1. What is the applicable legislation? Uruguay does not have a general foreign investment screening regime. In this regard, Uruguayan authorities encourage all investments, without discrimination between local and foreign investors. Notwithstanding, there are certain sectors that require prior authorisation (or sector-specific licences) in order to operate. Furthermore, Uruguay has some specific rules applicable in certain sectors, focused on knowing who owns the capital invested and, in some cases, requiring investors to operate through a local entity that will be subject to Uruguayan regulations. Some of the sectors which require prior authorisation include the Uruguayan financial system, environmental permitting, mobile telecommunications services and long-distance telecommunications services. In this regard, outside the scope of the traditional State monopolies, there does not seem to be any support for the idea that certain strategic sectors should be owned exclusively by Uruguayan capital. Uruguayan legislation has established a legal framework for promoting investments in various fields and activities. Law No 16,906 of 1998 (Investments Law) declares of national interest the promotion

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Uruguay and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Uruguayan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Uruguay? Recent reforms to the Uruguayan merger control regime From 2021 onwards, several laws were enacted in Uruguay, particularly Act No. 20,075, Act No. 20,212, and Act No. 20,446 (Reforms), amending Act No. 18,159 on the Promotion and Defense of Competition 15/2007 (Competition Act 2007), as previously amended by Act No. 19,833 and Act No. 19,996. These amendments introduced substantial changes to Uruguay’s merger control regime, including: (i) modifications to the review timeframes applicable to the Enforcement Body; (ii) clarification of when the statutory review period begins to run; (iii) the introduction of additional extension periods for complex cases; and (iv) the establishment of a dual-threshold notification system based on both combined and individual turnover. In addition, the Reforms introduced a statutory definition of ‘control’, expanded

A usage of trade is a well‑established practice or rule in a particular industry that helps interpret commercial contracts, imply terms, or resolve ambiguities between parties operating in that trade. It is not a single statutory definition, but is recognised in case law and referenced in sale of goods legislation (for example, Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.55(2) in England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; Sale of Goods Act 1893 (as amended) in Ireland), which permits usage to negative or vary terms implied by law if the usage binds both parties.Key features are that the usage must be notorious (widely known in the trade), certain and reasonable; it cannot contradict express terms or mandatory legislation. It is proved by evidence of consistent industry practice and will typically bind parties who participate in, or are taken to know, the relevant market. Usage of trade is distinct from a course of dealing (which concerns the parties’ prior dealings) and from purely local custom.Across the UK and Ireland the approach is broadly consistent. Trade usage cannot override consumer protections (e.g. Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the UK; Consumer Rights Act 2022 in Ireland). Parties can exclude or refine usage by clear drafting.

means distribute, disclose, store, use, analyse, copy, reproduce, extract, modify, or adapt in whole or in part.

MLex: Millions of pounds taken from Barclays over its financial crime failings by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should be used to compensate investors in the stricken WealthTek fund, UK lawmakers have urged the financial markets minister.

The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 puts uses of land and buildings into categories known as 'use classes' and ‘sui generis’ uses (in a class of their own).

IP analysis: From 1 January 2026, use in the EU will no longer be relevant for UK comparable trade marks. Therefore, businesses that benefitted from the automatic creation of a comparable trade mark based on their registered EU trade mark must now ensure its use within the UK to avoid the risk of revocation. Written by Jessica Gregson, associate, at Stevens & Bolton.

Corporate Crime analysis: Dr Angelika Hellweger, legal director at Rahman Ravelli, considers how artificial intelligence (AI) is being used in the criminal justice system, explains the key factors to consider when using AI during the investigation & prosecution of criminal offences and offers her predictions as to how the criminal justice system will need to adapt for the use of AI in the future.

IP analysis: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being explored by patent offices worldwide as a means of improving efficiency, consistency, and search quality. For patent applicants and attorneys, understanding how these tools are used, and just as importantly how they are not used, is essential. This article considers the current position at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). All three offices stress the continued importance of human judgment emphasising that patent examiners, and indeed applicants, must critically assess any outputs generated by AI-assisted tools. This review, by Anton Baker of D Young & Co, gives examples of current tools being developed and used by the offices.

Property analysis: How effective are the enforcement provisions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) in the context of planning? Simon Stannion, partner at Shakespeares, comments on the use and limitations of these provisions.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimants and the defendants were parties to a number of agreements for the provision of services by the claimants. The agreements variously included jurisdiction clauses in favour of the English courts and an arbitration clause providing for LCIA arbitration in London. The claimants terminated the agreements against the defendants for reasons relating to sanctions or the dissemination of harmful material. The defendants brought proceedings before the Arbitrazh Court in Moscow seeking reinstatement of the services and the imposition of penalties for non-compliance. The Arbitrazh Court found in favour of the defendants (as did subsequent appeal courts), imposing compounding penalties of an unprecedented level. Having first commenced enforcement proceedings against Google Russia (now in liquidation), from late 2023 the defendants commenced enforcement proceedings in a number of other jurisdictions. In response, the claimants applied to the English court for anti-enforcement injunctions (AEI) and anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASI), to prevent recognition and enforcement of the Russian judgments in any jurisdiction outside Russia. The court granted the relief sought. Written by Camilla Macpherson.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Through this judgment, the court sanctioned a proposed restructuring plan (the ‘Plan’) under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) relating to Sino-Ocean Group Holding Ltd (the ‘Plan Company’) despite (a) the Plan not being approved by over 75% in value of those voting at the meetings of two out of the four classes of creditors and (b) one of the dissenting creditors, Long Corridor Asset Management Ltd (‘Long Corridor’) appearing at the sanction hearing to oppose the Plan. The court sanctioned the Plan on the basis that: None of the members of the dissenting classes of creditors would be any worse off than they would in the event of the relevant alternative, which would be the Plan Company’s liquidation (thereby satisfying Condition A under CA 2006, s 901G (‘Condition A’)); the Plan was agreed by >75% in value of each of Classes A and C (ie two out of the four classes of creditors) (thereby satisfying Condition B under CA 2006, s 901G (‘Condition B’)); there was no need to convene a meeting of the shareholders as a separate class to vote on the Plan; and the facts and circumstances of the case favoured the court’s discretion to implement a cross-class cramdown under CA 2006, s 901F. Written by Promit Chatterjee, barrister at Maitland.