Antitrust | Banking | Commercial Real Estate | Corporate | Data protection | Employment law | Environment and Climate Change | Financial regulation | Funds and asset management | Intellectual property | Litigation | Pensions | Tax
Antitrust
Following the expiry of the Brexit transitional period:
- EU competition law no longer applies in the UK. The UK's Competition Act 1998 and Enterprise Act 2002 largely mirror EU legislation so there has not been an immediate divergence in competition policy. However, UK courts and competition authorities are no longer bound by judgments of the EU Courts, so divergences in the interpretation of the prohibitions on anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance are likely to arise over time. In addition, there are likely to be some divergences in the block exemptions that apply for certain types of agreement, with the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) already indicating that it is likely to diverge from the proposed EU block exemption for vertical distribution arrangements in some (relatively minor) respects.
- The CMA now assesses a number of mergers and cases involving anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance in relation to the UK that were previously dealt with by the European Commission. This has resulted in an increase in merger and antitrust investigations being carried out by the CMA and the European Commission in parallel.
- There is the possibility that UK enforcement practices in relation to mergers may diverge over time from those of the EU. This could add an extra element of risk to mergers of businesses that operate in the UK and the EU given the requirement for approval in an extra jurisdiction.
- Any activities - including mergers, agreements and conduct of dominant companies - with an impact outside the UK will continue to be subject to EU law.
- EU State aid prohibitions no longer apply in the UK, except in relation to any subsidies which may affect trade on goods or electricity between Northern Ireland and the EU. Instead, the "subsidy control" provisions of the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement have been incorporated into UK domestic law by virtue of the EU (Future Relationship) Act 2020, and will be implemented in more detailed primary legislation when the Subsidy Control Bill is passed by Parliament. The UK subsidy control regime is similar in substance to the EU State aid regime, but has some key differences. The main difference is that subsidies granted by UK public bodies do not need to be cleared in advance by a regulator, unlike subsidies granted by public bodies in the EU, many of which must be pre-approved by the European Commission. Instead, the UK regime will be enforced primarily before the UK courts, which have powers to quash and order recoupment of subsidies that do not satisfy certain compliance principles. However, under the Subsidy Control Bill (when enacted) public bodies will be able to, and in some cases required to, seek non-binding advisory opinions from the Competition and Markets Authority on whether the compliance principles are satisfied before granting some types of subsidy.
- EU procurement law no longer applies in the UK although, as the UK's Public Contracts Regulations 2015, Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, Concessions Contracts Regulations 2016 and Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 mirror EU legislation, there has not been an immediate divergence in competition policy. The UK government has, however, announced its intentions to streamline this legal framework and has recently completed a public consultation on a series of proposed reforms to UK procurement law which would involve some notable changes, including the consolidation of the four UK procurement regulations into one document and a simplification of procurement procedures. None of the proposed changes are expected to come into force until 2023 at the earliest.
Banking
As there is still uncertainty as to the terms of the future relationship between the UK and the EU it remains unclear how banking transactions and loan documentation may be affected once the transition period comes to an end on 31 December 2020.
See our briefing Brexit – implications for loan documentation. However, the main points to note are:
- English law remains an appropriate choice of law for loan documentation after the transition period. EU member states will continue to apply Rome I and Rome II Regulations which require the law chosen by the parties to be applied whether or not it is the law of an EU member state. Rome I and Rome II will also continue to apply in the UK in the form of retained EU law. In terms of jurisdiction clauses we think that, on balance, the best way to proceed would be for parties to continue to follow their usual practice (i.e. opt for the non-exclusive or exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts). However, parties may want to consider this in light of the circumstances of their transaction if enforcement of English judgments in EU states is likely to be important, as, following the end of the transition period, the Brussels I Regulation (which ensures recognition of judgments across EU member states) may no longer apply. This means that a judgment of the English courts after the end of the transition period will need to be enforced under the law of each member state applicable to foreign judgments not covered by a treaty (the law currently applicable to New York judgments for example). It is also possible that arrangements for the automatic recognition of judgments may be achieved through the UK becoming party to another convention, such as the Lugano Convention or the Hague Convention, or otherwise agreed. See our briefing Brexit, English law and the English courts: where are we now? for more information.
- References to EU member state or EEA member state in documentation should be checked on a transaction by transaction basis and amended as necessary to "EU member state and the UK" and "EEA member state and the UK" to reflect the fact that the UK is no longer a member state of the EU/EEA.
- References to EU legislation in documentation should be checked on a transaction by transaction basis as should the statutory/legislative interpretation provisions. These are unlikely to need to be changed until the end of the transition period when there is more certainty.
- Article 55 of the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive may need to be addressed in relevant English law contracts through the inclusion of a bail-in clause. Indeed, it is now common for facility agreements to include an Article 55 bail-in clause. It is not a legal requirement during the transition period to include the clause in relevant contracts however as the UK has now left the EU, its inclusion avoids the need for amendments to documentation after the transition period.
- It is too early to say whether some clauses such as illegality or increased costs may eventually be triggered. However, potential loss of 'passporting' may be an issue for some lenders (which could potentially lead to triggering of illegality provisions). The main issue would be where licences are required for the making of (or maintaining participation in) loans in jurisdictions. For flexibility, and to the extent that they do not already, lenders may want to consider inserting wording into documents which allows them to designate affiliates who meet the relevant regulatory requirements to make loans (without transferring commitment) to preserve a degree of flexibility.
- "Material Adverse Effect" provisions are unlikely to have been triggered by the vote result but it is still not clear what will happen at the end of the transition period. Whether future events will trigger a MAE will depend on the terms of documentation and the circumstances or events concerned and will need to be addressed on a case by case basis. There has been case law (the Grupo Hotelero case of 2013) which suggests that an MAE cannot be called if the situation giving rise to the MAE was already known to the parties when entering into the agreement – it could be argued that the possibility of Brexit has been known for a number of years. However, the counter argument would be that the details of the UK/EU relationship in the post transition period along with its actual effects may not have been foreseeable. When negotiating documents with MAE provisions, close attention should be paid to the MAE wording.
Commercial Real Estate
- The principles of English real estate law are derived from UK statute and common law, so EU law tends not to shape English real estate rights significantly. Therefore, under the Withdrawal Agreement, English real estate law was not a discussion topic and, moreover, none of the key points of the Government's agenda for the scope of UK negotiations with the EU appear likely to affect English real estate rights directly. Consequently, we would expect English real estate law to be only indirectly affected by Brexit.
- There are some specialist areas within the umbrella of a real estate transaction that derive some of their legislation from EU law, such as environmental law and health and safety law. There are also specialist (typically regulated) sectors with a significant real estate element, such as telecoms and energy distribution, which are also impacted by wider EU regulatory initiatives. Our views are:
- Following Brexit, we expect that such EU legislation which is already implemented in the UK (such as the commitment to carbon reduction) will probably be retained, at least at first, as UK public policy in this regard is unlikely to change significantly in the short term.
- While there may be divergence in the regulatory purposes of the EU and the UK after Brexit, the underlying impact on real estate law is unlikely to change significantly; energy distribution and telecoms operators typically already have considerable rights and powers over private and public property and these are unlikely to be removed (though they may be extended).
- Employment issues can play an important role within property management contracts and construction transactions. Additionally competition laws can sometimes impact on cross-border or particularly high value real estate deals. The effect of Brexit on these particular areas of law over time could be significant, with associated effects on the commercial real estate sphere.
- With the success of the Conservative Party in the UK General Election of December 2019, the possibility has significantly diminished that there will be widespread and major changes to public policy in respect of real estate (in particular, the housing sector). However, the possibility of an increase in powers for local authorities to acquire land unilaterally, known as "compulsory purchase", to enable and encourage housing development should not be completely ruled out. The conditionality around such compulsory purchase may be simplified after Brexit, to the extent that EU restrictions on exercise of state power no longer apply and there is any repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998.
- The choice of offshore structures to hold UK property is an area of possible change, as both UK and global attitudes towards such tax efficient structures evolve.
- We consider that the legal fundamentals of UK asset purchases and sales, UK development projects and share purchase transactions governed by English law are unlikely to be significantly affected by Brexit.
Corporate
The Companies Act 2006 is the core legislation affecting the incorporation and operation of UK companies. Some parts of the Companies Act 2006 derive from EU directives, including some of the provisions relating to takeovers, accounts, statutory audit, dividends, capital maintenance, disclosure of information and various shareholder rights. Such provisions did not fall away at the end of the transition period (because they have already been implemented into domestic legislation) and were not significantly impacted by Brexit - some changes relate to the fact that EEA member states are now third countries and should be treated the same as third countries.
There are some EU-wide corporate law concepts that fell away at the end of the Brexit transition period:
- European public limited companies/Societas Europaea (SEs) and European Economic Interest Groupings (EEIGs) are no longer available for registration in the UK. SEs and EEIGs registered in the UK on 31 December 2020 were automatically converted into new UK corporate structures so they would have a clear legal status i.e. United Kingdom Societas (or UK Societas) and UK economic interest grouping (or UKEIG) respectively. The existing provisions for the conversion of an SE into a public company were adopted to allow the conversion of a UK Societas into a public company.
- The EU cross-border merger regime that allows mergers between companies in different EU member states is no longer available in the UK.
The UK equity capital markets are heavily regulated by EU legislation, in particular:
- The market abuse regime is derived from an EU regulation. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ensured that this regime continued in the UK by "onshoring" EU MAR, although consequential amendments were been made to the "onshored" version by The Market Abuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
- During the Brexit transitional period, the UK remained subject to the single disclosure and transparency regime for companies listed on a regulated market anywhere in the EEA (which term was read as including the UK during the transition period). Prior to the end of the transition period, companies with a dual listing in the UK and in an EEA member state did not have to comply with separate obligations in each state. Following the end of the transition period, companies with a listing in both the UK and an EU member state are subject to two regimes, increasing the regulatory burden.
- In addition, during the Brexit transition period, a prospectus to offer or list shares or bonds which was approved by the FCA in the UK could be used in EEA member states without any further approval and minimal additional administrative requirements. This passporting right ended at the end of the transition period.
- Takeovers in the UK are governed by the Companies Act 2006 (which implemented the Takeovers Directive) and the Takeover Code which were largely unaffected by Brexit save in relation to the shared jurisdiction regime which no longer applies following the end of the Brexit transition period. Brexit related changes have been made to both Part 28 of the Companies Act 2006 and to the Takeover Code.
Data protection
The EU data protection regime comprises, principally, EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the "EU GDPR"), together with supplementary national data protection laws in each EU member state; and national laws implementing EU Privacy and Electronic Communication Directive 2002/58/EC (the "ePrivacy Directive"). The EU GDPR regulates the processing of personal data across all sectors; the laws implementing the ePrivacy Directive regulate various privacy issues in the electronic communications sector and also impose rules regarding the use of cookies (and similar items) and the sending of direct marketing communications by email and other electronic means.
Until the end of the Brexit implementation period, the EU GDPR was directly effective in UK law, supplemented by the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (the "DPA"); and the ePrivacy Directive was implemented in UK law by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 ("PECR").
With effect from the end of the Brexit implementation period:
- the EU GDPR was transposed into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the "EUWA") as the UK General Data Protection Regulation (the "UK GDPR"), still supplemented by the DPA;
- PECR, being a UK national law, remained in force in the UK; and
- a statutory instrument under the EUWA made amendments to the UK GDPR, the DPA and PECR so that they would be effective as part of UK law outside the EU. All of the amendments addressed issues raised by the UK's departure from the EU – no changes were made for substantive UK policy reasons in relation to data protection. Provisions introduced by the same statutory instrument also preserved, for the purposes of the UK GDPR, the effects of some regulatory acts taken by the European Commission under the EU GDPR – for example (as discussed below), determinations that particular third countries (such as Japan and Switzerland) ensure adequate protection for personal data transferred to them from the EU (or, under the UK GDPR, from the UK).
The net effect of these changes is that the UK has a data protection regime which is materially (although not exactly) the same as the regime prevailing in the EU member states, and in the UK before Brexit, subject to the following points:
- The EU regime allows the member states some discretion as to how they supplement the EU GDPR and implement the ePrivacy Directive in national law. The UK, like the other member states, took advantage of this discretion, and the results are preserved in the post-Brexit UK regime. This is not in itself a Brexit-related issue.
- The EU GDPR includes various provisions which work by reference to the territory or laws of the EU or an EU member state, which are replaced in the UK GDPR by equivalent references to the territory or domestic law of the United Kingdom – for example:
- Geographical scope: the EU GDPR applies, broadly speaking, to processing of personal data carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the relevant organisation in an EU member state, or, in the case of an organisation not established in the EU, where it carries out processing related to the offering of goods or services to, or the monitoring of the behaviour of, individuals in an EU member state. The UK GDPR includes substantially identical provisions, but drafted by reference to the UK rather than the EU member states. One effect of this is that an organisation can be subject to both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR in respect of the same processing – for example, where an organisation has establishments in both the UK and France and carries out processing which relates to both; or where an organisation established in the UK carries out processing which relates to the offering of services to individuals in Germany (or vice versa).
The EU GDPR requires a non-EU organisation that is subject to the regulation because it offers goods or services to individuals in the EU to appoint a representative in an EU member state. The UK GDPR, similarly, requires non-UK organisations to appoint representatives in the UK. Representatives in the UK can no longer be relied upon for the purposes of the EU GDPR, and vice versa, and some UK and EU organisations are now required to appoint representatives in the EU and the UK, respectively, for example where a UK company processes personal data in order to offer services to individuals in Italy.
- Lawful basis for processing: both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR require all processing of personal data to satisfy one of a series of specified "lawful bases". One of these lawful bases is that the processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation. Under the EU GDPR, this must be a legal obligation arising under EU law or the law of an EU member state. Under the UK GDPR it must be an obligation arising under UK domestic law – in each case, an obligation arising under the laws of the other jurisdiction is not sufficient. This can give rise to complexities, particularly where the same processing - for example, disclosure of personal data to a regulator - is governed by both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR.
- International transfer restrictions: The EU and UK GDPR both restrict transfers of personal data to "third countries", and the EU and UK each now treat the other as third countries. For the time being this is more of an apparent than a real issue, since the EU and the UK have each now determined that the other ensures adequate protection for personal data, thus eliminating any restrictions on transfer between them, but those determinations may be challenged, and possibly fall away, as (and if) EU and UK data protection laws diverge over time.
Where third countries do not ensure adequate protection for personal data, both the EU and the UK GDPR include mechanisms for regulatory approval of standard contractual terms which, subject to some difficulties which are common to both regimes, allow the free flow of personal data to those countries. In this respect, the EU and UK regimes have now diverged. Before Brexit, the European Commission had approved three sets of standard contractual terms for use under the EU GDPR. These were preserved in UK law at the end of the Brexit implementation period and remain effective under the UK GDPR, with the possibility of minor adjustments to reflect the fact that the transfers to which they apply are not made from an EU member state. However for the purposes of the EU GDPR they have now been replaced by a new set of standard terms, approved by the European Commission in 2021. The UK Information Commissioner's Office has recently consulted on the proposed replacement of the "old" Commission standard clauses, for the purposes of the UK GDPR, with two alternative new sets, one of which would be closely based on the new EU standard clauses. These are likely to be finalised during 2022.
- The EU GDPR includes "one-stop shop" arrangements, which allow organisations established across multiple EU member states to be regulated by a single national data protection supervisory authority, at least in relation to their so-called "crossborder" processing. These arrangements no longer extend to the UK. This of course means that organisations established in both the EU and the UK are now subject to oversight by at least two supervisory authorities – the UK Information Commissioner's Office and their "lead" supervisory authority in an EU member state. In addition, many organisations headquartered outside Europe but with substantial operations in the EU and UK have previously identified the UK Information Commissioner's Office as their lead authority. If they wish to continue to take advantage of the one-stop shop arrangements, at least for the purposes of the EU GDPR, they need to identify a new lead authority in an EU member state. This can be particularly difficult for non-European organisations whose European operations are in practice led from the UK.
- Finally, the various mechanisms in the EU GDPR for collaboration between the EU and EEA data protection supervisory authorities no longer extend to the UK. In particular, the UK Information Commissioner's Office no longer participates in the European Data Protection Board (the "EDPB"). The EDPB publishes guidance on the requirements of the EU GDPR which are likely to continue to be taken into account in relation to interpretation of equivalent requirements of the UK GDPR, although EDPB guidance published after the end of the Brexit implementation period has no formal status under UK law.
The UK Government has recently consulted on possible changes to the UK GDPR (copies of the consultation documents are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/data-a-new-direction). These proposals, although retaining the basic framework of the EU GDPR, would make substantial changes, designed to introduce greater simplicity, flexibility and technology-independence, without (in the Government's view) reducing standards. If implemented, they would introduce material divergences between EU and UK data protection law. They could prompt challenges to the adequacy determination made by the European Commission in respect of the UK, which could result in restrictions on the flow of personal data from the EU to the UK.
The EU legislature has for some time been considering the possible replacement of the ePrivacy Directive with a new ePrivacy Regulation, which would be directly effective in the EU member states. The new regulation would not be effective in UK law and, so far as we are aware, the UK has no plans to make equivalent changes. This, again, would lead to material divergence between EU and UK data protection law.
Employment law
A significant portion of UK employment law is derived from EU law including the legislation that governs collective redundancy consultation, paid holiday and the protection of employment upon the transfer of a business. Some of this domestic legislation has however been 'gold plated' beyond the basic requirements of EU law.
EU derived domestic legislation is perceived by some to have led to increased compliance and administrative costs for businesses. By means of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 EU derived employment legislation was converted into domestic legislation from 1 January 2021, maintaining the protections and standards that benefit workers. In addition existing CJEU judgments will be given effect in our domestic law at the end of the Brexit Transition Period (31 December 2020) (Retained EU Case Law). However, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal will have the power to depart from such Retained EU Case Law if "it appears right to do so". However with effect from the 1 January 2021, the UK's domestic courts are no longer bound by new CJEU decisions. Accordingly in the event that CJEU judgments develop employment law principles (and potentially expand employment rights) beyond the principles established by the Retained EU Case Law then the English courts will not be bound to follow such decisions when interpreting domestic legislation, but can have regard to them.
Domestic legislation has been amended so that with effect from 31 December 2020 no new requests to set up a European Works Council (EWC) procedure can be made but the provisions relevant to the ongoing operation of existing EWCs remain in force. The European Commission has confirmed that the EWC Directive will cease to apply to the UK with effect from 1 January 2021. UK employees may continue to be represented on a EWC if that is provided for in the EWC agreement. If a corporate group's central management or representative agent was in the UK pre Brexit on 31 December 2020 it will have transferred to an EU Member State with effect from 1 January 2021 to the establishment employing the greatest number of employees in a Member State. If English law applied to the EWC agreement with effect from 1 January 2021, the governing law will have become that of the Member State where central management moved to.
Practical Implications
- It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal will consider it appropriate to disregard Retained EU Case Law, particularly in relation to collective redundancy consultation triggers, working time rights in relation to the calculation of holiday pay and the carry forward of holiday.
- It remains to be seen whether the domestic courts will consider themselves bound by post-Brexit decisions of the CJEU that develop employment law principles beyond the principles established in CJEU case law at the end of the Brexit Transition Period.
- Companies that operate European Works Councils should have revisited their arrangements whether the Company is UK head quartered or not.
- Companies that transfer workforce data from EU locations to the UK may continue to do so without having to have in place standard form data transfer agreements or binding corporate rules before making such transfers following the European Commission's adequacy decision in favour of the UK. Note however that the decision will be reviewed in 2025 and depending on the outcome companies may have to revise their approach to such data transfers.
- Companies that transfer workforce data from the UK to outside the EU should consider the lawful basis for doing so. Post Brexit the transfer rules broadly mirror the EU GDPR rules. Data transfers may be made from the UK to non-EEA countries if the country is covered by a UK adequacy decision or one of a number of prescribed safeguards is in place (such as standard contract clauses, an ICO approved code of conduct or UK Binding corporate rules). The UK government has the power to make its own ‘adequacy decisions’ in relation to third countries and international organisations. It has adopted the EU adequacy decisions that were made in relation to third countries prior to the end of the Brexit transition period.
- Companies staffing arrangements both within the UK and in EU Member States now have to take into account the fact that EU nationals may potentially be required to apply for a work permit if they do not have 'Settled' status under the EU Settlement scheme. Equally UK nationals working in Member States may require visas and/or work permits.
- Companies will need to identify the immigration and visa requirements applicable to their EU workforce to ensure as far as possible that they are able to continue working in the UK and the EU as appropriate and provide support as appropriate.
- Relocation, redundancies and off-shoring may arise, potentially triggering redundancy, Works Council and TUPE consultation obligations.
Environment and Climate Change
A great deal of current UK environmental and health & safety law derives from EU legislation put in place over several decades. This has been largely onshored as EU retained law as from the end of the Transition Period on 31 December 2020. Under the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), the UK retains the right to regulate on environmental and climate change matters. The Government has expressed a general desire for deregulation following Brexit. However, the UK will still have to comply with all rules relating to standards of safety and environmental sustainability of products being put on the EU market, since no 'mutual recognition' mechanism for product standards has been agreed in the TCA.
The UK might be able to (and has signalled that it intends to) relax some laws relating to operational environmental protection controls within UK borders (see below). However, there are a number of reasons why UK may not significantly diverge from the body of EU environmental and climate change law going forward:
- Under the TCA, the UK has agreed that it will not reduce the level of domestic environmental protection or climate protection below levels established as at 31 December 2020 (or enacted before that date but subject to later implementation).
- Also, any significant divergence between the EU and UK in the area of environmental and climate change (among others) is subject to possible rebalancing measures (e.g. tariffs) under the TCA, whether such divergence results from one party reducing or increasing its regulation in a relevant area.
- The UK is bound by a number of international agreements (e.g. the Kyoto protocol on carbon emission reductions, OSPAR Convention on marine pollution, the Bern Convention).
- The UK has been a driver for stronger EU policy in some areas (e.g. integrated permitting, climate change policy and emissions reporting) where the EU has largely adopted UK practices; or the UK has pursued its own environmental framework, e.g. in relation to contaminated land remediation.
- While attempts to roll back environmental protections might find favour with some business sectors, these would be subject to close scrutiny by NGOs and be likely to be resisted by NGOs and the public alike.
In relation to climate change action, even if EU legislation and targets for emissions reductions and renewable energy will no longer apply, the UK will still be bound by its own strong domestic climate legislation. The UK Government has reconfirmed and indeed strengthened its climate agenda regularly since the vote.
The UK has enacted a number of standalone regimes into UK law which were previously central EU regimes. These include a UK Emissions Trading Scheme, and a UK version of the REACH chemicals registration etc. regime, and are largely copies of the EU equivalents:
- The UK Emissions Trading Scheme applies across the UK, but excludes activities regulated under the Single Electricity Market in Northern Ireland (which remain covered by the EU Emissions Trading System).
- UK REACH applies only in relation to Great Britain (as Northern Ireland companies are still governed by the EU REACH regulation). Transport of chemicals from Northern Ireland is subject to UK REACH rules although there are some provisions which seek to facilitate compliance. Transport of chemicals from UK to Northern Ireland is subject to compliance with the EU REACH regulation.
The UK has enacted the Environment Act 2021 containing a wide range of protections for the environment, including new environmental targets, statutory environmental principles and a new independent Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) which will seek to ensure that public bodies comply with environmental laws with powers to intervene in certain cases. The OEP replaces the oversight function previously performed by the European Commission. However, in September 2021 the Government announced an intention to reform a number of regulatory regimes following Brexit across the economy. These include potential simplification of environmental licensing and permitting. In addition, the Government is currently considering changes to habitats assessment and will be reviewing the environmental impact assessment regimes more generally in due course. Such reforms will be controversial if they are seen as reducing pre-existing levels of environmental protection, contrary to Government commitments made during the Brexit process and in its immediate aftermath. Irrespective of whether standards would be significantly lowered, it is possible that environmental policy driven purely by domestic politics would be more changeable than the longstanding and gradually evolving policy framework that currently applies across the EU.
Financial regulation
- The end of the Brexit transition period at 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 marked a step change in market access between the UK and EU for financial services, including loss of passporting rights.
- From an EU perspective, the UK will be treated as a "third country", similar to the US or Singapore. While the existing EU financial services regulatory framework includes numerous third-country regimes based on equivalence, none come close to replicating single market membership. UK financial services firms looking to provide services in the EU therefore need to navigate a patchwork of national licensing regimes and face restrictions on cross border business and many other impediments compared with the market access that an EU firm would have.
- As noted above, some areas of EU financial regulation have third country "equivalence" regimes that permit third country firms from jurisdictions with rules "equivalent" to EU rules to operate more freely in the EU. However, these equivalence regimes are far from being a panacea, as they only apply in discrete product and/or service areas, such as recognition of third country CCPs under Article 25 EMIR and a limited EU passport under MiFIR for equivalent third country firms conducting wholesale business in the EU. Also, the European Commission is not generally obliged to make any equivalence determinations and equivalence can be lost if a third country's laws and regulations fail to keep pace with EU regulatory developments.
- The European Commission has adopted a time-limited equivalence decision for UK CCPs, allowing them to be recognised under Article 25 EMIR from the end of the transition period until 30 June 2022. The European Commission announced that it intends to further extend this equivalence decision for a time-limited period - with details to be confirmed. In addition, in its communication on readiness at the end of the transition period, the European Commission indicated several areas where it does not intend to make an equivalence determination in the short to medium term, including in relation to cross-border provision of wholesale investment services under Article 47(1) MiFIR.
- The loss of passporting rights also creates uncertainties for the status and continuity of existing cross-border contracts for financial services, particularly those which contemplate the ongoing provision of financial services or carrying on of regulated activities during the life of the contract. Again, there is no harmonised EU-wide solution to this issue and so firms need to navigate a patchwork of different regimes across EU member states.
- In contrast, the UK has introduced temporary permissions and recognition regimes, which allow EU firms and financial market infrastructures that previously provided services in the UK in reliance on passporting rights to continue to provide these services in the UK for a time-limited period (typically up to 3 years) following the end of the transition period.
- Much existing UK financial regulation (statutes, statutory instruments, rules and guidance) implements EU directives and is full of concepts and definitions taken from EU legislation. Also, some important components of UK financial regulation (e.g. the market abuse regime under MAR and rules on derivatives under EMIR) are contained in directly applicable EU regulations. The Withdrawal Act "onshored" this vast body of EU law or EU-related law at the end of the transition period. It provides that existing EU-related domestic law continues to form part of the UK domestic law after the end of the transition period even though the basis for its adoption has ceased to apply. In addition, it provides that directly applicable EU laws automatically becomes part of the UK domestic law at the end of the transition period, as they applied at that point in time.
- However, this on its own would not give the UK a workable body of domestic law as many EU-related provisions would not work effectively when the UK is no longer treated as a Member State. For example, references to EU institutions or processes are no longer appropriate when the UK is no longer treated as a Member State. The Withdrawal Act therefore gave the UK Government powers to make statutory instruments to remedy these and other "deficiencies" to reflect the post-Brexit status of the UK as a third country vis-à-vis the EU. In the area of financial services, HM Treasury and the financial regulators have made dozens of "exit instruments" remedying these deficiencies in the onshored body of financial services legislation and regulatory rules.
- The UK regulators have also been granted temporary transitional powers to smooth the cliff edge impact of the end of the transition period by delaying many of the changes to regulatory rules that would otherwise have applied to firms from that date. In general, these changes are delayed by 15 months to 31 March 2022. HM Treasury has also exercised its powers to make a number of equivalence determinations with respect to the EU ahead of the end of the transition period. The UK government and regulators are considering what the future UK financial services regulatory framework should look like more broadly under the Future Regulatory Framework (FRF) Review: Proposals for Reform, including the respective roles of Parliament, HM Treasury and the regulators in the rulemaking process. There have also been sector focused consultations and reforms in relation to the UK listing regime and wholesale markets.
- In financial services the UK's relationships with many non-EU countries in technical areas were dealt with at an EU level, e.g. recognition of US CCPs under EMIR and EU-US data protection arrangements. Following Brexit, the UK has been rebuilding these types of relationships bilaterally, e.g. by regulators entering into MoUs and other arrangements for supervisory co-operation. In some cases, non-EU countries have continued with the status quo for a limited period post-Brexit (e.g. the CFTC in relation to EMIR-related no-action relief).
Funds and asset management
The end of the Brexit transition period at 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 marked a step change in market access between the UK and EU for financial services. There are a number of key areas of impact for funds and asset managers:
- Loss of passporting rights – Brexit has given rise to a loss of passporting rights between the EU and UK. As a result, it is no longer possible to use passports to conduct cross-border activities, such as managing or marketing funds, between the EU and the UK. This does not mean that it is completely impossible to conduct these activities on a cross-border basis. Indeed, in many cases it remains possible via alternative legislative routes.
Key issues for UK firms and funds
- UCITS funds have been more heavily impacted than the private equity fund management industry because:
- To qualify as a UCITS fund in the EU, a fund must be domiciled in an EU jurisdiction and managed by an EU management company. Post-Brexit, funds established as UCITS in the UK no longer fall within the scope of the EU UCITS Directive and can no longer rely on the passporting provisions that allow UCITS established in one member state to be managed and marketed in another.
- The UCITS regime is designed to facilitate marketing of interests in those funds to retail investors. However, post-Brexit, UK-domiciled UCITS are considered a "non-UCITS retail scheme", and instead fall within the definition of "alternative investment fund (AIF)" under AIFMD. As the UCITS marketing passport is no longer available, a manager wishing to market interests in such a vehicle into other EU member states must do so under the AIFMD, which requires compliance with individual national private placement regimes (NPPRs). Most NPPRs prevent or heavily restrict marketing to retail investors.
- The impact on private/alternative fund managers managing closed-ended AIFs is somewhat less troublesome because there is no requirement that AIFs be domiciled in the EU, other than where an EU AIFM wishes to rely on the AIFMD marketing passport. Post-Brexit, UK-domiciled AIFs are considered non-EU AIFs and can be marketed into other EU member states under those member states' NPPRs (where available).
- UK managers of UCITS and AIFs must also consider whether they are subject to any local licensing requirements as a result of managing and marketing activities if they are doing so in other EU member states.
- Portfolio management and advisory services: many asset managers provide asset management-related services under MiFID permissions (e.g. delegation of portfolio management of certain funds or acting as an advisor to a UCITS manager or AIFM, or separate account discretionary or advisory arrangements). Brexit has resulted in a loss of the MiFID passport between the EU and the UK and, as a result, firms wishing to conduct MiFID activities on a cross-border basis are subject to the national rules/licensing regime relevant in each individual EU member state in which they want to conduct such services.
Key issues for EU firms and funds
- In addition to the loss of passporting rights for UK firms, asset managers operating in other EU member states have lost the ability to passport their services and market their funds into the UK.
- EU firms and funds that exercised passporting rights in the UK before Brexit were, at the time of Brexit, able to notify the FCA that they wished to enter the temporary regimes that the UK created. These regimes are called the 'Temporary Permissions Regime' and 'Temporary Marketing Permissions Regime'. Firms and funds that are within the two temporary regimes are now being given 'landing slots' by the FCA in which they can make applications for FCA authorisation/appropriate FCA notifications to carry on their activities.
- In addition to the temporary permissions regimes, the UK created certain other legislative mechanisms to allow EU firms that carried on business in the UK before Brexit and that did not wish to enter into the temporary regimes to instead run off/wind up their UK activities in an orderly manner.
- EU firms and funds that did not enter into the two temporary regimes but subsequently wish to carry on UK activities will need to consider whether this would trigger any licensing or notification requirements. For the marketing of EU UCITS and EU AIFs, this would involve submitting a marketing notification under the UK's NPPR.
- Finally, the UK has created a new marketing regime to simplify the process for marketing non-UK retail and money market funds into the UK. This regime is called the Overseas Funds Regime and is expected to 'go live' in the not-too-distant future.
Managers who did not rely on passporting rights before Brexit are unlikely to have been considerably affected by Brexit.
Intellectual property
Unitary rights
Some categories of intellectual property rights (and rights similar in nature) presently cover the whole EU via a single unitary right. These EU unitary rights will continue to apply in the UK until Implementation Period (IP) Completion Day (the end of the transition period) on 31 December 2020. At that point various Statutory Instruments made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will give rise to comparable rights in the UK. The comparable UK rights which will come into effect in this way are for:
- EU trade marks which are registered on IP Completion Day
- EU registered designs which are registered on IP Completion Day
- EU designations under international trade mark and design registrations which are in force on IP Completion Day
- EU unregistered designs protected on IP Completion Day
- EU Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin (and similar rights) which are registered on IP Completion Day
- EU plant varieties which are granted on IP Completion Day
For registered EU trade marks and designs, where the legal framework is already largely mirrored at national level as a result of harmonisation of EU law, the expectation is that the grant of UK rights to replace the protection under the EU registration will be largely automatic and will only require the owners to take action if requested to do so by the UK IP Office. Holders can pro-actively opt out if they do not wish to have the UK comparable protection.
If an existing EU trade mark or design is the subject of revocation or invalidity proceedings that result in its revocation or invalidity after the IP Completion Day, then the comparable right that derived from that EU trade mark or design will also be revoked or declared invalid. The exception is where the grounds on which the EU trade mark was revoked/declared invalid would not have applied if brought against the comparable mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Registered Designs Act 1949 respectively.
If an application for registration or grant of an EU trade mark or design is only pending before the relevant EU body on IP Completion Day, then the applicant will have to refile in the UK if it wishes to have UK protection, but may claim the filing date/priority/seniority of the EU application, provided that it re-files in the UK within 9 months of IP Completion Day or other applicable specified period.
The applicable Statutory Instruments preserve the rights of licensees under and security interests in EU unitary rights, by applying them to the comparable UK right, but in the case of licences this is subject to contrary agreement, meaning that a review of licences is advisable. Holders of security interests in or licences under the EU rights will also have to proactively re-register their interest to retain the protection of recordal under the comparable UK rights but are given a window of 12 months from IP Completion Day in which to do that.
EU designations under international trade mark and design registrations will have comparable UK rights automatically created at the end of the transition period based on their international rights protected through the Madrid and Hague systems.
For all these unitary registered rights, the Statutory Instruments contain further detailed changes to address the change from an EU-wide right to a UK national right.
Unregistered designs
Unregistered designs are presently protected by an EU unitary system and a UK national system which differ in a number of respects. To ensure continuity of protected design rights, two new UK rights will be created. Existing EU unregistered rights will be mirrored into the UK national system automatically on IP Completion Day and protected as UK continuing unregistered designs. The UK will also create a new unregistered design right called the supplementary unregistered design (SUD). The terms of SUD protection will be similar to that conferred by the EU's unregistered community designs but protection under this will extend only to the UK. The existing UK unregistered design right will also continue to operate as normal alongside these two new rights, however the qualification criteria will be amended to account for the fact the UK is no longer in the EU.
EEA designers disclosing their design in the EEA will cease to enjoy automatic protection under the UK unregistered design right with effect from IP Completion Date. Likewise, designs first disclosed in the UK will no longer be eligible for protection as EU unregistered designs. A business seeking unregistered design protection will therefore have to decide whether they want UK or EU protection. Simultaneous disclosure of the design may be possible but the UKIPO is yet to provide clarity.
Geographical Indications (GIs)
The UK does not presently have analogous national protection for Geographical Indications or Protected Designations of Origin. The relevant Statutory Instrument will therefore adopt the applicable EU Regulations as national law, subject to amendments to make the new scheme operate as a national scheme rather than an EU-wide one. Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin on the EU register at IP Completion Day will be entered into the UK system.
A new scheme managed by DEFRA will come into effect at the end of the transition period and will be open to producers from the UK and other countries. Established GIs recognised under the EU GI schemes will continue to be protected in the UK.
From 1 January 2021, producers and breeders will need to apply to the relevant UK or EU scheme separately to protect a new GI or plant variety in UK (excluding NI) or Europe respectively. In relation to GIs, GB producers will need to secure protection under the UK scheme before applying to the EU scheme.
Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs)
Supplementary Protection Certificates, although currently issued under an EU Regulation, are already granted at a national level by the relevant regulatory authority. From IP Completion Day, the existing EU SPC regulation will form part of UK law pursuant to the Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, however, with certain amendments to create a more standalone system.
SPCs that have already been granted will continue to be valid and no further action will need to be taken by the rightsholder. In addition, SPC applications filed in the UK prior to IP Completion Day that are pending will be unaffected by the change in the regulatory framework and will be examined under the current framework. SPC applications filed in the UK after IP Completion Day will be subject to the new regulatory framework, which requires that the applicant must have a valid patent in the UK and a marketing authorisation which allows the product to be sold on the UK market as at the application filing date. This includes marketing authorisations granted by the MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, and any authorisations granted by the EMA, the European medicines regulator, which have been converted into UK authorisations by the MHRA.
Although the grant of an SPC will be based on the first UK authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product, the period of duration of the SPC will be based on the first authorisation for the product in either the EEA or the UK. However, third parties will be permitted to manufacture SPC protected products in the UK without the rightsholder's consent if such products are for export outside of the UK and EU. Stockpiling will also be permitted during 6 months prior to expiry of the UK SPC if the protected product is for sale in the UK or EU upon the expiry date.
Impact of Brexit on national rights
The existence of certain national rights created under harmonising legislation, such as the sui generis database right, currently requires an EEA nexus. From IP Completion Day, the focus will be on a UK nexus, rather than EEA, but with saving provisions for the database rights of makers from other EEA member states which are already in existence.
UK law relating to copyright and related rights will also be modified in a variety of respects to reflect the future reality of the UK’s separate status. Most UK copyright law is based on harmonising directives, but certain specific measures have latterly been introduced via EU regulations. Some of this will be adopted into UK national law, with appropriate amendments, on IP Completion Day. Regulation (EU) No 2017/1128 on the cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market will cease to apply.
The implementation deadline for Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market falls after IP Completion Day. The UK Government's present position is that it will not implement that Directive into UK law.
Most of the UK's substantive patent law will be unaffected by Brexit, as it is currently based on the European Patent Convention, which is not an EU instrument. However some changes to compulsory licensing relating to the UK’s separate status will come into effect on IP Completion Day.
Supplementary Protection Certificates, although currently issued under an EU Regulation, are already granted at a national level. The existing EU SPC regulation will from IP Completion Day form part of UK law, but with amendments to create a more standalone system. SPC applications filed in the UK prior to IP Completion Day will be preserved. However, there remains uncertainty around the operation of SPCs, particularly applications which will transition. This is because their existence is subject to the grant of marketing approvals through the medicine regulatory regime, which itself is being separated with centralised European approvals ceasing to have effect in the UK.
EUIPO representation
UK lawyers and attorneys will be unable to represent clients before the EU IP Office from IP Completion Day so clients will need to record an EEA-based representative thereafter. The exception to this is for those existing procedures, such as oppositions (and any related appeals), recordals or objections, which are still ongoing at year end. For those issues, UK lawyers will continue to be recorded as the representative until the matter is resolved.
From the end of the transition period, the recorded address for service of documents in proceedings relating to patents, trade marks, and registered and unregistered designs must be in the UK, Gibraltar or the Channel Islands except in certain specified circumstances.
Open questions and the future
The actions taken to date via the Withdrawal Agreement and the United Kingdom’s implementing legislation aim to ensure that existing rights and law will largely be preserved in the United Kingdom on IP Completion Day, albeit in some cases in a different form or with slightly different rules.
For UK-based right holders, the situation is not necessarily the same in reverse, where protection or its scope currently requires an EEA nexus. This potentially has various impacts, including on UK owners of database rights and design rights in semiconductor topographies, and on UK broadcasters clearing rights for satellite broadcasts into the EEA. The shape of any trade deal will also impact on the future of exhaustion of intellectual property rights as between UK and EEA.
Over time, we may see further divergence, but at least initially UK law will remain largely aligned, but modified to reflect its future separate status.
Litigation
English law: Substantive English law used in transactions is unaffected by Brexit because it is not, with trivial exceptions, derived from EU law. Regulatory changes arising from Brexit could, however, affect the enforceability of an English law contact after the end of the transition period, ie after 11pm on 31 December 2020 (eg if the loss of a passport or other authorisation in a member state in which an obligation must be performed rendered contractual performance illegal in that member state, it may be that performance would be unenforceable as a matter of English law).
Choice of law: The validity of a choice of English law is unaffected by Brexit. EU member states continue to apply the Rome I and Rome II Regulations, which require the law chosen by the parties to be applied whether or not it is the law of an EU member state. Rome I and Rome II also continue to apply, with immaterial changes, in the UK after Brexit in the form of retained EU law under section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Choice of court: The English courts will continue to uphold the parties' choice of the English courts after the end of the transition period. The English courts will also be able to grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain proceedings in EU member states brought in breach of a jurisdiction clause.
There may be a question as to whether courts in EU member states will uphold a jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts in circumstances where the EU court has jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation (at least, unless the provisions of article 33 of the Brussels I Regulation apply, which require, amongst other matters, the English court to be first seised).
The UK has acceded in its own right to the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements, which came into force for the UK on 1 January 2021. For exclusive jurisdiction agreements (which do not include asymmetric clauses) in favour of the English courts concluded after that date, courts in EU member states will be obliged to defer to the parties' choice of the English courts. (The UK argues that the Convention has been in force for the UK from 1 October 2015 and thus that that position applies to exclusive jurisdiction agreements concluded since 1 October 2015; the European Commission does not agree.)
Other jurisdictional rules: The Brussels I Regulation has ceased to determine the jurisdiction of the English courts. The jurisdiction of the English courts will, in the main, revert to the rules applicable to parties not domiciled in the EU (which depend upon the ability to serve a defendant with legal process within the jurisdiction or, with the permission of the court, outside the jurisdiction).
The jurisdiction of courts in EU member states over parties domiciled in the UK will be determined by the national law of each member state, with the limited exceptions where the Brussels I Regulation applies regardless of domicile (eg proceedings relating to real property in a member state or where there is a jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of that state).
Enforcement of judgments: Under article 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement, an English judgment given in proceedings "instituted" before the end of the transition period will be enforceable in EU member states in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation whenever the judgment is given. Otherwise, a judgment of the English courts will cease to be enforceable in EU member states under the Brussels I Regulation but it is likely to be enforceable under the law of each member state applicable to foreign judgments not covered by a treaty (the law currently applicable to, for example, New York judgments). This will depend upon the law in each member state.
A judgment given by a court in an EU member state in proceedings instituted after the end of the transition period will be enforceable in England by common law means (or, possibly, in the case of six EU member states, under treaties between the UK and those states entered into before the UK joined the EU in 1973).
An English judgment given in proceedings to which the Hague Convention applies will be enforceable throughout the EU in accordance with the Convention. Likewise a judgment to which the Hague Convention applies given by a court in an EU member state will be enforceable in England.
Arbitration: Arbitration is unaffected by Brexit. The UK and all EU member states are parties to the New York Convention, which provides for the recognition of arbitration agreements and the enforcement of awards.
Pensions
Much of current UK pensions legislation is domestic in origination and so will be unaffected by Brexit. However, some of it does have EU-roots. For example, parts of the Pensions Act 2004 relating to scheme funding originally derived from Europe. In addition, some of the UK's pensions practices derive from European case law.
The UK-EU transition period ended on 31 December 2020. Following this, there have not been any significant changes, albeit there is scope for divergence if the UK does not in the future follow EU pensions initiatives. The UK courts are not bound by decisions of the ECJ but "may have regard" to those decisions "so far as relevant to any matter before the court" and the power to depart from retained EU case law extends beyond the UK Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal (and equivalent courts across the UK). It remains to be seen in practice to what extent the English courts will follow/apply post-Brexit decisions of the ECJ that develop new pensions law principles post-Brexit.
The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the Pension Brexit Regulations) came into force on 31 December 2020 and made minor and technical changes to UK primary and secondary pensions legislation, broadly to ensure retained EU law continues to operate effectively and to address other deficiencies arising in UK pension legislation as a result of Brexit.
Key things to be thinking about from a pensions perspective:
- Employer covenant – trustees of defined benefit (DB) schemes will need to monitor the effect (if any) that Brexit has had (or may yet have) on the sponsoring employer's business, as this may have a direct impact on the employer covenant (the legal obligation, ability and willingness of an employer to fund its pension scheme). Covenant is not something which will be new to DB scheme trustees (or employer(s)), and in practice any impact as a result of Brexit may currently have been overshadowed by any impact on the sponsoring employer's business as a result of COVID-19, but it will continue to be important to understand how the employer's business (e.g. its reliance on imports or exports, plans for investment etc.) has been (or may yet be) affected by Brexit. This will largely depend on which industry sector the sponsoring employer is in, how exposed their business is to the EU and the nature of the ongoing relationship between the UK and the EU.
- Funding – the longer-term impact on the funding position of DB schemes remains to be seen, although in the short-term we are not aware of DB schemes that have faced material funding concerns as a result of Brexit. In the lead up to Brexit, the Pensions Regulator noted that trustees should not be too focussed on short-term market movements caused by Brexit and recent legislative developments (in particular the Pension Schemes Act 2021) also encourage trustees to focus on the longer-term funding strategy for their schemes.
- Investment issues – DB scheme trustees should continue to keep their investment strategies under review to appropriately manage any impact on financial markets from the nature of the ongoing relationship between the UK and the EU, and defined contribution (DC) schemes and providers may continue to consider whether the investment options made available to members remain appropriate.
- Data protection – changes to the regime for data protection came into effect in all Member States, including the UK on 25 May 2018 under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR introduced new concepts and some enhancements to the protections for individuals which would have required most pension scheme trustees to alter their existing processes. Please see our Brexit update on data protection for further details.
- Impact on financial services regulation – trustees should keep a watching brief on the impact of any further changes to financial services regulation as a result of the ongoing relationship between the UK and the EU (please see our Brexit update on financial regulation for further details). For example, DB schemes with derivative investments are subject to complex clearing rules and while HM Treasury has extended the exemption for certain 'within-scope' pension schemes from the obligation regarding clearing until June 2023, a UK pension scheme trading with an EU financial counterparty may still be required to clear derivatives transactions as a result of the EU entity being subject to the clearing obligation under EMIR - it is not clear what future technical solutions may be found for pension schemes to avoid the need for further exemptions.
- Corporate transactions – if the long-term impact of Brexit is to increase the magnitude of DB scheme deficits whilst simultaneously weakening the strength of sponsoring employers, it is possible this could make pension schemes more of a stumbling block to corporate transactions and restructurings where a UK DB scheme is involved. The Pension Schemes Act 2021 covers a wide range of changes designed to create a "stronger" Pensions Regulator; some of which could have a significant impact on business activity (for example corporate, finance and restructuring transactions) where DB schemes are involved including new, very broadly drawn criminal offences. Please see our previous client briefings on this topic for further information (June 2020, February 2021, March 2021 and September 2021).
- Cross-border pension schemes – broadly, cross-border pension schemes are subject to certain additional regulatory requirements, including that they must apply for authorisation and approval from the Pensions Regulator. The cross-border regime ceased to apply to the UK on 31 December 2020. As such, the Pension Brexit Regulations revoked the UK's cross-border regulations and also removed the requirement for UK occupational pension schemes to obtain authorisation from the Pension Regulator for cross-border activities with effect from 31 December 2020. The Commission confirmed that UK cross-border schemes are to be treated as "third-country" undertakings post-Brexit, broadly meaning that they can only operate in an EU Member State if permitted to do so by, and subject to, the national law of the applicable Member State.
Tax
After Brexit, the legal position as regards UK tax law will depend on the terms of the alternative settlement to full EU membership which is agreed by the UK. The key implications from a tax perspective are set out in our briefing: The tax impact of Brexit: what steps should UK and EU businesses take now?
If there is a comprehensive transitional period then most tax changes will be deferred until transition ends. However, after that time, unless there is a very expansive FTA between the UK and EU, the UK Government would be free to implement tax legislation which would not currently be compatible with EU law.
In the event, tax measures which are contrary to the free movement of goods, establishment and/or capital could be implemented, including taxes on the raising of capital or cross-border flows. Furthermore, any area of UK tax law which is currently incompatible with EU law may become valid. For example:
- Controlled foreign company legislation could be extended to its intended original scope, with CFC charges imposed on UK companies calculated by reference to the profits of subsidiaries based in EU jurisdictions with low effective rates of tax (although there is at present no indication the Government will do that)
- The 1.5% tax charge on the issue of shares and securities to clearance services or depositories, which was found to breach the EU Capital Duties Directive, could be enforced (although the Government has announced that it does not intend to do so after Brexit).
An FTA agreed between the UK and EU would likely include rules similar to the prohibition on "State aid" in Art 107 TFEU. However, if it did not then the UK would be free to enact legislation and make arrangements which would currently constitute unlawful State aid, subject only to WTO rules. For example, the Government could incentivise companies to relocate to the UK by offering tax "favours", or advance tax rulings, which provide a selective advantage to those companies over others.
We could even see regions, cities and councils compete to provide business with tax incentives (as they do in the US). Whether this is a good idea from a policy perspective is very arguable – but there could be significant political pressure on Government, at all levels, to provide State aid if able to do so.
The more immediate issue will be establishing how the detail of UK tax law is impacted by Brexit. While the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 addresses some of the difficulties it will not be clear for some time how these will be resolved in practice by the courts. For example:
- The extent to which CJEU case law and EU jurisprudence will continue to influence the decisions of UK courts after Brexit and the interpretation of UK tax law (especially in relation to VAT) remains uncertain;
- It is unclear how pending (or potential) cases brought against the UK Government on the basis of UK tax law being incompatible with EU law will be resolved, particularly where the matter in question has not been referred to the CJEU before exit day; and
- The UK Supreme Court will no longer be bound to follow the principles of interpretation established by the CJEU, so the overarching cornerstones of VAT law (such as the principles of legal certainty, fiscal neutrality, equivalence and non-discrimination) could fall away, which would have a profound impact on the way in which VAT law is interpreted.
Moreover, following a legislative amendment approved by Parliament in January 2019 (the "cooper amendment"), the event of a "no deal" Brexit the UK Government may be restricted in its ability to update relevant UK tax legislation to deal with withdrawal from the EU without obtaining Parliamentary approval for those changes. It is not yet possible to predict the full impact of this, but this does result in further uncertainty for taxpayers.
If these uncertainties in relation to taxation are not adequately resolved in the post-Brexit alternative settlement, this is likely to result in potentially unwelcome uncertainty for UK companies. For example:
- Some UK companies may have taken comfort from the limits placed on the UK Government's taxing powers by EU law. Indeed, these limits may have been fundamental to those companies' decisions to base themselves in the UK;
- Preferential EU rules applicable to cross-border transactions may no longer apply. For example, dividends and interest paid by certain EU subsidiaries to UK parents may become subject to withholding tax as a result of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and Interest and Royalties Directive no longer applying. Moreover, VAT may need to be charged on transactions where it is currently not charged and UK businesses may need to register for VAT in EU countries where they are currently not required to do so;
- The remaining EU Member States would equally be free to exercise their taxing powers in a manner which, by accident or design, discriminates between local entities and UK entities (or local branches of UK entities);
- The UK would lose its influence over tax-related developments within the EU. This could be significant in relation to the proposed EU Financial Transaction Tax, which the UK has so far lobbied against effectively;
- VAT provisions in commercial contracts may need to be amended in light of a full Brexit (e.g. where VAT is defined by reference to EU VAT legislation only, in which case the contractual provisions may no longer apply in relation to UK VAT); and
- In the absence of an alternative free trade agreement, the EU would impose the Common Customs Tariff on imports from the UK, and the UK would likely impose tariffs (limited by its WTO obligations) on imports from the EU.
At a wider international level, Brexit is unlikely to have such a significant impact:
- The UK would continue to benefit from and remain subject to its extensive network of double tax treaties, including (where relevant) their non-discrimination provisions;
- The UK would also continue to have influence in international efforts to drive tax policy, including the ongoing OECD BEPS project; and
- Depending on the alternative settlement reached, the UK may be free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with other jurisdictions, which could result in fewer tariffs and duties on exports and imports between the UK and those other jurisdictions.
There is one important exception for some companies in the EU receiving income from the US on which they claim relief under double tax treaties with the US. US tax treaties limit treaty benefits to certain classes of person, and in many cases one important class is private companies with EU shareholders. Any EU company in this position which has significant UK shareholders will need to consider if Brexit has the indirect effect of causing it to lose its eligibility under the relevant US treaty.