Pre-completion undertakings meaning

Use this checklist when representing the seller in the disposal of a registered freehold residential property, whether offered with vacant possession or burdened by a lease or multiple leases. It is not comprehensive and will not address every eventuality in every transaction. You should always consider if there are additional matters that require attention. It does not purport to be a complete guide for every case. Preliminary matters Have you taken instructions from the client? Robust due diligence and effective transaction management depend on a clear grasp of the seller’s objectives and the proposed sale terms. Obtain full instructions, and clarify any elements of your brief that are unclear or out of the ordinary. Consider whether further specialist input is required; for example, planning advice where completion is conditional upon planning permission being secured. The table below sets out some of the principal points on which instructions should be obtained at the outset. This list is not comprehensive, and you may need to request information about additional...

More than 150 jurisdictions operate merger control, or regimes akin to it. Within these systems, competition regulators may prohibit a deal entirely, or approve it subject to remedies, whether agreed or imposed. This Checklist sets out practical points to bear in mind when managing filing obligations across multiple jurisdictions. For overviews of merger control rules in every jurisdiction, see MJ merger grid—jurisdiction and MJ merger grid—procedure. For distilled takeaways, consult Key learning points from MJ reviews—anomalies, absurdities and potential pitfalls. It also flags issues commonly seen in practice. Guidance is provided in those resources. What transactions fall within merger control rules? Relevant transactions Across most regimes, including the EU, merger control captures any deal that places formerly independent undertakings under common control. Control is often defined broadly. Acquisitions of control—sole v joint control Control can rest with a single party, or be shared with one or more others: sole control: a shareholder that acquires control can take strategic decisions for the target without...

Key reading for lawyers attending s 2 interviews The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is empowered to compel interviews with persons thought to hold information pertinent to an investigation, by issuing a notice under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (section 2 interviews). For comprehensive guidance on this power and the practical issues it creates, refer to: Interviews under the Criminal Justice Act 1987, s 2 For additional resources relevant to attending interviews under caution and those conducted at the police station, see: Attendance at the police station—checklist Attendance at a corporate crime interview under caution—checklist As the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) does not apply to s 2 interviews, there is therefore no statutory right for an interviewee to have legal representation. It is consequently vital that criminal practitioners are familiar with the SFO guidance for lawyers: section 2 interviews...

Antitrust Court of Justice dismisses appeal relating to the calculation of the fine in the pre-stressing cartel case The Court of Justice has delivered its ruling in Case C-70/23, Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission, on an appeal brought against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-275/20. That judgment had rejected an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2010, as later amended on 30 September 2010, in the pre-steel cartel matter (AT.38344) (the Commission’s 2010 decision). In 2010, the Commission imposed fines on Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (WDI) and Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (WDV), holding WDI jointly and severally liable with WDV and Pampus, for their participation in a cartel covering the supply of pre-stressing steel. On 15 July 2015, the General Court dismissed an appeal against the Commission’s 2010 decision (the General Court’s 2015 judgment). While it considered that the Commission had erred in its assessment of arguments on ability to pay, the General Court, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, concluded...

In this issue: UK mergers UK private actions UK market investigations EU antitrust EU State aid Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Competition: a Lexis®Nexis community New and updated content Caselex UK mergers The CMA has issued its final positions following reviews of three sets of merger remedies and a single market investigation order: discharge undertakings in lieu of reference from August 2011 linked to Acergy SA’s acquisition of Subsea 7 Inc discharge undertakings in lieu of reference from August 2008 relating to Home Retail Group plc’s purchase of 27 leasehold properties from Focus (DIY) Ltd discharge undertakings dating from February 2002 by Lloyds TSB Group plc concerning its acquisition of Abbey National plc revoke the Energy Market Investigation (ECOES/DES) Order 2016 The CMA determined that, due to changes in circumstances, all of the relevant remedies are no longer suitable and should therefore be released (for the undertakings)...

In this issue: Budgets and Finance Bills Court of Protection UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information Budgets and Finance Bills Autumn Budget 2024 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, presented the government’s Autumn Budget on Wednesday, 30 October 2024. For analysis of the consultations and statements pertinent to Private Client practitioners, see News Analyses: Autumn Budget 2024—Private Client analysis and Video analysis—Autumn Budget 2024: initial reaction from Harriet Brown, barrister at Old Square Tax Chambers. For coverage of the corporate tax themes, see News Analyses: Autumn Budget 2024—Tax analysis and Video analysis—Autumn Budget 2024: initial reaction from John Endacott,...

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, confers extra protection on employees when a dismissal arises in the context of a transfer. EU‑sourced legislation, including much of TUPE 2006, enacted to give effect to the UK’s obligations under EU law (for example, Directive 2001/23/EC, the Acquired Rights Directive (ARD)), and still applicable in the UK at the end of the Brexit transition period/IP completion day, continues in force as assimilated law. For further information, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. Enhanced protection against dismissal An individual benefits from this enhanced protection only if they can pursue an unfair dismissal claim—meaning they must be an employee (see Practice Note: Employee status) with the required two years’ continuous employment. For further information, see Practice Note: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal...

The creation of the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) in 2013 The establishment of the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) in 2013 coincided with an overhaul of a component of the criminal cartel offence that prosecutors had to prove to convict directors and officers. When the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) commenced on 1 April 2014, the dishonesty element of the cartel offence was scrapped, marking a radical change to what prosecutors had previously been required to establish. Under the revised regime, an individual commits the offence by agreeing, with one or more persons, that two or more undertakings will take part in specified prohibited cartel arrangements (price-fixing, market-sharing, bid-rigging, or limiting output), regardless of dishonesty. Any such arrangements must have occurred in the UK to be caught. As explained further below, this shift is partly offset by new exceptions, covering notification of customers, publication of arrangements, and compliance with a legal requirement, as well as defences, including that the accused did not intend to conceal...

Service provision changes (SPCs) This Practice Note explores service provision changes (SPCs) under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, reg 3(1)(b), arising when activities are outsourced, brought back in-house, or a contractor or service provider is replaced. It explains the approach for cases where the relevant transfer under TUPE 2006 occurs on or after 31 January 2014, and addresses scenarios typically encountered in outsourcing, insourcing, or a change of provider. The Note also clarifies how SPCs operate in those contexts. For the pre-31 January 2014 position, refer to the government’s TUPE 2006 guidance (June 2009)—applicable only to transfers on or before 30 January 2014 and not updated in light of more recent case law—and to Practice Note: TUPE—the pre-January 2014 position [Archived]—Service provision changes. A switch in service provider can constitute a ‘service provision change’ within TUPE 2006, irrespective of whether it is also a ‘business transfer’. For further detail on business transfers, see Practice Note: TUPE—business transfers. Distinct from...

Board minutes—private M&A—share purchase—exchange—buyer Company no: [insert company number]. [insert company name] [Limited OR plc]. Board meeting at [insert place] on [insert date] at [insert time]. [insert name] chaired, confirmed due notice and quorum. Business: to consider and, if appropriate, approve documents and matters for the Company’s proposed purchase of the entire issued share capital of [insert target name] Limited from [insert seller name] [Limited OR PLC], subject to conditions, including any required shareholders’ approval. Directors declared interests per CA 2006 and the Articles; quorum and voting confirmed. Key documents tabled included the draft sale and purchase agreement, any loan note instrument, disclosure letter, stock transfer form(s), voting power of attorney, circular and proxy (if relevant), verification notes and responsibility documents, consents, irrevocable undertakings, announcement and ancillary papers. The board noted conditions precedent and long‑stop; consideration (cash, loan notes and/or consideration shares); warranties/indemnities with time limits, caps and thresholds, subject to disclosures; post‑completion non‑compete/non‑solicit; and key loan note terms (interest, redemption, guarantee/security, convertibility). RESOLVED...

[ On the Investor’s letterhead ] Strictly confidential and private To: The Shareholders of [ insert target name ] [ insert address ] ( Sellers ) From: [ insert Investor name ] of [ insert address ] in its role as manager of [ insert Fund names ] (respectively, Investor and Equity Investors ) Date: [ insert date ] Dear Sellers, Sale of [ insert name and registered number of company ] (Company) 1 We write in relation to the acquisition of the entire issued share capital of the Company by [ insert name of newco ] Limited ( Buyer ), under a sale and purchase agreement between the Sellers and the Buyer to be executed on the date of this letter ( SPA ). Unless stated otherwise, the terms used in this letter carry the meanings assigned to them in the SPA...

This Agreement is dated [ insert day and month ] 20[ insert year ] Parties [ insert name of selling corporate entity ], a company registered in [ England and Wales OR [ insert country of incorporation ] ], with number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Seller) [ insert name of purchasing corporate entity ], a company registered in [ England and Wales OR [ insert country of incorporation ] ], with number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Buyer) [ Insert name of guarantor entity ], incorporated in [ England and Wales OR [ insert country of incorporation ] ], with number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Guarantor) [ Each of the Seller, the Buyer and the Guarantor is a Party and, collectively, the Seller, the Buyer and the Guarantor are the Parties. ]...

For general guidance on demergers, see: Demergers—overview. You might wish to assess: whether the intended demerger constitutes (a) a business transfer or (b) a service provision change (SPC) under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations) 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 if so, the consequences of a relevant transfer under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246 for employees of Company A (ie would the transfer result in those employees moving to Company B, which will depend on the nature of the transfer) if the employee cannot establish the sought-after right under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, whether they can contend that they are in fact (and were pre-transfer) employed by Company B, despite, for example, holding a contract of employment with Company A Is there a business transfer under TUPE 2006?...