Morgan Simes

Interesting piece in the Financial Times by Richard Waters on the potential for the next wave of 'edge' computing - driven in part by the challenges of data centre demands and the abilities of small language models in AI - and more generally "a sign of how the data centre boom is starting to distort the entire hardware supply chain": https://lnkd.in/egCQgyB2 - Into 2026, it is likely your tech strategy will not just be about ROI and performance - supply-chain resilience; data and AI sovereignty; and the challenge of compliance in the mess of the current geo-politic - are also going to be key.

8

1 commentaire

As we enter March, we acknowledge a month rich with significant religious festivals celebrated by colleagues and communities across the UK. Key observances include: - Lent - Purim - Holi - Hola Mohalla - Ramadan - Eid al-Fitr - Naw-Rúz - Spring Equinox / Ostara It's important to note that some of these festivals follow lunar calendars, resulting in varying dates each year. Employers should be mindful of the following: to avoid discrimination based on religion or belief as outlined in the Equality Act 2010. - Consider time off for religious observance reasonably and consistently. - Flexible working arrangements, shift swaps, use of annual leave, or adjusted break times may be necessary. - Early considerations such as calender and workload planning will help achieve an even handed and fair approach, with a view to balancing the needs of both employees and the employer. - Policies should be applied fairly, and managers should engage in open, respectful conversations with employees regarding their needs. Creating space for religious observance goes beyond mere box ticking ; it fosters a culture of respect and belonging.

22

Coming soon and very exciting! Navigator fills a major gap in the market, providing a high-level, empirical view of who is leading the market and why.

2

🚨 An interesting decision on the limits of an unfair prejudice petition once insolvency intervenes: Re The Interactive Media Group Ltd [2026] EWHC 2308 (Ch). 🚨 The petitioner alleges that, following a breakdown in relations between two shareholder-directors 😔 , the respondent orchestrated the insolvency of the group and diverted its business and assets elsewhere. The immediate application concerned extensive specific disclosure said to be necessary to value the petitioner's shares and investigate an alleged extraction of value 🤑 . ICC Judge Barber dismissed the application - on two independent bases. 1️⃣ Once the company entered creditors' voluntary liquidation, the directors' powers ceased and conduct of its affairs passed to the liquidator. Subsequent purchases by the respondent from the liquidator were not, without more, conduct of the company's affairs for the purposes of s.994. The Court was particularly critical of "portmanteau" pleading which sought to treat acts of directors, subsidiaries, an independent liquidator and the respondent in his personal capacity as part of a single course of unfairly prejudicial conduct. 2️⃣ Although the Court retains flexibility over valuation dates and "add-back" adjustments, a petitioner seeking disclosure to support such a case still needs to identify the alleged wrongdoing, explain how it affected value and articulate a coherent valuation methodology. Disclosure is not a substitute for formulating the valuation case itself. Notably, the Court declined to dismiss the application on the first ground alone, going on to find it failed independently on relevance and proportionality grounds under CPR 31.12 - a reminder that even a well-pleaded case for conduct won't unlock disclosure without a properly worked-through valuation methodology behind it. A useful judgment for shareholder disputes where alleged unfair prejudice becomes intertwined with a subsequent insolvency. Judgment here: https://lnkd.in/e_4s4keR

42

Exciting to see HBO Max officially launch in the UK & Ireland on 26th March - another major milestone in our European expansion. Since 2024, I’ve had the privilege of leading the regulatory and content compliance workstream for HBO Max across 40+ markets, working alongside outstanding cross-functional teams to bring the service to new audiences. For the UK, I’m especially proud to have secured our partnership with the BBFC, ensuring trusted, high-quality age ratings that audiences rely on. None of this would have been possible without the wonderful people behind it - across project management, product, tech, legal, operations, content, planning and marketing - whose expertise and collaboration make each launch a success. On to the next milestone and a mention to my amazing team Suzanne Teijgeler, Jo-anne Limm, Céline Beekman, Joe Grove, Zeynab Alwi, Ben Lewis, Hayley Pickering, Julie Impens, Richard Weldon, Ruth Garner and Britt van Engelen.

70

3 commentaires

The recent McLaren v Palou judgment handed down last week is a great reminder of the basics of UK contract law and will be an interesting precedent to note in future high-value agreements in the sports/ entertainment sector. One thing that really stood out for me was how the High Court tested McLaren’s claims for damages, and how those principles applied in a sporting context, particularly around loss of sponsorship opportunities. The usual principles of causation, mitigation and proof of loss were applied strictly, and a number of points came out relevant for legal and commercial decision-making, which show that courts will compensate to what can be proved contractually and evidentially, and not what feels commercially obvious: 1) Linking value to named individuals 💰 • Where Palou was expressly named as an “A-level driver” in McLaren’s General Motors engine supply agreement, causation was straightforward and McLaren succeeded in recovering the lost payment in full. • Where Palou was not named in sponsorship agreements (e.g. NTT), causation, and therefore recovery, became much harder. The losses were treated as indirect and the question became whether the sponsorship revenue was contractually contingent on him, which it wasn’t. That meant McLaren could not recover those losses in full. • The key point here is that teams and rights holders often price deals around individuals (drivers, athletes, headline acts, creators), but unless those individuals are actually tied into the agreement, it becomes difficult to prove that lost revenue was legally caused by their breach. Commercial importance does not automatically translate into legal causation. 2) Performance upside 🏆 • Sponsorship and revenue streams linked to results, rankings or prize money were treated under the “loss of chance” principle, meaning whether there was a real and substantial, rather than merely speculative, chance of gain. • Again, McLaren couldn’t recover everything because these were inherently probable and hypothetical outcomes rather than guarantees. For example, it couldn’t simply be assumed that Palou would have performed just as successfully with McLaren Indy as he had at CGR. • Commercially, this is a good reminder to think about fixed fees, minimum guarantees and other protections if a revenue stream really matters, rather than relying purely on future performance, which will almost always be discounted under court scrutiny. 3) Signing-on bonuses ✒️ • The signing-on bonus was drafted as payable on signature, and Palou did sign. The High Court therefore treated the payment as consideration for signing, not performance, and no clawback or unjust enrichment argument was available. • In other words, you cannot escape a bad bargain, even if a talent doesn’t perform or breaches shortly afterwards. • The practical takeaway is to think about structuring these as advances, staged instalments or payments that vest over time, rather than unconditional sums on day one.

19

The House of Lords has come steaming into the AI–copyright debate with a hard‑hitting report from the Communications and Digital Committee, published last week. Link below to our latest analysis by Cerys Wyn Davies and Gill Dennis . Key messages from the Committee: 👉 Generative AI is described as a “clear and present danger” to the UK’s creative industries (which the report alleges contribute more to the UK economy than the AI sector) due to large‑scale use of copyright works without consent, transparency or remuneration. 👉 No expansion of the TDM exception: the Committee recommends ruling out any extension of the text‑and‑data mining exception with an opt‑out model. 👉 A licensing‑first future: it calls for a responsible, licensing‑based ecosystem, ensuring AI developers secure permission and pay fair value for use of creative content. 👉 Mandatory transparency: the report also urges statutory transparency obligations, requiring AI developers to disclose how training data is used. The report sets the tone for a supposedly more balanced AI–copyright framework — one that supports innovation without sacrificing creator rights. Given where it looked like we might end up, this does mark significant shift back in creative industries' favour. However, it will put a potentially huge administrative, technological and financial burden on AI developers. https://lnkd.in/eTHqbufN

30