Home

Welcome to the Corporate Briefing, where we review the latest developments in UK corporate law that you need to know about. In this month’s issue we discuss: PS26/16: Changes to Information Flows for UK Equity IPOs In a significant boost for UK capital markets, the FCA has scrapped two rules that had made UK IPOs slower and more costly than those in competing jurisdictions. FCA Inside information declaration form A new FCA procedural requirement takes effect on 21 September 2026 that will affect every first submission of equity documents. Issuers and their advisers will need to confirm whether a submission contains inside information and, if so, explain what that information is. Companies House delays presenter identity verification measures Companies House has postponed the introduction of mandatory identity verification for those filing documents at Companies House to no earlier than November 2027. Court permits derivative claim against director, without need to show financial loss De Menezes v Alves & Ors [2026] EWHC 1906 (Ch) The High Court has allowed a derivative claim to proceed against a director who set up a competing business, even though there was no evidence that the company had suffered any financial loss; the risk of future harm was sufficient to allow the claim to proceed.

Once-in-a-generation overhauls of the Acas Code of Practice and UK equal pay law. The ever-increasing overlap of AI and workplace issues. A landmark Supreme Court decision on the rights of part-time workers. August has been anything but quiet. In this edition of BCLP’s HR Two-Minute Monthly, we bring you a concise, practical guide to the most important UK cases, developments and legislative changes, plus handy links to all updates the BCLP team has published this month, to help you stay ahead of the curve.

August saw a helpful Supreme Court decision which gives clarity on causation in part-time worker claims. The claim related to Mr Augustine, who worked as a private hire driver for Data Cars Ltd (Augustine v Data Cars Ltd). He worked part-time and brought a claim alleging that the fee he was charged for the company's booking system was discriminatory, as all drivers were charged a flat rate of £148 per week, regardless of the number of hours they worked. Mr Augustine claimed that the application of this flat fee constituted less favourable treatment of him as a part-time worker contrary to regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (the Regulations), on the basis that it resulted in him paying a higher fee per hour worked than his full-time colleagues.

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) has published a survey which highlights the use of disciplinary procedures to address cultural and behavioural concerns. At the same time, Acas is consulting on a revised Code of Practice with a sharp focus on early, informal resolution, motivated by its finding that formal disciplinary and grievance processes cost employers an estimated £2.36 billion a year. The logic of steering disputes away from formal processes is clear, but the survey exposes an awkward gap: many of the issues employers actually face cannot be resolved informally.

On August 19, 2026, the FTC proposed an Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing (the “Proposed Statement”). This Proposed Statement builds on—but does not reference—the FTC’s past investigative work in this space. Clients with personalized pricing practices, or those that are considering adopting these practices, should conduct a careful review of their pricing policies and procedures to ensure that they do not fall within the FTC’s evolving concerns. The FTC’s Proposed Statement discusses how these practices could be deceptive, unfair, violative of privacy, or anticompetitive in certain circumstances. However, the FTC emphasizes that disclosure to consumers could cure many of these potential issues.