Decoding: “Brexit, the new Withdrawal Agreement” – 01/01/2020

 

Following the rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement and political declaration dated 14 November 2018 by the UK House of Commons the Johnson government and the EU commission have negotiated a new draft withdrawal agreement, finalized on 17 October 2019 from the one Boris Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, agreed with Brussels in following more than eighteen months of negotiation.

To avoid a sudden divorce between the UK and the EU, the European and UK parliaments must approve an exit agreement and a political declaration that will frame their future negotiations. The UK would then enter into a transition period until 31 December 2020: a period of time that would allow for agreements to be reached on future relations.

Initially set at midnight on 29 March 2019, and subsequently extended to 12 April, then to 31 October 2019, the fateful withdrawal date was set on 31 January 2020 at the latest. However, on 27 December 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed serious doubts about the feasibility of negotiations on the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union by the end of 2020 Most of elements of the provisions to be legally-binding of the former Withdrawal Agreement remain unchanged in the new one. It is summarized below.

Our last publications

French Competition Authority sanctions a predatory acquisition for the first time on the basis of abuse of a dominant position

French Competition Authority (Autorité de la concurrence) has taken a new step in applying the Towercast case law (CJEU, 16 March 2023) by sanctioning for the first time a merger transaction on the basis of abuse of a dominant position. In this article, Renaud Christol and Paul Vialard analyze the key lessons from this decision […]

| COMPETITION AND ECONOMIC LAW

+

In a ruling handed down on October 18, 2025, the CJEU ruled in Case C-2/24 P, Teva v. Cephalon v. European Commission, clarifying the conditions under which an amicable settlement agreement between patent holders and generic manufacturers can be classified as an anti-competitive agreement. In this article, Renaud Christol and Paul Vialard review the implications […]

| COMPETITION AND ECONOMIC LAW

+

AMF vs. OCABSA: Does the End Justify the Means? – Finascope 04/08/2025

As the regulator steps up its crackdown on dilutive financing, Frank Martin Laprade analyzes the AMF’s offensive strategy from a legal standpoint. Beyond the goal of protecting retail investors, he raises a fundamental question of principle in this op-ed: can legal certainty be compromised in the name of regulation? An essential read to understand the […]

Paris | CORPORATE – M&A – PRIVATE EQUITY

+