ARCHIVED –this archived practice note reviews the approach adopted by the European Commission to assessing innovation competition in merger investigations and reflects the position at the date of publication (22 June 2018). It is not maintained. Under the EU Merger Regulation, the European Commission must assess the effect on competition of mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures (concentrations) meeting the EU Merger Regulation’s jurisdictional thresholds. Where the Commission has serious doubts about whether a notified concentration will significantly impede effective competition, the Commission may open an in-depth (phase II) investigation and prohibit the concentration, unless the notifying party(ies) offer remedies that address the Commission’s concerns. What constitutes a significant impediment to effective competition (SIEC) varies from case to case. While the Commission most often expresses concerns about anticipated price effects of notified transactions, recent decisions have focused attention on the Commission’s analysis of notified transactions’ potential to impede ‘innovation competition.’ The most complete explanation so far of how the Commission assesses the effect of notified concentrations’ on innovation

Law360, London: On 20 May 2025, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) gave final approval to a £200m settlement between Mastercard and Walter Merricks to end litigation over credit card fees, with the funder of the claim set to receive approximately £68m.

A concept used in defamation cases in relation to the issue of defamatory meaning when a statement or content may seem innocuous on the surface but be capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in the eyes of anyone exposed to it with special knowledge of extrinsic facts to which it does not refer to explicitly.

VAT chargeable under the UK or Isle of Man legislation which is incurred by a taxable person in respect of goods or services used (or to be used) for the purposes of a business carried on (or to be carried on) by him (Value Added Tax Act 1994, s 24(1)).

Input tax which is incurred in respect of specific goods and services which is not available for credit (VATA 1994, s.25(7).

An inquest is a fact-finding inquiry into a death, held in public before a coroner (England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland) or a procurator fiscal and, where appropriate, a sheriff (Scotland). Its core purpose is to establish who the deceased was, and when, where and how they died; it does not determine civil or criminal liability.In England & Wales, inquests are governed mainly by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and associated rules, with specific provisions for “Article 2” (right to life) inquests and jury inquests. Northern Ireland has similar coronial procedures under distinct legislation. In Ireland, the Coroners Acts set out when an inquest is mandatory, including in certain violent, unnatural or unexplained deaths.In Scotland there is no “inquest” as such, but a similar function is performed by a Fatal Accident Inquiry under the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016.Inquests are practically significant for disclosure, expert evidence, reputational issues, regulatory follow‑on action and potential criminal or civil proceedings arising from the same death. Legal representatives commonly appear for interested persons or next of kin.

General principles When seeking an injunction, the applicant will need to provide an undertaking in damages in the event that it is found that the injunction should not have been granted. If that occurs and the defendant suffered loss as a consequence of the injunction having been granted, the court may order am inquiry as to damages. The leading authority of the principles the court will apply is Yukong Line, a Court of Appeal decision. The principles were set out as follows: 32. Whereas the usual practice in respect of interlocutory injunctions is not to order an inquiry into damages on the cross-undertaking until the merits of the action have been finally decided at trial, in cases where a Mareva injunction is involved, a defendant or other party bound in respect of whom the injunction is discharged at any stage may seek, and be granted, an inquiry into damages on the basis that, regardless of the ultimate merits of the action, the injunction was 'wrongly granted'. That term is in my view preferable

The Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Telford Child Sexual Exploitation has published their two-year review report. The review assesses the extent to which the 47 recommendations made in the original July 2022 report have been implemented. In a statement from the Chair, Tom Crowther KC, the progress against the recommendations has been called ‘without exception positive’. Of the 47 recommendations, the Chair found that 38 have been fully implemented, four have made real progress and five were impossible to put in place without national change. This two-year review marks the end of the Inquiry.

Obtaining information about the bankrupt’s affairs Upon their appointment, a trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) will generally have no personal knowledge of the bankrupt’s affairs, dealings or property. In order to understand the circumstances that led to the bankrupt’s insolvency, identify and recover assets, investigate potential claims and put the affairs of the estate in order, the trustee must obtain information concerning: • the bankrupt or the bankrupt’s dealings and affairs • the bankrupt’s property together with information to enable the trustee to claim or preserve that property The information might be in documentary form or within the knowledge of the bankrupt and/or others. While the trustee will usually seek to obtain this information through informal means, the law recognises that only limited information is initially available to the trustee and that those in possession of relevant records and information might not co-operate with the trustee. The Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) therefore imposes duties on the bankrupt

Obtaining information about the company’s affairs Upon their appointment, a liquidator, provisional liquidator, administrative receiver or administrator (office-holder) will generally have no personal knowledge of the affairs of the company. In order to understand the circumstances that led to the company’s insolvency, identify and recover assets, reconstitute the company’s business and accounting records (where necessary), investigate potential claims and put the affairs of the estate in order, the office-holder must obtain information concerning: • the promotion, formation, business, dealings and affairs of the company • the company’s property, together with information to enable the office-holder to claim or preserve that property The information might be in documentary form or within the knowledge of all or some of the company’s directors, employees and/or others. While the office-holder will usually seek to obtain this information through informal means, the law recognises that those in possession of relevant records and information might not co-operate with the office-holder. The Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content on the inquiry into a company's dealings under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The cases are divided by topic area and include: • the parties • purpose • books, papers or other records • making the application • responding to the application • the test for making an order • the order • setting aside the order • the examination • enforcement • the use of documents and information obtained • extra-territorial effect • costs For further reading on this topic, see Practice Notes: • Basic principles—the delivery-up of information and property to the insolvency office-holder • Inquiry into a company's dealings (including by way of private examination) under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 The parties Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Dale (as joint liquidators of NMCN plc and NMCN Sustainable Solutions Ltd) v BDO LLP [2025] EWHC 446 (Ch) 27

The European Ombudsman has opened an investigation into how the European Commission handles 'urgent' legislative proposals, such as the revision of the EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). This follows concerns raised with the Ombudsman, which questioned how the Commission prepared the CAP proposal and whether the Commission had properly assessed if the changes affected the long-term environmental sustainability of EU agriculture. The investigation will also consider how the Commission examines if its proposals are consistent with the climate-neutrality goals of the European Climate Law. The European Ombudsman has requested that the Commission responds to a series of questions, which ask if the Commission has internal procedures for deciding on bypassing impact assessment requirements for urgent legislative proposals and how it observes the principle of evidence-based decision-making in these circumstances. The Commission has until 16 December 2024 to respond.