- Corporate (85)
- Banking / Finance (50)
- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (49)
- Information Technology (45)
- Intellectual Property (36)
- Financial services (33)
- Insolvency & restructuring (32)
- Funds (30)
- Employment (29)
- Regulatory and compliance (26)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (24)
- Real Estate (24)
- Tax (21)
- Pharma/Biotech (19)
- Commodities (13)
- Telecoms (13)
- Pensions (10)
- Business Tax (7)
- Competition/EU (7)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (7)
- Environment (6)
- Licensing/Gaming/Betting (6)
- Crime (5)
- Energy (5)
- Private Equity (5)
- Construction (4)
- Healthcare (4)
- Insurance/reinsurance (4)
- Planning (4)
- PPP/PFI/Commercial projects (4)
- Private Client (4)
- Other (3)
- Personal tax / Trusts (3)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (3)
- Human Rights (2)
- Agriculture (1)
- Family (1)
- Immigration (1)
- Travel and Tourism (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
A ratchet is a structure whereby the eventual equity allocations between the shareholders depend on future performance of the company or the rate of return achieved by the venture capital firm.
The venture capital investors in an investment round normally require that certain actions cannot be taken without the consent of the holders of a majority of their class or series of shares.
If the company makes any future share offering, a venture capital investor will require the right to maintain at least its percentage stake in the company.
Taylor Wessing’s Simon Walker explains the terms ‘drag along’ and ‘bring along’.
On 28 November 2013, the European Commission announced a proposal for a directive on trade secrets and confidential information.
Venture capital investors will agree with the company in which they intend to invest on a valuation for the company prior to the new investment round.
The OFT finds a significant imbalance of power between ICT suppliers and public sector buyers that prevents effective competition.
The State Council Decision, together with the Company Law Amendments, have been in effect since 1 March 2014.
RED Alert — spring 2014: quick tips — waving the red flag: early warning signs that tenants might be struggling
In order to maximise their position and prospects of recovery, landlords should ensure that they are fully on top of their tenants’ rent accounts and well advised from an early stage.
RED Alert — spring 2014: excluding liability for misrepresentation — ‘he said/she said’ is not a good argument
This judgment sets out a useful examination of the factors that are relevant in determining whether or not a non-reliance clause satisfies the ‘reasonableness test’.
RED Alert — spring 2014: take a break — Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey)
The appeal of the High Court’s decision in Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) was heard by the Court of Appeal on 25 March.
This decision is a very useful reminder of how Part 36 will be applied by the courts and how serious the consequences can be.
Taylor Wessing previously considered the decision of the court allowing a tenant to remove even very heavy industrial items. This decision has now been overturned.
Spare a thought for the technology lawyer. He or she can spend hours crafting a set of website or mobile terms and conditions the size of a small novella and what happens?
We are all familiar with the radio adverts at the end of which a breathless actor speed-reads or sings the mandatory ‘legal bits’.
General terms and conditions are any contractual terms that have been provided by one contracting party (user) to the other party.
When the debt relief procedure for natural persons was introduced in 2008, it was considered that it should be available only for a natural person’s non-business debts.
An English scheme for a company that has a ‘sufficiently close connection’ with the jurisdiction can be proposed, albeit recognition in Poland is at the discretion of the Polish courts.
The High Court has decided how the expected surplus assets of Lehman Brothers International Europe should be distributed between a number of creditors.
To rescind a winding-up order, the court must be satisfied that the circumstances of the case are materially different to those before the court that made the order.