NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Eswatini (Swaziland) and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. Swaziland is now known as Eswatini. Eswatini is a COMESA Member State (see Question 12 below). 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Eswatini merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Eswatini? The Eswatini Competition Commission (ECC) published a Competition Bill, 2020 (Draft Bill) on its website, which is intended to be presented to the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Trade. The object of the Draft Bill is to increase effectiveness, consistency, predictability, and transparency in the enforcement and administration of competition law in Eswatini. It also aims to give effect to regional frameworks, such as COMESA Competition Regulations and international best practices. To the best of our knowledge, the Draft Bill has yet to be signed into law. The ECC further published guidelines to assist it in imposing appropriate administrative penalties (Penalty Guidelines), which will ensure that it uses a consistent

Et al. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “et alii”, meaning “and others”. In legal practice across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it is used to indicate additional parties or authors who are not individually named, for example in case citations, pleadings, orders, contracts and academic references.The expression is not generally defined in legislation or case law; it is a conventional shorthand used where listing every individual would be cumbersome, such as in multi-party litigation or where there are numerous joint authors of an opinion or commentary. Courts and practitioners use it to keep titles, headings and citations concise while still signalling that further parties are involved.Typical uses include naming claimants or defendants in court documents (e.g. “Smith & Ors” or “Smith & Ors v Jones & Ors”) and referring to legal textbooks or articles with multiple contributors. Usage and meaning are consistent across UK and Irish jurisdictions. Practitioners should ensure that underlying documents, schedules or statements of case identify all relevant parties in full, as “et al.” does not, of itself, confer or limit any legal rights or obligations.

Arbitration analysis: On 28 February 2020, Dutch investment companies AES Solar Energy Coöperatief UA (AES) and Ampere Equity Fund BV (AEF) obtained €26.5m arbitral award against the Kingdom of Spain before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Switzerland (the ‘Award’) currently pending enforcement before the District Court of Columbia in the US. In its strategy to avoid the enforcement, Spain requested a (sort-of) anti-suit injunction relief before the Dutch courts. To neutralise Spain's efforts, AES and AEF opposed the petition and assigned all their rights under the Award to a US entity Blasket Renewable Investments LLC (Blasket) to evade the jurisdictional reach of the Dutch courts. In its decision, the Amsterdam District Court Judge, Mr Justice HC Hoogeveen, in his judgment March 2023, considered the scope of its jurisdiction to decide on the relief sought by Spain under the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCPR) and the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (NYC 1958). Under the DCPR, the Dutch Court considered that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the potential damage arising from the award enforcement would not occur in the Netherlands but in the US, blaming Spain for having ‘wrongly created an additional forum’. Furthermore, the court remarks that there is no connection with the Dutch jurisdiction since the Award is against Spain because of an investment in this country, the arbitration took place in Switzerland, and its enforcement is taking place in the US. Similarly, under NYC 1958, the Amsterdam District Court confirmed that Switzerland ‘owns’ the exclusive jurisdiction for the annulment and enforcement of the arbitral award, as the country's supervisory courts where the Award was issued. Finally, the Dutch court also denied its jurisdiction to hear the case based on the place of enforcement as only the court of the country where the enforcement is taking place has jurisdiction, ie the US. As icing on the cake, the Dutch court also charged Spain with all the costs of the proceedings. Written by Josep Galvez, English barrister, Del Canto Chambers (London) and Spanish abogado, Litigo Partners (Barcelona).

NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Case T- 93/24 and the Court of Justice in Case C- 276/26 P ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel concerning the wholesale price formation mechanism in the European ethanol market (Case AT.40054). Latest development On 7 December 2023, the Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed a fine on Lantmännen around €47.7m. Lantmännen decided not to settle with the Commission. Parties • Abengoa S.A. and its subsidiary Abengoa Bionenergía S.A (together, Abengoa): Abengoa, based in Spain, is a multinational company operating in the green infrastructure, energy and water sectors. It is formerly one of the biggest produces of ethanol in the EU.• Lantmännen ek för and its subsidiary Lantmännen Agroetanol AB (together, Lantmännen): Lantmannen is a Swedish agricultural cooperative.• Alcogroup S.A. and its subsidiary Alcodis S.A. (together, Alcogroup): Alcogroup is one of the biggest producers and distributors

A protocol for interconnecting computers and peripheral devices at high speed. Recently Gigabit Ethernet has become available, which enables speeds up to 1 Gbit/s. Ethernet can run on several types of wiring including twisted pair, coaxial, and even fibre optic cable.

A term given to an investment philosophy focusing on investing in companies according to some non-economic criteria such as ethical or religious beliefs.

To select only investments which the Trustees in their absolute discretion

The question as to which ethical standards apply to English and Welsh lawyers (English and England are used for convenience) acting in international arbitration proceedings will depend on the specific circumstances of the arbitration in which they are instructed. The most important factors for practitioners to consider are the following: • the ethical rules of their professional regulator • the ethical rules for lawyers and any relevant laws of the jurisdiction where their arbitration is seated or where they are performing work (such as taking witness statements) which is relevant to an arbitration seated somewhere else • any rules or guidelines accepted to apply by the parties by agreement • any rules imposed by any relevant arbitral institution or organisation • measures taken by arbitral tribunals acting pursuant to an express or implied jurisdiction to regulate their procedure This is a relatively uncertain area in which the applicable rules are not always easy to identify, and where the

Lawyers involved in international arbitration proceedings may assume that they need only observe the ethical rules of their home jurisdiction, ie the jurisdiction in which they are licensed and regulated. The true position is, however, often much more complex: such rules may or may not have extra-territorial effect, but if they do, they may conflict with any ethical rules that apply in the legal seat of the arbitration, or that may be imposed by the relevant arbitral institution, or, indeed, those incorporated into the parties’ agreement. Whether ‘home’ ethical rules apply in foreign and international proceedings is often uncertain or ambiguous, particular for lawyers licensed in multiple jurisdictions. Nor is it always a straightforward task to discern which other rules may apply Even when the applicable ethical rules can be discerned, counsel and parties in the same arbitral proceedings frequently come from a variety of cultural and legal backgrounds. As a result, they may conduct themselves according to divergent notions about what constitutes appropriate professional and ethical conduct.

The Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) officially commenced operations on 13 October 2025, replacing the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL). Doug Chalmers, who served as the final chair of the CSPL, has been appointed as the first chair of the EIC. The EIC, an independent oversight body sponsored by the Cabinet Office, retains the CSPL’s structure, comprising of both independent and political members. It will continue to uphold Lord Nolan’s principles of public life , advise the prime minister on ethical standards and conduct research into the functioning of the standards system.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Ethiopia and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. Ethiopia is also a member of COMESA, which operates a supra-national merger control regime. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Ethiopian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Ethiopia? The Ethiopia Trade Competition and Consumer Protection Authority (TCCPA) issued a Directive on April 2015 in regards to a pre-merger notification threshold—see Question 4 below for details. As of October 2021, the TCCPA ceased to be an independent authority and its powers and responsibilities are transferred to the Ministry of Trade and Regional Integration (MoTRI). The Ethiopian Commercial Code 1243/2013 (Commercial Code) was amended to include a section on mergers and divisions. The Commercial Code now regulates amalgamations or takeovers. It has a narrower application than the Trade Competition and Consumer Protection Proclamation (No. 813/2013) (Proclamation). The TCCPA is working on additional regulations to provide guidance on the application of the Proclamation. In

ARCHIVED: This content was published in 2020 and is not maintained. This Market Standards Trend Report, Ethnicity in Corporate Governance Reporting 2020, examines the current recommendations and guidelines for public companies in relation to ethnic diversity reporting in the UK, focusing on how these have been interpreted, implemented, and reported on by FTSE 100 constituents. The report also examines recent and upcoming developments anticipated to have an impact on this area, and provides companies with expert ‘best practice’ guidance in advance of the upcoming target deadline set by the Parker Review for FTSE 100 companies to have at least one ethnic minority director on the board by the end of 2021. Topics covered include: • an overview of ethnic diversity targets and reporting requirements for public companies • an examination of the common challenges experienced in relation to definitions,