bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Article 55 Competence
Authors: Hijmans Hielke 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 3(1) (Territorial scope) (see too recital 22); Article 4(21) (Definition of supervisory authority); Articles 51–54 (Independent Status) (see too recitals 117–121); Article 56 (Competence of the lead authority) (see too recitals 124–131), Article 57 (Tasks) (see too recitals 122–123 and 132–133) Article 58 (Powers) (see too recital 129); Article 59 (Activity reports).
Article 74 Tasks of the Chair
Authors: Docksey Christopher 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 63 (Consistency mechanism) (see too recital 135); Article 64 (Opinion of the Board) (see too recital 136); Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board) (see too recital 136); Article 68 (European Data Protection Board) (see too recital 139); Article 72 (Procedure); Article 73 (Chair) (see too recital 136); Article 75 (Secretariat) (see too recital 140).
Article 86 Processing and public access to official documents
Authors: Herke Kranenborg 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Personal data in official documents held by a public authority or a public body or a private body for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest may be disclosed by the authority or body in accordance with Union or Member State law to which the public authority or body is subject in order to reconcile public access to official documents with the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation.
Course of a Summary Trial
Authors: Sprack John , Engelhardt–Sprack Michael 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Subject to certain limited exceptions (see 13.43 to 13.45), all summary offences are tried in a magistrates’ court. Offences which are indictable but triable either way (see 1.07 to 1.09) are tried in a magistrates’ court if, essentially, both the magistrates and the accused agree. Because the most commonly committed offences (e.g., those under the Road Traffic Act 1988) are summary, and because many accused charged with a triable-either-way matter elect, if given the option, to stay in the lower court, over 95 per cent of criminal cases are disposed of by the magistrates. The course of a summary trial is the same whether the offence charged is summary or triable either way. In the latter case, however, the procedure set out in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA), ss 19 to 22 for determining the mode of trial must be complied with before the start of the hearing (see Chapter 8).
The Market for Corporate Control: Value, Stakeholders, and Governance
Authors: Kershaw David 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This Chapter introduces the market for corporate control and provides theoretical and empirical context about the functioning and effects of the market for corporate control. Ideally such context should inform the analysis and evaluation of the Takeover Code’s regulation of the UK market for corporate control. However, as the Chapter shows, neither our understanding of the likely effects of the market for corporate control on companies, boards, shareholders and stakeholders, nor the state of empirical evidence provide clear cut guidance on how to regulate the market for corporate control. The Chapter considers evidence on the value effects of takeovers and shows that evidence from the short term market response to announced takeovers supports claims that takeovers in aggregate generate value, but the longer term evidence is more mixed and inconclusive. It also considers the methodological limitations of both the short term and long term evidence. The Chapter then proceeds to consider the effect of the market for corporate control on stakeholders. It explores the commonly held view that takeovers are detrimental for employees but finds again that the empirical evidence is inconclusive, although the theoretical case that takeover activity may undermine employee investment in the business remains compelling. The Chapter then explores the role of the market for corporate control as a governance device. It is often assumed that the market for corporate control acts as a disciplinary device holding managers to account, but as the Chapter shows the disciplinary effects work differently and less precisely than regulators and the public debate commonly assume. The Chapter also shows that such indirect effects may also mould management and board behaviour in economically suboptimal ways, which the Chapter considers in the context of the debate about the possible short term orientation of UK boards.
Deal Risk: Bid Conditionality and Deal Protections
Authors: Kershaw David 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This Chapter considers the regulation of two mechanisms designed to manage bidder deal risk: bid conditionality and deal protections. The first part of the Chapter considers the function of deal conditionality and the justifications for interfering with the free contracting process between bidder and target shareholder. It argues that the case for interference is not strong in the takeover context, suggesting that the Code’s stringent regulation of conditionality may be performing an ancillary role unconnected to the direct interests of the parties: a role similar to the non-frustration rule as a keystone rule: it keeps courts out of the regulatory space. The Chapter then details the nature of Code conditionality regulation (both conditions to making the offer and conditions of the offer itself). The Chapter pays close attention to the regulation of competition authority conditions at UK and EU levels, and the regulation of financing conditions and material adverse change conditions. The Chapter then turns to the second element of deal risk addressed in this Chapter, namely, the risk and costs of non-completion. The Chapter outlines the range of costs associated with non-completion for the bidder and the various deal protection undertakings and inducement fee arrangements which can alleviate those risks. The Chapter then proceeds to detail the recent amendments to the Code introduced in the wake of Cadbury and Kraft that, in large part, prohibit the use of deal protection devices. The Chapter considers the Panel’s stated reasons for this reform and argues that although these reasons are somewhat persuasive they are not compelling enough to support the severe nature of the reforms, given that these drivers were not supported by any empirical evidence and clearly in some instances will hinder efficient deal making. The Chapter argues that these reforms provide an example of how the self/market controlled technique of regulation may result in poor rule-making. The Chapter argues that the Panel’s “status anxiety”, outlined in Chapter IV, may account for this over-reaction, as may the Panel’s immediate concern following Cadbury that the Code’s openness to takeovers, and the keystone non-frustration rule, had been placed in play. Finally, in regard to inducement fees and deal protections that the Code and the Panel may allow, the Chapter considers their legality in accordance with UK company law, considering in particular directors’ duties and the prohibition on the provision of financial assistance.
Hostile Takeovers and the Non-Frustration Rule
Authors: Kershaw David 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This Chapter considers the keystone rule, the non-frustration rule and its operation and effect in the context of hostile takeovers. The Chapter first explores the scope of the rule to determine what steps target boards can and cannot take when faced with a hostile offer. It considers the general meeting approval of frustrating action and explains why in practice such approvals are never seen. The Chapter then proceeds to consider the optimality of the rule. It considers first the roots of both the Panel’s and more general public support for the rule, arguing that commitment to the rule is a function not of the policy balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the rule but rather a function of broader and deep structural understanding of the balance of power in a UK company. It is a commitment whose genesis is historically contingent which should, if possible, be discounted in the policy assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing target boards to defend against unwanted takeovers. The Chapter then proceeds to consider this policy balance in a UK context which involves, inter alia, a consideration of: the extent to which defences can be used to entrench a board which is subject to pro-shareholder UK company law; the extent to which the market for corporate control acts a governance mechanism; and modern fund management behaviour influenced by relative performance metrics which supports a claim that defences can be justified in order to protect ultimate shareholders from their fund managers, a nuance on the standard justification that defences protect shareholders from themselves. The Chapter concludes that the policy case for prohibiting takeover defences is weak, and moves to consider the reform options in light of the post-Cadbury and Kraft debate on this issue. The Chapter considers and supports both reform of the non-frustration rule (by abolishing the rule) and a higher acceptance threshold (which effectively enables shareholders who are interested in long term fundamental value to make the decision). But the Chapter rejects disenfranchisement of short-term shareholders and enhanced public interest test. The Chapter concludes that it is now time for the Panel to engage with the broader consequences of the rule and reform options.
Norway (‘.no’)
Authors: Celius Kristine 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
In Norway, industrial property rights in signs are mainly protected by the Trademarks Act No 8, dated 26 March 2010 (Varemerkeloven), the Business Name Act No 79, dated 21 June 1985 (Foretaksnavneloven), and the Marketing Control Act No 2, dated 9 January 2009 (Markedsføringsloven). While the two first Acts constitute systems in which exclusive rights to use a sign are granted through registration or established by use, the latter prohibits, inter alia, acts of unfair competition.
Rights Protection Against the Operation and Use of New gTLDs by the Registry Operator
Authors: Bettinger Torsten , Taylor David , Jane Seager 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The characteristic feature of this dispute mechanism is that it gives trademark holders the opportunity to file a complaint directly against a registry operator responsible for running a gTLD (as opposed to a domain name registrant or registrar) for its improper conduct either at the top or second level.
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
Authors: Bettinger Torsten , Waddell Allegra 
Published: March 2021

AbstractAs worldwide use of the Internet has expanded, the importance of domain name selection and use has increased exponentially for brand owners and professional domain name registrants alike. The terms ‘cybersquatting’ and ‘pay-per-click advertising’ have become commonplace in the everyday vernacular. Although domain name law is, in many respects, similar to more traditional trademark and intellectual property law, many countries are still developing practices for handling disputes over Internet space. Given the international impact of domain name use, and the myriad jurisdictional problems concerning both venue and enforcement of judgments, domain name disputes present a number of challenges to nationally-based court systems. Domain name registration generally follows a ‘first-come, first-served’ model, thus potentially leaving trademark owners open to abusive registrations on behalf of cybersquatters and in some cases putting a company in the difficult position of paying ‘ransom’ to a domain name holder who registered the company’s trademark or brand in a domain.
Practice and Procedure: Member Schemes
Authors: O’Dea Geoff , Long Julian , Smyth Alexandra 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This chapter contains a description of the key documentation that is required for a member scheme of arrangement and examples of a timetable for a general member scheme and a takeover offer that is being effected through a member scheme. It also includes an example of the terms of a scheme for both a topco scheme and a member scheme being used to effect a takeover, together with comments on the key terms of each.
Implied Terms As To Correspondence With Description, Satisfactory Quality, And Fitness For Purpose
Authors: Fairgrieve Duncan , Goldberg Richard 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
In addition to imposing liability for any express warranties and misrepresentations, English law imposes a further measure of contractual liability on sellers of goods through the medium of the implied term. From at least the early nineteenth century, contracts for the sale of goods have been taken to require that the seller supply goods which correspond with the contract description and which are of merchantable (now satisfactory) quality and reasonably fit for their purpose.
Manufacturing Or Production Defects And Design Defects
Authors: Fairgrieve Duncan , Goldberg Richard 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
There are generally few difficulties in applying the consumer expectation test of s 3(1) of the 1987 Act to manufacturing or production defects. Thus it can be said that: ‘persons generally are clearly entitled to expect that a product conform with the standard of safety common to the items of a same line of products marketed by a particular manufacturer: an individual product which fails to comply with such a standard because it was not produced and marketed as intended will no doubt be considered defective’. Or to put it another way, in the form of an example, ‘no reasonable or “ordinary” consumer expects to find a snail in a bottle of ginger beer’, or, for that matter, carbolic acid in a bottle of lemonade. Accordingly, when the defect is a manufacturing one the consumer expectation test may be straightforward in its application and advantageous.
European Trade Mark Law
Authors: Annette Kur , Senftleben Martin 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
European Trade Mark Law provides a coherent and authoritative commentary on both the substantive and procedural aspects of European trade mark law. It presents an integrated picture of the two major trade mark law provisions at EU level: the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CMTR), which provides for the registration and protection of a Europe-wide mark; and the Trade Mark Directive (TMD), which aims to harmonise national trade mark laws. The book's core focus is the Community texts and case law, and it offers a detailed analysis of the CMTD and TMD, as well as practical discussion of the procedure for registering, maintaining, and challenging a trade mark through the European Trade Mark Office and at the national level. It considers how national laws have been successfully harmonised by the TMD, and where they differ significantly from others in their implementation of the Directive. Written by one of the leading trade mark lawyers in Europe, this is an invaluable reference for both academics and practitioners in this complex and rapidly developing area of law.
Data Protection: Breach of Statutory Duty
Authors: Barnes Jonathan 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This chapter examines the way in which the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) protects individual privacy and the challenges the Act presents to the protection of media and freedom of expression in English law. The Act represents the United Kingdom’s implementation of Directive 95/46/EC, which, as Recital 9 makes clear, is expressly concerned with the right to privacy and laid down requirements for Member States to adopt data protection legislation at the national level in order to protect privacy in relation to both computerized and manual files. The words ‘privacy’ and ‘private’ in this context mean no more than that information is personal. There is no connotation of secrecy. In other words, the terms are used in the same sense as in the expression ‘private property’, meaning property which is personal, not inaccessible or hidden away. Data protection rights are apt to protect information which is secret. But, like copyright, they are also apt to enable individuals to seek to prevent others exploiting for gain information about an individual which is not secret.
Justiciability
Authors: Fairgrieve Duncan , Squires QC Dan 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
When determining a negligence claim brought against a public authority, the first question a court will need to consider is whether the claim is ‘justiciable’, ie whether it is suitable for judicial resolution. It is only if a claim is ‘justiciable’ that the court ought to go on to consider whether a duty of care is owed and has been breached. While there are matters that may be relevant to both justiciability and duty of care, justiciability ought to be determined as a preliminary question, or at least, as far as possible, kept conceptually separate from the determination of whether a defendant owed a duty of care.
Housing and Land Use
Authors: Fairgrieve Duncan , Squires QC Dan 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Public authorities are substantial landowners. They use land for a wide variety of purposes intended to benefit the public, for example: for the provision of amenities such as parks and swimming pools, for drainage and sewage facilities, for commercial or residential leasing, for transportation by air, rail, or road. In large part, the liability of public authorities will be governed by the same rules as are applicable to private landowners. Like other landowners, public authorities can be held liable for nuisance if their use of land interferes with neighbours’ enjoyment of their land, if they are the occupiers of premises that are not maintained to a reasonable standard of safety, or if as landlords they breach tenancy agreements. In many cases, the fact that a landowner is a public authority will have little or no bearing on a determination of its liabilities, and such cases are not considered in any detail in this chapter.
Miscellaneous Public Authority Functions
Authors: Fairgrieve Duncan , Squires QC Dan 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Doctors owe a duty of care to their patients, and this duty will be owed regardless of whether the doctor is a public sector employee operating within a statutory framework or is providing health care privately. Medical negligence claims in relation to the care which doctors provide to individual patients are outside the scope of this book. Cases arise, however, that do not involve individual doctor-patient relations and raise broader questions of medical policy. In such instances, the fact that the defendant is a public authority exercising public powers is likely to be material to a determination of whether a duty of care should be imposed, and it is such cases we consider in this section. It should be noted that the potential liabilities in negligence of the bodies that regulate the medical profession are not considered in this chapter, but are examined in Chapter 14, where we consider professional regulators.
New Insights into the Evolution of the Electron Transfer from Cytochrome f to Photosystem I in the Green and Red Branches of Photosynthetic Eukaryotes
Authors: Castell Carmen , Rodríguez-Lumbreras Luis A , Hervás Manuel , Fernández-Recio Juan , Navarro José A 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
In cyanobacteria and most green algae of the eukaryotic green lineage, the copper-protein plastocyanin (Pc) alternatively replaces the heme-protein cytochrome c6 (Cc6) as the soluble electron carrier from cytochrome f (Cf) to photosystem I (PSI). The functional and structural equivalence of ‘green’ Pc and Cc6 has been well established, representing an example of convergent evolution of two unrelated proteins. However, plants only produce Pc, despite having evolved from green algae. On the other hand, Cc6 is the only soluble donor available in most species of the red lineage of photosynthetic organisms, which includes, among others, red algae and diatoms. Interestingly, Pc genes have been identified in oceanic diatoms, probably acquired by horizontal gene transfer from green algae. However, the mechanisms that regulate the expression of a functional Pc in diatoms are still unclear. In the green eukaryotic lineage, the transfer of electrons from Cf to PSI has been characterized in depth. The conclusion is that in the green lineage, this process involves strong electrostatic interactions between partners, which ensure a high affinity and an efficient electron transfer (ET) at the cost of limiting the turnover of the process. In the red lineage, recent kinetic and structural modeling data suggest a different strategy, based on weaker electrostatic interactions between partners, with lower affinity and less efficient ET, but favoring instead the protein exchange and the turnover of the process. Finally, in diatoms the interaction of the acquired green-type Pc with both Cf and PSI may not yet be optimized.
Prevalence of food security in the UK measured by the Food Insecurity Experience Scale
Authors: Pool Ursula , Dooris Mark 
Published: March 2021

Abstract

Background
Measurement of UK food insecurity has historically been inconsistent, making it difficult to understand trends. This study contributes by reporting and analysing data from a national survey conducted in line with UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recommendations and standard methods, providing an internationally comparable pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) snapshot of food insecurity.

Methods
Data came from a nationally representative 2019 UK sample (N = 2000) surveyed by Ipsos-Mori. Prevalence of food insecurity was assessed using the UN FAO Food Insecurity Experience Scale. Logistic regression was used to model food insecurity in relation to geographic and socio-demographic variables.

Results
Severe food insecurity was reported by 3% of the sample, an increase of 66.7% over the last directly comparable UK analysis (Gallup World Poll data from 2016 to 2018). Indication of some degree of food insecurity was reported by 14.2% of the sample and tended to be higher amongst younger age groups, those on lower incomes, and home renters (as opposed to owners). No geographic variables were significantly associated with food insecurity prevalence.

Conclusions
The finding that prevalence of severe food insecurity was already increasing before the COVID-19 pandemic, across all areas of the UK, is cause for concern. Our results provide an important benchmark for assessing the impact of COVID-19 on food insecurity.