The Global Legal Post

Simmons & Simmons adds senior Linklaters real estate partner and team in Brussels

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-11-02UTC01:05+00:00

Yves Moreau, Linklaters' former global head of real estate, joins with four associates

XGS Energy appoints former Calpine GC as chief legal officer

Corporate Counsel — 2026-11-02UTC12:24+00:00

Experienced energy market lawyer Katherine Piper joins XGS’s expanding executive leadership team

‘It does require individuals to just get stuck in’: UCLH GC Jamie Henderson on legal work in the NHS

Corporate Counsel — 2026-11-02UTC11:24+00:00

Jamie Henderson talks about her role as University College London Hospital’s first GC and her shift from working in pensions law to joining the NHS

Most global companies lack proactive strategies to tackle emerging crises – study

Corporate Counsel — 2026-11-01UTC05:01+00:00

Only 17% of companies have an approach for identifying and addressing emerging threats

Harvey acquires AI-powered sales assistant platform Aida

Legaltech — 2026-10-30UTC05:28+00:00

Harvey’s fifth acquisition this year will help improve law firms’ knowledge management through AI

Stephenson Harwood acquires DLA Piper’s Bangkok office

Law Firm Office Launches — 2026-10-30UTC03:56+00:00

Office transfer – said to be the first of its kind in the Thai market – adds more than 40 team members, including four partners

Gibson Dunn set to hire 40-strong Weil funds team in London

US — 2026-10-30UTC02:37+00:00

Eight-partner London team prepares to move as Weil staff look for new roles ahead of firm’s planned closure

Live by the lateral, die by the lateral: How Weil was pulled apart by Big Law’s star culture

Commentary — 2026-10-30UTC12:22+00:00

Scott Gibson examines how the rise of highly paid private capital rainmakers has eroded partnership cohesion at elite law firms, leaving even the most profitable vulnerable to collapse

Kirkland, Cravath advise on Thrive Holdings’ $15.3bn take-private of home security business ADT

Deals — 2026-10-29UTC04:35+00:00

Kirkland guides Thrive on the transaction, while Cravath counsels ADT

Former US antitrust head Jonathan Kanter launches AI legaltech start-up

Artificial Intelligence — 2026-10-29UTC04:17+00:00

Kanter teams up with former deputy Doha Mekki to co-found litigation platform backed by $6.4m in seed funding

Lloyds, Mondelez, Societe Generale legal heads sign up to UK In House Pro Bono Pledge

Corporate Counsel — 2026-10-29UTC08:56+00:00

Number of signatories grows to 25 as demand for free legal advice continues to grow

US nickel refiner Westwin Elements hires ex-USA Rare Earth GC as first CLO

Corporate Counsel — 2026-10-29UTC08:29+00:00

David Kronenfeld brings extensive critical minerals legal expertise to the newly created role

Good governance isn’t caution – it’s confidence

Commentary — 2026-10-29UTC08:17+00:00

Bridgestone’s legal and compliance director for Africa and the Middle East, Scarlate Masiye, explains why good governance depends on culture as much as on controls

‘One delay can push back the whole deal timetable’ – How Europe’s lawyers are keeping cross-border deals on track as regulatory demands mount

Generative AI Legal Research Hub — 2026-10-29UTC01:29+00:00

Global Legal Post report in association with LexisNexis highlights opportunity for AI to reduce manual coordination and better manage cross-border M&A and competition work

Weil partnership set to vote on closure plan

News — 2026-10-28UTC11:02+00:00

Management committee recommends ‘orderly wind-down’ of 1,200-lawyer US firm

Latham and Harvey agree partnership to develop AI tools for investment fund formation

News — 2026-10-28UTC05:03+00:00

Collaboration will combine firm’s investment funds practice with Harvey’s product team to build AI capabilities for fund arrangements

Simpson Thacher raids White & Case and Kirkland for four Chicago partners

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-10-28UTC03:39+00:00

Partners practising across M&A, restructuring and executive compensation bring Simpson Thacher’s Chicago partner count to 12 two months after office launch

Former Fiji Airways and Flybe CEO joins Clyde & Co

US — 2026-10-28UTC10:40+00:00

Double partner hire sees Dave Pflieger join the firm in the US while Tannie Kwong joins in Hong Kong from Cathay Pacific

Weil regulatory partner duo decamp to Skadden in New York and DC

News — 2026-10-28UTC10:40+00:00

Andrew Dean and Christopher Mulligan latest partners to jump ship as Weil explores options for its future amid an exodus of senior talent

Clio acquires Canadian AI-powered regulatory horizon scanning platform Page

News — 2026-10-28UTC08:27+00:00

Clio says deal will help its users monitor developing government legislation and prepare for regulatory change

McDermott Will & Schulte sees partner promotions fall by more than half in latest round

Law Firm Partner Promotions — 2026-10-28UTC07:18+00:00

Firm promotes 36 to partnership, down from 74 a year ago

US private insurance broker Lockton promotes deputy to CLO role

Corporate Counsel — 2026-10-27UTC04:06+00:00

Sara Romine will succeed Trey Humphrey, who is stepping aside after 26 years

Law Society of Singapore fills seven council seats following contested election

Legal Services Regulation and Representation — 2026-10-27UTC03:03+00:00

Drew & Napier chairman Jimmy Yim SC and Legis Point founder Samuel Chacko among successful candidates

Wilson Sonsini, Freshfields land key roles in Anthropic IPO

News — 2026-10-27UTC02:44+00:00

Wilson Sonsini acts for Anthropic as Freshfields guides underwriters, with Orrick, Cleary and Cravath also involved

IP and the enduring value of India’s luxury Ayurveda market

Commentary — 2026-10-27UTC11:00+00:00

Remfry & Sagar’s Bisman Kaur discusses India’s luxury Ayurvedic traditions, IP ownership and how brands can create, protect and scale valuable assets

NAV lending for family offices: a lender’s view of structure, collateral and cross-border friction

Commentary — 2026-10-27UTC09:00+00:00

Alex Branton, chief investment officer of Nodem Capital, discusses why family offices and private market funds are looking to NAV loans to turn long-term private markets investments into liquidity without selling those assets

NautaDutilh launches in-house legaltech development platform Bluefield

Legaltech — 2026-10-27UTC08:19+00:00

Lawyers and software engineers will team up on the initiative, which is led by new partner hire Elgar Weijtmans

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader links up with Cambridge University for senior leadership programme

Law Firm Leadership and Strategy — 2026-10-27UTC06:11+00:00

Initiative is aimed at developing the firm’s next generation of leaders

Honigman debuts in Boston with Womble Bond patent trio

Law Firm Office Launches — 2026-10-26UTC05:08+00:00

Detroit-founded firm hones in on life sciences work as it opens ninth US office

Former Rouse managing director co-launches AI-powered trademark protection platform Patentir

Legaltech — 2026-10-26UTC04:34+00:00

Patentir’s AI tech is designed to help businesses with trademark guidance, prosecution and management

Weil’s incoming leader pulls out of role amid partner departures

News — 2026-10-26UTC04:00+00:00

Ramona Nee was due to become Weil’s executive partner in January but has told the firm she will not take the role and has held talks with other firms, according to the Financial Times

Bermuda arbitration centre partners with Toronto’s Arbitration Place ahead of launch

Arbitration — 2026-10-26UTC07:00+00:00

Partnership will help strengthen Bermuda’s position as a ‘sophisticated, accessible and globally connected’ dispute resolution hub

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader announces ‘next phase’ of AI strategy

Artificial Intelligence — 2026-10-25UTC12:04+00:00

Newly merged law firm creates specialist AI board and signs agreements with rival start-ups Harvey and Legora

Four London lawyers make the grade in Latham partner promotions round

Law Firm Partner Promotions — 2026-10-23UTC02:58+00:00

Private equity and M&A duo made up alongside tax and banking lawyers as part of 36-strong global cohort

AI shopping assistant Minty hires former MeldCX CLO as next legal chief

Corporate Counsel — 2026-10-23UTC11:49+00:00

Barbara Sinsley joins as chief legal and privacy officer, a role she previously held at MeldCX

Authentic Brands hires Fox M&A lawyer as CLO

Corporate Counsel — 2026-10-23UTC07:39+00:00

Clément Smadja replaces Jay Dubiner, who is stepping down after more than a decade in the role

How the war in Ukraine has created a new field of legal practice

Commentary — 2026-10-23UTC06:33+00:00

Daniel Bilak, managing partner of Kinstellar’s Kyiv office, considers the legal specialism emerging from Ukraine’s front line

Economic pressures, US tariffs push Canadian businesses to make workforce changes – study

Corporate Counsel — 2026-10-23UTC05:40+00:00

Littler survey shows 77% of Canadian employers have made at least one change due to economic challenges

Weil launches two-summer AI programme for law students

News — 2026-10-22UTC04:07+00:00

Select cohort of students to work with in-house team to develop AI capabilities from 2027

Economic experts and instructing lawyers before the CAT – the path ahead

Commentary — 2026-10-22UTC12:08+00:00

As the Competition Appeal Tribunal intensifies its scrutiny of economic evidence, Cornerstone Research’s Liam Colley emphasises the importance of experts and instructing lawyers having a relationship that welcomes challenge and puts analytical rigour at the heart of the case

Raft of firms guide Qiagen’s $10.8bn take-private acquisition by Sweden’s EQT

Deals — 2026-10-22UTC10:28+00:00

De Brauw, Linklaters and Davis Polk guide Dutch molecular testing firm as Milbank takes the lead for Sweden’s EQT and Clifford Chance and Freshfields counsel co-investors

‘Understanding FDI controls is no longer a specialist concern’: GLP launches foreign direct investment guide

Comparative Guides — 2026-10-22UTC09:07+00:00

Guide, edited by Cooley partner Caroline Hobson, examines the growing complexity of foreign investment screening regimes worldwide

Womble Bond Dickinson launches new hub for developing proprietary AI tools

Artificial Intelligence — 2026-10-22UTC06:50+00:00

Womble AI Labs’ in-house team will focus on creating legal AI to automate repetitive tasks

Bar associations unite to defend international justice after US sanctions against ICC

News — 2026-10-22UTC06:11+00:00

Eight leading international and regional bar associations urged governments to protect international courts and judicial independence

American Quarter Horse Association fills vacant GC seat with veteran Texas lawyer

Corporate Counsel — 2026-10-22UTC04:53+00:00

Jeffrey Hill replaces Chad Pierce, who left the organisation earlier in the year to rejoin Texas law firm Underwood

Legora raises $550m at $8.8bn valuation in latest funding round

Artificial Intelligence — 2026-10-21UTC03:20+00:00

Swedish legal AI startup’s valuation rockets by more than $3bn in just seven months as it says US is now its largest market by revenue

TerraLex appoints former Norton Rose Fulbright collaboration chief as CEO

News — 2026-10-21UTC03:05+00:00

Darryl Cross succeeds Terri Pepper, who is stepping down after more than a decade at the international law firm network

Privilege, privacy and discoverability in agentic AI environments

Partner Content — 2026-10-21UTC12:34+00:00

The growing use of AI tools in legal practice is creating new challenges around confidentiality, consent and data retention, writes iManage’s Kelly V. Carter

Fox Corporation lines up deputy GC as replacement for outgoing legal chief

Corporate Counsel — 2026-10-21UTC11:31+00:00

Nicholas Trutanich will succeed Adam Ciongoli, who is stepping down after three years as chief legal and policy officer

Blank Rome adds two-partner commodities, finance team in New York from Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

News — 2026-10-21UTC10:40+00:00

Partners Christopher Doyle and Marvin Goldstein join with two senior counsels in hire Blank Rome said boosted its offering in energy work

Law Over Borders Comparative Guides:Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide

2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign direct investment controls have become one of the defining regulatory challenges for cross-border transactions. As governments expand investment screening regimes in response to national security, economic resilience and technological competition, navigating these rules is now an essential part of deal execution. This practical guide brings together expert analysis from leading practitioners across multiple jurisdictions.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Editor’s Introduction

Cooley — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Belgium - Market Insights

Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck Kirkpatrick — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: European Union - Market Insights

POELLATH — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Germany - Market Insights

BLOMSTEIN — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Romania - Market Insights

Schoenherr — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Sweden - Market Insights

Advokatfirman Delphi — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: United Kingdom - Market Insights

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Austria

Binder Grösswang — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Austria established a very basic foreign direct investment (FDI) regime in 2011, consisting essentially of one single section in the Foreign Trade Act (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz (AußWG)). This regime had a narrow scope, listed only very few critical sectors and did not cover asset deals or indirect investments.

As a reaction to Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union (“EU FDI Screening Regulation”), the Austrian legislator adopted the Austrian Investment Control Act (Investitionskontrollgesetz (ICA)). The competent authority administering the proceedings under the ICA is the Austrian Federal Minister for Economy, Energy and Tourism (Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Energie und Tourismus (BMWET)).

The ICA entered into force on 25 July 2020 and introduced a fully fledged mechanism for the screening of FDI, expanding the scope of the AußWG regime considerably:

Asset deals and indirect acquisitions are now caught.
The ICA contains a long list of critical sectors with very broad categories.
In relation to certain sectors considered highly critical, the relevant voting rights threshold is reduced from 25% to 10%.
There is no explicit exemption for internal restructurings. They may therefore be caught by the ICA.

The combination of an expanded scope and the BMWET’s broad reading significantly increased the number of FDI procedures in Austria.

While only approximately three FDI procedures were carried out per annum under the old AußWG regime, the BMWET has carried out approximately 90 FDI procedures annually since the introduction of the ICA.

From FDI procedures for which official data by the BMWET is available, the following trends can be identified:

The top origin countries of foreign investors are the US, the UK and Canada. China only accounts for approximately three FDI screening procedures per annum.
The top targeted sectors are information technology, health, and energy.
Most transactions are cleared in Phase 1. Only around 13% of procedures underwent an in-depth investigation (Phase 2), of which approximately 59% were cleared without remedies and approximately 49% were cleared with remedies.
The BMWET issued one prohibition decision.

The long list of critical sectors with broad categories and the BMWET’s extensive interpretation mean that a vast number of investments come within the ambit of the ICA. However, the effect of the FDI regime on the Austrian investment landscape is difficult to assess, given that a number of other factors play into the equation, such as the economic slowdown, geopolitical tensions, protectionist tendencies, diversification of supply chains, tighter financing conditions, and market uncertainties.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Belgium

Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck Kirkpatrick — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

The Belgian Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) screening mechanism entered into force on 1 July 2023 and strives at striking the right balance between openness for foreign investment on the one hand and the protection of national security, public order and strategic interests on the other hand. The current main focus of the review process is on dialogue, and blocking of foreign investments will only intervene in very exceptional cases (none to date).

Since the entry into force of the regime until 30 June 2025 (most recent public data available), 168 transactions have been notified, including 10 Phase II cases, three of which resulted in conditional Phase II clearance decisions. The notified investments primarily concerned sectors such as personal data and sensitive information, digital infrastructure, energy, healthcare, and dual-use products, while the most frequent investors’ origins have been the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and China.

Over the past year, a clear uptick in enforcement emerged to the extent that the Interfederal Screening Commission (ISC) has engaged in increasingly monitoring investment by reaching out to investors to seek explanations for the absence of a prior notification and subsequently calling in transactions.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Canada

Blake, Cassels & Graydon — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

The Investment Canada Act (ICA) has undergone a series of significant changes over the past five years in line with a greater focus on national security review processes, in addition to the historical focus on Canadian national security and ensuring large investments are of net benefit to Canada. Most notable amongst the recent changes are:

the introduction of a new voluntary filing regime for minority investments or other non-notifiable investments;
the expansion of the ability of the Canadian government to implement interim and final remedies to address national security concerns; and
impending amendments to introduce a new mandatory and suspensory pre-closing filing requirement for investments in sensitive sectors.

Once in force, the mandatory pre-closing filing obligation will apply to all investments, including minority investments, in certain prescribed sectors where investors will have board appointment rights and access to non-public technical information. Although not yet published, the prescribed business sectors are likely to include the sectors identified in the Guidelines on the National Security Review of Investments available at www.ised-isde.canada.ca/site/investment-canada-act/en/investment-canada-act/guidelines/guidelines-national-security-review-investments.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Czech Republic

Schoenherr — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

The Czech Republic has historically maintained an open stance towards foreign direct investment (FDI). Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2019/452, the Czech Republic introduced Act No. 34/2021 Coll. on Foreign Investment Screening (“FDI Act”), which entered into force on 1 May 2021. The regime balances openness to foreign capital with the protection of national security and public order, adopting a focused approach that targets investments into defined sensitive sectors. The Czech FDI screening regime reflects broader European and global trends in response to heightened awareness of national security risks associated with foreign investment, particularly in critical infrastructure, dual-use technologies, defence-related activities and sectors with potential cyber vulnerabilities.

The legislative changes that took effect in 2025 represent a significant evolution. These changes materially expand the regime’s scope through cross-references to the Critical Infrastructure Act (No. 266/2025 Coll.) and the Cybersecurity Act (No. 264/2025 Coll., transposing the NIS2 Directive). The new Critical Infrastructure Act redefines critical infrastructure at the operator level, meaning entire companies operating critical infrastructure are now designated as critical infrastructure subjects. The new Cybersecurity Act substantially broadens the range of services and providers subject to enhanced cybersecurity obligations, extending coverage to energy, transport, digital infrastructure, financial services, health, water, selected industrial sectors, chemicals, waste management, mechanical engineering, food production, research, defence and the space industry. It is estimated that the 2025 reform brought hundreds of Czech-based entities within the mandatory filing perimeter.

Enforcement practice has been characterised by a lenient and pragmatic approach. A large majority of notified cases is cleared unconditionally. In 2024, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (the “Ministry”) for the first time prohibited an investment concerning a ground satellite service facility owned by a Chinese-owned entity on the basis of suspicion from espionage activities. The case reflects the vigilance of the Czech Government more than any change in the open approach to foreign investments, as the facts of the case were a clear outlier justifying the rare prohibition.

The regime is specific in having two limbs — voluntary and mandatory ones. Mandatory filings are less frequent than voluntary submissions, usually in single-digits cases per year. At the end of 2025, the Ministry has implemented an electronic module (EFDIS) for optional but preferred online submission and administration of cases.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Denmark

Accura Law Firm — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

The Danish FDI regime is regulated by the Danish Investment Screening Act (Investeringsscreeningsloven) (the DISA), which entered into force on 1 July 2021 in light of the increased international focus on foreign direct investment control. The DISA applies to all foreign direct investments and special financial agreements completed or concluded on or after 1 September 2021. The DISA has subsequently been amended in 2023 and 2024.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Finland

Hannes Snellman — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

The Finnish Screening Act enables the government to screen and, if key national interests so require, to restrict the transfer of influence to foreign nationals, organisations, and foundations in enterprises that are subject to monitoring. The general attitude towards foreign direct investments in Finland is positive. No acquisitions have yet been formally prohibited as a result of an FDI filing process. There has, however, been a significant increase in the average number of cases during the past few years.

The Screening Act is undergoing reassessment in the light of the changed security situation. The government is reforming the Screening Act to take better account of risks to national security, security of supply, and widespread influence. The current Screening Act replaced an act from 1993, which was focused on the defence sector, and only gave the possibility to intervene in large transactions in other sectors. The changes back in 2012, when the current Screening Act was adopted, reflected changes in the structures and systems of the society’s operating environment, especially regarding technology and networks.

Entities subject to screening under the current legislation are enterprises in the defence and security sectors as well as in sectors considered critical in the vital functions of society. FDI notifications are filed to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, which is the Finnish FDI authority. If the acquisition could endanger a key national interest, the Ministry shall refer the matter to a government plenary session for consideration. The government may only refuse to confirm a corporate acquisition if it is necessary due to a key national interest.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: France

August Debouzy — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

France has a well-established foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regime, rooted in provisions of the Code monétaire et financier (Monetary and Financial Code (CMF)) dating back several decades. The regime has undergone significant expansion and strengthening over the last 10 years.

Key drivers behind the tightening of French FDI controls include national security concerns, particularly in the defence and dual-use technology sectors, as well as economic sovereignty considerations heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing geopolitical tensions. The French government has continuously expanded the list of sensitive sectors subject to screening, recently adding activities related to food security, media and the extraction of critical raw materials. New technologies such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, semiconductors, quantum technologies, and energy storage have also recently been included in the list of activities deemed sensitive.

The French government is well aware that the French economy needs capital inflows and therefore foreign investors. At the same time, preserving national sovereignty has become an increasingly important concern given the current geopolitical environment, not only in the field of defence but also from an economic and energy perspective. To strike a balance between maintaining the attractiveness of the French economy and safeguarding national sovereignty, the French government has adopted an approach that consists of rejecting only a very limited number of applications for authorisation under the foreign investment screening regime, while making more than half of the approvals subject to conditions imposed on foreign investors. France holds the European record for authorisations granted subject to conditions.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Germany

BLOMSTEIN — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Over the last 10 years, the FDI landscape in Germany has significantly changed and keeps on evolving. Geopolitical tensions, supply‑chain vulnerabilities and concerns about technological sovereignty have driven a substantial tightening of Germany’s FDI regime. The rise of strategic competition, particularly with China, has led to heightened scrutiny of acquisitions involving defence, critical technologies, infrastructure, and other critical sectors prone to aspects of national security. The COVID‑19 pandemic also did its part, prompting Germany to expand its list of sensitive sectors and lower thresholds for mandatory filings.

Current investment patterns reflect these shifts. Germany continues to attract investment in information and communication technologies, health and biotechnology, energy, as well as the automotive and machine sector. At the same time, the government has become more alert to transactions that could compromise national security or EU strategic interests.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Hungary

Schoenherr — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Hungary currently operates two parallel foreign direct investment (FDI) screening mechanisms. The first regime entered into force on 1 January 2019. The second regime was introduced during the COVID-19 state of emergency and is currently planned to lose effect on 31 December 2026.

The main strategic considerations behind the first regime are national interests and national security, aimed at protecting sensitive industrial sectors from foreign investments with dubious backgrounds such as money laundering or terrorist financing. The second regime’s main goal is to protect Hungarian companies active in “strategic” sectors from foreign acquisitions, where the Minister of Economy and Energy assesses strategic economic factors and may prohibit transactions conducted by entities held by foreign states, considering national interests, security of supply and public order.

If a transaction or investment falls within the scope of both regimes, the foreign investor must submit two separate applications for approval and comply with the rules of both regimes in parallel.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Ireland

Matheson — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Ireland has built a global reputation as a leading destination for foreign direct investment (FDI). Ireland’s status is evidenced by the long-standing presence of multinational companies across a variety of sectors including technology, life sciences, financial services and manufacturing. Recent results from IDA Ireland (Ireland’s Foreign Direct Investment Agency) in 2025 show continued growth in both the number and scale of investment projects. Ireland, as a proven and stable location with a future-focused skills base, strong education system, and ongoing investment in infrastructure and digital connectivity remain key drivers of its competitiveness.

Against this background, the idea of introducing an FDI screening regime came about following the enactment of EU Regulation 2019/452. While it was acknowledged that Regulation 2019/452 did not require Member States to introduce an inward investment screening mechanism, in recognition of the need to protect Ireland’s security and public order from potentially hostile investments, the Screening of Third Country Transactions Act 2023 (“Act”) was eventually enacted on 31 October 2023 to put in place Ireland’s FDI screening regime — or the “Irish Inward Investment Screening mechanism”, as it is termed — and which came into force (i.e. commenced) on 6 January 2025.

At the same time, as regards Ireland’s enforcement approach under the new regime in light of the country’s long-standing open FDI environment, the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment’s (“Department”) guidance published in December 2024 (“FDI Guidance”) and prior to the commencement of the new mechanism states as follows: “…while acknowledging the necessity to respond to the threats posed, foreign investment remains key to Ireland’s economic growth and development. It is anticipated that only a small number of investments, mergers or transactions might pose a risk to our security and public order and so, the investment screening mechanism must be proportionate and tailored to these risks, without undermining Ireland’s attractiveness to inward FDI more generally.”

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Italy

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Italy introduced its foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regime in 2012, building on the “golden share” framework of the 1990s (hence the expression “golden power” commonly used to refer to the Italian FDI regime), with a view to addressing the issues of compatibility with the EU treaties identified by the EU Commission and Court of Justice. Italy was among the first EU Member States to establish such a mechanism, predating the EU FDI Regulation (see Question 1).

The 2012 regime introduced the government’s ability to screen and intervene in certain investments across two main categories of sectors: (i) defence and national security, where the regime applies to investors of any nationality, including Italian and EU investors; and (ii) energy, transport and communications, where the regime was initially focused on investments by non-EEA investors. Its scope has progressively expanded to cover investments (including by EEA investors) in several sectors, including healthcare, agri-food, financial services, other energy assets, and digital infrastructures, based on the EU FDI Regulation.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Netherlands

Loyens & Loeff — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International trade, free capital flows and foreign direct investments (FDI) have historically been key pillars of the Dutch economy. The Netherlands is positioned as an open and attractive jurisdiction for inbound investment, supported by its strategic geographic location, highly developed infrastructure, stable legal system and strong international orientation.

While this openness remains a defining feature, the Dutch approach to foreign investment has evolved in response to a rapidly changing geopolitical and national security landscape. Globalisation, digitalisation and the growing strategic importance of advanced technologies have increasingly linked investment activity to issues of national security. These developments, reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic and heightened geopolitical tensions, have prompted greater attention to the potential risks associated with certain foreign investments.

Against this background, the Netherlands has adopted a more structured and risk-based approach to FDI, aimed at safeguarding national security while preserving an attractive investment climate. These developments resulted in the introduction of the Investments, Mergers and Acquisitions Security Screening Act (Wet veiligheidstoets investeringen, fusies en overnames; “Vifo Act”), which entered into force in June 2023. The Vifo Act established a general screening mechanism, operating alongside existing sector-specific foreign investment screening regimes (including telecommunications and energy). Where a sector-specific national-security screening regime applies, it takes precedence over the Vifo Act. Importantly, the Vifo Act applies not only to transactions taking place after its entry into force but also has retroactive effect for certain transactions completed between 8 September 2020 and 1 June 2023.

Enforcement practice under the Dutch FDI regime demonstrates a risk-based and proportionate approach. While notification volumes and substantive reviews have increased, most transactions continue to be cleared without conditions and within relatively efficient timeframes, with prohibitions and formal remedies remaining exceptional. Overall, the Netherlands remains firmly open to foreign investment but does so with greater strategic awareness and a more explicit integration of geopolitical and security considerations into investment review.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Romania

Filip & Company — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Since the entry into force of the foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regime in Romania, in April 2022, the mechanism has been shaped by an increasingly complex geopolitical context, interest in safeguarding national security and public order, as well as by a broad regulatory intention to scrutinise a wider range of transactions.

Initially, the regime applied exclusively to FDI and greenfield investments performed by non-EU investors. Subsequent amendments expanded its scope to encompass investments performed by EU investors, including Romanian investors, thereby establishing uniform triggering conditions and procedural treatment for all investors, regardless of their origin.

In addition to the above, the acceleration of the renewable energy sector, in particular the solar and wind projects, together with increased activity in industrial sectors, has further contributed to the growing volume of cases subject to FDI screening. This increasing trend is also reflected in the statistics: the number of cases screened has doubled annually, with 31 authorisation decisions (which were issued only with respect to investments performed by non-EU investors) issued in 2022, rising to 105 authorisation decisions (from 259 completed screening examinations) in 2023, and subsequently to 159 authorisation decisions (from 471 completed screening examinations) in 2024. In 2025, the total number of screening examinations exceeded 500.

Beyond these factors, the sustained increase in the number of screened cases may also be attributed to the relatively low materiality threshold and the absence of both pre-notification procedures and detailed guidance on the types of operations falling within each relevant sector, which trigger the notification obligation.

Recent legislative amendments clarified that asset acquisition in certain sensitive sectors falls under the scope of the FDI screening regime, increased the materiality threshold and shortened the review timeframe, providing more clarity and predictability. While these legislative amendments are welcome and represent a good starting point, issuance of further guidance on the relevant national security areas, coupled with streamlined response processes (including pre-notification procedures), particularly for EU investments, would yield dual benefits: affording investors greater legal certainty regarding their screening obligations, whilst enabling authorities to concentrate their resources on transactions presenting genuinely sensitive elements.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Spain

Pérez-Llorca — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Spain introduced its general FDI screening mechanism in 2020 in order to protect Spanish corporations from potential threats posed by foreign investors during the COVID-19 crisis. The regime is broad and largely based on one article in Act 19/2003, of 4 July, on the legal regime governing capital movements and economic transactions with foreign countries and on certain measures to prevent money laundering (“Spanish FDI Act”). It covers acquisitions of: minority shareholdings of 10%; Spanish companies and assets with activities in “sectors”; and acquisitions by certain investors, independently of the activities of the target. In 2023 Royal Decree 571/2023 of 4 July, on foreign investments (“Implementing Regulation”) entered into force bringing some helpful clarifications as to how to apply the broad regime in practice.

In line with the statistics published by the authority, since the introduction of the system in 2020 until 2025, the Spanish FDI authority has received 674 formal authorisation requests of which only two were prohibited (approximately 0.3%). A total of 46 were authorised subject to conditions (approximately 6.82%).

In 2025 there were two interesting developments: the number of conditions almost doubled from eight to 14, an increase from 6% to 8%; and the authority is keen to issue decisions of no jurisdiction; that is, declaring transactions, many of which fall within the literality of the Spanish FDI Act, not subject to the need for formal authorisation. This tendency has been developing over the last few years. In 2023, nine transactions (9% of all formally notified transactions) received a decision of no jurisdiction; in 2024, this number increased to 42 (31% of all formally notified transactions) and further increased in 2025 to 51 transactions (28%). This means that since the enactment of the regime approximately 17.66% of all formally notified transactions received a decision of no jurisdiction. A total of 413 transactions (approximately 61.28%) were formally authorised without conditions.

The numbers above reflect that the system has evolved from a broad crisis-driven system to a more targeted risk-based system over recent years due to the practice of the authority. If these trends continue, we are likely to see more no-jurisdiction decisions but also more conditions. Being formally caught by the system does not necessarily result in substantive risk. The practice of the authority has been evolving in order to distinguish between the transactions that warrant scrutiny and transactions that are formally caught by the regime.

In addition to this general regime under which most transactions are caught, Spain operates two separate specific regimes for defence transactions and explosives. The defence regime is applicable to investments in “activities directly related to national defence” under Article 18 of the Implementing Regulation. The regime for explosives covers investments in “activities related to the manufacture, trade or distribution of weapons, cartridges, pyrotechnic articles and explosives for civilian use, or other material used by the State Security Forces and Bodies” (Article 19, Implementing Regulation).

All three regimes derive from Article 7 of the Spanish FDI Act and the Implementing Regulation. A single transaction may trigger parallel filing obligations under multiple regimes, each of which applies its own notifiability thresholds and is overseen by a separate reviewing authority. This guide will focus on the general regime.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Sweden

Cederquist Law Firm — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Prior to joining the European Union in 1995, Sweden had a foreign direct investment (FDI) regime in place. Following accession to the European Union, this legislation was abolished. On 1 December 2023, a comprehensive foreign direct investment regime entered into force, the Act on Screening of Foreign Direct Investments (the “FDI Act”). Prior to this date, the only other way to review transactions from a national security perspective was if the transfer rules under the Protective Security Act were applicable. Those rules are only applicable in relation to direct changes of ownership in a company or assets that carry out security-sensitive activities. For obvious reasons, very few transactions are notified under these rules.

In 2023, Sweden decided to adopt a universal regime that covers a wide variety of sectors and business activities and that also does not discriminate on origin of the investor. Swedish, EU, and foreign investors are all subject to the same notification obligation criteria.

This universal regime has led to an overload of notifications. In 2024, the first full year of the FDI Act, 1,263 notifications were filed. In 2025, the total number of notifications increased by almost 60% and the authority received just under 2,000 notifications. On 15 July 2026, the scope of covered activities was further expanded.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Switzerland

Bär & Karrer — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Switzerland adopted a targeted FDI regime on 19 December 2025. Its scope is limited to acquisitions of control over Swiss entities active in critical sectors by foreign-state investors. The Investment Screening Act (ISA) and its implementing ordinance is expected to enter into force mid-2027.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Taiwan

Lee and Li — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Foreign investments in Taiwan can be divided into foreign investments and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) investments. The Statute for Investment by Foreign Nationals (SIFN), last amended on 19 November 1997, is the governing statute for the review of foreign investments (including transactions) in Taiwan. Investors from PRC are subject to more restrictions than other foreign investors. The main laws and regulations with regard to PRC investments are the Act Governing Relations between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, and the Measures on Investment Permits for People of the Mainland Area (MIPPM). While the Taiwanese Government has actively sought to attract foreign investment through various initiatives, there has been a growing trend towards increased scrutiny and regulation of foreign direct investment in Taiwan. This shift is largely motivated by concerns over national security, geographic sensitivity, economic sovereignty, and the potential for foreign influence in critical industries. The Department of Investment Review, Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEADIR), has placed particular emphasis on evaluating whether foreign investors have connections to the PRC, as such ties subject investments to the regulations specified in the MIPPM.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: Türkiye

ACTECON — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Türkiye’s modern foreign direct investment (FDI) framework is generally traced to the post‑2001 reform period and the EU‑accession-driven legislative alignment of the early 2000s, culminating in the adoption of the Foreign Direct Investment Law No. 4875 (the “FDI Law”). That law replaced the former permit-based regime with a notification and equal-treatment approach, formally embedding the principles of freedom to invest and protection against expropriation (subject to public interest and due process) and facilitating the establishment of companies with foreign capital under Turkish law.

Türkiye has historically captured substantial FDI in manufacturing (e.g. automotive, appliances, textiles and chemicals), financial services, energy, logistics and real estate, with periodic surges linked to large privatisations and M&A. FDI inflows accelerated in the mid‑2000s, supported by privatisations, financial-sector deepening, and Türkiye’s role as a large domestic market integrated with Europe through the EU–Türkiye Customs Union. Over the past decade, inflows have been more cyclical, but Türkiye continues to attract investment due to its scale, industrial capacity, and location as a manufacturing and logistics hub bridging Europe, MENA and Central Asia.

More recently, investor focus has tilted toward export-linked manufacturing, renewables, infrastructure, and selected technology verticals, often structured through joint ventures, minority protections, and robust dispute-resolution provisions. Current trends are shaped by:

supply-chain reconfiguration and near-/friend-shoring into proximate manufacturing bases serving EU demand;
currency depreciation improving cost competitiveness for export-oriented operations (while increasing hedging and repatriation considerations); and
a continued policy emphasis on export capacity, localisation and strategic industries.

A notable driver is the shift toward green and digital investment: renewables and grid/energy infrastructure have remained prominent as Türkiye expands non‑fossil generation and aligns exporters with emerging carbon requirements in key markets. In parallel, e‑commerce, fintech/payment services, cloud/data infrastructure and defence-adjacent technologies have drawn interest.

The Türkiye Foreign Direct Investment Strategy (2024–2028) was crafted in response to pressing global trends, such as the restructuring of value chains, rising protectionism, macroeconomic uncertainties, climate change, and the increasing emphasis on regional industrial policies. The strategy aims to increase Türkiye’s share in FDI flows to 1.5% in global and to 12 % in Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa regions by 2028.

Key targeted investments in the strategy include Climate FDI, Digital FDI, Global Value Chain (GVC) related FDI, Knowledge Intensive FDI, High-quality Job Generating FDI, High-end Service FDI, High-quality Financial FDI, and Regional Development Oriented FDI. To promote sustainable development, the strategy will implement policies to boost renewable energy investments and enhance the use of environmentally friendly technologies. It also focuses on strengthening digital infrastructure to create an attractive environment for international investors, thereby facilitating Türkiye’s transition towards a climate-friendly and digitally advanced economy.

On foreign investment controls, Türkiye does not operate a single, CFIUS-style cross‑sector “national security screening” mechanism as a general rule. Instead, foreign investment is primarily governed through sectoral licensing/approvals (e.g. banking, insurance, capital markets, energy, aviation/transport and media) and competition/merger control enforced by the Turkish Competition Authority.

Real estate acquisitions are also an area where foreign persons and foreign-controlled structures must consider location-based and statutory restrictions and administrative practices. Overall, the Turkish regime is broadly open on entry, but transaction certainty often turns on sector regulator engagement, competition clearance strategy, and geopolitical/compliance risk management.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: United Kingdom

Cooley — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

The United Kingdom Government’s introduction of investment regulation occurred in 2021, shortly after the UK left the European Union. The National Security and Investment Act represented a significant overhaul in the UK’s national security regime and responded to the recognition that the UK needed more sophisticated powers to respond to fast-changing national security risks.

The regime is broader than that in other comparable jurisdictions and is one of the few regimes that capture purely domestic transactions. As a result, a significant number of transactions are required to be notified, the vast majority of which are low risk, pose no national security threat and are cleared. Whilst the numbers still remain very small, more recently the UK Government has become more interventionist and with the challenges of the geopolitical landscape not easing, it is expected that this trend will continue.

Foreign Direct Investment Law Guide: United States

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

The US government balances an open policy toward foreign investment with protecting US national security. Foreign investment reviews are conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency committee of the US government led by the US Department of the Treasury. CFIUS has authority to review transactions that result in a foreign person obtaining “control” (defined below) over a US business or certain non-controlling rights over certain types of more sensitive “TID US businesses,” which are US businesses engaged in certain activities involving critical technology, critical infrastructure, and sensitive personal data. CFIUS also has jurisdiction to review transactions involving real estate located near certain military installations.

As described below, certain transactions can trigger a mandatory filing obligation. Even when not mandatory, transaction parties often file voluntarily with CFIUS when the transaction raises indicia of national security issues such that CFIUS would be interested in reviewing the transaction.

Law Over Borders Comparative Guides:International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide

2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

As fraud and asset recovery disputes increasingly span multiple jurisdictions, a clear understanding of the legal tools available across borders is essential. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the principal legal and procedural frameworks across 23 jurisdictions, complemented by expert commentary on recent developments and emerging trends.

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Editors’ Introduction

WongPartnership — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Cayman Islands - Market Insights

Kroll — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: England and Wales - Market Insights

McDermott Will & Schulte — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: France - Market Insights

Forensic Risk Alliance — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Greece - Market Insights

Karydas – Fouskarinis & Associates — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Ireland - Market Insights

McCann FitzGerald — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Italy - Market Insights

ArbLit — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Singapore - Market Insights

WongPartnership — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Thailand - Market Insights

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: United States - Market Insights

Chaffetz Lindsey — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Austria

DORDA — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: British Virgin Islands

Walkers — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Canada

Dentons Canada — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Cayman Islands

Kroll — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: China

Zhong Lun — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Cyprus

Georgiades & Pelides — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: England and Wales

McDermott Will & Schulte — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Greece

Karydas – Fouskarinis & Associates — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: India

AZB & Partners — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Ireland

William Fry — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Italy

ArbLit — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Philippines

ACCRALAW — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Poland

KW Kruk and Partners Law Firm — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Portugal

Avillez Castro - Legal — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Romania

Peligrad Law — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Serbia

ŠunjkaLaw — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Singapore

WongPartnership — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Spain

Ius + Aequitas Trial Lawyers — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Switzerland

Ardentěr Law — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: United States

Baker & Hostetler — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

International Fraud & Asset Tracing Law Guide: Vietnam

YKVN — 2026-11-02UTC04:00+00:00

Vietnam is a civil law jurisdiction whose approach to fraud and asset recovery reflects the structural characteristics common to Pandectist-influenced civilian systems: a codified framework of property rights and obligations, strong institutional reliance on criminal proceedings as the primary engine of effective asset recovery, and an absence of the parallel equitable doctrinal architecture that defines fraud recovery in common law jurisdictions. Practitioners approaching this guide from a common law background will find that the Civil Code 2015, while offering recognisable causes of action (tort liability, contract rescission, unjust enrichment, and ownership claims), does not supply the remedial tools they are used to. There is no constructive trust doctrine, no equitable tracing through mixed funds, no Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, and no civil confiscation regime (without a prior criminal conviction).

IBA Daily News, Thursday 8 October 2026

2026-10-08UTC07:29+00:00

Ukraine urges action on Claims Commission and Russian assets

IBA Daily News, Wednesday 7 October 2026

2026-10-07UTC07:29+00:00

‘Democracy is going backwards,’ warns former UK foreign secretary Lord William Hague

IBA Daily News, Tuesday 6 October 2026

2026-10-06UTC07:29+00:00

Former Danish PM urges Europe to step up on security and warns against weakening NATO

IBA Daily News, Monday 5 October 2026

2026-10-05UTC06:56+00:00

Denmark welcomes the IBA as Greenland takes centre stage at opening ceremony

IBA Daily News, Thursday 6 November 2025

2025-11-06UTC11:10+00:00

Global institutions push back on Trump’s rule of law assault