Christian Toms

Featured in: Favicon

natlawreview.com Favicon

lexology.com Favicon

lawgazette.co.uk Favicon

squirepattonboggs.com Favicon

lexblog.com

Articles

UK ICO Publishes Priorities for Protecting Children’s Privacy Online

Apr 8, 2024 | natlawreview.com | Jonathan E Richman |Scott Maberry |Jordan Mallory |Christian Toms

On April 3, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“UK ICO”) published its 2024-2025 priorities for protecting children’s personal data online, titled the “Children’s Code Strategy” (the “Strategy”). The Strategy builds on the UK ICO Children’s Code, introduced in 2021, and sets forth priority areas of improvement for social media and video-sharing platforms, and indicates how the UK ICO will continue to enforce and drive conformance with the Children’s Code.
UK Court Grapples with Liability of Receiving Banks for Push Paym

Apr 6, 2024 | natlawreview.com | Christian Toms

Skip to main content April 06, 2024 Volume XIV, Number 97 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found. Trending News APP fraud – might banks have a “retrieval duty” ?
APP fraud - might banks have a “retrieval duty” ?

Apr 4, 2024 | lexology.com | Christian Toms

Following on from our Blog post and article from November of last year that looked at the potential liabilities of banks and related parties in the context of authorised push payment (“APP”) frauds, the recent decision of Master Brown in CCP Graduate School Ltd v National Westminster Bank PLC & Anor [2024] EWHC 581 (KB) has again seen the court grappling with the question of the liability of receiving banks, this time considering the potential existence of a “duty of retrieval”.
WHO PAYS THE PRICE OF AUTHORISED PUSH PAYMENT FRAUD?

Nov 22, 2023 | finance-disputes.co.uk | Christian Toms

WHO PAYS THE PRICE OF AUTHORISED PUSH PAYMENT FRAUD? Tags: assettracing, bankerstrust, BTO, civilfraud, disputeresolution, FinancialCrime, Fraud, litigation, norwichpharmacal, NPOCopyright Squire Patton Boggs. The opinions expressed in this update are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates.
WHO PAYS THE PRICE OF AUTHORISED PUSH PAYMENT FRAUD?

Nov 22, 2023 | lexblog.com | Christian Toms
What Is the Relevance to my Fund of Sections 90 and 90A of the UK's Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)?

Nov 14, 2023 | lexology.com | Christian Toms

The short answer is that s.90 and s.90A enable equity holders in UK-listed companies to sue for losses caused when companies publish untrue or misleading/incomplete market statements. Given the opportunities these types of action present, thirdparty litigation funders are increasingly inviting equity holders based in various jurisdictions (in particular investment funds and pension funds) to sign up to English High Court claims.
Family office Insights Litigation Funding

Oct 31, 2023 | lexology.com | Christian Toms

In the ongoing search for new categories of assets with increasingly attractive rates of return, family offices and investment funds are increasingly looking to litigation and arbitration disputes for new opportunities. This is the first in a series of notes that touch on key aspects of this still developing asset class, and the growing trend for the commercialisation of disputes.
Family Office Insights: Litigation Funding

Oct 27, 2023 | squirepattonboggs.com | Christian Toms
Opening salvo - enforceability of litigation funding agreements in a post-PACCAR world?

Oct 23, 2023 | lexology.com | Christian Toms

The recent interim judgment of Therium Litigation Funding A IC v Bugsby Property LLC [2023] EWHC 2627 (Comm) appears to give us an early indication of what might become key battlegrounds between Third-Party Funders and certain funded litigants in the wake of the Supreme Court’s impactful determination in R (PACCAR) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28.