Interview with Iñigo Erlaiz in Expansión

Desafiar e executar sentenças arbitrais em Portugal – Guia GAR Know-How

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in response to the Supreme Court that imposing a heavier tax burden on U.S. regulated investment companies than on resident collective investment schemes constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital. Although such a restriction may be neutralised by the applicable double taxation treaty, that neutralisation must not be a merely theoretical possibility but must actually and fully be implemented, including with respect to the unitholders.

The creation of the capacity market will ensure availability of power in the mainland electricity system by paying providers that undertake to make capacity available during periods of stress, thereby ensuring the security of electricity supply.

Inasmuch as functioning as meta-clauses, non-binding and entire agreement clauses are paradoxical in a number of ways.

Employees who are deregistered over the weekend or on a non-working day and re-registered on the following working day do not engage in any conduct classified as a violation under employment penalty rules, although the employer’s conduct may, where applicable, be subject to liability of a different nature.

The judgment, in line with the guidelines provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union on referral of questions raised in this case, offers interesting insights into the interpretation of the relationship between universal insolvency proceedings and territorial insolvency proceedings.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

The fiduciary nature of the managed investment relationship supports the view that the bank should be liable for the loss of the pledged item because there would not have been such loss had the client’s order been executed prior to the bank’s resolution — but not for the reason given in the judgment.

The Supreme Court (Judgment no. 881/2026 of 9 June) has held that Article 234(2) of the Companies Act is applicable by analogy in a case where a company director disposed of essential company assets without the required authorisation from the shareholders in general meeting (Art. 160‌‌(f) of the Companies Act).