Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court has declined to sanction the Great Annual Savings Company restructuring plan. This follows the rejection of a restructuring plan proposed by a company called Nasmyth. These are the first two cases in which the UK tax authority has taken an active role in opposing restructuring plans. Written by Aaron Harlow, Lemi McAuley, Lizzy Wood and Hayley Capani of Shoosmiths LLP who acted for the Great Annual Savings Company in proposing its restructuring plan.

A defensive technique or tactic to ward off a hostile offer.

1. What is the applicable legislation? The legal basis for foreign investment control in Poland is the Polish Law of 24 July 2015 on the control of certain investments (Act on Investment Control 2015), and resolutions of the Polish Council of Ministers adopted under this regulation. Legislation amending and expanding the scope of foreign investment control was initially introduced on a temporary basis as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, as of 24 July 2025, the regime was made permanent. Apart from the Act on Investment Control 2015, there are numerous mechanisms not directly aimed at foreign investment control but which in practice result in restrictions with respect to such transactions. These include: • the Act of 6 March 2018 on the principles of participation of foreign business entities and other foreign persons in commercial practices on the territory of the Republic of Poland. It regulates the commencement and pursuit of economic activity by foreign persons on the territory of Poland • the Act of 24 March 1920 on acquisition of real estate by foreigners. This act imposes an obligation

This table summarises all completed investigations by Poland’s competition authority (the Polish Competition and Consumers Protection Authority—UOKiK) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 6 of the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2007 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Power grid infrastructure• 7 undertakings (listed here) Restrictive agreement—bid rigging • Infringement decision announced—28/09/2026; fines totalling PLN Pharmaceuticals• Neuca• Farmacol-Logistyka• Farmacol• Świat Zdrowia Restrictive agreement—information exchange • Infringement decision announced—23/09/2026; fines totalling PLN 904,969,744 imposed Transport• Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. • 29 undertakings (listed here)• 8 individuals (listed here) Restrictive agreement—‘no poach’ agreements • Infringement decision announced—14/09/2026; fines totalling PLN 571,960,550 imposed Agricultural machinery• 9 undertakings • 5 individuals (listed here) Restrictive agreement—allocating markets and price fixing • Infringement decision announced—03/08/2026; fines totalling PLN 136m imposed Flooring panels and related accessories• Decora• Bel-Pol Restrictive agreement—RPM • Infringement decision announced—04/05/2026; fines totalling PLN 33,927,343.75 imposed Fruit• Damex• Kam-Pol• Fructis• Kalbrok• Silver-Trans• one individual Restrictive agreement—price

Arbitration analysis: In a recent judgment of August 29, 2023 (Amsterdam Court of Appeal ), LC Corp, an investor, was authorized to proceed with its intra-EU investment arbitration against Poland, despite the by-now well-known decisions of the European Court of Justice on the incompatibility of arbitration agreements with intra-EU investment protection sources. Poland tried to convince the Dutch courts in various proceedings that the investor should withdraw the investment arbitration commenced against it, first by commencing an injunction procedure and, subsequent, by commencing main proceedings with the same claim. Written by Stan Putter, partner at HBN Law & Tax.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Poland and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Polish merger control regime? What are the main points of interest and are any further updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Poland? The last major amendments that were introduced to the Polish merger control regime came into force in 2015 and related to the introduction of two-stage proceedings (ie Phase 1 and Phase 2). In the majority of cases, if there are no significant horizontal or vertical overlaps between the participating undertakings on the relevant markets, the merger notification is resolved in Phase 1. In cases that are more complex or raise competition doubts, the Polish Competition Authority (OCCP) has the power to open an in-depth investigation (Phase 2). The most recent data published by the OCCP concerns 2024, according to this report the Phase 2 proceedings were initiated only in five cases. 2. Under Polish merger control law, is the control test the

A communications relay or receiving device attached to a pole, duct or conduit owned or controlled by a utility company.

Law360: The Police Federation of England and Wales is on the hook to compensate thousands of its members after a group won its legal battle over a pension scheme that gave young officers worse benefits than older colleagues, a tribunal has ruled.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) £750,000 for breaches of the United Kingdom’s General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR). It was found that, between 25 May 2018 and 14 June 2024, PSNI did not carry out processing of its employees’ data with appropriate security or with appropriate technical and organisational measures in place, contrary to Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 of the UK GDPR. This resulted in the personal data of 9,483 police officers and staff being disclosed to the public. Due to the current financial position at PSNI, the ICO has decided to apply the public sector enforcement approach, reducing the penalty from an original determination of £5.6m.

Personal Injury analysis: In Griffiths v (1) Chief Constable of Suffolk (2) Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, the High Court dismissed claims that the Chief Constable and the NHS Trust were negligent in breaching their duties of care or had breached human rights. Elliot Gold, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, considers the issues raised in the case and the impact for personal injury practitioners.

A body corporate established under the Police Act 1996 (PA 1996) to maintain the police force for the 43 police areas in England and Wales, including the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District.

Pensions analysis: In Corsham v Police and Crime Commissioner for Essex, the High Court found that a police authority was liable for negligent misstatement where it told members their retirement lump sums would be tax free in circumstances where they actually knew that scheme members were being re-employed shortly after retirement with the result that they would lose their protected pension age and hence be subject to punitive tax charges. In so doing, the High Court overturned the decision of the Pensions Ombudsman.