This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. ANGLO AMERICAN COMPETITION ASPECTS OF BANK MERGERS Genci Bilali Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Edinburgh 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration i Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii List of Abbreviations v Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 1.0 Bank mergers and competition concerns in Anglo American economies 1 1.1 Thesis’s research scope, issues and arguments; Benefits to society 5 1.2 Thesis structure 7 Chapter 2 - Applicable competition laws in the United Kingdom pertaining to bank mergers 10 2.0 Theoretical issues concerning the nature of the relationship between 10 competition and financial stability; Public interest exemption 2.1 Competition Act 1998 23 2.2 Cruickshank Report 25 2.3 Enterprise Act 2002 26 2.4 Report on banking services for SMEs 28 2.5 Vickers’ Report and the government’s response 30 2.6 HM Treasury blueprint report 35 2.7 Financial Services Act 2012 38 2.8 Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 39 2.9 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 40 2.10 Banking markets investigation 2014-2016 41 2.11 EU competition legislation on bank mergers 42 2.11.1 Treaties 43 2.11.2 Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the EU Merger Regulation) 44 2.11.3 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (implementation of the rules on competition) 47 2.11.4 Banking retail report 2007 50 2.11.5 The Liikanen report and EU regulation on structural reform of the banking sector 52 2.11.6 European Banking Union 54 2.12 Conclusion 57 Chapter 3 - Competition and banking authorities in the United Kingdom 61 3.0 Relevant regulators that oversee bank mergers 61 3.1 Competition and public authorities 62 3.1.1 Competition and Markets Authority 62 3.1.2 Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills 67 3.1.3 HM Treasury 68 3.2 Banking authorities 70 3.2.1 Bank of England 70 3.2.2 Financial Conduct Authority 72 3.2.3 Payment Systems Regulator 73 3.2.4 Prudential Regulation Authority 74 3.3 The UK government’s framework and approach to the assessment of State aids 76 3.4 European Commission 82 3.5 Conclusion 99 Chapter 4 - Role of United Kingdom’s courts and government in bank merger reviews 104 4.0 Courts and competition authorities - review of bank mergers 104 4.1 UK courts and Competition Appeal Tribunal (‘CAT’) 104 4.2 EU courts 106 4.2.1 General Court 107 4.2.2 European Court of Justice 108 4.3 Bank mergers before the UK courts and government 110 4.3.1 Case laws related to competition aspects in banking and bank mergers before UK courts and tribunals 110 4.3.1(a) The Merger Action Group v Secretary for Business, Enterprises and Regulatory Reform 110 4.3.1(b) Barclays Bank Plc v Competition Commission 116 4.3.1(c) MasterCard UK Members Forum Limited et al v Office of Fair Trading 117 4.3.1(d) Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National 120 4.3.2 Bank merger cases with government approval 124 4.3.2(a) RBS and HSBC 125 4.3.2(b) Lloyds and Abbey 127 4.3.2(c) UK government’s takeover of Northern Rock 129 4.3.2(d) Barclays and Lehman Brothers 129 4.3.2(e) Lloyds and HBOS 130 4.3.2(f) Thomas Cook and Barclays 136 4.4 Bank mergers before EU courts and Commission 137 4.4.1 Bank merger case laws before EU courts 137 4.4.1(a) Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich v Commission 137 4.4.1(b) ABN AMRO Group v Commission 138 4.4.1(c) Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank v Commission 139 4.4.1(d) Assicurazioni Generali and UniCredit v Commission 140 4.4.1(e) BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission 141 4.4.2 Bank merger cases before the Commission 142 4.4.2(a) Banque Nationale de Paris and Dresdner Bank AG-Austrian JV 142 4.4.2(b) BNP Paribas and Fortis 143 4.4.2(c) Banco Santander and Bradford & Bingley Assets 145 4.4.2(d) UniCredit S.p.A. and HypoVereinsbank 146 4.5 The role of the UK and EU State aids assessment in banking cases 148 4.6 Conclusion 151 Chapter 5 - Implementation of competition methodologies and policies in bank mergers in United Kingdom 155 5.0 Markets, products, consumer issues and competitive analysis in relation to bank mergers 155 5.1 Markets 157 5.1.1 Horizontal bank mergers 161 5.1.2 Vertical bank mergers 164 5.1.3 Conglomerate bank mergers 167 5.2 Products 168 5.3 Consumer issues 170 5.4 Competitive analysis 177 5.4.1 Ex-ante v ex-post notification control 188 5.4.2 Significant impediment of effective competition (‘SIEC’) test 190 5.4.3 Failing firm (exiting firm) defence 193 5.4.4 Role of the ‘failing firm defence’ in EU merger assessments 194 5.5 Conclusion 198 Chapter 6 - Antitrust provisions over bank mergers in United States 202 6.0 Sherman Antitrust Act 202 6.1 Clayton Antitrust Act 203 6.2 Bank Merger Act 205 6.3 Bank Holding Company Act 206 6.4 Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act 208 6.5 Change in Bank Control Act 210 6.6 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 210 6.6.1 Volcker Rule 211 6.7 Regulation of thrifts’ acquisition 213 6.7.1 Home Owners’ Loan Act 213 6.8 Conclusion 214 Chapter 7-American antitrust and banking authorities: A comparative study 216 7.0 Antitrust federal government authority 216 7.0.1 Department of Justice 216 7.1 Federal banking agencies that oversee bank mergers 218 7.1.1 Federal Reserve 219 7.1.2 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 220 7.1.3 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 222 7.2 State banking authorities 223 7.3 Coordination of efforts between antitrust and banking authorities pertaining to bank merger situations 226 7.4 Conclusion 232 Chapter 8 – Bank merger cases before the American courts and regulators 235 8.0 Role of American courts in shaping bank merger competition policies 235 8.1 United States v Philadelphia National Bank 236 8.2 Other important Supreme Court and federal court case laws related to bank mergers 241 8.2.1 Supreme Court case laws 241 a) United States v First National Bank and Trust Co. of Lexington 241 b) United States v First City Bank of Houston 243 c) United States v Third National Bank in Nashville 244 d) United States v Phillipsburg National Bank & Trust Co. 245 e) United States v Connecticut National Bank 247 8.2.2 Federal district court case laws 249 a) United States v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co 249 b) United States v Croker-Anglo National Bank 250 c) United States v Provident National Bank 252 d) United States v Chelsea Savings Bank 253 e) United States v Idaho First National Bank 255 f) United States v First National Bancorporation 256 g) United States v First National State Bancorporation 257 h) United States v Central State Bank 257 8.3 Important bank merger transactions cleared by federal banking regulators 259 a) Bankers Trust/Public Loan Co 259 b) American Fletcher Corporation/Southwest S&L 260 c) Chase-Manhattan/Chemical 260 d) Citicorp/Travelers Group 263 e) Wells Fargo/ Wachovia & PNC Financial Services/National City 265 8.4 Conclusion 266 Chapter 9 – Antitrust methodologies and policies applied in bank mergers in the United States 270 9.0 Markets, products, consumer issues and competitive analysis in relation to bank mergers 270 9.1 Markets 271 9.1.1 Geographic market 272 9.1.2 Department of Justice approach to defining geographic markets 273 9.1.3 Federal Reserve’s method in determining geographic markets 277 9.1.4 Specific geographic market 280 9.1.5 Position of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in determining geographic markets 281 9.1.6 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s method on geographic markets 283 9.2 Products 284 9.2.1 Banking regulators’ approach to the product market 284 9.2.2 Department of Justice’ approach to product market 287 9.3 Consumer issues 290 9.4 Competitive analysis 295 9.5 Conclusion 309 Chapter 10 – Global financial crisis and competition in banking 312 10.0 Effect and role of global financial crisis in bank merger activities 312 10.1 Responses to the TBTF concern 326 10.2 Whether TBTF status of systemically important financial institutions create special competition concerns 337 10.3 Conclusion 349 Chapter 11 - Differences and recommendation in Anglo-American bank merger competition aspects 353 11.0 Competition concerns surrounding Anglo American bank mergers 353 11.1 Approaches taken by the United Kingdom and United States to address competition issues arising in bank mergers 356 11.2 What needs to be improved, changed, or adopted in Anglo American competition systems towards bank mergers and consolidations? 376 11.3 Conclusion 402 Chapter 12 – Conclusion 405 Appendix 1: Table of Legislation 414 Appendix 2: Table of Administrative Acts 421 Appendix 3: List of Cases 438 Appendix 4: Bibliography 444 DECLARATION I confirm that this thesis has been composed by me, that the work contained in this thesis is my own and has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification.
Recommended publications
  • Inner Temple Library Newsletter Issue 43 – January 2016
    Contents Saturday Opening Legal Research Training 1 One of the four Inn Libraries is open from 10.00 a.m. Saturday Opening 1 to 5.00 p.m. on each Saturday during the legal terms. Westlaw Commentary Trial 1 Annual Review 2015 2 January IT Changes 8 30 January Inner Temple Library Committee 8 Digital Images: Inns of Court 8 February AccessToLaw: Banking 9 6 February Lincoln’s Inn New Acquisitions 10 13 February Middle Temple Book Prize 11 20 February Gray’s Inn David Humphreys, 1922-2015 11 27 February Inner Temple March 5 March Lincoln’s Inn 12 March Middle Temple Legal Research Training 19 March Gray’s Inn 26 March CLOSED Dates for our next series of training sessions for new April pupils are as follows:- 2 April Inner Temple Session 1: Essentials of Legal Research To view a Saturday Opening Timetable click here. Monday 4 April 2016, 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Location: Inner Temple Drawing Room Session 2: Legal Research Workshop: Cases Westlaw Commentary Trial Tuesday 12 April 2016, 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. Location: Inner Temple Committee Room We have been given access to Westlaw commentary sources for a three-month trial period starting on Session 3: Legal Research Workshop: Legislation 1 February. The trial includes works such as Archbold, Tuesday 19 April 2016, 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. Charlesworth & Percy, Chitty, Clerk & Lindsell, Kemp Location: Inner Temple Committee Room & Kemp, McGregor, The White Book and Woodfall. For more details click here.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing the Culture of Financial Regulation: a Corporate Governance Approach
    Changing the Culture of Financial Regulation: a Corporate Governance Approach Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Steven Ronald Cairns September 2014 1 | P a g e For Rhonda and John 2 | P a g e Acknowledgements First and foremost, I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisors, Dr Rob Stokes and Prof Anu Arora. Their patience and support throughout the entire process has gone beyond what is expected of any supervisory team, and for that I am truly thankful. It is amazing to think that this whole journey began with an email conversation six years ago around a failed bank and an unsuccessful furore into the city. Six years, and a few more grey hairs later, we are at the end of what has been a rollercoaster journey towards completion. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my partner Sarah Montagu, I am sure it hasn’t been easy putting up with me throughout this whole process and her selfless attitude and unconditional support has been the rock that the thesis has been built upon. I love you and couldn’t have done it without you. My gratitude also extends to my friend Bleddyn Davies. I will always appreciate our conversations; they kept me focused on the task at hand. I want to thank my Nan, Elsie May Nash, who has always believed in me no matter what I have undertaken, and for her steak pies that have gotten me through more than one late night session in the library.
    [Show full text]
  • Cornell Law School
    CORNELL LAW SCHOOL Central Bank Money: Liability, Asset, or Equity of the Nation? Michael Kumhof(1), Jason Allen(2), Will Bateman(3), (4) (5) (6) Rosa Lastra , Simon Gleeson , Saule Omarova (1) CEPR and Centre for Macroeconomics. Email: [email protected] (2) Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. Email: jason.allen@hu‐berlin.de (3) Australian National University. Email: [email protected] (4) Queen Mary University of London. Email: [email protected] (5) Clifford Chance. Email: [email protected] (6) Cornell University. Email: [email protected] Cornell Law School research paper No. 20-46 Cornell Law School Myron Taylor Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-4901 This paper can be downloaded without charge from: The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3730608 Draft 5 August 2020 Central Bank Money: Liability, Asset, or Equity of the Nation? Michael Kumhof(1), Jason Allen (2) Will Bateman (3), Rosa Lastra (4), Simon Gleeson (5), Saule Omarova (6) Abstract Based on legal arguments, we advocate a conceptual and normative shift in our understanding of the economic character of central bank money (CBM). The widespread treatment of CBM as a central bank liability goes back to the gold standard, and uses analogies with commercial bank balance sheets. However, CBM is sui generis and legally not comparable to commercial bank money. Furthermore, in modern economies, CBM holders cannot demand repayment of CBM in anything other than CBM. CBM is not an asset of central banks either, and it is not central bank shareholder equity because it does not confer the same ownership rights as regular shareholder equity.
    [Show full text]
  • Companies Act 2006 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 20 August 2021
    Changes to legislation: Companies Act 2006 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 20 August 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Companies Act 2006 CHAPTER 46 COMPANIES ACT 2006 PART 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS Companies and Companies Acts 1 Companies 2 The Companies Acts Types of company 3 Limited and unlimited companies 4 Private and public companies 5 Companies limited by guarantee and having share capital 6 Community interest companies PART 2 COMPANY FORMATION General 7 Method of forming company 8 Memorandum of association Requirements for registration 9 Registration documents 10 Statement of capital and initial shareholdings 11 Statement of guarantee 12 Statement of proposed officers ii Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) Document Generated: 2021-08-20 Changes to legislation: Companies Act 2006 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 20 August 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes 12A Statement of initial significant control 13 Statement of compliance Registration and its effect 14 Registration 15 Issue of certificate of incorporation 16 Effect of registration PART 3 A COMPANY'S CONSTITUTION CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTORY 17 A company's
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Official Report
    Vol. 754 Monday No. 16 30 June 2014 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDER OF BUSINESS Questions Health: Multiple Sclerosis................................................................................................................................................1527 Busking ...............................................................................................................................................................................1529 Education: Citizenship Studies ........................................................................................................................................1531 Disabled Students’ Allowance..........................................................................................................................................1535 Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2014 Motion to Approve ...........................................................................................................................................................1537 Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Order 2014 Motion to Approve ...........................................................................................................................................................1537 Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Second Reading..................................................................................................................................................................1537
    [Show full text]
  • The Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2018
    EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE ENTERPRISE ACT 2002 (SHARE OF SUPPLY TEST) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2018 2018 No. 1. Introduction 1.1 This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. 2. Purpose of the instrument 2.1 The instrument amends section 23 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to extend the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in mergers which might give rise to national security implications and into which he would not otherwise be able to intervene. 2.2 Specifically, this affirmative instrument amends the share of supply test to allow the scrutiny of more mergers in three areas : (i) military and dual-use technologies, (ii) two parts of the advanced technology sector, encompassing computing hardware and quantum technologies. For these areas alone, this instrument amends the share of supply test so that it is met where a merger or takeover involves a target with 25% or more share of supply in the UK, as well as where the deal leads to an increase in the share of supply to, or above, this threshold, which is the current requirement. 2.3 Subject to Parliamentary approval being obtained for this affirmative procedure statutory instrument, a second, negative procedure statutory instrument will be laid to amend the turnover test to allow the scrutiny of more mergers in the same three areas of the economy. The second instrument will lower the threshold which the target business’s UK turnover must exceed from £70 million to £1 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Payment Systems: Response to the Consultation
    Designation of payment systems: response to the consultation March 2015 Designation of payment systems: response to the consultation March 2015 © Crown copyright 2015 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-910337-85-1 PU1774 Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 3 Chapter 2 The legislative framework: the Financial Services (Banking 5 Reform) Act 2013 Chapter 3 Designated payment systems 9 Chapter 4 Other payment systems 11 1 1 Introduction 1.1 The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) received Royal Assent on 18 December 2013. It created a new competition-focused, economic regulator for retail payment systems in the UK: the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR). In April 2014, the PSR came formally into being as it was incorporated as a subsidiary of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). It will be fully operational from 1 April 2015. The 2013 Act provides that the Payment Systems Regulator will oversee all payment systems used in the UK that are brought into its scope by being designated by HM Treasury.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (Eu Exit) Regulations 2018
    EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE BANK RECOVERY AND RESOLUTION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2018 2018 No. [XXXX] 1. Introduction 1.1 This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by HM Treasury and is laid before Parliament by Act. 2. Purpose of the instrument 2.1 This instrument is principally being made in order to address deficiencies in retained EU law in relation to the UK’s special resolution regime arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU), ensuring the legislation continues to operate effectively at the point at which the UK leaves the EU. 2.2 This instrument also brings up to date certain references in the relevant legislation to European legislation. Explanations What did any relevant EU law do before exit day? 2.3 The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), entered into force on 2 July 2014. The Directive established a common approach within the EU to the recovery and resolution of banks and investment firms, reflecting the Financial Stability Board’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for financial institutions (FSB Key Attributes). The Directive aims to provide member states with a common framework for the resolution of banks and investment firms, as well as ensuring cooperation between member states, and with third countries, in planning for and managing the failure of cross-border firms. Why is it being changed? 2.4 The Banking Act 2009 established the UK’s Special Resolution Regime. This regime now provides the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and HM Treasury with tools to protect financial stability by effectively resolving banks, building societies, investment firms, banking group companies and central counterparties that are failing, while protecting depositors, client assets, taxpayers and the wider economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Debt and the Brith of the Democratic State
    PUBLIC DEBT AND THE BIRTH OF THE DEMOCRATIC STATE france and great britain, 1688–1789 Does establishing representative democracy increase commitment to repay public debt? This book develops a new theory about the link between debt and democracy and applies it to a classic historical comparison: Great Britain in the eighteenth century, which had strong representative institutions and sound public finance, versus ancien regime France, which had neither. The book argues that whether representative institutions improve commitment depends on the opportunities for government creditors to form new coali- tions with other social groups, which is more likely to occur when a society is divided across multiple political cleavages. It then presents historical evidence to show that improved access to finance in Great Britain after 1688 had as much to do with the development of the Whig Party as with constitutional changes. In France, the balance of partisan forces made it unlikely that an early adoption of “English-style” institutions would have improved credi- bility. Given the importance of government credibility for different issues, the arguments developed here will be relevant for a wide range of scholars. David Stasavage is a Lecturer in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics. His research focuses on the political economy of money and finance and on comparative political economy more generally. He holds a Ph.D. from the Department of Government at Harvard University and has published in a number of political science and economics journals. political economy of institutions and decisions Series Editors Randall Calvert, Washington University, St. Louis Thrainn Eggertsson, Max Planck Institute, Germany, and University of Iceland Founding Editors James E.
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Business in the United Kingdom: a Brief Guide for U.S
    Corporate Doing Business in the United Kingdom: A Brief Guide for U.S. Corporations Introduction For More Information The United Kingdom is one of the favored locations for U.S. businesses to set up their Sam Tyfield first base in Europe. As a result of its history, the UK has maintained strong trade links Partner with most countries in the world; it is geographically located in Europe but also serves Tel: +44 (0)20 3667 2940 as a midpoint between the U.S. and Asian time zones. The World Bank report “Doing Mobile: +44 (0)7887 893137 Business 2016” ranks the UK the 2nd easiest place to set up and run a business in the [email protected] European Union (after Denmark), and the 7th easiest jurisdiction globally. This is largely Jonathan Maude due to its highly developed but modern system of laws, stable political climate and Partner practical approach to business regulation. Tel: +44 (0) 20 3667 2860 There are a variety of ways of structuring an operation in the UK. The aim of this guide is Mobile: +44 (0)7825 742592 to highlight some of the key areas that a U.S. corporation will need to address before it [email protected] begins to operate a new business in the UK. This guide should not be considered to be an all-inclusive guide, and specific UK legal advice should always be sought before Jonathan Edgelow Senior Associate setting up and running a business in the UK. Tel: +44(0) 20 3667 2925 It should be noted that the United Kingdom is composed of separate jurisdictions: Mobile: +44(0) 7985 400588 England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanatory Notes to the National Security and Investment Bill
    NATIONAL SECURITY AND INVESTMENT BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the National Security and Investment Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 11 November 2020 (Bill 210). • These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. • These Explanatory Notes explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice; provide background information on the development of policy; and provide additional information on how the Bill will affect existing legislation in this area. • These Explanatory Notes might best be read alongside the Bill. They are not, and are not intended to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. Bill 210–EN 58/1 Table of Contents Subject Page of these Notes Overview of the Bill 4 Policy background 5 Legal background 6 Legal background for Government intervention in mergers on national security grounds 6 Legal background for clause 59 (Overseas information disclosure) 8 Territorial extent and application 9 Commentary on provisions of Bill 9 Background: Overview of the National Security and Investment Regime 9 National Security and Investment framework 9 Mandatory notification 9 Voluntary notification regime 10 National security assessment 10 Comparison between current framework and the National Security and Investment regime 10 Part 1: Call-in for national security 14 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Saturday 21 March 2009
    Contents House of Commons • Noticeboard ..........................................................................................................1 • The Week Ahead..................................................................................................2 • Order of Oral Questions .......................................................................................3 Weekly Business Information • Business of the House of Commons 13 – 20 March 2009....................................6 Bulletin • Written Ministerial Statements.............................................................................9 • Forthcoming Business of the House of Commons 23 March – 3 April 2009.....10 • Forthcoming Business of the House of Lords 23 March – 3 April 2009............14 Editor: Karen Kidby Legislation House of Commons Public Legislation Information Office • Public Bills before Parliament 2008/09..............................................................17 London • Bills – Presentation, Publication and Royal Assent............................................23 SW1A 2TT • Public and General Acts 2008/09 .......................................................................24 www.parliament.uk • Draft Bills under consideration or published during 2008/09 Session ...............25 Tel : 020 7219 4272 Private Legislation Fax : 020 7219 5839 • Private Bills before Parliament 2008/09.............................................................26 [email protected] Delegated Legislation • Statutory Instruments .........................................................................................29
    [Show full text]