National Security

The UK Parliament has passed emergency legislation to enable the government to direct the use of assets of British Steel, and to take control of assets if directions are not followed.

The government’s stated intention is “continuing the support of steel production in the UK [which] involves preserving current production capacity to ensure resilience in the production of steel”. The new law creates new powers for the government to intervene in relation to steelmaking businesses whose assets are at risk of ceasing to be used. If the operation of a steelmaking blast furnace, such as those operated by British Steel, is stopped, restarting its operation can be prohibitively expensive and it may be permanently unusable.

Following negotiations with its current owners (the Chinese steelmaker Jingye Group) on the future of British Steel, the government announced on Friday its intention to recall Parliament the following day to introduce a draft bill and complete the full legislative process within a single day. The bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received royal asset on Saturday 12 April, coming into force on the same day, as the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 (the “Act”).

This is the first time that Parliament has responded to a perceived crisis in a UK industry by extending the government’s powers to intervene in specific industries for “public interest” reasons since 2008, in the context of the Global Financial Crisis. In that case, Parliament passed legislation to enable the government to nationalise the Northern Rock bank (and subsequently other banks), and later that year the government’s public interest intervention powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 were expanded in order to allow the government to override competition concerns in the Lloyds/HBOS merger. In contrast to previous measures that provide the government with powers to acquire businesses and to intervene in potential mergers and acquisitions between businesses, the new Act applies outside of the context of a transaction or takeover. Specifically, the new Act applies where specific assets may cease (or have ceased) to be used in a steel manufacturing business but the government considers that it is in the public interest that the use of the assets should continue.Continue Reading UK passes emergency legislation to authorize “public interest” directions on use of British Steel assets

In November 2024, the UK’s High Court (the “Court”) issued its judgment on the first appeal of a Final Order (“Order”) imposed by the UK government (acting through the Secretary of State) under the UK’s National Security and Investment Act 2021 (the “NSIA”).

Under UK public law, decisions such as the Order can only be challenged on a judicial review basis – i.e., on the process and not on the merits. The Court not only confirms this position, but also clearly indicates limits to the scope of UK courts’ powers to opine on the substance of national security risk and reveals a wide margin of discretion for the UK government.Continue Reading Five takeaways from the first court challenge to a UK NSIA Final Order

The European Commission (the “Commission”) issued a White Paper on Outbound Investments (the “White Paper”) on 24 January 2024, setting out non-binding proposals for a detailed analysis of EU outbound investment. With its initiative, the Commission aims to understand whether the current limited regulation in the area of outbound investments is…

Continue Reading Outbound investment screening in the EU – A major step forward?

On October 17, 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) published a report on mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) in the defense industrial base. The report details the current M&A review process of the Department of Defense (“DOD”) and provides recommendations to proactively assess M&A competition risks.

Currently, DOD’s Industrial Base Policy (“IBP”) office, with input…

Continue Reading GAO Recommends Increased Guidance for DOD Mergers & Acquisitions Review

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 the heels of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pandemic-induced supply chain disruptions, and U.S.-China tensions over Taiwan, 2022 accelerated a sweeping effort within the U.S. government to make national security considerations—especially with respect to China—a key feature of new and existing regulatory processes. This trend toward broader national security regulation, designed to help maintain U.S. strategic advantage, has support from both Republicans and Democrats, including from the Biden Administration. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s remarks in September 2022 capture the tone shift in Washington: “…[W]e have to revisit the longstanding premise of maintaining ‘relative’ advantages over competitors in certain key technologies…That is not the strategic environment we are in today…[w]e must maintain as large of a lead as possible.”

This environment produced important legislative and regulatory developments in 2022, including the CHIPS and Science Act (Covington alert), first-ever Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines promulgated by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or the “Committee”) (Covington alert), President Biden’s Executive Order on CFIUS (Covington alert), new restrictions under U.S. export control authorities targeting China (Covington alert), and proposals for a new regime to review outbound investments by U.S. businesses (Covington alert). The common thread among these developments is the U.S. government’s continuing appetite to use both existing and new regulatory authorities to address identified national security risks, especially where perceived risks relate to China.

With a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives riding the tailwinds of this bipartisan consensus, 2023 is looking like a pivotal moment for national security regulation—expanding beyond the use of traditional authorities such as trade controls and CFIUS, into additional regulatory domains touching upon data, communications, antitrust, and possibly more. In parallel, the U.S. focus on national security continues to gain purchase abroad, with foreign direct investment (“FDI”) regimes maturing in tandem with CFIUS, and outbound investment screening gaining traction, for example, in the European Union (“EU”). It is crucial for businesses to be aware of these developments and to approach U.S. regulatory processes with a sensitivity towards the shifting national security undercurrents described in greater detail below.Continue Reading Will 2023 Be an Inflection Point in National Security Regulation?