In this podcast, we cover the FCA's draft guidance into unfair variation terms with consumers, which was issued in May 2018. This podcast is relevant to all financial institutions that deal directly with consumers and products that are relevant, including bank accounts, personal loans, insurance and investments. The final guidance is expected in early 2019.

Biometric data (fingerprints, retina scans, voice recognition and the like) are used to identify an individual using that person’s unique biological characteristics. No longer a thing of the future or portrayed in an episode of Mission Impossible, private companies and the government collect and use biometric data for a variety of reasons. The use of biometric data ranges from the mundane—tracking employees or serving as a substitute for a typed password log-in on a mobile phone—to the more sophisticated—enhancing national security by monitoring individuals’ whereabouts. Unlike other forms of personal data that have been breached, biometric data cannot be changed, and therefore its theft could give rise to a host of common law claims against the parties responsible for holding it and, in certain jurisdictions, statutory claims.

In this webcast, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Francis Nolan and David Cook discuss:

Last term, the US Supreme Court decided several cases with implications for the insurance and financial services sectors, and the docket for the Court’s October 2018 term already includes merits cases impacting those sectors and the business community as a whole. And for the first time in 30-plus years, the Court will convene without Justice Anthony Kennedy. Presented on October 4, Eversheds Sutherland (US) litigators Tom Byrne, Tom Curvin, Stacey Mohr and Valerie Sanders provided a recap of last year’s term and a preview of the October 2018 term with a focus on cases of interest to these sectors. Topics covered during this webcast include:

With each passing year, laws, regulations and public opinion regarding connected and automated vehicles continue to evolve on the global stage. The advent of new artificial intelligence capabilities raises new questions and risks.

In this Bottom Line videocast, Eversheds Sutherland (US) Partner Michael Nelson and Eversheds Sutherland (International) Partner Charlotte Walker-Osborn discuss:

Blockchain and distributed-ledger technology hold tremendous promise, far beyond cryptocurrencies. However, there are also real pitfalls, which are often not identified until it is too late. This Bottom Line videocast discusses:

This is the third in a series of three Bottom Line videocasts discussing technology and innovation in the financial services industry.

Not much attention has been paid to the mechanics of the actual calculation of section 965 amounts. It is important to understand the mechanics of section 965 calculations and the inputs, especially in light of their impact on carry-over tax attributes in future years.

This Bottom Line videocast discusses:

Regulators are grappling to define cryptoassets and are applying existing regulations or contemplating new rules to oversee markets for these new asset class(es). In this Bottom Line videocast, Eversheds Sutherland (US) Partner Greg Kaufman and Eversheds Sutherland (International) Partner Andrew Henderson discuss:

Significant profits are being generated by the "digital economy" while revenue authorities question the ability of traditional physical presence-based tax rules to properly capture earnings. 

In this Bottom Line videocast, Eversheds Sutherland (US) Partner Susan Seabrook and Eversheds Sutherland (International) Partner Ben Jones discuss:

On September 13, please join Eversheds Sutherland (US) attorneys Clifford Kirsch, Michael Koffler, Brian Rubin, Issa Hanna, Ben Marzouk, Bria Adams and Sue Lee for our quarterly series of complimentary webcasts dedicated to issues affecting investment advisers. This webcast will focus on adviser regulatory developments and examinations and other important trends, including:

The US Supreme Court recently overruled the long-standing "physical presence rule" that barred states from imposing sales tax collection requirements on certain out-of-state sellers. However, in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., the Court did not clearly state a new standard to replace the physical presence rule. States are responding to the decision in different ways.

This Bottom Line videocast discusses: