Contested bid meaning

In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Transferring property Property management Residential property Property development Property taxes Property in Scotland LexTalk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q&A Key developments and horizon scanning Renters’ Rights Act 2025 As previously reported, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA 2025) secured Royal Assent on 27 October. A small number of procedural measures took effect on 27 October 2025, while the remainder will commence by regulations on dates yet to be appointed. See: LNB News 04/11/2025 7. The Law Society has welcomed the RRA 2025, but emphasises that its success depends on government investment in the courts so they can manage the anticipated increase in contested hearings. See: LNB News 29/10/2025 34. Source: Renters’ Rights Act levels the playing field for tenants and landlords. Transferring property Proprietary estoppel — beneficial interest not established...

In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Latest Q&A Corporate insolvency processes Restraining the presentation of winding-up petitions (SKS Justa & Co Ltd v Justa Ltd) The dispute arose from the fall-out following the sale of an accountancy practice, with contention centred on whether, and to what extent, deferred consideration was payable. The respondent served statutory demands on the two buyers, who then put forward a flurry of disputes aimed at steering the quarrel away from the insolvency court and into a Part 7 claim. After a fiercely contested hearing on the applicants’ bid to restrain the respondent from presenting winding-up petitions, Deputy ICC Judge Arumugam took a common-sense approach to the objections and concluded that none constituted a genuine dispute on substantial grounds; indeed, even without conducting a mini-trial, he considered they...

In this issue: Public procurement Governance Social housing Children's social care Planning Environmental law and climate change Social care Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Public procurement An occupational hazard – a sub‑optimal outcome for a non‑compliant bidder (Working on Wellbeing Ltd (trading as Optima Health) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another) Optima Health (Optima) contested the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) exclusion of its bid from a mini‑competition on the basis that it failed to comply with a requirement not to exceed framework price ceilings (the Decision). Mr Justice Freedman, sitting in the English High Court, dismissed the challenge, holding that the Decision was lawful in the circumstances. Authored by Andrew Dean, head of UK Procurement and Public Law, and Hafsah Akhtar, trainee solicitor, at Clifford Chance. See News Analysis: An occupational hazard – a sub‑optimal outcome for a non‑compliant bidder (Working on Wellbeing Ltd...

Dealing in shares and related interests Trading in shares and associated interests of the offeree and of any offeror or would-be offeror, whether ahead of or during an offer, can carry material weight in a public takeover, as each side looks to secure tactical or strategic leverage by building up (or divesting) positions over time if feasible. This is often most acute in contested bids, or where the offeror seeks the offeree board’s endorsement of the transaction in particular. Any securities dealings connected to a takeover bid, before, during, or after the offer period, may fall under legal and regulatory constraints that can restrict or bar such activity in whole or in part. These rules on trading in shares and related interests are extensive and intricate. Prospective offerors should familiarise themselves, well in advance of approaching a potential offeree, with the distinct yet overlapping regulatory regimes that underpin these constraints. Moreover, transactions in shares and other securities of parties to an offer may trigger disclosure under several separate legal...

As a rule, arrangements whose purpose or consequence is to restrict, distort or impede competition are barred by Article 101(1) TFEU. Agreements with an anti-competitive object are treated as particularly high risk and are presumed to harm markets; owing to their gravity, there is no requirement to demonstrate an actual adverse impact on competition. The concept of an agreement’s object has long been one of the most contested issues in competition law, supported by extensive case law reaching back to 1966. Historically, the test for identifying an anti-competitive object was read broadly, capturing many agreements even where it appeared the parties had no such intention. This expansive approach reflected the pre-2004 regime, under which only the European Commission (the Commission) could apply the exemption in Article 101(3) TFEU. Consequently, Article 101(1) TFEU and the object test existed primarily to indicate when the Commission had jurisdiction. Judicial decisions evolved to clarify that jurisdictional point and to provide a simple test to apply...