header-logo header-logo

LNB NEWS: CLLS and Law Society respond to proposed changes to the definition of 'acting in concert' in the Takeover Code

04 October 2022
Categories: Legal News , Company , Commercial
printer mail-detail
A joint working party of the City of London Law Society and the Law Society of England and Wales Company Law Committees (the Joint Working Party) has published a response to the Takeover Panel (Panel) consultation, PCP 2022/2, which proposed various amendments to the definition of acting in concert in the Takeover Code (Code).

Lexis®Library update:  The Joint Working Party has broadly welcomed the proposals but has expressed some reservations regarding the changes relating to funds and consortia of funds. The Joint Working Party also suggested that the Panel provide guidance on how it would apply the new presumptions in relation to state-owned entities, joint ventures and private equity portfolio companies and the concepts of investment managers and investment advisers.

The Joint Working Party also raised concerns about the proposal that an investor in a limited partnership or an investment fund will be presumed to be acting in concert with the limited partnership or fund and suggested that the Panel should be prepared to rebut this presumption in the context of passive fund investors where the limited partners are explicitly restricted from involvement in the running of the business (or at least in circumstances where they are interested in 50% or less of the fund).

The closing date for the consultation was 23 September 2022 and the Panel is expected to publish a response statement setting out the final amendments to the Code in late 2022. For further details, see News Analysis: Takeover Panel consults on proposed changes to concert party definition.

The Joint Working Party response can be found here.

PCP 2022/2 can be found here.

Source: PCP 2022/2: Presumptions of the definition of “acting in concert” and related matters

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 3 October 2022 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

Categories: Legal News , Company , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll