Foreign Direct Investment

In quick succession on 7 and 15 November 2023, the Administrative Court of Berlin (Verwaltungsgericht Berlin, the “VG Berlin”) has ruled on procedural matters in foreign direct investment review proceedings of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (the “BMWK”) in two hearings. Because court rulings on these non-public administrative proceedings – which are non-public because they concern national security and public order – have been very rare to date, the court’s clarifications will contribute to legal certainty for companies involved in the proceedings and the BMWK.

Key takeaways

  • In its rulings, the VG Berlin overturned two BMWK decisions on purely formal grounds without having to deal with material law questions (such as the standards of assessment of the BMWK’s or individual case groups of sensitive activities).
  • In the future, the BMWK will need to adhere to the formalistic procedure to be able to effectively enforce its decisions in the event of security concerns regarding foreign investments.

From a practical perspective, it would be regrettable if the open, direct and easily accessible communication channels with the BMWK, which have been appreciated by all parties involved in the proceedings to date, would have to give way to a much more formalistic administrative practice. The BMWK’s open communication has significantly reduced the average duration of investment review procedures and made it easier for companies and legal practitioners to work with the (still developing) German investment review regime.…

Continue Reading Berlin court clarifies significant German FDI issues

Das Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (VG Berlin) hat in zwei kurz aufeinanderfolgenden Verhandlungen vom 7. und 15. November 2023 zu Verfahrensfragen bei Investitionsprüfverfahren des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) geurteilt. Da Gerichtsentscheidungen zu diesen nichtöffentlichen Verwaltungsverfahren – es geht um die nationale Sicherheit und öffentliche Ordnung – bisher sehr rar sind, werden die gerichtlichen Klarstellungen zur Rechtssicherheit für verfahrensbeteiligte Unternehmen sowie das BMWK beitragen.

Wesentliche Punkte

  • In seinen Urteilen hat das VG Berlin zwei Entscheidungen des BMWK aus rein formellen Gründen gekippt, ohne dass es sich mit materiell-rechtlichen Fragen befassen musste (etwa zum Beurteilungsmaßstab des BMWK oder einzelnen Fallgruppen sicherheitsrelevanter Aktivitäten).
  • Das BMWK wird künftig wahrscheinlich stärker auf eine formal-korrekte Verfahrensführung achten, um seine Entscheidungen bei Sicherheitsbedenken gegenüber Auslandsinvestitionen wirksam durchsetzen zu können.

Aus Praxissicht wäre es bedauerlich, wenn dadurch die – von allen Verfahrensbeteiligten bislang geschätzte – offene Kommunikation mit dem BMWK mitsamt kurzer Dienstwege und guter Erreichbarkeit einer deutlich formalistischeren Verwaltungspraxis weichen müsste. Denn durch die offene Kommunikation hat das BMWK die durchschnittliche Verfahrensdauer von Investitionsprüfungen deutlich reduziert und Unternehmen sowie Rechtsanwendern die Arbeit mit dem (noch jungen) deutschen Investitionsprüfungsregime erleichtert.…

Continue Reading VG Berlin zu Verfahrensfragen bei der Investitionsprüfung

Belgium introduced an FDI screening mechanism anticipated to enter into force on July 1, 2023, adding yet another jurisdiction in the EU which has adopted national measures to implement the EU’s FDI Regulation (EU) 2019/452. The new Belgian regime may place additional compliance obligations on companies, and, for some investments, it will entail modifications to initially planned transactions. For companies considering transactions – directly or indirectly – in Belgium, the new regime creates an additional layer of deal conditionality, besides merger control and the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (also due to be implemented this year – see our previous blogpost here).

Key Takeaways:

  • The FDI screening mechanism will cover key sectors for the Belgian economy; for example, critical infrastructures, essential technologies or raw materials, defense, and energy;
  • Notification is mandatory and the investors cannot close the transaction before the foreign investment has been cleared, or they risk incurring hefty fines;
  • The preliminary assessment phase can take up to 30 calendar days and where a more in-depth review is required, this can take up to an additional month, but extensions and suspensions are possible.
  • The Interfederal Screening Commission (“Screening Commission”) will review the notifications. The competent minister will clear the investment, impose remedies, or prohibit the investment where no remedies can overcome the concerns over Belgian national security, public order or strategic interests.

…
Continue Reading Belgium takes action to screen foreign direct investment (FDI) on its territory

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

Over the summer, the UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) delivered the first decisions, in the form of final orders, under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (“NSIA”).  We consider these decisions and other cases in the context of the first nine months of the UK’s new (quasi) Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) regime.

Key takeaways:

  • The NSIA has broad reach, and BEIS has shown willingness to exercise the powers to review transactions that can stretch beyond mergers and acquisitions, for example, to licensing agreements.
  • NSIA review involves the weighing of a number of factors relating to the target, the acquirer and the level of control being obtained.  Early decisions suggest that target’s products/services and activities are just as important a factor as the acquirer’s identity, among the cases that have engaged the attention of the Investment Security Unit (“ISU”).
  • “Behavioural” undertakings, e.g. involving implementation of security controls or granting of audit rights to regulators appear to be a continuation of trends seen in the predecessor UK ‘public interest’ regime, and similar to other EU FDI procedures.

…
Continue Reading UK FDI: Decision-making practice emerging under the National Security and Investment Act

On 30 June 2022, the Council of the EU (the “Council”) and the European Parliament (the “Parliament”) reached a much awaited agreement on the proposal of the European Commission (the “Commission”) for the Regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (the “FSR”) (see our alert on the proposal). This political agreement swiftly concludes the trilogue discussions initiated in the beginning of May this year, after the Council (see our blog post) and the Parliament (see our blog post) each adopted their own positions. The agreement has been approved by the Permanent Representatives Committee (“COREPER”) of the Council on 13 July and the Committee on International Trade of the European Parliament on 14 July.

The FSR grants substantial new powers to the Commission and “will help close the regulatory gap whereby subsidies granted by non-EU governments currently go largely unchecked”, according to remarks from Executive Vice-President of the Commission, Margrethe Vestager. It will be deeply transformative for M&A and public procurement in the EU.

The agreement on the FSR did not lead to any major changes in the proposal made by the Commission. The most notable points of discussion between the Parliament and Council and the outcome of this agreement are:

  • The thresholds above which companies are obliged to inform the Commission about their foreign subsidies remain unchanged compared to the Commission’s proposal;
  • The time period in which the Commission has to investigate foreign subsidies in large public procurement has been reduced. In the same way, the retroactive application of the FSR has been limited to foreign subsidies granted in the five years prior to the application of the regulation;
  • The Commission will issue guidelines on the existence of a distortion, the balancing test and its power to request notification of non-notifiable transactions, at the latest three years after the entry into force of the FSR; and
  • A commitment to a multilateral approach to foreign subsidies above the FSR and the possibility for the Commission to engage in a dialogue with third countries has been included.

…
Continue Reading The Council of the EU and the European Parliament agree on the Foreign Subsidies Regulation

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

The UK government has reported a successful start to the implementation of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (the “NSIA” or “Act”). During the first three months (Jan-March 2022) in which the new NSIA regime has been active, the Investment Screening Unit (“ISU”) received 222 filings and reviewed 17 transactions in depth. Of those 17 transactions, three have been cleared unconditionally, with the other 14 transactions still under review at the end of the reporting period.

Mandatory NSIA filings, which represented 196 of the total flings, were most commonly made in six sectors: defence, military and dual-use, critical suppliers to government, artificial intelligence, data infrastructure and advanced materials.  There were significantly fewer filings in other sectors, with fewer than five filings per sector in areas such as synthetic biology, civil nuclear, advanced robotics and transport.

Collectively, these figures and other data suggest that the NSIA regime is operating, so far, broadly in line with expectations. While there are fewer filings than expected overall, this may reflect a broader global slowdown in M&A and investment activity. The ISU further reports that it is meeting, and often working well within, the maximum statutory time periods for the assessment of filings. The ISU indicates its willingness to complete reviews expeditiously where possible, including for in-depth assessments.…

Continue Reading UK National Security and Investment Regime Working Well

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

The UK’s new National Security and Investment Act (“NSIA”) entered into force on January 4, 2022. The NSIA marks a considerable change in the UK’s investment screening powers and adds to an increasingly complex European and global landscape of investment regulation (or FDI) filings necessary for the execution of M&A and other transactions.
…
Continue Reading UK National Security & Investment Act is now in force