Mills & Reeve: Technology Law Update

A brand new subsidy control system

Simon Elsegood explains how this will change public sector investment to develop the economy, following the UK's departure from the EU:

Move over State Aid - make room for the Subsidy Control Bill

Next steps for the COVID-19 Future Fund

The UK Government's support scheme for innovative companies has been very successful, and is now being expanded to include companies that participate in accelerator programmes based outside of the UK.

Katharine Robinson comments on what the changes mean here.

Lawyers versus climate change - the Climate Contract Playbook

The 2015 Paris Agreement committed governments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to keep global warming below 2°C, and drive efforts to limit the rise to 1.5°C. The UK Government has since revised the Climate Change Act 2008 to implement a target to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Growing regulatory and consumer pressure has made reducing climate impact a commercial goal. However, despite the increasing demand on companies to reduce their climate impact, there is little in the way of practical guidance to assist them.

The Chancery Lane Project aims to offer some practical tools. The Project is a collective of legal professionals set up to provide real legal solutions that can help business in reaching these challenging targets.

The Climate Contract Playbook

The Chancery Lane Project’s Climate Contract Playbook sets out 16 model clauses drafted by legal professionals during a climate hackathon in November 2019. The Climate Contract Playbook provides a blueprint that can be tailored and used by lawyers to assist companies in meeting their environmental goals.

Each clause has been given a child’s name, chosen by the drafting team, to emphasise the impact a failure to address global warming will have on the next generation.

• Frank’s clause places climate risk and sustainability obligations on companies seeking investment. The clause is intended to be used in standard non-leveraged investment documentation to enable investors to understand and manage the environmental impact of their investment.
• Agatha’s clause enables a company to terminate its agreement with a supplier without an exit fee if it is unable to match the environmental improvements offered by a greener alternative supplier. Annie’s clause is a short form version of Agatha’s Clause.
• Teddy's clause is for use in supply contracts, particularly government procurement contracts. It enables the government to use its procurement levers to decarbonise the economy by requiring suppliers to comply with at purchase warranties for environmental performance and continuous improvement obligations.
• Jessica’s clause inserts warranties requiring climate and environmental impact targets to be met. Failure to meet the specified targets requires the party in breach to pay a fee to an environmental charity.
•  Owen’s clause imposes back-to-back net zero emission obligations throughout the supply chain and enables a customer to terminate its agreement with the supplier or to offset the carbon emissions at the supplier’s expense if those obligations are not complied with.
• Zoe and Bea’s clause introduces a “Green Compliance Checklist” setting out obligations to measure, reduce and report on greenhouse gas and carbon emissions.
• Phillippe’s clause inserts an obligation into public tender invitations requiring contractors to offer volunteering opportunities to work on environmental projects to the unemployed. Public bodies will prioritise companies that comply with the obligations.
• Eric’s clause enables employees to volunteer at an environmental organisation during garden leave and during paid sabbatical.
• Arlo’s clause restricts a company’s Articles of Association by inserting an objects clause that the company will act in an environmentally conscious or Paris Agreement compliant way.
• Dottie’s clause inserts director warranties and undertakings requiring full disclosure of the company’s environmental performance and its strategy for addressing deficiencies into underwriting and sponsorship agreements.
• Chloe’s clause introduces an Environmental Business Charter containing a set of environmental best practice rules that can be developed between a law firm and its clients. Deviations from the charter should be justified in order to ensure that environmental thinking is at the forefront of best business practice.
• Darcy’s board minutes are to be used as a precedent to encourage directors to consider environmental factors including the company’s net zero target and any climate change risks as a routine part of decision-making.
• Mani’s clause introduces climate change issues as a standalone section of a report on title for the acquisition of UK based property.
• Mary’s clause prevents contractors from achieving practical completion where they have not achieved energy efficiency obligations that would be set out under the Joint Contracts Tribunal suite of design and build contracts.

Looking forward

The model clauses in the Climate Contract Playbook are untested, but provide a practical starting point for companies looking to reduce their environmental impact.

The Chancery Lane Project has requested case study feedback from lawyers who have used the model clauses. It plans to hold a second climate hackathon in November 2020.

Coronavirus/COVID-19 - Government financial support for businesses

The government has announced a number of measures to support business during the coronavirus crisis including loan support in the form of CBILS and CCFF.

We review the current material on eligibility from the Bank of England and the British Business Bank here.

Getting ready for IR35

The introduction of the new tax regime for consultants in the private sector is arriving soon.

From April 2020, the change will see many larger private sector businesses required to deduct income tax and National Insurance contributions via payroll from fees for services. This will apply in situations where fees are paid to a personal service company, but where the individual performing the services would (but for the personal service company) ordinarily be regarded as an employee of the client company for tax purposes.

The change is likely to affect purchasers of IT services, as well as agencies and IT service providers. You may need to review your arrangements and contracts ahead of the change to ensure compliance.

Mills & Reeve tax partner Kevin Lowe explains the changes and offers practical tips here. 

Katy Carson

Employee non-compete clauses: what is acceptable?

When hiring for business-critical roles, a tightly worded non-compete clause is often an important element in the contract. Top-level staff will have access to confidential projects and important relationships. An unexpected or contentious departure can expose a business to significant risk. This exposure is heightened where the individual intends to join or invest in a competitor. The Supreme Court recently ruled on a non-compete clause, analysing it fully for the first time in a hundred years or so. The judges took the opportunity to refresh the law on restraint of trade, clarifying the circumstances in which words can be removed or “severed” to convert what would otherwise be an unenforceable clause into one that is legally effective.

Interesting wording

Ms Tillman was a senior recruitment consultant specialising in the financial services sector. She had entered into a contract of employment in which she had promised not to “directly or indirectly engage or be concerned or interested in” any competing business for a period for 12 months after the end of her employment. Her employers sought to enforce this promise when she left to work for a competitor. 

It is widely accepted that being “interested in” a competing business, in this context, can include holding any kind of shareholding, even a minority stake. The Supreme Court concluded that if the words "or interested" remained in the clause, it would be unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. However, if these words were excluded, the clause would be reasonable and therefore enforceable. So the judges had to decide whether to accept the employer’s request to strike out the offending words.  Two questions were important:

Firstly, could the offending words be removed without adding to or modifying the wording of what remained? In other words, did deleting the words satisfy the “blue pencil test”? The answer to that was clearly yes.

Secondly, did the removal of the words change the essential character of the contract which the parties had entered into? The Supreme Court decided to reformulate this question (which had emerged from previous case law) into the following: would removal of the words “generate any major change in the overall effect of all the post-employment restraints in the contract”?  The Supreme Court concluded that it would not and the offending words could be deleted.

Take away points

So where does this leave us?  

• Welcome news for businesses, as the courts are prepared to enforce reasonable post-termination restrictions. Clauses of this nature remain an important safeguard for employers to protect their business from unfair competition when an employee leaves, particularly where they are in possession of commercially sensitive information, trade secrets or key customer connections;
• Employers and their lawyers need to think carefully about how the clause is put together: each element of each restriction will need to be defended as reasonable;
• Restraining a departing employee from being a shareholder in a competing business (even if this is a minority interest) will be regarded as being in restraint of trade and therefore unenforceable; and
• You cannot assume that a court will necessarily be prepared to convert an unreasonable obligation into a reasonable one by striking out offending words, even if the blue pencil test is satisfied. The Supreme Court has attempted to make the criteria which will be applied clearer, but the issues will not always be clear cut.

Melanie James

Employment status, tax and the gig economy - what's new?

We’ve recently published two articles about the risks of making the wrong call about an individual’s employment status and the new developments employers should be looking out for on that front.

In April next year, new rules on personal service companies will increase the tax risks businesses are exposed to when engaging individuals via personal service companies. Our corporate tax partner Kevin Lowe explains here what steps businesses should be taking to get ready for this change.

There have also been some important new cases about employment status, particularly involving workers in the gig economy. In this briefing Charles Pigott explains the different but overlapping rules that determine how an individual is treated for employment rights and for tax purposes and assesses the significance of the recent case law on this subject.

Four key messages about EU staff and Brexit

The recent vote in the UK House of Commons to reject the EU Withdrawal Agreement may result in additional concern for EU staff and their employers in the tech sector.

Based on our experience of providing support to organisations in this area, including running briefing sessions for EU nationals, we think there are four key messages to get across in this context:

• Reassurance– the Government has confirmed that it will run the Settlement Scheme (the Scheme that will effectively protect the rights of EU nationals currently residing in the UK) for EU nationals and their family members who are residing in the UK on or before 29 March 2019 (ie, Brexit day), even in a no deal scenario. So irrespective of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, the rights of EU nationals and their family members currently in the UK should be preserved.  The Government has confirmed this week that no fee will be payable for applications under the Settlement Scheme (although a £65 fee will still be payable (to be later reimbursed) for applications made during the current pilot phase which opened on 21 January).   
• Recruitment– the risk of a no-deal Brexit may have increased. It is not clear what immigration system the Government will operate for EU nationals who wish to come into the UK from 30 March 2019 in a no deal scenario, although it is likely that existing rules will apply in the short-term. Importantly, the transition period that would run until 31 December 2020 which has been agreed as part of the Withdrawal Agreement would not apply. Employers who have identified a specific EU national for a role, or who have recruitment processes involving EU nationals underway, should where practicable plan to ensure that EU nationals are appointed and resident in the UK by 29 March 2019, or as soon as possible thereafter, in case of a no-deal Brexit.
• Workforce planning– it is sensible for organisations to identify the areas where they tend to recruit a significant number of EU nationals, the potential risks associated with additional recruitment barriers and costs which may come into play, and actions that can be taken to mitigate these risks.
• Sponsor licence applications and compliance – based on the recent Immigration White Paper, it seems likely that the future immigration system will involve an extension in some form of the current points based system to EU nationals. This would mean that all employers who wish to recruit EU nationals would need to register as sponsors. Getting ahead of the curve and applying now for a sponsor licence may be a prudent step – although there is no guarantee this will be required. Furthermore, the consequences for existing sponsors of having their licence revoked as a result of compliance failures may be prove to be more serious in the post-Brexit world. So ensuring a high level of compliance may be more important than ever.

The Mills & Reeve immigration team can help in advising on Brexit-related immigration issues, providing support for EU staff, and assisting with sponsor licence issues. Please get in touch with Alex Russell if your organisation requires any advice in this area.

Alex Russell, Principal Associate

Welcome changes to the ABC of Entrepreneurs’ Relief

The changes to Entrepreneurs’ Relief announced in the UK Chancellor’s Autumn Budget (discussed here) rang alarm bells for some. So-called “alphabet shares” are often used to provide flexibility on the payment of dividends. The new regime (taking immediate effect on 29 October) had the unwelcome result that ER will not be available where the board has full discretion to allocate dividends between the different share classes.  

A tightening up of the qualifying rules for this important tax relief presented a real problem for those individuals who have shares in a company that has different share classes. In the typical alphabet share approach used to provide flexibility for the payment of dividends between different shareholders, the articles of association will normally give directors discretion on how to allocate dividends. This discretion means the shareholder is not entitled to a dividend and so will not qualify for entrepreneurs’ relief.

Corrections made at this stage could have had knock-on consequences on the shares’ valuation and relating to the employment-related securities rules.

Boards and shareholders alike have welcomed proposals made on 20 December to address the problem. Under the planned changes to the Finance Bill a shareholder will benefit from ER if the shares they hold:

• Represent at least 5% of the ordinary share capital; AND
• Enable them to exercise at least 5% of the voting rights in the company, AND
• Either:
  • Gives them an entitlement to 5% of the distributable reserves and 5% of the assets on a winding up; OR
  • In the event of a disposal of the whole of the ordinary share capital of the company, entitles them to at least 5% of the sale proceeds.

The new alternative (in bold) means that alphabet shares may still be able to qualify for ER, even if they have no entitlement as such to dividends, provided the other conditions are all met for the qualifying period.

Kevin Lowe

Jail for exporter of jet parts to Iran

A retired businessperson has been found guilty of exporting military fighter jet parts to Iran, in breach of export controls. Alexander George, along with two others, Iris and Paul Attwater, were convicted for using deceptive methods to ship the parts to Iran from 2010 to 2016.

Indirect shipping of fighter jet parts

Mr George purchased the fighter jet parts in the USA, and shipped them to his various companies in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. These companies then shipped the parts to Iran, which is subject to trade embargoes and sanctions which prohibit the export of military or dual-use items. Dual-use items are those which could have both civilian and military uses.

After becoming concerned about being investigated by the FBI and CIA, Mr George involved Mr and Mrs Attwater in the exportation of the parts through their aviation company. However, by 2010 a number of exports by the Attwaters’ aviation company had been blocked by HMRC. HMRC interviewed Mr George twice over the exports, and all three individuals were warned about exporting the parts without a licence. Despite these warnings, the trio then attempted further concealment of the illegal exportation. They set up a new company in Holland, through which the items were shipped to Malaysia before being sent to Iran.

Tough penalties

Following an investigation and prosecution by HMRC, Mr George received a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment. Mr and Mrs Attwater, who were sentenced in 2016, each received a suspended sentence of six months imprisonment.

It has been estimated by HMRC that Mr George made profits of more than £5 million from evading export controls, and Mr and Mrs Attwater benefited to the tune of £500,000. HMRC intend to undertake proceedings to recover the profits made by the group.

A clear example of the UK’s tough export controls in action

This case highlights that UK export controls apply equally to individuals carrying out activities in the UK, and to UK nationals carrying out activities abroad. Exporters of goods or technology that may have military or internal repression uses should check carefully whether their products are covered by UK or EU export controls.

Simon Elsegood