³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

View the related checklists about Recipient

EU and UK Wire Transfer Regulations—timeline to 31 December 2023 [Archived]

EU and UK Wire Transfer Regulations—timeline to 31 December 2023 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. For UK developments see: AML/CTF/CPF—timeline of UK legal and regulatory developments for financial services. For EU developments see: AML/CTF/CPF—timeline of EU legal and regulatory developments for financial services. This timeline outlines the developments in relation to the Wire Transfer Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/847) (also known as the Funds Transfer Regulation (FTR)), its predecessor the Wire Transfer Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1781/2006) and the Recast EU WTR2 (also referred to as the Recast EU Transfer of Funds Regulation (EU FTR2)) which entered into force in June 2023 and applies from 30 December 2024 and forms part of the wider European Commission 2021 legislative package overhauling the European Union’s AML/CTF legal framework and regulatory requirements. It further includes the onshoring of EU WTR2 through the Retained Regulation (EU) 2015/847 (UK WTR2) and relevant updates brought in through the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017,...

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived]

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived] Archived:This timeline has been archived. For developments from January 2024 onwards, see EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive—timeline if they relate to the EU BRRD, or UK bank recovery and resolution regime—timeline if they relate to the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, For further guidance on the EU BRRD, see Practice Note: Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—essentials. For further guidance on the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, see Practice Note: The UK bank recovery and resolution regime. Date Source Document Description 20 December 2023 European Banking Authority The EBA publishes amendments to disclosures and reporting on MREL and TLAC The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published its final draft implementing technical standards (ITS) on amendments to disclosure and reporting of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss absorbency requirement (TLAC). The amendments reflect the new requirement to deduct investments in eligible liabilities instruments of entities belonging to the same resolution group, the...

View the related flowcharts about Recipient

EU GDPR—personal data breach notification—flowchart

EU GDPR—personal data breach notification—flowchart The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) is directly applicable and fully enforceable in EU and EEA states. This Flowchart focuses on personal data breach notification under the EU GDPR. It covers: • a summary of the overarching obligations • key guidance • types of personal data breaches • the flowchart of notification requirements • general examples of personal data breaches and who to notify • detailed examples of personal data breaches and who to notify The EU GDPR includes the following definition of a personal data breach: ‘…a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed.’ Overarching obligations In summary, among other things, the EU GDPR provides that: • data processors must notify the data controller without undue delay after becoming aware of a personal data breach • unless the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights...

View the related practice notes about Recipient

Standard contractual clauses and binding corporate rules—EU methodology—flowchart

Standard contractual clauses and binding corporate rules—EU methodology—flowchart This Flowchart reflects the methodology set out by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) for determining whether you can make an international transfer of personal data on the basis of standard contractual clauses (SCCs) or binding corporate rules (BCRs). You can only rely on these transfer mechanisms where the protections, enforceable rights and legal remedies provided to individuals in the recipient country are essentially equivalent to those guaranteed under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The ‘essentially equivalent’ test was laid down in the case of Facebook Ireland and Schrems (Schrems II), which was decided under the EU GDPR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published Guidance on transfer risk assessments, which adopts the term ‘sufficiently similar’ in relation to transfers under the UK GDPR and uses a different methodology. The ICO is happy for organisations exporting data from the UK to follow either methodology. This Flowchart reflects the EU methodology, as set out in: • EDPB Guidelines on...

UK and Community design right threats—pre 1 October 2017 [Archived]

UK and Community design right threats—pre 1 October 2017 [Archived] As of exit day (31 January 2020) the UK is no longer an EU Member State. However, in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK has entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. This has an impact on this Practice Note. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit—IP rights. ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out the law of unjustified threats of UK and Community design right infringement prior to its amendment by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 (IP(UT)A 2017). Communications made prior to 1 October 2017 continue to be governed by the old regime in respect of patents, trade marks and designs, as appropriate. All references in this Practice Note to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Registered Designs Act 1949, and the Community Design Regulations 2005, are references to the legislation as it...

View the related precedents about Recipient

Tax wording for licence

Withholding taxes Licensor-friendly—gross-up clause 1 Any sum payable under this [agreement] shall be paid free and clear of any deduction or withholding in respect of any tax whatsoever, save only as may be required by law. If any deduction or withholding is required, the licensee shall promptly provide the licensor with such certificates or other documents as it can [reasonably] obtain to enable the licensor to obtain appropriate relief from double taxation of the payment in question. 2 Subject to clau

Public inquiry warning letter

Public inquiry warning letter Inquiry: The [insert name of inquiry] inquiry Chair: [Insert name of inquiry chair] [Insert inquiry contact address etc] [Insert name of recipient] Confidential [Insert date] Dear [insert name of addressee], The [insert name of inquiry] inquiry I write on behalf of the Chair of the Inquiry. Background to the Inquiry The Inquiry was announced by [insert source eg Secretary of State] on [insert date]. Its terms of reference are as follows: ‘[Insert terms of reference]’. The Inquiry panel is now preparing its report. Within that report, the panel is minded to criticise your role in the events it has examined. This letter sets out the proposed criticism, the facts on which the proposed criticism is based and any evidence considered to substantiate it. The letter is intended to offer you a reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposed criticism prior to the publication of the report. Warning letters: legal framework The Inquiry is concerned to ensure that it acts fairly towards witnesses and others who may...

View the related q&as about Recipient

Where the payer of maintenance resides in the UK, and the payee intends to move to the US in due course, is there any advantage for the payer if the maintenance payments are index-linked to the UK consumer price index rather than the US equivalent?

Where the payer of maintenance resides in the UK, and the payee intends to move to the US in due course, is there any advantage for the payer if the maintenance payments are index-linked to the UK consumer price index rather than the US equivalent? If the child maintenance service (CMS) has jurisdiction in respect of child maintenance then it will calculate maintenance in accordance with the statutory formula. Where the CMS has jurisdiction, the court has no jurisdiction to hear a contested application for child maintenance. However, the CMS does not have jurisdiction if either the non-resident parent (the payer) or the person with care of the qualifying child (the payee) is not habitually resident in the UK, as in the scenario of this Q&A, pursuant to section 44 of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) (unless the payer falls into one of the exceptions listed under CSA 1991, s 44(2A)). See also Practice Note: Child maintenance provisions via the court. When the payer and...

Is it possible for a pension scheme to pay costs net of VAT, with the company paying the VAT and recovering it from HMRC?

Is it possible for a pension scheme to pay costs net of VAT, with the company paying the VAT and recovering it from HMRC? As a general rule a value added tax (VAT) registered business: • must charge VAT on supplies of its goods and services (output VAT), if those supplies are standard-rated for VAT purposes, and • may recover VAT it has paid on business related goods or services (input VAT) subject to meeting certain conditions VAT invoices must be made out to the person who is the recipient of the supply. Subject to this it is permissible for a supplier to issue a VAT-only invoice and for the invoice to show that it is ‘payable by’ a third party. It is also possible for the recipient of a supply to pay the whole (VAT-inclusive) amount and recharge the VAT element to a third party. In both cases, it will be necessary to consider the implications for recovery of the input tax concerned. The conditions that...

View the related News about Recipient

When mini-bond investments fail—fraudulent trading and other claims (London Capital & Finance v Thomson)

Financial Services analysis: This case follows from the London Capital & Finance scandal which led to the entry into administration of London Capital & Finance plc (LCF) owing some £237m to 11,625 bondholders. It was concerned with personal and proprietary claims against five individuals and two companies based on allegations of—fraudulent trading; breach of fiduciary duty and consequent constructive trusteeship; equitable proprietary claims and consequent constructive trusteeship; and dishonest assistance in breaches of duty. After a careful and extended examination of the facts, the court decided that all the claims were established but postponed the determination of the terms of any declarations, accounts and inquiries and the quantum of the personal claims until after further submissions. There was little dispute between the parties as to the relevant legal principles, but the case helpfully illustrates, in particular, the scope for claims against third parties when a company is engaged in fraudulent activity. Written by Elizabeth Ovey, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

Over 110,000 former UK miners get 32% pensions boost

Law360: More than 110,000 former mine workers across the UK got an initial bump to their pensions on 29 November 2024 after a decision by the Labour government to reverse 'a historic wrong' by transferring £1.5bn to their retirement savings plan.