Take-over bid meaning

In this issue: Investigating criminal conduct Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Sentencing Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Cybercrime and data protection offences Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Food safety and hygiene offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Investigating criminal conduct Whistleblowing in the UK—Still a long road ahead Rahman Ravelli’s legal director, Dr Angelika Hellweger, together with associate, Tatiana Novikova, examine how the UK handles whistleblowing. They map out the present UK statutory position and other relevant mechanisms, assess the scope of the safeguards they afford, and set these against the options open to whistleblowers in the United States of America. They also describe the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) whistleblower reward initiative announced near the end of 2025,...

Tribunal chair Andrew Lenon KC stated the claimants have a credible chance of showing that Apple’s alleged excessive commissions charged to UK-based app developers for transactions completed on non‑UK storefronts constituted conduct carried out in the UK. In January 2024, Apple sought to have the tribunal strike out the action, which is brought on behalf of more than 1,500 UK‑based app developers over purportedly unfair App Store fees. The company contended that the majority of developers lack a UK claim because most distribution charges arose from purchases made in other countries, relating to the placement and sale of apps. The tech giant’s legal team further submitted that the lawsuit, spearheaded by Norwich Business School professor Sean Ennis, attempts to impose English competition law on charges incurred overseas and on commerce taking place outside the UK...

Britain's top court has rejected efforts by a Russian bankruptcy trustee to overturn a decision that English courts cannot recognise a bankruptcy order. A five-judge panel unanimously dismissed Lyubov Kireeva's bid, brought in her capacity as a Russian bankruptcy trustee, to have English courts acknowledge the bankruptcy order made against Bedzhamov, the former owner of Vneshprombank LLC, which failed in 2016. The appeal turned on the 'immovables rule', an English law principle under which foreign tribunals lack authority over land situated in England, meaning only English courts and property rights law can govern real estate in the country. In a brief oral judgment at Britain's highest court, Justice David Richards concluded that every submission advanced by Kireeva's legal team was 'incompatible with the immovables rule'. At the 2023 hearing, her counsel had urged the court, in this matter, to relax the 'immovables rule' so that English courts could assist overseas insolvency processes and foster co-operation. Richards J, however, stated that any reform 'must be a matter for Parliament...

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...

This Practice Note explores the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) to seek court-ordered restitution under section 382 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). It further addresses the FCA’s ability to obtain a court restitution order for market abuse under section 383. It also reviews the administrative powers of the FCA, PRA and the Bank of England in relation to financial market infrastructures (FMIs) to compel restitution on their own initiative under section 384. The Note explains how these powers are used in practice, offers examples, and summarises relevant case law. It reflects updates to the FCA’s Enforcement Guide (ENFG), which replaced the former Enforcement Guide (EG) for investigations opened on or after 3 June 2025, and cross-refers to legacy guidance in EG 11 for earlier investigations. Unless otherwise stated, statutory references to sections are to FSMA 2000. Key points The FCA’s enforcement strategy prioritises delivering redress to consumers who have suffered loss; in 2024/2025...

This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Bank of England (BoE) to seek injunctive relief from the High Court under section 380 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). For the FCA in particular, it also covers injunctions addressing market abuse under section 381, including applications brought alongside requests for administrative sanctions under section 129. The Note additionally considers the FCA’s ability to obtain asset-freezing orders via sections 380 and 381 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, together with its power to pursue injunctions under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). It incorporates updates to the FCA’s Enforcement Guide (ENFG), which has replaced the previous Enforcement Guide (EG) for investigations opened on or after 3 June 2025, and cross-refers to relevant legacy guidance in EG 10 for earlier investigations. It explains how the FCA deploys these powers, offers examples and surveys pertinent case law. Unless stated otherwise, references to sections in...

Being invited to present gets us over the first obstacle, yet we should never assume success, even with a long-standing client. Inadequate preparation is the chief reason bids stumble at interview. Walking in without sufficient rehearsal courts failure, even for a strong team. This guide will help you get ready for a tender presentation, whether you’re leading the bid or contributing as part of the team. Logistics You have only one chance to deliver. Be absolutely clear about: where you need to be when you need to be there how you will get there what you must take with you The tender lead should issue a presentation checklist/plan. If they haven’t, chase it or volunteer to handle the arrangements and create the checklist/plan for the team. Unless advised otherwise, assume the dress code is business smart. Stay on top of the preparation timetable, key dates, deliverables and all logistics. The message Make sure you grasp the overarching...

Dynamic Purchasing Systems A Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) enables a contracting authority to acquire goods, services and works needed on a recurring basis without running a full public procurement exercise for every individual purchase. It provides a route to buy regularly required items efficiently while remaining compliant. A DPS is intended for sourcing common-use items that are widely available on the market and satisfy the contracting authority’s specifications. Further reading Practice Notes: Introduction to public contracts procurement and Introduction to framework agreements and dynamic purchasing systems Crown Commercial Service (CCS): Dynamic purchasing system guidance Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, any authority setting up a DPS must follow the rules specified and cross‑referred in PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 34. In keeping with all procedures under PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, contracting authorities should also adhere to the core procurement principles, treating all DPS participants equally and without discrimination, and acting in a transparent and proportionate manner...