Arbitration analysis: A recent case illustrates how arbitrators in Malaysia-seated arbitrations must ensure their decisions are sound and comply with orders of the court. Dato’ Nitin Nadkarni, partner, and Lim Tse Wei, associate at Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, sound a note of caution against going beyond an order’s express wording—which is legally binding—or risk an award being challenged.

1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Malian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Mali? Malian Competition Law is governed by Law No. 2016-066 of 24 February 2016 on the Organisation of Competition and the Implementing Decree (2018) (Competition Law). The General Directorate for Trade, Consumption and Competition (DGCCC), created by Ordinance No. 2017-2013/P-RM of 6 March 2017, is the body responsible for enforcing the Competition Law. Mali is a member of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine) (WAEMU) and is subject to the competition rules and regulations of WAEMU, found in Directive 02/2002/CM/UEMOA. WAEMU has exclusive jurisdiction over merger control within its member states. However, it is unclear whether Mali recognises WAEMU's exclusive jurisdiction. See further: WAEMU merger control There have been no recent developments or amendments to the laws noted above, nor any expected. There are no ‘hot’ merger issues nationally or regionally to our knowledge. 2. Under Malian merger control

Malice is not to be understood in terms of “wickedness” but in terms of intention to cause harm or at least actual foresight that harm may result.

Over and above general spite, a dishonest or improper motive as part of a dominant desire to injure the reputation of a person who is the subject of a defamatory comment. Malice, if shown, can deprive a defendant to a defamation claim of the ability to rely on the defences of honest comment or qualified privilege.

An Act of Parliament which prohibits the sending of letters or other articles for the purposes of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient. The Act applies to electronic as well as written communications and has been used to prosecute and convict social media users.

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the tort of malicious falsehood. Unlike a claim for defamation, there is no requirement in a claim for malicious falsehood to prove that the statement complained of is defamatory. Instead, the claimant must prove that: the defendant has published a statement about them that is untrue; the statement was published maliciously; and, the statement has caused actual pecuniary damage, or falls within the provisions of section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952). The tort of malicious falsehood is governed by a mixture of statute and common law. The relevant statutory law is contained in DA 1952. The Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) contains no provisions relevant to the law of malicious falsehood. Malicious or injurious falsehood (sometimes referred to confusingly as 'trade libel') is not concerned with reputation. It is a separate tort to defamation, which is concerned with the publication of falsehoods which cause or are likely to cause financial damage. Unlike establishing a cause of action in defamation, it is not necessary to show that any statement complained

MLex: Drugmakers Mallinckrodt and Endo need to secure merger antitrust clearance for their US$6.7bn deal in the United States and Ireland. The companies submitted their US premerger forms on 11 April 2025.

Duty to keep accounting records Every company has a duty to keep adequate accounting records. The purpose of this duty is to ensure businesses record transactions to enable them to show the company’s financial position and to prepare accounts that comply with the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) and with relevant UK-adopted international accounting standards or in accordance with UK generally accepted accounting practice standards. See further, Practice Note: Accounting records—The duty to keep accounting records. 'Adequate' replaces 'proper' in the Companies Act 1985. Adequate means sufficient to: • demonstrate and explain the company's transactions • disclose reasonably accurately, at any time, the financial position of the company, and • enable the directors to ensure that any accounts required to be prepared comply with the requirements of CA 2006 Company accounts are required by CA 2006 to contain: • entries from day to day of all sums of money received and expended by the company and the reasons for receipts and expenditure, and • a record

1. What is the applicable legislation? FDI in Malta is regulated by the National Foreign Direct Investment Screening Office Act, Chapter 620 of the Laws of Malta (Act), which came into force on 11 October 2020. The Act implements EU Regulation (EU) 2019/452 (Regulation), establishing a comprehensive framework for the screening of foreign direct investment into the EU on grounds of security or public order. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The National Foreign Direct Investment Screening Office (NFDIS). 3. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime? Does it only apply to specific sectors or types of investors (eg foreign or non-EU / non-WTO)? Are there specific rules for certain types of investors (eg state-owned enterprises)? The principal scope of the FDI regime is to screen foreign direct investments, originating from third countries (that is, any country which is not a member of the EU), on grounds of security and public order in relation to specific activities (see response to Question 4 for a list of these activities) and

This table summarises all completed investigations by Malta’s competition authority (the Maltese Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority—MCCAA) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2016. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 5 of the Competition Act The MCCAA has not yet issued any decisions under Article 101/Article 5 in 2025 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 9 of the Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Aviation fuel supply• Enemalta Concerns Enemalta abused its dominant market position through margin squeeze practices • Infringement decision issued—24/06/2025; no fine imposed 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 5 of the Competition Act The MCCAA did not issue any decisions under

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Malta and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Maltese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Malta? The Control of Concentrations Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 379.08) (the Regulations) were enacted in Malta in 2003. There have not been any other major changes to the Regulations since. In 2024, the Director General (Competition) of the Office for Competition (the NCA) prohibited an international discount retailer chain in Malta from acquiring real estate to open a new supermarket. This prohibition decision is notable as being the first prohibition by the NCA of a phase II decision. This decision is currently under appeal before the Civil Court (Commercial Section). In January 2026, the NCA proposed a legislative overhaul of the Regulations, including revision to turnover thresholds and the introduction of call-in powers. Following a public consultation exercise, the NCA published its

EU Law analysis: The Court of Justice ruled that Malta failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law by operating an investor citizenship scheme, granting nationality in exchange for predetermined payments and investments without requiring a genuine link between applicants and the country. The European Commission argued that such scheme undermined the essence of Union citizenship under Article 20 TFEU and breached the principle of sincere cooperation in Article 4(3) TEU. The court found that while Member States can set a naturalisation criteria, such must respect EU law. By commercialising EU citizenship, the scheme undermines the integrity of EU citizenship in a manner which constitutes a particularly serious infringement of EU law. The ruling re-affirms limits on Member States’ discretion in granting nationality since that automatically results in possession of Union citizenship, and the importance of ensuring such is done in compliance with Member States’ obligations under EU law. Written by Laura Ralph, associate solicitor at OTB Legal.