Insights

The flow of data across borders is essential to our global economy. As companies grow more and more dependent on cross-border data transfers to conduct business, two parallel legal trends have emerged:

To date the Trump Administration has issued multiple proclamations imposing varying rates of import duties on steel and aluminum and certain derivatives, including construction materials. These measures have added volatility and financial pressures to the construction sector both in the United States and abroad. Most recently, on June 3, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, doubling tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%, effective June 4, 2025. This action aims to counteract the continued influx of lower-priced, excess steel and aluminum imports that, according to the administration, threaten U.S. national security by undermining domestic production capacity. The proclamation notes that while prior tariffs provided some price support, they were insufficient to achieve the necessary capacity utilization rates for sustained industry health and defense readiness. The United Kingdom remains temporarily exempt at the 25% rate until July 9, per the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal.

The UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR)[1] marks a significant shift in national defence policy, emphasising enhanced military readiness and domestic industrial growth. This comprehensive plan is poised to reshape the landscape for defence contractors across the country. This follows the enactment of the UK’s new Procurement Act 2023, which took effect on 24 February 2025, also impacting defence contractors. More information on this can be found in our alert: What Defence Contractors Need To Know About the New UK Procurement Act.

The English Court of Appeal has recently handed down a helpful judgment, clarifying the test for breach of duty in cases of alleged negligence by valuers. In short: (i) the valuation must fall outside a reasonable margin of error of the ‘correct’ valuation; and (ii) the valuer must have carried out the valuation in a way that no reasonably competent valuer could have done (the Bolam test).

On 6 May 2025, the UK government announced it had concluded a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. A summary of the deal has been published by the Department for Business and Trade. With widespread uncertainty concerning global trade policy and tariffs, the conclusion of the deal is being celebrated as a triumph.

The UK’s new Procurement Act 2023 (the “Act”) took effect on 24 February 2025. More information on this can be found in our alerts: Understanding the UK’s New Procurement Regime in 2025 and Changes to the UK Procurement Regime in 2025: An Introduction to the Debarment List.

As a result of the Procurement Act 2023, the UK procurement regime  changed on 24 February 2025. To read about the key changes, please see our article Understanding the UK’s New Procurement Regime in 2025.

On February 18, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” that directs independent agencies (as well as Cabinet Departments and their sub-agencies) to route all “proposed and final significant regulatory” and budgetary actions through the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. If implemented to its full extent, this action will significantly strengthen the authority of the White House by weakening the political autonomy of these independent agencies. As an assertion of the President’s inherent powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, it also stands to weaken congressional influence over these independent agencies, both through the appropriations and confirmation processes.

The UK’s new Procurement Act 2023 (the “Act”) takes effect from 24 February 2025. Our view is that while there are a small number of important differences, which we discuss below, the majority of the processes outlined in previous legislation, remain unchanged, despite some changes in terminology.

In the first days of his Administration, President Trump has issued a number of Executive Orders that mark a significant shift in United States energy and climate policy, marked by deregulation and a focus on traditional energy sources. President Trump’s second term agenda will have profound implications not only domestically but also on the international stage. Understanding the impact of these policies is crucial for businesses and investors alike. This article will explore the effects of President Trump’s agenda with respect to climate change policy, oil and gas, and solar energy sectors.

As the United States government transitions from the Biden Administration to the Trump Administration, significant changes are already impacting infrastructure policy, with likely consequences to both planned and in-progress infrastructure projects around the country. Disruptions in funding and other policy changes are creating uncertainty for investors and stakeholders involved in infrastructure projects, particularly the potential impacts on projects funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as previewed in our January 18thclient alert, “Implications of Incoming Administration Changes to Infrastructure Initiatives.”

The ongoing changes surrounding the U.S.’s position on infrastructure between the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration is creating policy uncertainty for investors and companies in the infrastructure space. This instability may raise concerns among stakeholders that the U.S. is not an ideal place to invest because of the policy inconsistency and increases the likelihood of disputes arising from existing and potential foreign investment projects.

On 18 September 2024, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30.  The judgment considers several significant issues relevant to international arbitration.  Primarily, though, it reaffirms: (i) the English court’s strong support for arbitration, in general; (ii) the steps it is prepared to take to hold parties to their agreement to arbitrate; and (iii) the current position for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement, in the absence of an express election by the parties.

In February 2024, the International Bar Association (“IBA”) released its most recent version of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (“2024 IBA Guidelines”). In close succession, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari for review of an Eleventh Circuit decision upholding arbitrator impartiality. These two events underscore the importance of arbitrator impartiality and disclosure of even potential conflicts of interest.

On 19 March 2024, the Government followed through on a promise from the Ministry of Justice to introduce draft legislation to reverse the effect of  R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28.  The effect of this ruling was discussed in our prior alert and follow on commentary discussing its effect on group competition litigation and initial government reform proposals. Should the bill pass, agreements to provide third party funding to litigation or advocacy services in England will no longer be required to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”) to be enforceable.

In this alert we discuss recent developments in the regulation of third party funding since R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, (“PACCAR”) which we discussed in our prior alert. In Alex Neill Class Representative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited et al. [2023] CAT 73, the first analysis of a third-party litigation funding agreement (“LFA”) to take place since PACCAR, finding that an optional payment mechanism based on a cut of damages “only to the extent enforceable and permitted by applicable law” will not render the whole LFA an unenforceable damages-based agreement (“DBA”). Meanwhile, the government intends to enact a legislative amendment to make non-lawyer LFAs for group opt-out competition proceedings enforceable, but calls have quickly begun for the government to go further.

The world has watched in horror as tragedy has unfolded in Israel because of the brutal terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas.  Nothing can compensate for the devastating loss of life, for the trauma suffered by those injured or kidnapped, or for the grief, sorrow, fear, and anger felt by family members.  For the past twenty-five years, American victims or family members have held Iran accountable in U.S. courts for its sponsorship and support of murderous and terrorist acts like those carried out by Hamas in Israel.  The U.S. legal system may again be a vehicle to hold Iran and its proxies to account today.

On 6 September 2023, the Law Commission published its final “Review of the Arbitration Act 1996” (the “Report”). 

In R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, the U.K. Supreme Court has declared litigation funding agreements based on a cut of damages to need to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, while the Court of Appeal in Evans & O’Higgins v Barclays [2023] EWCA Civ 876 expands the scope of likely competition opt out litigation approval.

The Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) has published the second edition of its arbitration rules, which came into effect on May 1, 2023 and applies to all arbitrations commenced on or after that date. As compared to the 2018 rules, these amendments are aimed at making the SCCA more attractive to a variety of business sectors. The new rules are the fruit of two years of consultation with industry experts, all in an effort to meet the highest standards in international arbitration. Some of the noteworthy amendments include the establishment of the SCCA Court, the removal of references to Sharia law, and new regulations regarding consolidation, cybersecurity, joinder, and emergency protective measures.