The Credit Suisse judgment has significant implications for claims in deceit.

By Oliver Middleton, Anna Kullmann, and Duncan Graves

Key Points:

  • This landmark judgment confirms the legal requirements for a claim in deceit.
  •  Claimants do not need to prove their conscious awareness or understanding of a representation (although they still must prove that the representation induced them to contract).

On 24 November 2025, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down judgment in Credit Suisse Life

Internal controls must be tailored, proportionate, and risk-based — not just a “paper exercise”.

By Erin Brown Jones, Clare Nida, and Matthew Unsworth

Last week, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) published its updated “Guidance on Evaluating a Corporate Compliance Programme” (the Guidance). The agency’s previous guidance was published in 2020 as an eight-page segment in the SFO Operational Handbook. The latest iteration is very much public-facing, with a helpful FAQ section and updates to reflect the “failure

The report covers the private law issues that may arise when firms use AI to assist, or directly execute, market activities.

By Nell Perks

In late October, the Financial Markets Law Committee (FMLC) released a report that considers the private law issues that may arise from the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in wholesale financial markets.1 The report offers non-binding guidance on how to conceptualise AI’s impact in private law domains. While the technology may be revolutionary, the FMLC

The Court also found limited trademark infringement and seemingly departed from EU law.

By Sophie Goossens and Brett Shandler

On 4 November 2025, the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) handed down its long-awaited judgment in Getty Images v. Stability AI, a case brought by various entities in the Getty Images group as well as a contributor entity (collectively, Getty), essentially alleging that Stability AI had infringed IP rights asserted by Getty in the course of the

The proposed legislation will bring cryptoassets into the full scope of UK financial services regulation and enable the UK’s future cryptoasset regime.

By Stuart Davis and Gabriel Lakeman

On 29 April, UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves unveiled draft legislation aimed at regulating cryptoassets at the International Fintech Growth Summit (IFGS) in London, sponsored by Latham & Watkins.

The proposed legislation will bring cryptoassets (including stablecoins) and cryptoasset-related activities in scope of the UK regulatory perimeter, providing the fundamental legislative framework for the UK’s future financial services regime for cryptoassets. When implemented, firms issuing stablecoins, operating cryptoasset trading platforms, and providing custody, brokerage, or dealing services will require full authorisation to conduct activity in the UK.1

The FCA is approaching its design of the world’s first regulated private/public crossover market with a “private plus” rather than a “public minus” mindset.

By Mark Austin, Rob MoultonJames Inness, Anna Ngo, Frederick Gardner, and Johannes Poon

On 17 December 2024, the FCA launched a consultation on its proposed regulatory framework for the Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System (PISCES) (CP24/29). This consultation follows the publication of HM Treasury’s draft statutory

Guidance clarifies the implementation date, scope, and application of landmark new corporate offence, and provides suggestions for fraud-prevention procedures.

By Pamela Reddy, Clare Nida, Annie Birch, and Matthew Unsworth

On 6 November 2024, the UK Home Office published long-awaited statutory guidance on the new corporate offence of “failure to prevent fraud” (the Guidance).1 The failure to prevent fraud offence will come into force on 1 September 2025, after having been introduced last year by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA). It follows similar corporate “failure to prevent” offences in relation to bribery (under the Bribery Act 2010 (BA)) and the facilitation of tax evasion (under the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA)). The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has been calling for the introduction of a similar offence, specifically in relation to failure to prevent economic crime, for a number of years.

The offence is expected to make it easier for prosecutors to hold organisations accountable for fraud committed for their benefit and, as with the BA, is expected to drive a “major shift in corporate culture”. Along with the changes to the identification principle for corporate criminal liability introduced by ECCTA, it is anticipated that the number of successful corporate prosecutions will increase. The Guidance helpfully clarifies the scope and application of the new offence, as well as giving advice on what will constitute reasonable fraud-prevention procedures — and we set out our key takeaways below.

The new financing initiative aims to enhance collaboration amongst export credit agency and development finance institutions to support financing for critical mineral projects.

By Tom Bartlett, JP Sweny, Alexander Buckeridge-Hocking, and Samuel Burleton

The Minerals Security Partnership Finance Network (MSPFN), a joint financing body, was announced by the United States, the European Commission, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, and nine other nations on 23 September 2024 at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The

The deadline is fast approaching for in-scope financial entities and their ICT service providers to conform to the EU’s new digital operational resilience regulation.

By Christian F. McDermott and Alain Traill

With effect from 17 January 2025, a broad range of EU financial entities will be subject to the new EU regulation on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (DORA), with significant impact for firms and their third-party ICT service providers. As the new landscape takes shape, below is an overview of some of the key changes and steps that impacted financial entities and providers should be taking ahead of the deadline.

The UK’s consultation on deregulating commercial agents could have knock-on impacts on payment services and create regulatory divergence from the EU.

By Christian McDermott, Brett Carr, and Grace Erskine

On 16 May 2024, the UK government launched a consultation into the deregulation of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (the Commercial Agents Regulations). The Commercial Agents Regulations implemented Council Directive 86/653/EEC (the Commercial Agents Directive) and defined certain pro-agent terms of engagement between businesses and their self-employed commercial agents who are authorised to negotiate the sale or purchase of goods on their behalf.

The stated purpose of the consultation is to ensure that the Commercial Agents Regulations serve the needs of UK businesses post-Brexit, and to remove the legal complexities resulting from the interaction of the Commercial Agents Regulations with the English legal system’s rules on agency and contract law. The UK government’s current proposal is for existing contracts under the Commercial Agents Regulations to remain in force until termination or expiry, and to prevent new contracts from being subject to the Commercial Agents Regulations.

In addition to affecting relationships between UK agents and their principals, the proposals could also have knock-on effects for the payments sector, which we explore in this post.