.familylawweek.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Alison Burge, barrister, of Pump Court Chambers analyses the Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision in the watershed case of Petrodel v Prest.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed104052">Full story</a></p>
<p>Family Law Week, 31st October 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.familylawweek.com">www.familylawweek.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/11/family-division-1-chancery-division-2-a-consideration-of-petrodel-v-prest-family-law-week/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prest v Prest and others &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/prest-v-prest-and-others-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/prest-v-prest-and-others-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial home]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=79937</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prest v Prest and others [2012] EWCA Civ 1395; [2012] WLR (D) 296 &#8220;The court had no jurisdiction in ancillary relief proceedings under section 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to order a party (the husband) to transfer to the wife assets held by companies of which the husband was the controller or controlling [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2012-296">Prest v Prest and others [2012] EWCA Civ 1395; [2012] WLR (D) 296</a></p>
<p>&#8220;The court had no jurisdiction in ancillary relief proceedings under section 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to order a party (the husband) to transfer to the wife assets held by companies of which the husband was the controller or controlling shareholder, on the basis of that he was &#8216;entitled&#8217; to them.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 26th October 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/prest-v-prest-and-others-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Green light expected for deferred prosecutions &#8211; Law Society&#8217;s Gazette</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/green-light-expected-for-deferred-prosecutions-law-societys-gazette/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/green-light-expected-for-deferred-prosecutions-law-societys-gazette/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deferred prosecution agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plea bargaining]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecutions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=79794</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The government is expected today to give a cautious go ahead to US-style deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) for corporate crime. A government response to a Ministry of Justice consultation held last summer is likely to to recommend changing the law to allow such deals to be struck between offending companies and the Serious Fraud Office.&#8221; [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The government is expected today to give a cautious go ahead to US-style deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) for corporate crime. A government response to a Ministry of Justice consultation held last summer is likely to to recommend changing the law to allow such deals to be struck between offending companies and the Serious Fraud Office.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/green-light-expected-deferred-prosecutions">Full story</a></p>
<p>Law Society&#8217;s Gazette, 23rd October 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk">www.lawgazette.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/green-light-expected-for-deferred-prosecutions-law-societys-gazette/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Board minutes of a public/private joint venture confidential and commercially sensitive &#8211; Panopticon</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/board-minutes-of-a-publicprivate-joint-venture-confidential-and-commercially-sensitive-panopticon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/board-minutes-of-a-publicprivate-joint-venture-confidential-and-commercially-sensitive-panopticon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint ventures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public private partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tribunals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=79538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Joint ventures between the public and private sectors are increasingly common. They are often a focus for vigorous political debate over issues such as the costs involved, the savings to the public purse, the profit to the private sector partner, and allegations of conflicts of interest. While those are political arguments on which Tribunals take [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Joint ventures between the public and private sectors are increasingly common. They are often a focus for vigorous political debate over issues such as the costs involved, the savings to the public purse, the profit to the private sector partner, and allegations of conflicts of interest. While those are political arguments on which Tribunals take no view, they do point to the significant public interests that are engaged when considering access to information. So said the Tribunal in David Orr v IC and Avon and Somerset Police Authority (EA/2012/0077), a recent decision notable for grappling with access to information about such a public/private joint venture.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.panopticonblog.com/2012/10/11/board-minutes-of-a-publicprivate-joint-venture-confidential-and-commercially-sensitive/">Full story</a></p>
<p>Panopticon, 11th October 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.panopticonblog.com">www.panopticonblog.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/board-minutes-of-a-publicprivate-joint-venture-confidential-and-commercially-sensitive-panopticon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can you legislate for responsible capitalism? Yes, here&#8217;s how &#8211; The Guardian</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/can-you-legislate-for-responsible-capitalism-yes-heres-how-the-guardian/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/can-you-legislate-for-responsible-capitalism-yes-heres-how-the-guardian/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=79369</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The Companies Act 2006 was a step, but we urgently need a commission on responsible capitalism.&#8221; Full story The Guardian, 2nd October 2012 Source: www.guardian.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Companies Act 2006 was a step, but we urgently need a commission on responsible capitalism.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/oct/02/legislate-responsible-capitalism-miliband?newsfeed=true">Full story</a></p>
<p>The Guardian, 2nd October 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">www.guardian.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/10/can-you-legislate-for-responsible-capitalism-yes-heres-how-the-guardian/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OFT able to levy fines up to 30% of firms &#8216;relevant turnover&#8217; for anti-competitive behaviour &#8211; OUT-Law.com</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/09/oft-able-to-levy-fines-up-to-30-of-firms-relevant-turnover-for-anti-competitive-behaviour-out-law-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/09/oft-able-to-levy-fines-up-to-30-of-firms-relevant-turnover-for-anti-competitive-behaviour-out-law-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:41:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EC law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=78654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Businesses now face fines worth up to 30% of their annual turnover in a particular market if they engage in anti-competitive behaviour, following an update to the UK competition regulator&#8217;s penalties regime.&#8221; Full story OUT-LAW.com, 12th September 2012 Source: www.out-law.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Businesses now face fines worth up to 30% of their annual turnover in a particular market if they engage in anti-competitive behaviour, following an update to the UK competition regulator&#8217;s penalties regime.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/september/oft-able-to-levy-fines-up-to-30-of-firms-relevant-turnover-for-anti-competitive-behaviour/">Full story</a></p>
<p>OUT-LAW.com, 12th September 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/09/oft-able-to-levy-fines-up-to-30-of-firms-relevant-turnover-for-anti-competitive-behaviour-out-law-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Health and safety inspections to be scrapped for all but most high-risk businesses, Government announces &#8211; OUT-LAW.com</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/09/health-and-safety-inspections-to-be-scrapped-for-all-but-most-high-risk-businesses-government-announces-out-law-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/09/health-and-safety-inspections-to-be-scrapped-for-all-but-most-high-risk-businesses-government-announces-out-law-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:16:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health & safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=78596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Regular health and safety inspections will be scrapped for all but the most high-risk businesses from April 2013, the Government has announced.&#8221; Full story OUT-LAW.com, 10th September 2012 Source: www.out-law.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Regular health and safety inspections will be scrapped for all but the most high-risk businesses from April 2013, the Government has announced.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/september/health-and-safety-inspections-to-be-scrapped-for-all-but-most-high-risk-businesses-government-announces/">Full story</a></p>
<p>OUT-LAW.com, 10th September 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/09/health-and-safety-inspections-to-be-scrapped-for-all-but-most-high-risk-businesses-government-announces-out-law-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Assénagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corpn Ltd &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/08/assenagon-asset-management-sa-v-irish-bank-resolution-corpn-ltd-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/08/assenagon-asset-management-sa-v-irish-bank-resolution-corpn-ltd-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ultra vires]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=77032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Assénagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corpn Ltd: [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch);  [2012] WLR (D)  243 &#8220;A challenge to the legality of a technique used by the issuers of corporate bonds which had acquired the label &#8216;exit consent&#8217; succeeded on the ground that it was not lawful for the majority bondholders to lend its aid to [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR Dailies/WLRD 2011/wlrd2012-243">Assénagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corpn Ltd: [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch);  [2012] WLR (D)  243</a></p>
<p>&#8220;A challenge to the legality of a technique used by the issuers of corporate bonds which had acquired the label &#8216;exit consent&#8217; succeeded on the ground that it was not lawful for the majority bondholders to lend its aid to the coercion of a minority by voting for a resolution which expropriated the minority’s rights under their bonds for a nominal consideration.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 27th July 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/08/assenagon-asset-management-sa-v-irish-bank-resolution-corpn-ltd-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joddrell v Peaktone Ltd &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/joddrell-v-peaktone-ltd-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/joddrell-v-peaktone-ltd-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retrospectivity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=76742</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Joddrell v Peaktone Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1035; [2012] WLR (D) 229 &#8220;The deeming provision, as to the restoration of a company to the Register of Companies, contained within section 1032(1) of the Companies Act 2006, was apt retrospectively to validate an action commenced by or against a company during the period of its dissolution.&#8221; [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2012-229">Joddrell v Peaktone Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1035; [2012] WLR (D) 229</a></p>
<p>&#8220;The deeming provision, as to the restoration of a company to the Register of Companies, contained within section 1032(1) of the Companies Act 2006, was apt retrospectively to validate an action commenced by or against a company during the period of its dissolution.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 26th July 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/joddrell-v-peaktone-ltd-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government launches consultation on the designs legal framework &#8211; Intellectual Property Office</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/government-launches-consultation-on-the-designs-legal-framework-intellectual-property-office/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/government-launches-consultation-on-the-designs-legal-framework-intellectual-property-office/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press releases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=76396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The Government today set out its proposals to enhance the UK designs legal framework to make the system more accessible for businesses.&#8221; Full press release Intellectual Property Office, 24th July 2012 Source: www.ipo.gov.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Government today set out its proposals to enhance the UK designs legal framework to make the system more accessible for businesses.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/press-release-20120724.htm">Full press release</a></p>
<p>Intellectual Property Office, 24th July 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk">www.ipo.gov.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/government-launches-consultation-on-the-designs-legal-framework-intellectual-property-office/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maidment v Attwood and others &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/maidment-v-attwood-and-others-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/maidment-v-attwood-and-others-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfairly prejudicial conduct]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=76300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maidment v Attwood and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 998;  [2012] WLR (D)  220 &#8220;Where a minority shareholder had brought a petition under section 994 of the Companies Act alleging that remuneration paid to a director of a now insolvent company in liquidation was excessive and therefore unfairly prejudicial, there was no basis in the statutory provisions or in [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR Dailies/WLRD 2011/wlrd2012-220">Maidment v Attwood and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 998;  [2012] WLR (D)  220</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Where a minority shareholder had brought a petition under section 994 of the Companies Act alleging that remuneration paid to a director of a now insolvent company in liquidation was excessive and therefore unfairly prejudicial, there was no basis in the statutory provisions or in principle or in authority to impose a requirement for diligence on shareholders in regards to the company’s filed accounts.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 19th July 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/maidment-v-attwood-and-others-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>International Leisure Ltd and another v First National Trustee Co UK Ltd and others &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/international-leisure-ltd-and-another-v-first-national-trustee-co-uk-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/international-leisure-ltd-and-another-v-first-national-trustee-co-uk-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[administrators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[striking out]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=75863</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[International Leisure Ltd and another v First National Trustee Co UK Ltd and others: [2012] EWHC 1971 (Ch);  [2012] WLR (D)  208 &#8220;The rule against reflective loss and the extent to which a shareholder could sue for loss primarily suffered by and primarily belonging to a company did not extend to loss suffered by holders of a debenture.&#8221; [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR Dailies/WLRD 2011/wlrd2012-208">International Leisure Ltd and another v First National Trustee Co UK Ltd and others: [2012] EWHC 1971 (Ch);  [2012] WLR (D)  208</a></p>
<p>&#8220;The rule against reflective loss and the extent to which a shareholder could sue for loss primarily suffered by and primarily belonging to a company did not extend to loss suffered by holders of a debenture.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 16th July 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/international-leisure-ltd-and-another-v-first-national-trustee-co-uk-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anglo American: a right to sue in the UK as well as in South Africa? &#8211; UK Human Rights Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/anglo-american-a-right-to-sue-in-the-uk-as-well-as-in-south-africa-uk-human-rights-blog/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/anglo-american-a-right-to-sue-in-the-uk-as-well-as-in-south-africa-uk-human-rights-blog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[asbestos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domicile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidiary companies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=75691</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Back to the problem of when and where you can sue various members of a group of companies. In the Cape case (for which see my post), a parent company was held liable for failing to ensure that its subsidiary properly managed the risks posed by asbestos. In this case of Vava, the claimants wanted [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Back to the problem of when and where you can sue various members of a group of companies. In the Cape case (for which see my post), a parent company was held liable for failing to ensure that its subsidiary properly managed the risks posed by asbestos. In this case of Vava, the claimants wanted to sue a South African registered holding company (AASA) in the UK, on the basis that the real decisions were taken in the UK, and hence AASA were domiciled in the UK for purposes of suing them.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/07/16/anglo-american-a-right-to-sue-in-the-uk-as-well-as-in-south-africa/">Full story</a></p>
<p>UK Human Rights Blog, 16th June 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.ukhumanrightsblog.com">www.ukhumanrightsblog.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/anglo-american-a-right-to-sue-in-the-uk-as-well-as-in-south-africa-uk-human-rights-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deripaska in High Court battle over Rusal stake &#8211; BBC News</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/deripaska-in-high-court-battle-over-rusal-stake-bbc-news/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/deripaska-in-high-court-battle-over-rusal-stake-bbc-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:07:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=75169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska faces a rival billionaire in London&#8217;s High Court on Monday in one of the UK&#8217;s largest ever commercial disputes.&#8221; Full story BBC News, 9th July 2012 Source: www.bbc.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska faces a rival billionaire in London&#8217;s High Court on Monday in one of the UK&#8217;s largest ever commercial disputes.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18741905">Full story</a></p>
<p>BBC News, 9th July 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk">www.bbc.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/07/deripaska-in-high-court-battle-over-rusal-stake-bbc-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/vtb-capital-plc-v-nutritek-international-corp-and-others-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/vtb-capital-plc-v-nutritek-international-corp-and-others-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:39:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assets recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=74391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 808; [2012] WLR (D) 181 &#8220;There was no such thing in English law as a &#8216;remedial constructive contract&#8217; and the courts had no jurisdiction to subject parties to contractual obligations under a contract to which neither they, not the only undisputed parties to [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR Dailies/WLRD 2011/wlrd2012-181">VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 808; [2012] WLR (D) 181</a></p>
<p>&#8220;There was no such thing in English law as a &#8216;remedial constructive contract&#8217; and the courts had no jurisdiction to subject parties to contractual obligations under a contract to which neither they, not the only undisputed parties to the contract had ever agreed or intended they should be subject. The Court of Appeal was bound to uphold the principle that it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances existed indicating that it was only a façade concealing the true facts. The veil-piercing principle had been developed pragmatically for the purpose of providing a practical solution in particular factual circumstances and could not be invoked wherever it was necessary to do so in the interests of justice and no unconnected third party was involved.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 20th June 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/vtb-capital-plc-v-nutritek-international-corp-and-others-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal in key corporate veil ruling &#8211; The Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/court-of-appeal-in-key-corporate-veil-ruling-the-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/court-of-appeal-in-key-corporate-veil-ruling-the-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assets recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=74299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The Court of Appeal has clarified its position on piercing the corporate veil rejecting an appeal against brought by state-owned Russian bank VTB Capital against Nutritrek International.&#8221; Full story The Lawyer, 20th June 2012 Source: www.thelawyer.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Court of Appeal has clarified its position on piercing the corporate veil rejecting an appeal against brought by state-owned Russian bank VTB Capital against Nutritrek International.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thelawyer.com/court-of-appeal-in-key-corporate-veil-ruling/1013019.article">Full story</a></p>
<p>The Lawyer, 20th June 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.thelawyer.com">www.thelawyer.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/court-of-appeal-in-key-corporate-veil-ruling-the-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Piercing the corporate veil to recover assets from fraudsters &#8211; 11 Stone Buildings</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/piercing-the-corporate-veil-to-recover-assets-from-fraudsters-11-stone-buildings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/piercing-the-corporate-veil-to-recover-assets-from-fraudsters-11-stone-buildings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[assets recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=74190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Piercing the corporate veil is currently a hot topic with a difference of opinion between various judges on several of the finer points, especially in a contractual context (compare Burton J in Gramsci v Stepanovs [2011] EWCH 333 Comm with Arnold J in VTB v Nutritek [2011] EWCH 3107 CH). In the meantime, while the [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Piercing the corporate veil is currently a hot topic with a difference of opinion between various judges on several of the finer points, especially in a contractual context (compare Burton J in Gramsci v Stepanovs [2011] EWCH 333 Comm with Arnold J in VTB v Nutritek [2011] EWCH 3107 CH). In the meantime, while the decision of the Court of Appeal in VTB is eagerly awaited, the doctrine is essential to do justice in practice in many cases even though its theoretical underpinnings remain somewhat elusive.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.11sb.com/pdf/insider-piercing-the-corporate-veil-june-2012.pdf">Full story</a></p>
<p>11 Stone Buildings, June 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.11sb.com">www.11sb.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/06/piercing-the-corporate-veil-to-recover-assets-from-fraudsters-11-stone-buildings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New tool to tackle economic crime &#8211; Attorney General&#8217;s Office</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/05/new-tool-to-tackle-economic-crime-attorney-generals-office/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/05/new-tool-to-tackle-economic-crime-attorney-generals-office/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 14:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consultations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecutions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=72541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Plans for a new tool to tackle economic crime were published today for consultation by Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC and Justice Minister Crispin Blunt.&#8221; Full story Attorney General&#8217;s Office, 17th May 2012 Source: www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Plans for a new tool to tackle economic crime were published today for consultation by Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC and Justice Minister Crispin Blunt.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/NewsCentre/Pages/Newtooltotackleeconomiccrime.aspx">Full story</a></p>
<p>Attorney General&#8217;s Office, 17th May 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk">www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/05/new-tool-to-tackle-economic-crime-attorney-generals-office/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harriet Harman&#8217;s public sector equality laws to be scrapped &#8211; Daily Telegraph</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/05/harriet-harmans-public-sector-equality-laws-to-be-scrapped-daily-telegraph/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/05/harriet-harmans-public-sector-equality-laws-to-be-scrapped-daily-telegraph/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 08:36:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[age discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equality and Human Rights Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex discrimination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=72396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Anti-race and sex discrimination laws brought in under Labour are set to be scrapped because the &#8216;unnecessary&#8217; rules are damaging businesses, Theresa May has said.&#8221; Full story Daily Telegraph, 16th May 2012 Source: www.telegraph.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Anti-race and sex discrimination laws brought in under Labour are set to be scrapped because the &#8216;unnecessary&#8217; rules are damaging businesses, Theresa May has said.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9267640/Harriet-Harmans-public-sector-equality-laws-to-be-scrapped.html">Full story</a></p>
<p>Daily Telegraph, 16th May 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk">www.telegraph.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/05/harriet-harmans-public-sector-equality-laws-to-be-scrapped-daily-telegraph/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deferred prosecution agreement legislation to be introduced, Solicitor General says &#8211; OUT-LAW.com</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/deferred-prosecution-agreement-legislation-to-be-introduced-solicitor-general-says-out-law-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/deferred-prosecution-agreement-legislation-to-be-introduced-solicitor-general-says-out-law-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deferred prosecution agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecutions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=69469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The Government will introduce new laws that enable businesses and prosecutors to negotiate the punishments those firms should face for unlawful activity before the end of this Parliament, a top legal advisor has said.&#8221; Full story OUT-LAW.com, 22nd March 2012 Source: www.out-law.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Government will introduce new laws that enable businesses and prosecutors to negotiate the punishments those firms should face for unlawful activity before the end of this Parliament, a top legal advisor has said.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march/deferred-prosecution-agreement-legislation-to-be-introduced-solicitor-general-says/">Full story</a></p>
<p>OUT-LAW.com, 22nd March 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/deferred-prosecution-agreement-legislation-to-be-introduced-solicitor-general-says-out-law-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deferred prosecution could come to UK, says Alderman &#8211; Law Society&#8217;s Gazette</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/deferred-prosecution-could-come-to-uk-says-alderman-law-societys-gazette/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/deferred-prosecution-could-come-to-uk-says-alderman-law-societys-gazette/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:07:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deferred prosecution agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penalties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=68924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Legislation to enable US-style deferred prosecutions for corporate crime may feature in the Queen’s speech on 9 May.&#8221; Full story Law Society&#8217;s Gazette, 15th March 2012 Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Legislation to enable US-style deferred prosecutions for corporate crime may feature in the Queen’s speech on 9 May.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/deferred-prosecution-could-come-uk-says-alderman">Full story</a></p>
<p>Law Society&#8217;s Gazette, 15th March 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk">www.lawgazette.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/deferred-prosecution-could-come-to-uk-says-alderman-law-societys-gazette/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Simpler narrative reporting requirements will not come into force until 2013, Government says &#8211; OUT-LAW.com</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/02/simpler-narrative-reporting-requirements-will-not-come-into-force-until-2013-government-says-out-law-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/02/simpler-narrative-reporting-requirements-will-not-come-into-force-until-2013-government-says-out-law-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reports]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=67627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Proposed changes to companies&#8217; annual reporting requirements intended to provide greater clarity on how businesses are run and increase transparency with regards to executive pay will not take effect until April 2013, the Government has announced.&#8221; Full story OUT-LAW.com, 23rd February 2012 Source: www.out-law.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Proposed changes to companies&#8217; annual reporting requirements intended to provide greater clarity on how businesses are run and increase transparency with regards to executive pay will not take effect until April 2013, the Government has announced.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/february/simpler-narrative-reporting-requirements-will-not-come-into-force-until-2013-government-says/">Full story</a></p>
<p>OUT-LAW.com, 23rd February 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/02/simpler-narrative-reporting-requirements-will-not-come-into-force-until-2013-government-says-out-law-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government confirms pension auto-enrolment starting dates &#8211; OUT-LAW.com</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/01/government-confirms-pension-auto-enrolment-starting-dates-out-law-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/01/government-confirms-pension-auto-enrolment-starting-dates-out-law-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pensions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=65999</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Companies with more than 250 employees will have to automatically enrol their staff into a workplace pension scheme from October as originally planned, the Government has said.&#8221; Full story OUT-LAW.com, 26th January 2012 Source: www.out-law.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Companies with more than 250 employees will have to automatically enrol their staff into a workplace pension scheme from October as originally planned, the Government has said.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/january-/government-confirms-pension-auto-enrolment-starting-dates/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+out-law-NewsRoundUP+%28OUT-LAW+News-RoundUP%29&#038;utm_content=Google+Reader">Full story</a></p>
<p>OUT-LAW.com, 26th January 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/01/government-confirms-pension-auto-enrolment-starting-dates-out-law-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed online privacy rules are a &#8216;missed opportunity&#8217; &#8211; The Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/01/proposed-online-privacy-rules-are-a-missed-opportunity-the-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/01/proposed-online-privacy-rules-are-a-missed-opportunity-the-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:41:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EC law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=65985</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Lawyers have expressed concern over the European Commission’s overhaul of the EU’s online privacy rules that will see companies facing fines of as much as 2 per cent of annual turnover for breach of code.&#8221; Full story The Lawyer, 25th January 2012 Source: www.thelawyer.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Lawyers have expressed concern over the European Commission’s overhaul of the EU’s online privacy rules that will see companies facing fines of as much as 2 per cent of annual turnover for breach of code.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thelawyer.com/proposed-online-privacy-rules-are-a-missed-opportunity/1011080.article">Full story</a></p>
<p>The Lawyer, 25th January 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.thelawyer.com">www.thelawyer.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/01/proposed-online-privacy-rules-are-a-missed-opportunity-the-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employment rules may be relaxed for micro firms &#8211; The Guardian</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/11/employment-rules-may-be-relaxed-for-micro-firms-the-guardian/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/11/employment-rules-may-be-relaxed-for-micro-firms-the-guardian/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=61767</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Companies employing fewer than 10 staff may be exempted from employment regulations under a consultation to be announced on Wednesday, to promote economic growth.&#8221; Full story The Guardian, 22nd November 2011 Source: www.guardian.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Companies employing fewer than 10 staff may be exempted from employment regulations under a consultation to be announced on Wednesday, to promote economic growth.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/22/employment-rules-micro-firms">Full story</a></p>
<p>The Guardian, 22nd November 2011</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">www.guardian.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/11/employment-rules-may-be-relaxed-for-micro-firms-the-guardian/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
