header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
01 September 2023 / Miguel Vaz , Ben Groden
Issue: 8038 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Regulatory , Company , Financial services litigation , EU , Commercial , International
printer mail-detail

Foreign investment rules: following the money

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
135267
The EU’s rules on foreign investment are changing: Miguel Vaz & Ben Groden set out the practical steps companies must now take to comply
  • Earlier this year, the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) came into force.
  • The FSR imposes certain notification requirements on EU and non-EU businesses receiving third-country subsidies while operating within the EU.
  • This articles reviews who the FSR applies to and what companies should do practically when faced with these changes.

On 12 January 2023, the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) came into force. The aim of the FSR is to combat distortions of competition within the internal market caused by foreign investment. The FSR Implementing Regulation, adopted on 10 July 2023, provides guidance on the procedural aspects of the FSR, filing requirements, and investigation timelines.

Under previous rules, subsidies granted by non-EU governments were not reviewed, whereas those granted by member states were heavily scrutinised. This created an uneven playing field within the internal market.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll