1. What is the applicable legislation? Qatar's foreign direct investment (FDI) regime has undergone some changes in 2019/2020, reflecting the country's broader economic ambitions. Historically, Qatar’s FDI regime was very restrictive. For instance, pursuant to the Qatari Foreign Investment Law 13/2000, foreigners had to structure all investments in Qatar through a Qatari vehicle. In addition, they had to partner with Qatari nationals and these Qatari partners had to hold at least 51% in the investment vehicle. While foreign could apply to increase their stake to up to 100% to the Minister of Commerce and Industry, such applications were very rarely granted. This foreign ownership restriction was partly lifted with the new Qatari Foreign Investment Law 1/2019 (FDI Law 2019) and their Executive Regulations, Resolution 44/2020 (Executive Regulations 2020). Since the introduction of the FDI Law foreigners may hold up to 100% of an investment made in Qatar through a private, Qatari company, in designated sectors. These include agriculture, certain industrial activities, health care, education, tourism, certain activities in the energy sector, mining,

The Qatar Ministry of Justice has published a draft decision outlining the conditions, procedures, and fees for registering and removing arbitrators from the official register. The decision establishes an electronic register managed by the competent department and sets eligibility criteria including legal capacity, academic qualifications, professional experience, and a clean criminal record. Applicants must submit supporting documents in Arabic or with certified translations, and the Minister is authorised to exempt certain requirements upon departmental recommendation. Applications are reviewed within a specified timeframe, and rejected applicants may submit grievances, with final decisions issued within 30 days.

A conversation with Nicolas Bremer, Partner, and Sarah Sheira, Associate, at regional law firm BREMER, on key issues regarding merger control in Qatar. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Qatari merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Qatar? Qatar was one of the first Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to enact a competition law in 2006. However, since then there has been little regulatory and enforcement activity. Notably, the competition authority contemplated in Law 19/2006 on the Protection of Competition and the Prevention of Monopolistic Practices (Competition Law 2006) as an authority reporting directly to the Minister of Commerce and Industry has not yet been established yet. Instead, antitrust matters—including merger control—remain within the authority of the Competition Protection Department (Authority)—a department under the Assistant Deputy Minister for Consumer Affairs, an interim measure that has now persisted for nearly 20 years. The Qatari merger control regime remains rudimentary compared to regional counterparts

Law360: Qatar National Bank can recover US$250m from Eritrea over an unpaid loan after a London judge ruled on 27 June 2019 that a widely anticipated appellate ruling on how to properly serve countries wouldn't apply to the case.

Process of analogical reasoning used by Islamic scholars where a new or unprecedented situation arises for which the scholars are unable to provide a definitive answer from the primary sources of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

A term referring to the bundling of the triple play services of broadband Internet access, video and fixed voice with mobile services.

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged by Qualcomm before the General Court in Case T- 235/18) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 January 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigations into Qualcomm, looking at abusive exclusivity payments in relation to baseband chipsets (Case AT.40220). Latest development On 24 January 2018, the Commission issued its infringement decision against Qualcomm, finding that it abused its dominant position by offering significant exclusivity payments to a key customer on the basis that it would not source supplies from competitors. The Commission imposed a fine of €997,439,000 on Qualcomm. Parties Qualcomm, a US based company headquartered in San Diego (California), designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services from 157 locations throughout the world. It is the world's largest supplier of baseband chipsets. Background On 16 July 2015, the Commission announced it had launched two formal investigations into Qualcomm. On 8 December 2015, the Commission issued

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 671/19 and C- 371/17 ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 July 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigations into Qualcomm, looking at alleged predatory pricing in relation to baseband chipsets (Case AT.39711). Latest development On 18 July 2019, the Commission issued its infringement decision against Qualcomm, finding that it abused its dominant position for engaging in predatory pricing by selling its baseband chipsets at below cost to two key customers with the aim of forcing a competitor (Icera) from the market. The Commission imposed a fine of €242m on Qualcomm. Parties Qualcomm, a US based company headquartered in San Diego (California), designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services from 157 locations throughout the world. It is the world's largest supplier of baseband chipsets. Background On 16 July 2015, the Commission announced it had launched two formal investigations into Qualcomm.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 January 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of NXP Semiconductors by Qualcomm (Case M.8306). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for semiconductors. Latest developments On 18 January 2018, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments. The commitments accepted include a range of behavioural remedies (see below for more details). Parties Qualcomm Incorporated is a US-based company headquarted in San Diego, Qualcomm is a world leader in 3G, 4G and next-generation wireless technologies and is a leading semiconductors company, which develops and supplies integrated circuits for mobile devices, notably cellular baseband chips. Qualcomm also licenses the rights to its intellectual property portfolio, including rights to patents which are essential to the implementation within wireless production of cellular communication standards. NXP Semiconductors N.V. (NXP) is Dutch-based company, headquartered in Eindhoven. NXP is a a leader in high-performance, mixed-signal semiconductor electronics. NXP is a leading semiconductor

A person is only entitled to copyright protection (or protection as a performer) where they qualify.

Definitions (General) Competent Authority • any authority having jurisdiction in relation to the Property, its occupation or use; Restricted Period • any period [exceeding [number] [continuous] weeks] during

The Practice Note is organized in the following sections: • Fundamentals of ESPPs • ESPP qualification requirements • Optional ESPP terms and design considerations • Tax treatment of ESPP awards • ESPPs and corporate transactions • ESPPs and securities laws Fundamentals of ESPPs An employee stock purchase plan (ESPP) that meets the requirements of section 423 of the US Internal Revenue Code (IRC) allows a sponsoring corporation to grant rights to purchase its stock (or stock of its related parent corporation or a related subsidiary corporation) at a price that is less than FMV to its employees and the employees of participating corporations. The rights to purchase the stock are sometimes referred to as stock options or purchase rights, and the terms and conditions upon which the purchase rights will be granted are sometimes referred to as an offering. In this Practice Note, these tax-qualified employee stock purchase plans are referred to simply as ESPPs, but note that not all employee stock purchase