Hitachi meaning

Original news Interserve Construction Ltd v Hitachi Zosen Inova AG [2017] EWHC 2633 (TCC), [2017] All ER (D) 82 (Nov) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the outcome rested largely on the parties’ bespoke terms, the case underscores the need to examine termination provisions with care both when contracting and before attempting to terminate. It also indicates that, when interpreting the parties’ chosen wording, the court is unlikely to construe it in a manner that fails to give operative effect to expressions such as ‘subject to’. What was the background? Hitachi, the EPC contractor for an energy from waste plant in Worcestershire, engaged Interserve as sub‑contractor. Dissatisfied with Interserve’s performance and delay, Hitachi served a notice under sub‑clause 43.1 of the sub‑contract, invoking grounds (h) and (q). Those grounds provided that, if Hitachi failed to proceed regularly or diligently with the works or committed a material breach: ‘…then, subject to Sub‑Clause 43.1A and without prejudice to any other rights or remedies which’...

Mergers The Commission has received notifications in: APG Asset Management/Stonepeak/Eunetworks (M.11535) (simplified merger procedure) ZGC ENV/Deutz China/JV (M.11428) (simplified merger procedure) Cerberus/Velobank (M.11522) (simplified merger procedure) The Commission has issued the latest Competition Merger Brief (Issue 1/2024, May), presenting DG Competition staff analysis of its assessment and decisions in recent matters: Viasat/Inmarsat; Microsoft/Activision Blizzard; Hitachi Rail/Thales GTS; and Novozymes / Chr. Hansen—see further, Competition Merger Brief (Issue 1/2024, May) NOTE—For all live merger investigations before the Commission, see further, EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker Russia’s war against Ukraine The Commission has approved a €4bn French scheme to back measures cutting greenhouse gas emissions in manufacturing and to support the shift to a net‑zero economy, consistent with the Green Deal Industrial Plan—see further, press release Upcoming dates For dates of upcoming EU competition developments, see further, EU Competition calendar...

Engenda Group Ltd v Petroineos Manufacturing Scotland Ltd [2024] CSOH 36 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers a notable application of the Court of Appeal judgment in Sudlows v Global Switch—delivered only after the two adjudications had been determined—and, more generally, a reaffirmation of the principles governing serial adjudication. It illustrates the practical limits on re-running disputes across successive adjudications, even where later authorities might be relied upon. Most strikingly, the employer here, having failed to prove the scale of its unliquidated damages in the first reference, was not allowed to cure that deficiency in a second reference addressing a pay less notice for the identical sum by deploying expert material that had not been advanced previously. In short, what was not proved the first time could not be shored up the second time by drafting in experts after the event. On this issue, the court distinguished Hitachi v John Sisk, where the claimant was permitted to adjudicate again on entitlement...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision on 27 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel concerning alternators and starters for car engines (AT.40028). The cartel comprised bid and tender coordination, customer allocation and the exchange of commercially sensitive information. Latest development On 27 January 2016, the Commission announced that, following a settlement, it had issued an enforcement decision against Melco (Mitsubishi Electric), Hitachi and Denso, imposing combined fines totalling €137.789m...

CASE HUB (appeals lodged by Philips and Infineon at the General Court in Cases T-762/14 and T- 758/14) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 3 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s Article 101 TFEU inquiry into the smart card chips cartel (case reference COMP/39.574). Parties Infineon, a German-based company Philips, a Dutch-based company Samsung, a South Korean-based company Renesas, a Japanese-based company that at the time of the infringement was a joint venture between Hitachi and Mitshubishi...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 October 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the planned acquisition by Hitachi Rail, Ltd of Thales SA’s Ground Transportation Systems business. The deal creates horizontal overlaps in the provision of mainline rail signalling and urban signalling systems. Latest developments On 4 October 2023, the CMA published its final report, concluding the transaction would be expected to give rise to an SLC in the supply of digital mainline signalling systems (and associated services) in Great Britain. The parties are the two biggest suppliers in the market. The market is highly concentrated, with only two other principal competitors (Siemens and Alstom). There would be fewer credible bidders remaining for digital mainline signalling tenders. To address the SLC, the CMA decided the most appropriate remedy was for Hitachi Rail, Ltd to...