We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 163

PPACA - Day 1

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2012

Today's arguments at the Supreme Court were 90 minutes on the issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide the constitutional questions now, or if the challengers must wait until the individual mandate and its associated penalities begin in 2014

My sweet lords: Court of Appeal hands down emphatic judgment in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited

  • Squire Sanders Hammonds
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 12 2011

Earlier today, at 9:45am on 12 October 2011, the Court of Appeal handed down its long-awaited judgment in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited 2011 A320102996 dealing with the claim of unfair relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “CCA 1974”

One amendment, two amendment, three amendment and, erm, four? Court of Appeal refuses borrowers permission for another walk in the park

  • Squire Sanders Hammonds
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 6 2011

Courts have been faced with a substantial number of claims alleging the mis-selling of payment protection insurance

UK financial services regulation: up-date on the progress of the government’s reforms

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 18 2013

In June 2010, in the wake of the financial crisis of 20072008, the Government announced its plans to abolish the Financial Services Authority (‘FSA’

You’re simply the best! Court dismisses another PPI mis-selling claim in Best v Black Horse Limited

  • Squire Sanders Hammonds
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 5 2011

Earlier today His Honour Judge Birtles handed down judgment in Keith Best v Black Horse Limited (2011), Unreported, Central London County Court, on two common arguments in payment protection insurance (“PPI”) mis-selling claims

New law prohibits genetic discrimination

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 30 2008

On May 21, 2008 President Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA

More fuss about the FOS

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 3 2013

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has just published its annual review of consumer complaints for the financial year 20122013, a year in which

Commission endorses restructuring and asset relief package for KBC

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • Belgium, European Union
  • -
  • December 31 2009

On 18 November 2009, the Commission approved a restructuring and asset relief package for KBC under the EC State aid rules

Challenge to health care statute heard by Fourth Circuit today; Sixth Circuit argument on the horizon

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 10 2011

As we reported two weeks ago, the Fourth Circuit is hearing oral arguments today in the appeal from Virginia District Court Judge Henry Hudson's December 13, 2010 decision declaring unconstitutional the mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148

Black Horse romps home with another victory in the High Court: Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 7 2010

His Honour Judge Waksman QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court in the Manchester Mercantile Court, handed down judgment on 1 December 2010 in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited 2010 EWHC 3152 (QB) on three issues often argued in payment protection insurance litigation: firstly, whether the lender complied with the Insurance: Conduct of Business Rules ("ICOB"); secondly, whether the lender negligently sold a single premium payment protection insurance policy (the "Policy"); and thirdly, whether the sale of the Policy created an unfair relationship