Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant’s claim against a Thai-based crypto exchange was dismissed when he failed to establish that any of his misappropriated cryptocurrency had reached the relevant wallet ascribed to a customer of the exchange. The claims in unjust enrichment and for the imposition of a constructive trust on the exchange were dismissed in their entirety. The High Court concluded, for the first time following a contested trial, that the stablecoin, USD Tether, constituted property for the purposes of the law of England and Wales notwithstanding that it is neither a chose in action or a chose in possession. The court’s finding in this respect reflects prior decisions in respect of interim applications. The court also restated the position that separate regimes exist for tracing in equity and at common law. It remains the case that tracing through a mixed fund is only possible in support of equitable claims. Written by Darragh Connell and Eoin MacLachlan, barristers at Maitland Chambers.

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 19/25 ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the final decision of 31 October 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Teva concerning whether it abused its dominant position by engaging in practices intended to delay competition to its multiple sclerosis medicine, Copaxone (AT.40588) Latest development On 31 October 2024, the Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €462.6m on Teva. Parties Teva is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in Israel and operating through several subsidiaries in the EEA. Background Background The Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of a number of Teva subsidiaries

The European Commission has fined Teva €462.6m after it found that it abused its dominant position to delay competing products to its treatment for multiple sclerosis, Copaxone, entering the market. The pharmaceutical company artificially extended the patent protection for Copaxone by misusing the European Patent Office’s rules and procedures on divisional patents, and systematically spread misleading information about a competing and cheaper product’s safety, efficacy and therapeutic equivalence with Copaxone in order to hinder market entry and uptake. The Commission decided that Teva’s abuses were complementary and together amounted to a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 TFEU.

Law360, London: Europe's top court on 23 October 2025 upheld a fine of €60.5m imposed on Teva and its now-subsidiary Cephalon, ruling that the pay-for-delay settlement they signed restricted competition by keeping a cheaper generic version of a blockbuster narcolepsy treatment off the market.

See Texas shoot out.

Law360: A split Texas Supreme Court ruled 14 April 2023 that two oil and gas companies 'clearly and unmistakably' delegated their US$41m dispute over a well reopening to an arbitrator by having a contractual provision mentioning arbitration rules, despite only one company participating in the project.

A deadlock transfer provision which, unlike Russian roulette where one party responds to another party's first bid only, usually involves one party (A) offering to buy the other party’s (B’s) shares at a price specified by A. B is then entitled either to accept A's offer or to reject A's offer and state that it wishes to buy A's shares at a price higher than that specified by A. A and B then make sealed bids or enter into an auction, and the person who bids the highest is entitled to buy out the other. This procedure is subject to the same objections as Russian roulette but is also more open to exploitation, as a party who does not really want to buy out the other party could force the other party into paying a higher price than it initially offered.

The Texas shoot out (sometimes called a Mexican shoot out, Tex Mex shoot out or sealed bids) procedure may be started by either shareholder (or the shareholder which did not cause the deadlock) serving notice on the other shareholder, requiring both shareholders to submit sealed bids for the shares of the other shareholder within a specified timescale. The shareholders will be obliged to complete a share transfer on the terms of the bid with the highest price per share.

Transport for London (TfL) has reported strong support for pedicab regulation following its first consultation under the Pedicabs (London) Act 2024. The consultation found 75% of respondents felt unsafe using pedicabs, while 95% supported criminal background checks for drivers. TfL will conduct a second consultation later in 2025 on detailed policy proposals, including safety regulations and fare structures, with implementation planned for early 2026. The new powers will bring pedicabs under regulatory control for the first time in London.

Transport for London (TfL) has launched a consultation on proposals to extend the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead via Beckton Riverside. The consultation seeks views on the design of two new stations, construction plans, the transport of materials and the potential impacts on local communities and the environment. Feedback will be used to help develop the final scheme ahead of a planned Transport and Works Act 1992 Order application in early 2027. The consultation closes on 16 July 2026.

1. What is the applicable legislation? The main legislation applicable to foreign direct investment (FDI) is the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) (the FBA). The FBA governs business activities conducted by foreign individuals or entities. Under the FBA, a foreigner means: • an individual who is not of Thai nationality • a juristic entity that is not registered in Thailand • a juristic entity incorporated in Thailand with foreign ownership accounting for one-half or more of the total number of shares and/or registered capital, and • a limited partnership or ordinary registered partnership whose managing shareholder or manager is a foreign national The FBA specifies types of business activities that foreign individuals or foreign entities are restricted or prohibited from conducting in Thailand. These business activities are categorized into three lists under the FBA: • List 1: Businesses which foreign nationals are strictly prohibited from engaging in • List 2: Businesses which foreign nationals may engage in

1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Thai merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Thailand? The primary legislation governing merger control in Thailand is the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA), including ancillary implementing rules issued by the TCC. The key enforcement authority that regulates merger control in Thailand is the TCC. Certain industries are further governed by specific legislation, with further discussion found in Question 12 below. There have been a few developments in the merger control regime since it came into effect in December 2018. Up to November 2024, 12 transactions have required pre-merger filings with the Trade Competition Commission (TCC)—five of which were foreign-to-foreign transactions (please refer to Question 5 for further details). A key merger is between Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited and Esso (Thailand) Public