The Key Regulatory Considerations For UK Companies Right Now
HSF head of EMEA disputes Jenny Stainsby says U.K. and global regulatory lawyers have had to pivot from concentrating on Brexit to COVID-19.
June 26, 2020 at 03:09 AM
4 minute read
At the beginning of the year, for U.K. companies and their lawyers, 2020 inevitably involved Brexit preparedness. Having spent significant time, money and energy during 2019 making preparations for a potential no-deal scenario, many felt that, while still a significant priority for the year, it was a challenge that was relatively under control, albeit most acknowledged that there remained some aspects of Brexit which would remain (on the Rumsfeld continuum) as 'unknown unknowns'.
By March, as the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic started to become clear, Brexit was no longer dominating the news cycle. What the U.K., and the world, was facing was whole new level of crisis.
Nothing has been immune from the impact of this pandemic. Companies faced challenges on all fronts – not least in relation to liquidity, supply chains and employment matters.
Lawyers, internal and external, have been instrumental in assisting companies navigate the regulatory requirements of the emerging landscape – implementing the swathe of government initiatives and identifying and mitigating risks of the new ways of working.
First, there are practical steps of preparing for re-opening of businesses' premises which have been closed. This involves preparing a risk assessment which has, at its heart, health and safety concerns but also depends on effective navigation of employment and data laws and regulations in both the 'here and now' and in the context of future risk.
Any change in systems and processes involves a degree of operational risk. This will have been exacerbated by the unprecedented nature and speed of many of the changes that were required at the outset of lockdown. It will be important to consider what areas would benefit from compliance 'look back' reviews to pre-empt regulatory scrutiny and mitigate potential litigation risk.
Some of the initiatives that have been implemented at speed will, at some point, need to be unwound. For example, the various payment holiday schemes available to retail banking and mortgage customers. Operational risk is as relevant to the unwinding of such schemes as their setting up. And, perhaps particularly in the case of financial services firms, there will be the challenge of managing customer needs and perceptions against commercial realities.
Financial services firms are used to managing a fairly constant stream, often a torrent, of regulatory change. While many of the change projects that were in scope for this year have been delayed, they have not gone away. Firms are very aware that when it comes to looking at risk, change management is already high on regulators' lists.
By way of example, responses to a significant consultation by the PRA and FCA on operational resilience (an area that is clearly being tested in practice right now), and to proposals to improve climate change related financial disclosures by listed issuers are now due on 1 October, and a host of other planned publications have been delayed indefinitely.
But notably, there is no change to the timetable for the transition from Libor. The assumption remains that firms cannot rely on Libor being published after the end of 2021 and therefore the need to transition from Libor within this timeframe also remains.
The financial services regulators recognise that the extension of a number of consultation periods to the start of October could lead to the finalisation of a substantial volume of policy around the end of the year. This in turn coincides with the end of the EU withdrawal transition period. As things stand, the risk of a no-deal scenario has not gone away
This is a pertinent reminder that the challenges we planned for in 2020 will still exist when this current crisis abates and we resume business as usual, in whatever form that might take. Being ready is key.
Jenny Stainsby is head of contentious financial services regulatory and regional head of disputes for EMEA at Herbert Smith Freehills
|Read More
COVID-19: How to Maintain Regulatory Obligations While Working Remotely
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFormer Head of Finance at DLA Piper and Freshfields Quietly 'Struck Off'
2 minute readAshurst Bolsters Singapore Offering With A&O Shearman Hire
'I Won’t Name the Firm, But...'—Barratt Redrow's Legal Head on External Counsel Red Flags
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Year That Was
- 2Employment Law Changes Expected From Second Trump Administration
- 3Decision of the Day: Sri Lanka Granted Stay of Litigation Over Defaulted Sovereign Bond Debt
- 4AI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
- 5Mayor's Advisory Committee To Hold Hearing on Fitness of Judicial Candidates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250