1. What is the applicable legislation? Armenia’s legal framework for foreign investment comprises several laws and international agreements, primarily aimed at protection and promotion rather than screening. These include the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia 2015, the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Foreign Investments 1994 (Law on Foreign Investments 1994) and the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Free Economic Zones 2011. In addition, Armenia has signed bilateral treaties on reciprocal promotion and protection of investments with 44 countries. NOTE—Armenia does not have a general foreign direct investment (FDI) screening or mandatory notification regime. Foreign investors can generally invest without prior government approval, except in regulated sectors (such as banking, telecom and energy) governed by separate laws. List of signed bilateral treaties on reciprocal promotion and protection of investments NO. SHORT TITLE STATUS PARTIES DATE OF SIGNATURE DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE 1 Armenia - Korea, Republic of BIT (2018) In force Korea, Republic of 19/10/2018 03/10/2019 2 Armenia - Japan BIT (2018) In force Japan 14/02/2018 15/05/2019 3 Armenia

This table summarises all completed investigations by the Armenian competition authority (the State Commission for the Protection of Economic Competition of the Republic of Armenia—SCPEC) investigations into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2021 Investigations under Article 5 of the The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Protection of Economic Competition The SCPEC did not issue any decisions under Article 5 in 2021 Investigations under Article 6 of the The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Protection of Economic Competition Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Eggs• Araks Poultry Factory• Arzni Pedigree ITC• Ashtarak Egg Concerns the three undertakings

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Armenia and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Armenian merger control regime and are any updates or developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other 'hot' issues? The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Protection of Economic Competition and Consumer Interests (the Law) was adopted on 6 November 2000 and has been amended several times, most recently by significant amendments adopted on 3 July 2025 and effective from 1 August 2025. Merger control remains a relatively new field in the Republic of Armenia, with various questions arising during the application of the legislation. Overall, the development of the law is progressing towards the adoption of an EU model. 2. Under Armenian merger control law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of ‘decisive influence’? If not, how does it differ and what is the position in relation to 'minority shareholdings'? Armenian merger control law does not generally apply an EU-style

This Practice Note explains arms length management organisations (ALMOs) in the context of local authority social housing provision. The concept is that although they look like registered providers (RPs), they are wholly owned by their respective local housing authorities (LHAs). This Practice Note discusses issues such as tenant involvement in the structure; staff transfers to ALMOs on a Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 basis; the fact that all tenants’ statutory rights remain intact since the landlord function remains with the local authority; the relationship with tenant management organisations (TMOs) and the constitutional structure of ALMOs. An ALMO is a not-for-profit company that provides housing services on behalf of an LHA. Usually, an ALMO is set up by the LHA to manage and improve all or part of its housing stock with the LHA retaining strategic decision-making. Ownership of the housing stock normally remains with the LHA. ALMOs are an established part of the social housing world since they were first established in 2002.

Private Client analysis: Having found that the claimant had established his claims in proprietary estoppel and under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) at trial (Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch)), the court went on to consider the appropriate remedy, aiming to achieve as clean a break as possible between members of the same farming family whose business affairs were closely entwined. The Court also considered the appropriate award under the I(PFD)A 1975 in the alternative, in case the finding of an estoppel should be overturned upon appeal. Written by William Moffett, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

A normal commercial transaction between two or more persons.

To put charges to the defendant in open court in the Crown Court.

The formal process of putting charges to the defendant in the Crown Court.

To be printed on the headed paper of the arranger[s] [insert date] To: [insert full name and address of borrower] Dear [insert full name of borrower] 1 We refer to the facilities agreement dated [insert date of facilities agreement] between [insert full name of the borrower] as the Borrower, [the subsidiaries of the Borrower listed in [insert Schedule containing borrowers' details] as Original Borrowers], [the subsidiaries of the Borrower listed in [insert Schedule containing guarantors' details] as Original Guarantors,] the financial institutions listed in [insert Schedule containing lenders’ details] as Original Lenders, [insert full name of arranger [s]] as the Arranger, [insert full

[To be printed on the headed paper of the arranger[S]] [insert date] To: [insert full name and address of [parent]] Dear [insert full name of parent] We refer to the facilities agreement dated [insert date of facility agreement] between [insert full name of the parent] as the Parent, the subsidiaries of the Parent listed in [insert Schedule containing borrowers‘ details] as Original Borrowers, the subsidiaries of the Parent listed in [insert Schedule containing guarantors‘ details] as Original Guarantors, the financial institutions listed in [insert Schedule containing lenders’ details] as Original Lenders, [insert full name of arranger[s]] as the Arranger, [insert

On 2 April 2019, the HKSAR government and the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) signed the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings (Arrangement). The Arrangement came into effect on 1 October 2019 and makes Hong Kong the first jurisdiction which has a formalised legal mechanism with Mainland China through which they can apply to Mainland courts for interim measures in support of Hong Kong-seated institutional arbitrations. Parties to Mainland-China institutional arbitrations can similarly apply to Hong Kong courts for interim measures in support of such arbitrations, regardless of arbitral seats. Note: Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis®. Background Hong Kong and Mainland China already have reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of arbitral awards and court judgments. While section 45 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO) provides a jurisdictional basis for HKSAR courts to grant

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. On 2 April 2019, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government and the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) signed the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings (Arrangement). The Arrangement makes Hong Kong the first offshore jurisdiction in which parties have a formalised legal mechanism with Mainland China through which they can apply to Mainland courts for interim measures in support of Hong Kong-seated institutional arbitrations. Parties to Mainland-seated institutional arbitrations can similarly apply to Hong Kong courts for interim measures in support of such arbitrations. The Arrangement is in force from 1 October 2019. Background to the Arrangement Hong Kong and Mainland China already have reciprocal agreements for the enforcement of arbitral awards and court judgments. While section 45 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (the AO) provides a jurisdictional basis for HKSAR courts to grant interim measures