header-logo header-logo

16 April 2021
Categories: Legal News , Commercial , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

LNB news: Law Society comments on National Security and Investment Bill

The Law Society has commented on the National Security and Investment Bill (the Bill) in a Parliamentary Briefing
The Bill aims to give government powers to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions that may have implications for national security, particularly with regard to foreign investment. The Bill is currently in the report stage in the House of Lords. The Law Society has voiced its overall support for the Bill, but stressed the need for safeguards to avoid uncertainty and the creation of unnecessary burden on legitimate investment.

The Law Society made several recommendations for amending the Bill which serve to place limits on, and provide a framework for, the scope of government intervention. Among the many recommendations are:

• placing a definition of ‘national security’ for the purposes of the Bill

• shortening the timeframe within which the Secretary of State can make a call-in notice from five years to two

• placing more restrictive definitions on qualifying entities and assets for the purposes of the legislation

• tightening the scope of trigger events to avoid the capture of minority investors, and intra-group investments

• replacing the automatic voiding of notifiable acquisitions which have not followed procedural requirements, with a provision for voiding on the order of the Secretary of State

• urging the government to consult on how the review procedure for relevant transactions would take place, considering the quasi-judicial powers the Secretary of State would have in the matter, and the impracticality of appealing decisions to the High Court

To read the full list of recommendations, click here.

Source: Parliamentary briefing: National Security and Investment Bill – House of Lords report stage

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 15 April 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll