Regulatory investigations
2021 Annual Litigation Trends Survey
United States | Publication | March 7, 2022
Norton Rose Fulbright's 2021 Annual Litigation Trends Survey indicates that there is a consistent rise in concern in the legal landscape over regulatory proceedings and investigations.
Regulatory changes and the challenge of dealing with regulations across jurisdictions and international borders were increasingly cited as a source of concern.
Many of the above concerns are not just making waves on the litigation front. Legal leaders also opine that these issues could lead to more regulatory investigations.
Over the past three years, we have seen growing concern over regulatory proceedings and investigations. Data protection, ESG, multi-jurisdictional issues and regulatory changes were all listed by respondents as factors.
Financial institutions and energy respondents were among the sectors most concerned with regulatory issues, with both groups ranking regulatory investigations as their single greatest dispute-related concern.
Download the 2021 Annual Litigation Trends Survey for more details.
This issue
Recent publications
Publication
Intel judgment - more than one way to skin a rebate?!
On 24 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that the European Commission’s (the EC) 2009 decision, which imposed a (then record) €1.06 billion fine on Intel, was flawed as far as it found that loyalty rebates granted by Intel had anti-competitive effects.
Publication
The 2025 Dutch tax classification of the Brazilian FIP
The Dutch tax classification system for non-Dutch entities will undergo significant changes as of 1 January 2025.
Publication
Paying the Price: Court of Appeal holds debt still due when non-fulfilment of a condition precedent is caused by the buyer’s own breach
In King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 719 the Court of Appeal held that the claimant sellers (the Sellers) were entitled to claim the deposits promised under sale contracts as a debt despite the defendant buyers’ (the Buyers) breach of contract, which had resulted in the non-fulfilment of a condition precedent to the payment of the deposits.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .