1 THE TAKEOVER PANEL 2001/15 OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP") FOR TEMPUS GROUP PLC ("TEMPUS") 1. The Takeover Panel met on 31 October to hear an appeal by WPP against the Panel Executive's refusal to allow WPP to invoke the material adverse change condition in relation to its offer for Tempus as set out in paragraph (g)(i) of Appendix 1, Part A of its offer document dated 10 September. WPP also placed reliance on condition (h)(iii) of its offer document. WPP was of the view that there had been a material adverse change in the prospects of Tempus after the announcement of WPP's offer and, in particular, following the events in the United States on 11 September. 2. It was agreed between the parties that the issue for the Panel was whether WPP had established that there had been a material adverse change in the prospects of Tempus which was of material significance to WPP in the context of its offer for Tempus. As is always the case the Panel considered this issue afresh, but it noted particularly the points which WPP said were grounds for reversing the ruling of the Panel Executive. This statement is more detailed than usual because of the extensive and to some extent complex factual submissions of the parties, but even so it sets out to do no more than summarise the main points whilst preserving so far as possible the commercial sensitivity of the material put before the Panel. 3. All parties also agreed that for the purposes of the hearing the relevant period for determining whether or not a material adverse change had taken place was between 7 September, the last date on which WPP had received updated information about Tempus before posting its offer document and 22 October, the twenty-first day after WPP's offer became unconditional as to acceptances.
2 2 4. WPP is advised by Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs. Tempus is advised by Lazard Brothers. The Panel received detailed written and oral submissions from both the parties and their advisers, as well as from the Panel Executive. Background 5. On 19 July, Havas Advertising ("Havas") announced a recommended cash offer of 541p per share for Tempus. On 22 July, WPP was granted access to a data room prepared by Tempus which included Tempus' then forecast for 2001 and certain information about the period beyond On 30 July, Havas posted its offer document. On 20 August, WPP announced a cash offer of 555p per share for the whole of the shares in Tempus not already owned by it, valuing Tempus at approximately 434 million. At the date of the announcement it already owned approximately 22% of Tempus. On 7 September, Tempus provided to WPP its draft interim results for the six months to 30 June with updated forecasts for the year to 31 December On 10 September, WPP posted its offer document. 6. On 11 September, the terrorist attacks in the United States took place. On 17 September WPP made share purchases in the market of approximately 3% of the share capital of Tempus, which together with the shares it already owned gave WPP a 25% holding in Tempus. On 24 September, Havas lapsed its offer as a result of insufficient acceptances. 7. On 25 September, Tempus publicly announced its interim results for the six months ended 30 June By 2 October, WPP had received acceptances in respect of 89.9% of the Tempus shares to which its offer related and, as a result of its share purchases on 17 September, WPP's offer became unconditional as to acceptances. WPP then extended its offer until 15 October. On 10 October, WPP announced that it was to seek a ruling from the Panel Executive that it was entitled under the Code to invoke its material adverse change condition. On 16 October, Tempus submitted to the Panel Executive that there had been no material adverse change or deterioration in
3 3 its prospects and included in its submission a private and confidential revised forecast of results for the year to December 2001, which submission was duly forwarded to WPP with Tempus' consent. On 22 October, WPP announced its offer would remain subject to conditions (g)(i) and (h)(iii) of its offer document, but was otherwise unconditional and extended its offer to 29 October and subsequently extended it further, presently until 12 November. On 24 October after hearing a number of submissions from each side, the Panel Executive ruled that WPP should not be permitted to invoke the material adverse change condition. WPP notified the Panel Executive on 25 October that it intended to appeal to the full Panel. On 26 October WPP made a procedural application to the Chairman of the Panel. It sought (as it had unsuccessfully done from the Executive) an order that Tempus should provide certain financial information about Tempus' trading for the third quarter of 2001 That application was dismissed by the Chairman after a hearing on 30 October, but on the basis that the full Panel, when hearing WPP's substantive appeal, could take a different view when considering the matter as a whole. Relevant provisions of the WPP offer Material Adverse Change Condition 8. The WPP offer is subject to the conditions set out in Part A of Appendix 1 to the offer document, paragraph (g)(i) of which provides that: "(g) since 31 December 2000 and save as disclosed in the accounts then ended and save as publicly announced in accordance with the Listing Rules by Tempus prior to 20 August 2001 and save as disclosed in this document or as otherwise fairly disclosed in writing by Tempus to WPP:
4 4 (i) no material adverse change or deterioration having occurred in the business, assets, financial or trading position or profits or prospects of any member of the wider Tempus Group." 9. As mentioned above, the offer was also subject to condition (h)(iii) which provides that: "(h) save as publicly announced in accordance with the Listing Rules by Tempus prior to 20 August 2001 or as otherwise fairly disclosed in writing to WPP prior to that date by any member of the Tempus Group, WPP not having discovered: (iii) any information which materially affects the import of any information disclosed at any time by or on behalf of any member of the wider Tempus Group". 10. WPP acknowledged that it had no separate right to withdraw the offer on the basis of condition (h)(iii) but relied on this condition in order to protect its ability to rely on the conclusions derived from Tempus' 16 October forecast in support of its case under condition (g)(i). There was no dispute that WPP could rely on that forecast and condition (h)(iii) therefore requires no further consideration. The question for the Panel is whether condition (g)(i) can be invoked. Jurisdiction 11. There is a contractual relationship between WPP and the shareholders of Tempus who have accepted WPP's offer, the determination of which is a matter of law. However, as WPP readily accepted, it was for the Panel to determine whether WPP should be permitted under the Code to invoke condition (g)(i) of its offer document and thereby lapse its offer.
5 5 The Code 12. The relevant provisions of the Code are: Rule 2.7. Consequences of a "Firm Announcement" When there has been an announcement of a firm intention to make an offer, the offeror must, except with the consent of the Panel, proceed with the offer unless the posting of the offer is subject to the prior fulfilment of a specific condition and that condition has not been met. NOTES ON RULE Failure to proceed exceptional circumstances A change in general economic, industrial or political circumstances will not justify failure to proceed with an announced offer: to justify a decision not to proceed, circumstances of an exceptional and specific nature are required Rule 13. Subjective Conditions An offer must not be subject to conditions which depend solely on subjective judgments by the directors of the offeror or the fulfilment of which is in their hands.
6 6 NOTES ON RULE An element of subjectivity The Panel may be prepared to accept an element of subjectivity in certain special circumstances where it is not practicable to specify all the factors on which satisfaction of a particular condition may depend, especially in cases involving official authorisations, the granting of which may be subject to additional material obligations for the offeror. It would also normally be acceptable in an announcement for an offer to be expressed as being conditional on statements or estimates being appropriately verified. 2. Invoking conditions An offeror should not invoke any condition so as to cause the offer to lapse unless the circumstances which give rise to the right to invoke the condition are of material significance to the offeror in the context of the offer. 13. In spite of changes in the circumstances in which offers are launched and the conditions to which they are subject, the Panel's approach has been consistently applied over many years and remains valid today. In a statement issued at a time of major market decline in 1974, the Panel said: "In general...the Panel considers that a change in economic and industrial conditions, or even in legislative policy, which may suggest that a proposed acquisition will not be as advantageous for the offeror company as was hoped when the intention to offer was first announced, is one of the hazards which has to be accepted in a takeover situation. Even in more normal conditions than now exist, markets are volatile and it must be expected that they will sometimes over a period show wide fluctuations, which may for a
7 7 time put a different complexion on the economics of a particular offer. On the other hand, falls in market levels or depressions in the general economy are usually followed after a time by recovery. Similarly, legislative policy depends upon the exigencies of the time. The Panel considers that a change in economic, industrial or political circumstances will not normally justify the withdrawal of an announced offer. To justify unilateral withdrawal, the Panel would normally require some circumstance of an entirely exceptional nature and amounting to something of the kind which would frustrate a legal contract. It must be remembered that the terms and timing of an announcement of intention to offer and of the posting of offer documents are, subject to the Code, entirely in the hands of the offeror. It is therefore right that an offeror shall accept the risk of a change of circumstances in the intervening period. Once an offer is announced, the market in the shares of the offeree company is likely to be, at least to some extent, supported by the price at which the offer has been fixed. It follows that withdrawal would contribute to the market having been a false one. (Panel Statement 1974/2) 14. In March 1974 the Panel issued a further statement in which it said as follows: "Announcements of offers should not include conditions which depend on subjective judgments by the directors or the fulfilment of which are in the hands of the directors since these create unnecessary uncertainty; nor should they include a condition that, if the general economic situation deteriorates, the directors can withdraw the offer. It would normally be acceptable in an announcement for an offer to be expressed as conditional on statements or estimates being appropriately verified. (Panel Statement 1974/7)
8 8 The application of the Rules and the current practice reflected in the Panel statements 15. There was much discussion in the parties' submissions to the Panel about the applicability of Rule 2.7. Tempus sought to argue that it applied directly to the invocation of a material adverse change condition and that WPP was not therefore able to trigger that condition on the basis of general changes in economic circumstances including those occasioned by the events of September 11 th. WPP on the other hand contended that the purpose of Rule 2.7 was to prevent offerors from failing to post offers that had been announced and that thereafter an offeror was entitled to invoke the conditions to which it had made its offer subject, provided of course that the conditions complied with Rule 13 and the Notes to that Rule. WPP went on to say that even if it were wrong and Rule 2.7 was of direct application in the present case, then it had met the test because the events of September 11 th had had an effect on Tempus of "an exceptional and specific nature". 16. The Panel considers that the history and wording of Rule 2.7 make it difficult to argue that it is of direct application to the operation of a material adverse change condition contained in an offer which has been posted. However, the Panel believes that the thinking underlying the Rule and the above quoted 1974 Panel Statements that gave rise to the Rule should be taken into account when considering the materiality test in Note 2 to Rule 13 (the application of which was accepted by all the parties) so that meeting this test requires an adverse change of very considerable significance striking at the heart of the purpose of the transaction in question, analogous, as the 1974/2 Panel Statement put it, to something that would justify frustration of a legal contract. To accept a lower test would allow an offeror to use a material adverse change condition to defeat the object of Rule 2.7 and the 1974 Panel Statements. The Panel, accordingly, did not accept the test proposed by WPP
9 9 that it is sufficient if there has been "a change which undermines, from the offeror's perspective, the rationale for having made the offer at the price and on the terms specified". 17. The Panel considers that a change in general economic circumstances may legitimately be relied upon when seeking to invoke the relevant condition, but only if and to the extent that in doing so the requirements mentioned in paragraph 16 are satisfied. 18. It was not disputed by WPP that the offeror cannot rely on what he knows or anticipates at the relevant time (or, the Panel would add, what he would have known if he had complied with his obligations under General Principle 3 to announce an offer only after the most careful and responsible consideration). 19. As Tempus said and WPP did not dispute, the events of 11 September occurred during a period of economic decline both generally and in the advertising sector and this was known to WPP and indeed reflected in the public statements by WPP before the announcement of its offer. WPP did not rely on the general economic decline which was already apparent. They relied on the effect of the events of 11 September on economic conditions as they affected Tempus. They said these events were exceptional and unforeseeable and this is indeed correct. Views on the likely progress and length of the decline varied widely before, during and after the announcement of this bid, and markets were unusually volatile during that time. Tempus said rightly that to succeed WPP had to distinguish between the causative effects and show what were the consequences on Tempus' prospects of the 11 September events and the aftermath as opposed to what was the effect of a known general and sectoral decline existing prior to 11 September. The Panel accepts this analysis by Tempus, which emphasises one of the difficulties facing WPP.
10 10 Subjective Conditions 20. WPP acknowledged that the question of whether a material adverse change has occurred is not simply to be determined by reference to WPP's subjective view though it considered there was an element of subjectivity. The Panel considers that the issue of material significance to the offeror in the context of an offer is to be determined objectively but would be heedful of the view of the offeror's Board on that question, and any other informed views such as those of the offeree, giving those views such weight as seems appropriate in the light of all the evidence. Burden of Proof 21. All parties acknowledged that the burden of proof was on WPP to prove that a material adverse change affecting Tempus has occurred and that this was of material significance to WPP in the context of its offer. Application by WPP for Discovery and Allegations of Breach of Regulatory Requirements 22. During the course of the Panel hearing, a number of questions were raised by both WPP and the Panel concerning the revised forecast of 16 October. In this context, the Panel specifically considered the question of whether to order Tempus to produce its third quarter figures. As indicated above this had been the subject of a preliminary hearing on 30 October before the Chairman of the Panel. It was the Panel's clear view that production of these figures was not necessary for the reasons that the Chairman of the Panel had communicated to the parties. The Panel was also satisfied that it could proceed fairly to reach a decision without these figures being available.
11 Two of the points raised in this connection should be mentioned. WPP alleged that Tempus was in breach of certain regulatory requirements and guidance requiring Tempus to notify the Companies Announcement Office of changes in its financial position. The Panel found this unhelpful. The issue for the Panel was not whether Tempus was in breach of different regulatory requirements expressed in different terms and for their own purposes. Nothing in this statement should be read as acceptance of the accuracy (or otherwise) of such allegations. Nor did the Panel accept that Tempus' unwillingness to disclose confidential information (albeit information which it had used for the purposes of its October forecast) to a competitor who was striving to remain precisely that, was to be regarded as evidence that such information would be damaging to Tempus, as WPP had contended. Precedents 24. The Panel Executive informed the Panel that there are no precedents as far as the Code is concerned relating to the circumstances in which offers have been withdrawn, without the consent of the offeree, on the basis of a material adverse change in the business of the offeree. It should be noted that an offeror who wishes to lapse its offer is often able to do so by invoking the acceptance condition or an offer may fail if it is not approved by the offeror's shareholders, if this is also a condition of the bid. In these situations there is no need for an offeror to try to invoke the material adverse change condition. 25. In its submission WPP referred to a number of materiality tests referred to by various authorities in other contexts. The Panel considered that these were not particularly helpful in the present case where the focus of the issue and the approach to its determination was different.
12 12 Tempus' Profit Forecasts 26. Both WPP and Tempus referred to various profit forecasts for Tempus in their written and oral submissions before the Panel. The Panel considered all the points raised orally and in writing about the reliability of the forecasts and the conclusions to be drawn from them. The details of these are a matter of commercial sensitivity and remain confidential. Accordingly, the Panel does not consider it appropriate to set out these details, but it is necessary briefly to refer to them as so much of the argument turned on these and the inferences that could be drawn from them about the future prospects of Tempus. 27. As stated above, Tempus provided WPP with a forecast for the year to December 2001 on 7 September which had been prepared some days earlier. In early October, Tempus prepared a revised forecast for 2001 and this was the one supplied to the Panel Executive and WPP on 16 October with Tempus' consent. The October forecast was lower than the September forecast and included as exceptional operating items certain expenses principally concerned with reducing costs as a response to the decline in the Tempus' markets that had been gathering pace throughout WPP sought to suggest Tempus' October forecast was optimistic but also relied on its contents to justify its fundamental contention that there had been a material adverse change since the September forecast. It said in effect that the forecast and the inferences that WPP drew from it proved its case. Tempus emphasised the short term effect on profits of a fall in revenue that could not immediately be compensated for by cost reduction measures. Tempus said that the benefit of cost reduction measures taken in the second half of 2001 should flow through into The Panel was assured at the hearing that the forecast had been rigorously prepared with the involvement of the full Board, all of whom had been made conscious of their responsibilities and although it had not been formally reported on, Lazards had been involved as had Tempus' legal advisors.
13 In considering these forecasts and in arriving at the conclusions expressed below, the Panel considered amongst other factors WPP's arguments on Tempus' adjustment to its September forecast from in-fill acquisitions, the treatment of exceptional items for the purposes of the forecast, and the existence and implications of a major restructuring plan implemented by Tempus. Longer Term Prospects 29. The Panel was addressed by both Tempus and WPP on the change in the longterm prospects of Tempus as a result of the attacks of 11 September and the events that followed. The 2001 figures did show a decline in the performance of Tempus (but not the reasons for that decline) for the current financial year, but WPP did not persuade the Panel that they showed a material longer term decline in the prospects of Tempus. 30. In support of its case WPP submitted its own projections of Tempus' profits for the year to December 2002 based on WPP's view of the current "run rate" as shown by the 2001 information, in particular WPP's analysis of Tempus' projections for the second half of Tempus did not accept WPP's figures for the year to December 2002, stating that they significantly understated the position, but did not put forward a revised projection of its own and there was no obligation upon them to do so. The Panel reached the view that there were no reliable figures for 2002 from which it could derive any useful conclusion and that any attempt by WPP to arrive at a projection for 2002, based on an extrapolation of Tempus' run rate profitability for all or any part of the second half of 2001 was unlikely to be meaningful.
14 It was clear to the Panel, applying the test in paragraph 16 above, that a temporary effect on profitability was not of itself sufficient. The adverse change had to be long lasting since a purchaser of 100 percent of a company for strategic reasons was clearly investing for the long term and therefore something of material significance to such an offeror "in the context of the offer" had to be long term. 32. The detailed submissions of the parties were supported by contributions from a number of representatives of the parties in the hearing. There was a considerable divergence of opinion as to Tempus' longer term prospects: WPP expressed the view that the nature of Tempus ' business and the cost saving steps it had taken meant that its prospects were damaged for the long term as a result of those events. Tempus, however, was firmly of the view that its business remained robust and produced evidence from third parties that the recession in advertising had been underway for some time and that the impact of the events of 11 September was likely to be relatively short lived. The Panel was unable to conclude that WPP had demonstrated that Tempus' "franchise" (as WPP described it) was materially damaged as a result of those unforeseeable events. Strategic Rationale for the Offer 33. In its offer document, WPP stated strongly that it believed that there was a variety of strategic and financial benefits arising from the takeover of Tempus which arose in a number of ways. The Panel was of the view that it was hard to say that those strategic benefits no longer remained available to WPP noting, in particular, the fact that on 10 October, WPP stated in its announcement that it "remained convinced of the strategic merits of combining WPP and Tempus". At the hearing WPP confirmed that the question of strategic rationale, although never overwhelming, remained but said it had to be weighed against the price to be paid for Tempus. The Panel concluded that the continuing strategic benefits of proceeding with the bid were significant in examining the issue in the context of WPP's offer.
15 15 Furthermore, in the context of the offer such effects as there may have been on Tempus' prospects as a result of the events of 11 September and following, over anything other than the very short term, remained unclear in spite of the attention paid to them. Share Purchase 34. As has been indicated, WPP purchased 2.37 million Tempus shares on 17 September at the offer price of 555p. This took its stake to approximately 25%. There was considerable debate before the Panel as to the significance, if any, of this purchase in light of the case now put forward by WPP. WPP argued that the purchase had no bearing on the issue, claiming it was made for tactical reasons only in order to achieve a blocking 25% minority shareholding, and before it had appreciated the full extent of the effects on Tempus of the events of 11 September. The Panel is of the view that WPP's purchase sent a signal to the market and to Tempus shareholders in particular that, notwithstanding the events of 11 September, WPP did not then consider that condition (g)(i) applied and intended to proceed with its offer. It was not until 10 October that the impression thus given was reversed. This happened before WPP had received the October forecast and the reasons for WPP's change of position on 10 October remained obscure. In the circumstances, however, it was not necessary for the Panel to consider whether the purchase of shares had any bearing on WPP's ability to invoke the material adverse change condition. Conclusion 35. For an offeror to invoke a material adverse change condition and so withdraw its offer requires, in the opinion of the Panel, the offeror to demonstrate to the Panel that exceptional circumstances have arisen affecting the offeree company which could not have reasonably been foreseen at the time of the announcement of the offer. The effect of the circumstances in point must be
16 16 sufficiently adverse to meet the high test of materiality described in paragraph 16 above and judged, at least in the present type of case, not in terms of short term profitability but on their effect on the longer term prospects of the offeree company. Indeed, as WPP made clear it was the longer term prospects of Tempus which had provided the strategic rationale for the offer and this seemed to the Panel to be central to the value which WPP placed on Tempus at that time. 36. The Panel considered the submissions of the parties and the arguments they made at the time of the hearing, including but not limited to the basis of the attempts to predict the future profits of Tempus, the longer term effects of the events of 11 September on Tempus, the general economic decline affecting the advertising industry before and after the posting of the offer and the strategic reasons for WPP's offer for Tempus. The Panel came to the conclusion, on the evidence before it, that WPP had failed to demonstrate that between 7 September and 22 October there was a material adverse change in the context of the bid such as to entitle them to invoke the material adverse change condition, and had so failed by a considerable margin. The appeal, therefore, failed. 6 November 2001
LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE HIGH GROWTH SEGMENT RULEBOOK 27 March 2013 Contents INTRODUCTION... 2 SECTION A ADMISSION... 3 A1: Eligibility for admission... 3 A2: Procedure for admission... 4 SECTION B CONTINUING
Merger & Acquisition Rules This is a translation of the Official Arabic version of Merger and Acquisition Rules. In case of any discrepancies, the Arabic version shall prevail. 1 Article (1) In the application
BOTSWANA COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY Dispute Resolution Service Policy Introduction The purpose of this Dispute Resolution Policy is to provide a cheaper, speedier alternative to litigation for
PCP 2015/2 14 July 2015 THE TAKEOVER PANEL CONSULTATION PAPER ISSUED BY THE CODE COMMITTEE OF THE PANEL RESTRICTIONS AND SUSPENSIONS OF VOTING RIGHTS The Code Committee of the Takeover Panel (the Panel
APB ETHICAL STANDARD 5 NON-AUDIT SERVICES PROVIDED TO AUDIT CLIENTS (Re-issued December 2004) Contents paragraph Introduction 1-4 General approach to non-audit services 5-38 Identification and assessment
Case No. D23/96 Profits tax royalties trade mark used in Hong Kong section 15(1)(b) section 70A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Panel: William Turnbull (chairman), Christopher Chan Cheuk and Yu Yui Chiu.
Appendix 9 In this appendix underlining indicates new text and striking through indicates deleted text. N.B. As mentioned in paragraph 7 of this consultation paper, these regulations are made under the
LEGAL NOTICE NO. 126 THE CAPITAL MARKETS (TAKE-OVERS AND MERGERS) REGULATIONS, 2002 1 Citation. 2 Interpretation. PART I - PRELIMINARY PART II - TAKE-OVER PROCEDURE 3 Acquiring effective control. 4 Take-over
ADJUDICATION Complainant: Mr O Firm: The Equitable Life Assurance Society Date of Adjudication: 28 August 2003 Complaint Mr O has complained that he has made a financial loss because of advice given to
Appendix 4: Pre-paid Cremation Bonds FSA Authorisation Sarah Grigor Litigation Solicitor Durham County Council By email 21 February 2013 Dear Sarah Pre-paid cremation bonds FSA authorisation You have asked
Main Securities Market LISTING RULES and Admission to Trading Rules Release 2 14 April 2014 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Compliance with and Enforcement of the Listing Rules 1.1 Preliminary 1.2 Modifying Rules and
GSK Policy Title: Code for Dealing in Securities Official Short Title: Code for Dealing in Securities Key Points No employee may deal in GlaxoSmithKline plc securities ( GSK securities ) if he or she is
DTI Consultation on Proposals for a Special Administrator Regime for Energy Network Companies Ofgem s Response June 2003 Introduction Ofgem welcomes the DTI consultation on proposals for a special administrator
APS2 The Prudential Supervision of Long-Term Insurance Business Classification Mandatory Definitions Insurer Liabilities to policyholders Long-term insurance business The insurance company or other organisation
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON AUDITING (UK AND IRELAND) 700 THE AUDITOR S REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTENTS Paragraphs Introduction... 1-4 Basic Elements of the Auditor s Report... 5-26-1 The Auditor
TEXTUAL PROPOSAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT General Notes: 1. Articles are numbered from 1 for ease of reading, especially when an Article cross-refers to another provision of the Dispute Settlement chapter. The
Heading: Decision concerning alleged misrepresentation of product Forex trading platform Complaint not upheld A v H  FDRS April 2013 Issue The matter before FDR relates to a complaint regarding online
CHAPTER NINE DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ARTICLE 187 Scope of the Chapter The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Treaty, including:
Global Guide to Competition Litigation Poland 2012 Table of Contents Availability of private enforcement in respect of competition law infringements and jurisdiction... 1 Conduct of proceedings and costs...
1 0 1 0 1 IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.QT0 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M0 DJ 0 th November B e f o r e:- DISTRICT JUDGE MATHARU COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK Ltd. (Trading as Combined Parking Solutions)
GN5: The Prudential Supervision outside the UK of Long-Term Insurance Business Classification Recommended Practice MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT THEY MUST ALWAYS COMPLY WITH THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT STANDARDS
Dispute Resolution Service Policy DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE POLICY VERSION 3 - JULY 2008 (APPLIES TO ALL DISPUTES FILED ON OR AFTER 29 JULY 2008) (VERSION 2 APPLIED TO DISPUTES FILED BETWEEN 25 OCTOBER
INDIVIDUAL CLIENT AGREEMENT INDIVIDUAL CLIENT AGREEMENT The following terms and conditions apply to individuals who are transacting: for their own account, as a sole proprietor of a business, as a trustee
Combar/CLLS Guidance note on the Agreement for the Supply of Services by a Barrister in a Commercial Case Introduction... 2 Background... 2 Entering into an agreement incorporating the Terms... 3 The Services...
FINAL DECISION complaint by: Mr E complaint about: the firm complaint reference: date of decision: April 2009 This final decision is issued by me, Robert Short, an ombudsman with the Financial Ombudsman
Decision and Reasons for Decision Citation: Gapsa and Department of Transport and Main Roads  QICmr 38 (23 September 2014) Application Number: 311929 Applicant: Respondent: Gapsa Department of Transport
20 August 2015 The Companies Officer ASX Limited 2 The Esplanade Perth WA 6000 Dear Sir, REVISED SECURITIES TRADING POLICY In accordance with ASX Listing Rule 12.10, Fortescue Metals Group Limited (the
MALAYSIAN CODE ON TAKE-OVERS AND MERGERS PRACTICE NOTES PART I GENERAL INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION Practice Note 1.1 Administration of the Code Practice Note 1.2 Application of the Code to private companies
Questions submitted by Property Managers Association Scotland (PMAS) 2015 Q 1. The Property Managers Association considers that it is appropriate that any Application made by an Applicant should be reported
A Guide to Takeovers in the United Kingdom July 2015 Contents 1. Introduction 01 2. The Regulatory Bodies 02 2.1 The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers 02 2.2 Government Departments 02 2.3 European Commission
In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS Contents I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION... 4 1 Purpose of these Regulations... 4 2 Applicability to different staff
Credit Union Board of Directors Introduction, Resolution and Code for the Protection of Personal Information INTRODUCTION Privacy legislation establishes legal privacy rights for individuals and sets enforceable
BRIEFING AN END TO BEING KNOCKED OUT ON PENALTIES? NOVEMBER 2015 ON 4 NOVEMBER 2015 THE RULE AGAINST PENALTIES IN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS CAME UNDER THE SCRUTINY OF A SEVEN JUDGE PANEL OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Construction Breakfast Briefing: Performance Bonds Philip Vaughan Partner Lucy Bushell Managing Associate 2 December 2014 Introduction Performance Bonds and purpose in construction On demand/conditional
Dated 29 February 2016 Flood Re Limited Payments Dispute Process Version 1.0 1. General 1.1 The following provisions will apply to all disputes referred to and conducted under this Payments Dispute Resolution
Appendix 14 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE CODE AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REPORT The Code This Code sets out the principles of good corporate governance, and two levels of recommendations: code provisions; and recommended
Reorganising central government Synergy reporting for Mergers and Acquisitions MARCH 2010 Contents Drawing parallels with the private sector National Audit Office Synergy reporting for Mergers and Acquisitions
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL AND EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORK TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT
Pharmaxis Ltd 1. Introduction The ordinary Shares of Pharmaxis Ltd are listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) and its American Depositary Shares (ADS) are able to be traded in the US through
Number 2 Revised March 2009 Fee Waivers CONTENTS Introduction 1 Fees: the rationale 1 How the Act and Regulation apply to fees and fee waivers Assessment of fees 2 Fees for personal information 2 Payment
Chapter 6A SPONSORS AND COMPLIANCE ADVISERS Definitions and interpretation 6A.01 In this Chapter: (1) Compliance Adviser means any corporation or authorised financial institution licensed or registered
A. Introduction SHARE DEALING CODE (THE CODE ) As a director or employee of the Thor Mining Group of companies, the Code applies to you. If you want to deal in the Company's shares or warrants (including
Contents French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP 1 Excelerate Technology Limited v Cumberbatch and Others 3 Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 5 Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited
Inquiry Report My Community UK Registered Charity Number 1137137 A statement of the results of an inquiry into My Community UK (registered charity number 1137137). Published on 30 June 2015. The charity
STITT & C Ọ SOLICITORS 11 Gough Square, London EC4A 3DE Tel: 020 7832 0840 Fax: 020 7832 0865 email: email@example.com TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT 1. Service Commitment We aim to offer our clients quality legal
JURY INSTRUCTIONS PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1. ANTITRUST CLAIMS 2. Elements of Monopoly Claim 2.1 Definition of Monopoly Power 2.2 Relevant Market 2.3 Existence of Monopoly Power 2.4 Willful Maintenance
MR MICHAEL CLEMENTS PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Presidential Guidance Note No 1 of 2014: The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Heading: Decision concerning 1) funds transfer and 2) failure of Stop Loss Forex trading platform Complaints not upheld A v D  FDRS August 2012 1. Issues Complaint 1 The first complaint relates to
August 2004 Questions and Answers First Time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards Guidance for Auditors on Reporting Issues First Time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards
CHAPTER 11 APPEALS AND DISPUTES In this Chapter look for... 11. General 11.1 Deleted 11.2 Administrative Appeals 11.3 Disputes 11.4 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 11. General. The Virginia Public
THE TAKEOVER PANEL 2013/2 BUMI PLC ("BUMI") RULING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE (THE COMMITTEE ) The Question 1. This appeal relates to a ruling of the Executive that, when determining the voting rights of
CONTENTS Issue 5 October 2012 WELCOME TO INSIDE AIM Education of Directors on AIM Due Diligence on AIM Directors Application Forms Rule 21 Directors Participation in a Fundraise Capital Reorganisations
RS 2015/3 23 October 2015 THE TAKEOVER PANEL ADDITIONAL PRESUMPTIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF ACTING IN CONCERT RESPONSE STATEMENT BY THE CODE COMMITTEE OF THE PANEL FOLLOWING THE CONSULTATION ON PCP 2015/3
APB ETHICAL STANDARD 5 (REVISED) NON-AUDIT SERVICES PROVIDED TO AUDITED ENTITIES (Revised December 2010, updated December 2011) Contents paragraph Introduction 1 4 General approach to non-audit services
LCRO 241/2011 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of Auckland Standards Committee 2 BETWEEN SI Applicant
Takeover Rules for certain trading platforms The Swedish Corporate Governance Board 2015-02-01 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION I GENERAL PROVISIONS I.1 Scope of the rules I.2 The right for the Securities
Chapter 7 GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS REPORTS AND PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION When required 7.01 This Chapter sets out the detailed requirements for accountants reports on the profits and losses, assets and
The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited Practice Note 21 to the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities (the Exchange Listing Rules ) Issued pursuant to rule 1.06 of the Exchange Listing Rules DUE DILIGENCE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2003-485-1921 BETWEEN VERONICA WEIR Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2004 Appearances: J Miller & S A
POLICY STATEMENT Q-22 DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT FOR COMMODITY FUTURES CONTRACTS, FOR OPTIONS TRADED ON A RECOGNIZED MARKET AND FOR EXCHANGE-TRADED COMMODITY FUTURES OPTIONS 1. In the case of commodity futures
DATA PROTECTION TRIBUNAL COMMUNITY CHARGE REGISTRATION OFFICER OF RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL v DATA PROTECTION REGISTRAR [Case DA/90 24/49/3] COMMUNITY CHARGE REGISTRATION OFFICER OF SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE
The guidance on reports on working capital requirements (paragraphs 67 to 71) and reports on borrowings (paragraphs 72 to 75) in this AG 3.340 is applicable for engagements where the investment circular
Article 3. Family Law Arbitration Act. 50-41. Purpose; short title. (a) It is the policy of this State to allow, by agreement of all parties, the arbitration of all issues arising from a marital separation
GN5: The Prudential Supervision outside the UK of Long-Term Insurance Business Classification Recommended Practice MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT THEY MUST ALWAYS COMPLY WITH THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT STANDARDS
COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES 1. Introduction 2. Annual Meetings of Full Council 3. Ordinary Meetings of Full Council 4. Extraordinary Meetings of Full Council 5. Special Meetings 6. Time and Location of Meetings
READING MATERIAL Advanced Securities Law UNIT 2 Public Issues: Initial Public Offering- II ADVANCED SECURITIES LAW 2 In the previous Unit we began our study of initial public offers ( IPOs ). We looked
GUIDANCE FOR EMPLOYED BARRISTERS Part 1. General 1.1 This guidance has been issued by the Professional Standards Committee, the Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee and the Employed Barristers
 JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN
Continuous disclosure policy OtherLevels Holdings Limited ACN 603 987 266 Adopted on 19 February 2015 Level 11 Central Plaza Two 66 Eagle Street Brisbane QLD 4000 GPO Box 1855 Brisbane QLD 4001 Australia
STATEMENT OF INTENT CONCERNING CONSULTATION, COOPERATION AND THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON 200 OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND THE CONDUCT OF AN AUDIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON (Effective for audits of financial statements for periods
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal PO (interests of the state Article 8) Nigeria  UKAIT 00087 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 27 June 2006 24 October 2006 Before
JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES THE HIGH COURT GUIDELINES (A document to assist those participating in a judicial settlement conference) Issued April 2012 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The High Court s jurisdiction
When is an interest not an interest? Last month s Personal Injury Law Journal examined the continuing uncertainty in relation to challenges to the validity of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) where the
New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants FAES Issued 11/09 Amended 07/13 ENGAGEMENT STANDARD FINANCIAL ADVISORY ENGAGEMENTS Issued by the Board of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants
Annex 14 Annex on the Tripartite Dispute Settlement Mechanism Under Article 39 (5) of the Agreement.Article 1 Objective This Annex provides the procedures under Article 39 (5) of the Tripartite Agreement
STATUTE OF THE COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL Adopted by Commonwealth Governments on 1 July 1995 and amended by them on 24 June 1999, 18 February 2004, 14 May 2005, 16 May 2007 and 28 May 2015.
RS 2015/2 23 October 2015 THE TAKEOVER PANEL RESTRICTIONS AND SUSPENSIONS OF VOTING RIGHTS RESPONSE STATEMENT BY THE CODE COMMITTEE OF THE PANEL FOLLOWING THE CONSULTATION ON PCP 2015/2 CONTENTS Page 1.
LEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS These Regulations came into force on 1 July 2014. 1 Introduction 1.1 These Regulations govern the Union s legal Scheme. The Rules of the Union set out your other rights and entitlements.
The Federation of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom Examination Appeals Regulations 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 These Regulations apply to all candidates for examinations run by MRCP(UK) on
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.