May 19, 2022

Volume XII, Number 139

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 18, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 17, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 16, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Important Reminder for M&A transactions (including Internal Corporate Restructurings!) from 4 January 2022, when the UK’s National Security and Investment Act enters into force

As many corporate lawyers are aware, the UK’s National Security and Investment Act (NSIA) comes into force on 4 January 2022 and will have an impact on a large number of transactions which have a connection to the UK (an estimated 1,800 transactions per year will be affected).  One thing that has not been discussed in any detail however, is the possibility of “qualifying acquisitions” (as defined) that are part of corporate restructurings or reorganisations may be caught by the mandatory notification regime under the NSIA.

This means that even within transactions consisting of internal corporate restructurings or reorganisations, it may be mandatory to notify.  In such a scenario, it will also be necessary to await clearance before being to complete the transaction in question.  This is unlike merger control.

The UK Government’s Guidance does not provide much detail about this, but does include an example to illustrate where a corporate restructuring transaction would be caught.  Two parties share the same ultimate owner but are run separately from each other. One of the parties acquires part of the other, which takes its control over one of the thresholds to make it a qualifying acquisition. The ultimate owner remains the same, but their ownership now goes through a different corporate chain. This means there has been a change of control under the NSIA. Unlike merger control, this is true even though the ultimate owner remains the same.

This is not a situation that is unique to the UK.  A number of EU countries likewise apply foreign direct investment or national security protection regimes to internal restructurings.

  • In Germany, internal restructurings in the relevant sectors are also generally subject to notification requirements if a non-EU or foreign acquirer directly or indirectly acquires a stake in a German company, even if the ultimate owner does not change.  Exceptions apply only where no shareholders from a previously uninvolved jurisdiction comes into the ownership chain of the German entity.

  • In Italy, a mandatory filing may be required prior to a change of control or the adoption of extraordinary decisions of companies active in national critical infrastructure (i.e., energy, transport, communications or high intensity technology), including internal restructurings, regardless of the nationality of the buyer.

  • In the Czech Republic, internal restructurings or reorganisations can also be caught by a mandatory filing requirement.  There is some uncertainty in the intention of the law in the Czech Republic however, which may be clarified in the months to come (i.e., to remove internal restructurings from the scope of the FDI regime).  For the time being, however, the FDI regulation, as drafted, applies to internal restructurings.

  • In Poland, there is no explicit exemption for internal corporate restructurings in the FDI legislation or the guidelines. It may be possible to argue that the interpretation of the legislation does not capture corporate restructurings, although this has not yet been properly tested.

  • In France, however, the rules are different – corporate internal restructurings are not subject to FDI filing requirements.  There is a small exception to this rule in cases where the contemplated (intra-group) transaction(s) (i) would prevent the Buyer/Investor from complying with requirements set out in a previous French FDI decision; or (ii) is aimed at relocating certain of the Target’s activities abroad.

  • In Spain, a change in ownership within the corporate group, by way of an internal corporate restructuring, will not trigger a filing requirement.

As a general point regarding the FDI regimes in the EU, most internal restructurings will be rather unproblematic from a substantive perspective and should ultimately be approved by the relevant respective authorities.  However, if a mandatory notification is  required, failure to do so can have serious adverse consequences.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 356
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Oliver Geiss Competition Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Brussels, Belgium & Frankfurt, Germany
Partner

Oliver Geiss focuses his practice on competition law in the European Union and Germany.

He has represented companies in some of the largest cartel investigations before the European Commission and the German Federal Cartel Office, including Air Freight, LCD Screen, Optical Disk Drives, Refrigeration Compressors and Industrial Batteries, as well as in civil damage actions before national courts. Oliver is at the forefront of developments and regularly publishes in this area.

Oliver also regularly advises clients on merger notifications of cross-border transactions with the...

+32 2-627-1112
Sam Hare Competition & Antitrust Attorney Squire Patton Boggs London, UK
Senior Associate

Sam Hare is a senior associate in our Competition – Antitrust Practice based in our London office. Sam has experience of advising clients on all aspects of EU and UK competition law, with a particular emphasis on cartel investigations and related litigation (including claimant and defendant cartel damages litigation in the UK courts, and representing clients in relation to global cartel investigations before the European Commission and litigation before the European courts).

Sam also has experience of UK and EU merger control in a number of industries.

He also has extensive...

44 207-655-1154
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement