Managing the Risk of Self-Judging Security Exceptions Through Insurance: How Recent Mergers and Acquisitions Practice Copes with Investment Screening

In light of the limited possibility to seek legal recourse against screening of foreign investments on grounds of national security, can insurance provide an alternative avenue to compensate affected investors? The answer is: Yes, but with caveats. For investors, even if insurance does not provide an equivalent to full reparation, it can serve as a useful mitigant of the risk that contemplated investment transactions cannot be consummated as anticipated due to screening measures. For host States, insurance provides a useful mechanism by which they can facilitate compensation of investors without having to disclose information contrary to their essential security interests and thus a means by which host States can remain attractive to foreign direct investment in spite of investment screening

Recent Changes in the German Investment Screening Mechanism in Light of the EU Screening Regulation

In 2020 and 2021, the German investment screening laws, namely Außenwirtschaftsgesetz (AWG) and Außenwirtschaftsverordnung (AWV) were again subject to considerable reform induced by new legislation at the European level and a reshaped industry policy agenda at the national level. This article critically reviews the most significant changes brought about by one law (Erstes Gesetz zur Änderung des Außenwirtschaftsgesetzes und anderer Gesetze) and three ordinances (Fünfzehnte, Sechzehnte und Siebzente Verordnung zur Änderung der Außenwirtschaftsverordnung) and provides an overview of the reformed screening procedure. Although claims in this direction have been made, neither the reform nor the underlying Screening Regulation (EU) 2019/452 have altered the objective of review – the protection of public order or security – or bar for governmental intervention – actual and sufficiently serious danger. Both these were not ‘overwritten’ by secondary law and continue to be determined by the pertinent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Notwithstanding this, the reform has considerably widened the ‘sensitive sectors’ in which pertinent investments must be notified to and cleared by the authorities. ‘Gun jumping’ is prohibited and parties moving forward nonetheless risk criminal prosecution. Reform has also standardised the deadlines for governmental intervention and brought about procedural clarity. What the many and frequent changes reveal on a more fundamental level is a progressing politicisation and securitisation of investment screening law