Foreign Direct Investment Regulation

Introduction

On Thursday 8 May 2025, the EU took another important step towards revamping its framework to screen foreign investment, with the European Parliament adopting an amended version of the bill (the “EP Bill”, available here). That vote has now cleared the way for the next step in the legislative process: the tri-partite negotiations between the European Commission, the Council of the EU, and the European Parliament (aka “trilogue”) to arrive to a final text that will become law.

The EP Bill endorses the Commission proposal[1] that sought to bring more harmonisation/oversight over Member States, but also goes further and makes several ambitious additions to the Commission proposal in particular, the EP Bill would: (i) give new decision-making powers to the Commission in an area where such powers previously have squarely rested in the hands of the EU Member States, (ii) expand the list and scope of sectors in which foreign investments could undergo screening, and (iii) require reporting and screening of greenfield investments above a certain amount in many sectors.

This post explains these key proposed changes for non-EU investors and sets out how we see the prospects of these changes surviving the remainder of the legislative process.

What key changes has the Parliament made to the European Commission’s Proposal?

1. New decision-making powers for the Commission

By way of context, the existing EU foreign investment screening regulation (“Current FIR Regulation”) establishes a complex mechanism requiring a Member State authority screening a given foreign investment into its country to notify it to the Commission and the other Member States.[2]  The screening Member State authority must then take “due consideration” of any comments from the Commission or other Member States, but it remains the ultimate decision maker.[3]Continue Reading EP Approves Draft FDI Regulation Giving Extensive Powers to EC

The UK Parliament has passed emergency legislation to enable the government to direct the use of assets of British Steel, and to take control of assets if directions are not followed.

The government’s stated intention is “continuing the support of steel production in the UK [which] involves preserving current production capacity to ensure resilience in the production of steel”. The new law creates new powers for the government to intervene in relation to steelmaking businesses whose assets are at risk of ceasing to be used. If the operation of a steelmaking blast furnace, such as those operated by British Steel, is stopped, restarting its operation can be prohibitively expensive and it may be permanently unusable.

Following negotiations with its current owners (the Chinese steelmaker Jingye Group) on the future of British Steel, the government announced on Friday its intention to recall Parliament the following day to introduce a draft bill and complete the full legislative process within a single day. The bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received royal asset on Saturday 12 April, coming into force on the same day, as the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 (the “Act”).

This is the first time that Parliament has responded to a perceived crisis in a UK industry by extending the government’s powers to intervene in specific industries for “public interest” reasons since 2008, in the context of the Global Financial Crisis. In that case, Parliament passed legislation to enable the government to nationalise the Northern Rock bank (and subsequently other banks), and later that year the government’s public interest intervention powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 were expanded in order to allow the government to override competition concerns in the Lloyds/HBOS merger. In contrast to previous measures that provide the government with powers to acquire businesses and to intervene in potential mergers and acquisitions between businesses, the new Act applies outside of the context of a transaction or takeover. Specifically, the new Act applies where specific assets may cease (or have ceased) to be used in a steel manufacturing business but the government considers that it is in the public interest that the use of the assets should continue.

New powers to give directions on use of assets and take control of assets

The Act gives the government the power to issue a notice to a steel manufacturing business to direct how assets (in England and Wales) used by this business are to be used. This power is available when (a) it appears to the government that the assets concerned have ceased to be used or are at risk of ceasing to be used by the business, and (b) where the government considers that it is in the public interest that the use of specified assets should resume or continue. Directions can include requirements to use (or not to use) the assets in a specified way, or requirements for the undertaking to take (or not to take) steps to secure the continued and safe use of the assets. Notably this can include requirements to enter into agreements and contracts of employment, the appointment of officers, management decisions, making payments, and preventing insolvency proceedings.Continue Reading UK passes emergency legislation to authorize “public interest” directions on use of British Steel assets

Barely noticed in the firehose stream of presidential activity since the inauguration was a brief Oval Office mention of cutting a deal with Ukraine for access to its critical minerals. Securing steady access to uranium, the rare earth elements, and other critical minerals is a natural priority for an America First agenda, so President Trump’s February 3 statement is unlikely to be his last. Changes to the tax code, permitting reform, regulatory incentives, and partnerships with allies as well as troubled nations are among the actions to watch for.

A Bipartisan Issue

Leaders of both parties agree that action is needed. “Whether it’s critical minerals with China … or uranium from Russia, we can’t be dependent on them,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Bergum asserted in his confirmation hearing. “We’ve got the resources here. We need to develop them.” Virginia Senator Mark Warner (D, VA) recently charged, “China dominates the critical mineral industry and is actively working to ensure that the U.S. does not catch up.” He urged, “The U.S. must, alongside allies, take meaningful steps to protect and expand our production and procurement of these critical minerals.” President Biden’s State Department was even more blunt, asserting that China is intentionally oversupplying lithium to “lower the price until competition disappears.”

Several recent developments have increased U.S. policymakers’ concerns about future supplies of critical minerals. New technologies, including artificial intelligence, promise to dramatically boost demand. China, meanwhile, is using new export control laws to curtail exports to the United States. A resurgent war in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), ostensibly over tribal rivalries, is actually a fight over the country’s rich mineral resources. These include gold and diamonds, but also coltan, an ore from which tantalum is extracted. Tantalum is extremely valuable for its use in the capacitors found in smartphones, laptops, and medical equipment.

The number of minerals in question (51), the usual number of steps in the production chain (4), and the variety of international agreements, public laws, private initiatives, and emerging technologies add up to a dizzyingly complex set of issues. Nevertheless, the bipartisan alignment evident in the above statements signals that impacted industries should watch closely for fast-moving legislative and regulatory developments.

Market Overview

Critical minerals are essential for a long list of industrial and defense-related needs. Attention is often focused on the 17 ‘rare earth elements,’ (REEs) but the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broader list of 50 mineral commodities that are critical to the nation’s economy and national security. Uranium is excluded by a statutory definition but is often tracked in parallel. Together, these 51 elements are used for a far wider array of products than is often recognized. The 17 REEs alone are also needed for oil refining, guided missiles, radar arrays, MRI machines, computer chips, hydrogen electrolysis, lasers, aluminum manufacturing, cameras, jet engines, satellite manufacturing, and a long list of other advanced applications.Continue Reading What President Trump Might Do on Critical Minerals

On 24 January 2024, the European Commission (the “Commission”) published its European Economic Security Package (the “EESP”), which included the long-awaited proposal to reform the EU Regulation which established a framework for Foreign Direct Investment screening (the “EU FDI Regulation”). The EESP’s proposed regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) is one of the EESP’s five initiatives to implement the European Security Strategy (published in June 2023) – for an overview of the EESP, see our Global Policy Watch blog.

The Proposed Regulation seeks to improve the legal framework for foreign investment screening in the European Union and builds upon feedback that the Commission received during its public consultation in 2023. If adopted as proposed, it will significantly change the landscape of foreign investment screening regimes across the EU (for a full report of the public consultation see here).

This blog highlights the key changes under the proposed reform and analyses their impact on global deal making. We also provide an outlook on the next steps for the proposals.

Key takeaways and comment

  • Extended scope to include indirect foreign investments through EU subsidiaries and greenfield investments.
  • Minimum standards and greater harmonisation across the EU.
  • Introduction of call-in powers to review all transactions for at least 15 months after completion.
  • Coordinated submission of foreign investment filings in multi-country transactions.
  • Focus cooperation between Member States and the Commission on cases more likely to be sensitive.
  • More prescriptive guidance on substantive assessments and remedies, including a formal obligation for national screening authorities to prohibit or impose conditions on transactions they conclude are likely to negatively affect security or public order in one or more Member States.
  • Increased reporting, while protecting confidential information.

Continue Reading Draft EU Screening Regulation – a new chapter for screening foreign direct investments in the EU

In previous blogs, we have written about the EU-China relationship and how the EU was increasingly focused on delivering its policy of Strategic Autonomy. We are beginning to see the concrete implementation of this strategic intent, with the EU Commission approving a €902 million German State aid measure to support the construction of an electric vehicle battery production plant.  As Margrethe Vestager, EVP for Competition Policy noted, this is the first individual aid to have been approved under the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework since March 2023 and its approval will keep the battery plant in the EU, rather than it moving to the US.

And the EU is planning to take further measures to enhance and protect its economic security in pursuit of the goal of strategic autonomy. On December 10, the Commission unveiled its Agenda outlining for items to be addressed in early 2024. Of note is the European Economic Security Package (EESP), due for discussion on 24 January.

It had been planned to adopt the EESP by the end of 2023.  However, its adoption faced delays due to Member States’ concerns about ceding authority to Brussels in an area traditionally reserved for national competence. For its part, the Commission argues that a “Europeanization” of the EU trade rules was required to ensure consistency across the bloc following decisions by various Member States to issue their own trade measures (for example, on export controls).

Although full details of the EESP have not yet been released, key components of the EESP will include a revision of the Foreign Direct Investment Screening Regulation and an initiative regulating outbound investments. The Agenda for 24 January also includes a non-binding Communication restricting export of dual-use items.Continue Reading The European Economic Security Package

May 23, 2023, Covington Alert

The U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), in its capacity as chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or the “Committee”), recently posted two new frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) to CFIUS’s website that have important implications for parties planning transactions subject to the Committee’s jurisdiction.

First, CFIUS confirmed its recent practice of requiring detailed information on all direct or indirect foreign ownership involved in a transaction, including disclosure of all limited partners (or “LPs”) of an investment fund, without regard to any pre-existing agreements between the fund sponsor and investor regarding disclosure.

Second, CFIUS offered guidance regarding the meaning of “completion date” for purposes of when a mandatory filing must be submitted for a multi-stage transaction. The guidance could have broad implications, especially for some venture financing transactions, as it introduces uncertainty regarding the ability of investors to use a staged transaction to acquire an initial, passive equity interest prior to submitting a mandatory CFIUS filing with respect to a subsequent acquisition of control or certain non-passive rights. The new guidance seems at odds with language that appears in the preamble to the regulations implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (“FIRRMA”), and the practice of transaction parties for the last several years. CFIUS did not provide any explanation for this change, which raises questions as to why the Committee has issued the guidance now.

Each of these developments is discussed in more detail below.

1. CFIUS may require detailed information regarding all foreign persons involved directly or indirectly in a transaction, including limited partners in an investment fund.

Treasury published the following FAQ on May 11:

Does CFIUS require information on all foreign persons, such as limited partners in an investment fund, that would hold an interest in a U.S. business, whether directly or indirectly, as part of the transaction?Continue Reading CFIUS Issues Guidance On Disclosure of Information About Limited Partner Investors and Application of Mandatory Filing Rules to Multi-stage Transactions

On October 26, 2022, the German government permitted (with conditions) an investment by Chinese state-owned COSCO Shipping Group (“COSCO”) in one of Hamburg’s four shipping container terminals. Pursuant to foreign direct investment (“FDI”) laws, the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz, “BMWK”) had been notified of the proposed acquisition by COSCO of a 35% minority interest in the port terminal, a strategic location on the German coastline. The BMWK ordered that COSCO’s acquisition of voting rights must remain below 25%. The details of the decision remain confidential, but the BMWK justified its partial prohibition on the grounds that the acquisition of 35% as notified would constitute a “threat to public order and security”. According to the BMWK’s press release, the partial prohibition decision prevents COSCO from acquiring a ‘strategic’ shareholding, and reduces the acquisition to a mere financial participation. As a safeguard in this respect, the decision contains provisions prohibiting COSCO from acquiring any additional influence, for example, through a grant of rights that would be atypical for a holder of a less than 25% interest. Furthermore, under the German FDI regime, any follow-on acquisition of additional voting rights by COSCO would be subject to a new notification requirement.

Facts and Background

According to public sources, the transaction has been highly debated within and outside Germany since the announcement of the transaction in September 2021. Parties closely related to the commercial development of the Hamburg port (including the selling Hamburg port operator, the current mayor of the city of Hamburg, and the trade union) favoured an unconditional approval pointing to the economic significance of the investment. But a number of stakeholders, including apparently the European Commission, which provided an opinion within the framework of the EU FDI Regulation, would have preferred an outright prohibition of the transaction.Continue Reading COSCO FDI Review: Germany partially prohibits Chinese investment in a Hamburg container terminal – Spotlight on minority investments

Over the summer, the UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) delivered the first decisions, in the form of final orders, under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (“NSIA”).  We consider these decisions and other cases in the context of the first nine months of the UK’s new (quasi) Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) regime.

Key takeaways:

  • The NSIA has broad reach, and BEIS has shown willingness to exercise the powers to review transactions that can stretch beyond mergers and acquisitions, for example, to licensing agreements.
  • NSIA review involves the weighing of a number of factors relating to the target, the acquirer and the level of control being obtained.  Early decisions suggest that target’s products/services and activities are just as important a factor as the acquirer’s identity, among the cases that have engaged the attention of the Investment Security Unit (“ISU”).
  • “Behavioural” undertakings, e.g. involving implementation of security controls or granting of audit rights to regulators appear to be a continuation of trends seen in the predecessor UK ‘public interest’ regime, and similar to other EU FDI procedures.

Continue Reading UK FDI: Decision-making practice emerging under the National Security and Investment Act

The German government has proposed a new draft bill reforming the current foreign direct investment (“FDI”) regime, which is likely to have a significant impact on all M&A transactions involving acquisitions of 10% or more of the voting rights in German companies active in “critical infrastructures” and “critical technologies” by…
Continue Reading German Government decides on tightening the National FDI Screening Regime