Coronavirus (COVID-19)

This overview summarises the Practice Notes, news, analysis and other resources concerning the issues that may have arisen for Corporate practitioners during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It has been archived and is not maintained. It states the law and market practice as developments took place during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and is for background information only.

Key issues for corporate lawyers

For details on the key issues that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic raises for corporate lawyers, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—key issues for Corporate lawyers.

General meetings and AGMs

The coronavirus outbreak raised immediate legal and practical issues for companies holding their annual general meeting (AGM) while social distancing restrictions were in place, and this led to the evolution of common market practice in terms of the format of AGMs. For details, see Practice Note: Holding entirely virtual or hybrid general meetings and AGMs.

The Chartered Governance Institute (CGI), in conjunction with other city professionals, issued guidance for companies planning their AGM in light of the coronavirus crisis and the ‘stay at home measures’ announced by the government. Options discussed in the guidance include

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Corporate News

High Court dismisses judicial review relating to Government order requiring Russian-backed investment firm to sell broadband provider under the NSIA 2021

Corporate analysis: LetterOne Core Investment, S.A.R.L. and another) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industry, concerning a judicial review of a final order made pursuant to section 26(3) of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA 2021) made by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy requiring LetterOne to sell broadband business Upp Corp Ltd on national security grounds (Final Order). The High Court dismissed the challenge.

CP24/2: FCA further consults on enforcement transparency proposals

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued the second phase of its consultation paper CP24/2 on proposals to increase transparency in enforcement investigations. This follows significant concerns raised in response to the original consultation. The FCA is now seeking further views on the practical implementation of the public interest test, with the FCA Board aiming to reach a final decision in the first quarter of 2025. This consultation forms part of the FCA's broader reforms to enhance the pace and focus of its enforcement efforts. Responses are sought by 17 February 2025.

Corporate weekly highlights—28 November 2024

This week's edition of Corporate weekly highlights includes publication by the FRC of its Annual Review of Corporate Governance Reporting for 2024, the Pre-Emption Group’s second annual report on the adoption of its updated Statement of Principles on the disapplication of pre-emption rights for UK listed companies, and news of fines imposed by the FCA on Barclays and a former executive of Wizz Air. It also includes the publication by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero of a summary of responses to its October 2023 call for evidence on Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions reporting, and the Companies House 2024–5 Christmas and New Year opening times.

FCA fines former Wizz Air executive for MAR breaches

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has imposed a £123,500 fine on former chief supply chain officer at Wizz Air, András Sebők, for breaching Articles 19(1) and 19(11) of the UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR). Sebők, acting in his capacity as a person discharging managerial responsibility (PDMR), traded the company's shares during restricted periods and failed to disclose his trades within the required timeframe. This is the first time the FCA has fined a PDMR for trading company shares during closed periods under Article 19(11) of MAR, and the second time it has fined a PDMR for failing to disclose personal trades under Article 19(1) of MAR.