The regulation of foreign direct investment (“FDI”) has become an increasingly important feature of the regulatory landscape for investors. Globally, there is a trend towards greater FDI restrictions although the degree and nature of regulation varies significantly across jurisdictions. In the below we highlight key aspects of FDI regulation in the United States (“US”), United Kingdom (“UK”), France and Germany. Contents Types of deals reviewed in the US, UK, France and Germany Notification process in the US, UK, France and Germany Sanctions for non-compliance in the US, UK, France and Germany Recent trends and developments in the US, UK, France and Germany Other points for investors to consider in the US, UK, France and Germany

It has long been a mystery to economists, accountants and business people why lawyers have regard to simple interest in commercial cases, in circumstances where companies generally do not (and cannot) borrow money on a simple interest basis. Despite compound interest having been awarded and endorsed in Sempra Metals more than 15 years ago, it is still common for claimants to claim, and for UK courts to award, interest on a simple basis. The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s landmark judgment in Royal Mail v DAF Trucks provides a ringing endorsement of the principles laid down in Sempra Metals and provides insight as to what a claimant is required to prove to successfully claim compound interest.

The Court of Appeal has strongly dismissed an appeal against the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (“CAT’s”) decision that it would be an abuse of process for certain truck manufacturers to seek to challenge the facts recorded in the Trucks Cartel Settlement Decision in follow on damages actions save for in certain limited circumstances.  The Court of Appeal’s Judgment is likely to have wide implications for Claimants bringing damages proceedings arising out of a Commission Settlement Decision as well as those companies who have, or intend to, settle competition investigations with the Commission.