Photo of Martin Juhasz

Martin Juhasz

Martin Juhasz is an associate in Covington’s Frankfurt office and a member of the antitrust and EU competition team. He advises clients on all aspects of European and German competition law from a broad range of sectors, including technology, internet, healthcare, and manufacturing. He also counsels foreign investors with regard to foreign direct investment regulations (FDI).

Contact:Read more about Martin JuhaszEmail

Based on the 11th Amendment to the German Competition Act (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, “GWB”) that was passed by the German parliament (Bundestag) on 6 July 2023, the GWB will undergo significant reform (the “Reform”). Among other Reform amendments, attention has focused on the Federal Cartel Office’s (Bundeskartellamt, “FCO”) new powers in the context of sector inquiries (Sektoruntersuchungen). According to the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz, “BMWK”), the amendments intend to strengthen business opportunities for competitors, start-ups and small / medium sized entities.

For the first time under German competition law, the FCO will obtain powers to take remedial measures following sector inquiries, even where the addressee has not been found to have engaged in anti-competitive conduct. Under the Reform, the FCO will be able to take measures where it identifies a significant and continuing ‘disruption of competition’ (Störung des Wettbewerbs) in the relevant market. Such measures will include – as ultima ratio – divestment orders (new Section 32f of the GWB).

In this blog-post we: explain the concept of sector inquiries under the GWB in general; and analyse the key amendments to the FCO’s sector inquiry powers, the most significant changes under the Reform.…

Continue Reading Sector Inquiries and the German new (and complicated) Competition Toolbox

On April 27, 2023, the Commission presented its draft regulation on SEPs (“Draft SEPs Framework Regulation”, retrievable here).

Under the aegis of DG GROW, but in close consultation with DG COMP, the Commission seeks to address what some have perceived as lack of transparency and predictability in the licensing of SEPs.  The Commission had previously expressed its concern in its Intellectual Property (IP) Action Plan of 2020 and 2017 Communication and suggested that this situation could lead to a cumbersome and costly licensing process for both owners and implementers of SEPs.  The Commission sought feedback via a public consultation between February and April 2023.

The draft SEPs Framework Regulation would:

  • Establish a Competence Centre to register SEPs at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) and providing an electronic register and database with extensive information about SEPs;
  • Oblige the owners of SEPs to register any claimed SEP in the database;
  • Create additional essentiality checks through the Competence Centre;
  • Establish an out-of-court procedure to determine fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (”FRAND”) conditions and aggregate royalties for use of a given standard.

…
Continue Reading Draft Regulation – The EU Commission Proposes a new Framework for the Licensing of Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”)

On October 26, 2022, the German government permitted (with conditions) an investment by Chinese state-owned COSCO Shipping Group (“COSCO”) in one of Hamburg’s four shipping container terminals. Pursuant to foreign direct investment (“FDI”) laws, the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz, “BMWK”) had been notified of the proposed acquisition by COSCO of a 35% minority interest in the port terminal, a strategic location on the German coastline. The BMWK ordered that COSCO’s acquisition of voting rights must remain below 25%. The details of the decision remain confidential, but the BMWK justified its partial prohibition on the grounds that the acquisition of 35% as notified would constitute a “threat to public order and security”. According to the BMWK’s press release, the partial prohibition decision prevents COSCO from acquiring a ‘strategic’ shareholding, and reduces the acquisition to a mere financial participation. As a safeguard in this respect, the decision contains provisions prohibiting COSCO from acquiring any additional influence, for example, through a grant of rights that would be atypical for a holder of a less than 25% interest. Furthermore, under the German FDI regime, any follow-on acquisition of additional voting rights by COSCO would be subject to a new notification requirement.…

Continue Reading COSCO FDI Review: Germany partially prohibits Chinese investment in a Hamburg container terminal – Spotlight on minority investments

The European Commission (“Commission”) has repeatedly urged EU Member States to set up foreign direct investment (“FDI”) screening mechanisms. To date, 18 out of 27 Member States have adopted FDI screening powers, providing for the review of M&A transactions and other investments on national security and public policy grounds. Recently, Belgium and Ireland have each announced draft proposals which, once implemented, will enlarge the group of Member States reviewing transactions on FDI grounds.

Against this background of increasing FDI screening for local and global M&A transactions, some voices call for broader reforms. The European Parliament has launched an initiative aimed to address a future EU international investment policy and recently adopted a resolution with far-reaching proposals for FDI screening in Europe.

We provide an update on these developments in this blog post and consider the current outlook for FDI screening.…

Continue Reading Belgium and Ireland to introduce new FDI screening powers – European Parliament calls for broader reforms

Russia’s continued invasion of Ukraine is broadly impacting foreign direct investment (“FDI”) screening. A range of governments have announced they will apply close scrutiny to investments from Russia and its allied countries in general, and not only to investors that are subject to sanctions or other restrictive measures. The European Commission (“Commission”) has published guidance on the screening of investments from Russia and Belarus.

The German government has already intervened, appointing a fiduciary for an operator of critical gas infrastructure. Canada issued a policy statement targeting Russian investors and Italy permanently broadened its FDI regime. Our blog provides a summary of these developments below.…

Continue Reading FDI regulators show their teeth – Close scrutiny and firm intervention in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine

In M&A and other transactions, conditions associated with foreign direct investment (“FDI”) filings are becoming more common place, and investors are adjusting to the diligence, disclosure and time associated with obtaining FDI clearances. In the EU, the introduction of wider-ranging FDI laws has been rapid, and freshly empowered national regulators in the Member States are already demonstrating their willingness to use the tools at their disposal where they believe that is necessary. For investors, the deal execution risks are sobering in circumstances where a failure to obtain mandatory clearance may  render a transaction void (in addition to other possible sanctions). Transaction costs are also rising as longstop dates lengthen to accommodate sometimes unpredictable FDI review periods, especially for deals in the most sensitive sectors.

Marking one year since the full implementation of the EU FDI screening regulation (the “EU FDI Regulation” or the “Regulation”), this blogpost considers the first annual report on FDI (the “Report”) published by the European Commission on 23 November 2021 and reflects on M&A in the current EU FDI landscape.…

Continue Reading Foreign Direct Investment Regulation: EU M&A after one year of the FDI Regulation

On 27 April 2021 the German government adopted the 17th amendment (“Amendment”) to the Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (“AWV”) aligning the German Foreign Direct Investments (“FDI”) regime with the EU Screening Regulation. The Amendment significantly extends the number of sectors and target activities that require mandatory notification in Germany and brings significant procedural changes and clarifications. The revised Ordinance entered into force on 1 May 2021 and will apply to all transactions signed thereafter.

The Amendment follows a series of prior legislative changes. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the German government previously adopted the 15th AWV-Amendment in June 2020, which introduced far reaching filing obligations in the healthcare sector. Subsequently, the first amendment of the Foreign Trade and Payments Act introduced standstill obligations backed by fines and criminal charges in July 2020. Together with the 16th AWV-Amendment in October 2020 the German FDI regime was also aligned with the requirements of the EU Screening Regulation.

Our blog provides an overview of the German FDI regime and highlights the key changes introduced by the Amendment.
Continue Reading Technology Sector under Closer Scrutiny – German Government Significantly Extends the Scope of Foreign Direct Investment Review in Germany

On 22 January 2021 the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (“BMWi”) published a draft for the 17th amendment (“Draft Amendment”) of the Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (“AWV”). While the Draft Amendment remains subject to comments and further consultation, it already provides early guidance on sectors that may come under close Foreign Direct Investments (“FDI”) scrutiny in future. Among other changes, the Draft Amendment defines a number of additional sensitive activities triggering mandatory and suspensive filing requirements.

The new rules can be expected to have significant impact on transactions in particular in the technology sector and will lead to a significant increase in mandatory FDI filings in Germany.
Continue Reading Significant Revamp of German FDI Regime – German Government Presents New Rules on FDI Screening

On 2 December 2020, the German government prohibited the acquisition of German company IMST GmbH, Kamp-Lintfort (“IMST”) by a Chinese investor. This is the second high profile prohibition decision issued by the German government this year on the grounds of Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) rules. Read in conjunction with the upcoming legislative tightening of the existing Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Außenwirtschaftsverordnung, the German FDI law), expected to come into force during Q1 / 2021, and other measures like the ‘golden share’ taken in Curevac (a company heavily invested in Covid-19 research), the IMST decision demonstrates the mounting willingness by Germany to step in and protect what it perceives to be its national interests.
Continue Reading Foreign Direct Investment – German Government Prohibits Acquisition By A Chinese Buyer

The European Commission (”Commission”) is preparing the ground for a new competition enforcement tool. This new tool could substantially extend the competition authority’s current enforcement powers and allow for far-reaching intervention where the Commission identifies structural competition concerns. In particular, following the proposal, the standard for intervention could be lowered significantly as the Commission may no longer be required to establish dominance in order to impose behavioural or structural remedies on a company.

Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, explained “that there are certain structural risks for competition, such as tipping markets, which are not addressed by the current rules.” She stated that the Commission “is seeking the views of stakeholders to explore the need for a possible new competition tool that would allow addressing such structural competition problems.…
Continue Reading The New Normal? EU Commission Prepares a New Competition Enforcement Tool Aiming at Structural Competition Concerns