Trend 1

Geopolitics recalibrates how M&A is regulated

All change – M&A screening regimes in flux

Over the last two years, DealSCREEN data shows that there has and continues to be a substantial change in the scope of M&A screening.

of jurisdictions analysed have made changes to their M&A screening regimes in the last two years or are in the process of doing so

have reformed FDI screening regimes in the last two years or are considering changes

have reformed merger control regimes in the last two years or are considering changes

These changes are shaped by two key drivers

Key Driver 1 Heightened focus on national security and economic resilience prompts greater political oversight of M&A

In an unstable and unpredictable geopolitical climate, governments worldwide are focussed on ensuring national security and the resilience of not only critical systems and technologies, but also the broader economy, including key supply chains.

In this context, governments have looked at the toolkits at their disposal to review M&A deals and, in many cases, have decided that they need more and multiple levers which they can exercise in tandem to screen transactions.

This has resulted in a significant expansion in the scope of existing regimes, as well as the introduction of new regimes such as outbound screening. In some cases, this has also led to merger control reviews extending beyond traditional competition theories of harm to assess questions of resilience or security of supply.

EU: A multi‑layered approach to M&A review

The European Commission is expanding its toolkit to review M&A transactions through a range of measures based on different policy objectives (competitiveness, national security and security of supply).

Merger control guidelines are currently under review, with the published draft guidelines indicating a possible shift in how transactions may be assessed, placing greater weight on innovation, resilience and productivity in the EU, and reflecting a wider policy debate about the role of EU champions in key sectors.
The revised EU FDI Regulation will require mandatory and more uniform screening across Member States by mid-2027, increasing the number of deals subject to filing obligations, with some Member States expected to implement changes sooner.
The Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) enables the European Commission to address market distortions caused by foreign subsidies, including through ex officio powers (such as dawn raids).

US: Expanded investment controls

US rules now restrict who can invest in the US and where US capital can be invested:

Merger control scrutiny is widening: US antitrust agencies increasingly request information on foreign subsidies and countervailing duties as part of merger reviews, while a growing number of US states have adopted “mini‑HSR” regimes requiring parallel filings with state attorneys general. Together, these developments increase the scope and potential intensity of deal scrutiny at both federal and state level.
CFIUS review can cover minority stakes, joint ventures and technology collaborations, and authorities have shown a willingness to block or unwind completed transactions involving critical semiconductor or supply-chain assets (e.g. HieFo/Emcore chip assets case).
Outbound investment into China-linked semiconductor, quantum and AI is also restricted, adding a separate compliance layer for US investors.

ASIA: Sweeping merger control changes and focus on high-tech supply chain

In the last two years, there has been significant change in the merger control landscape in Asia. This is reflected in DealSCREEN which shows that all jurisdictions assessed in Asia have reformed their merger control regimes.
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have strengthened investment-security frameworks and have narrowed exemptions in semiconductors and advanced components, increasing scrutiny across high-tech supply chains.

Case Study Merger control used as a tool to ensure security of supply

In November 2025, the European Commission opened a Phase II investigation into MMG’s proposed acquisition of Anglo American’s Brazilian nickel assets. The European Commission was concerned that, as the acquirer was state‑owned, the transaction could enable diversion of scarce low‑carbon ferronickel supply away from Europe, raising costs and weakening competitiveness in a market with few alternatives and undermining the EU’s strategic autonomy. The rejection of early behavioural commitments underscores that merger control has started to be used to secure long-term access to critical inputs rather than simply to address traditional competition concerns.

Key Driver 2 Jurisdictions are streamlining the review of unproblematic deals to compete for investment

While geopolitical uncertainty is prompting governments to expand their toolkits to screen M&A transactions, jurisdictions are simultaneously dealing with a second, potentially conflicting policy objective of attracting inward investment to spur economic growth and competitiveness. This has resulted in some jurisdictions introducing lighter‑touch, faster procedures for unproblematic deals. This is not deregulation, but targeted streamlining designed to signal regulatory competitiveness.

The UK is a prominent example of this. There has been a conscious shift in how the UK merger control regime is positioned with an emphasis on pace, predictability, proportionality and process and an objective to clear unproblematic deals more quickly.

Other jurisdictions have taken a different approach, focusing on streamlining review processes. For example, France has adopted legislation to increase its merger control thresholds which, once in force, is expected to reduce the number of transactions subject to review.

Average number of calendar days for fast track merger control processes

*China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan

The figures above show the average number of days taken to clear unproblematic Phase I merger control cases in certain jurisdictions.

US returns to early termination

The US merger control regime under the Hart‑Scott‑Rodino (HSR) Act requires parties to notify the authorities and observe a mandatory waiting period before closing certain transactions. Early termination, which allows the agencies to end that waiting period early in straightforward cases, was suspended in February 2021 and reinstated in February 2025. Its return has restored the opportunity for a quicker clearance process for unproblematic deals.

“Geopolitics is bringing more deals into scope, while efforts to attract investment are driving faster clearance for transactions that raise no concerns.”

Explore the trends shaping deal-making

Trend 2

FDI regimes expand reach and outpace merger control

Learn more

Trend 3

Clearances rates generally stay high but FDI regimes toughen stance

Learn more

Trend 4

Closing enforcement gaps in merger control

Learn more

Trend 5

Competition authorities remain focused on transactions between competitors but continue to consider supply chain consolidation

Learn more

Trend 6

Behavioural remedies prevail in FDI while merger control strikes a new balance

Learn more

Trend 7

Penalty risk is uneven and often opaque

Learn more

© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.

Connect with us