DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Thomas Weitemeyer, Pernille Nørkær, Jonas Høst and Jacob Kreutzmann, Moalem Weitemeyer
to these obligations are often resolved commercially, including through termination. Challenges to adverse decisions follow the relevant regime. Merger decisions are appealed to the Com - petition Appeals Tribunal, while investment screening decisions are challenged before the ordinary courts. 8.5 Forum, Procedure and Remedies Denmark does not have a specialist M&A court. M&A disputes are generally heard by arbitral tribunals where arbitration is agreed (which is common in larger trans - actions). It is relatively uncommon for M&A disputes to be heard by the ordinary courts, unless the dispute relates to a public deal. Interim relief is available through the Danish Adminis - tration of Justice Act, including injunctions and other interim measures. Final remedies typically include damages, declaratory relief and, where appropriate, specific performance or permanent injunctions. These remedies are also available in arbitration, but are used less frequently in practice.
Danish undertaking) seeking review of prohibitions, orders or conditions. In sectoral approvals, standing depends on the sec - tor statute and the type of decision, with third-party standing often restricted. 9.3 Standard of Review and Deference to Regulators In merger cases, the Competition Appeals Tribunal can review both legal issues and the Danish Competi - tion and Consumer Authority’s factual and economic assessment, including the evaluation of evidence. In practice, the intensity of review tends to be higher for clear legal or procedural errors, while the authority is typically afforded a degree of discretion in complex, predictive economic assessments (subject to review for manifest error and adequacy of reasoning). In investment screening cases, challenges are to be brought before the ordinary courts and thus are sub - ject to the Danish Administration of Justice Act as well as the Investment Screening Act’s confidentiality regime. Ordinary courts can review legality, procedure and proportionality, but the substantive national secu - rity and public order assessment typically falls within a significant margin of administrative discretion. 9.4 Interim Relief and Suspension of Decisions Interim relief (including injunction-type measures) is available under the Danish Administration of Justice Act, but it is not automatic and depends on the rel - evant regime and forum. Where available, it is typi - cally granted only where there is urgency, a suffi - ciently strong arguable case on the merits, and a risk of irreparable harm, assessed against proportionality and the balance of interests. In practice, interim relief is used selectively and is most relevant where a deci - sion would irreversibly affect closing or post-closing control. 9.5 Interaction With Damages and Other Civil Actions Judicial review and private claims typically interact indirectly rather than through a formal combined pro - cess.
9. M&A Litigation Relating to Regulatory Decisions
9.1 Judicial Challenges to Regulatory Actions Merger control challenges are relatively infrequent and are typically pursued through the Competition Appeals Tribunal rather than in court. Contested deci - sions most often involve conditional clearances, pro - hibitions or fines. FDI/national security decisions may be challenged before ordinary courts, but no public challenges are known given the regime’s confiden - tiality. Challenges to sectoral approvals are also not routine and typically relate to refusals, conditions or sanctions. 9.2 Standing and Access to Courts Standing to challenge regulatory decisions depends on the regime. In merger control, appeal rights are primarily held by the notifying parties and third-party standing is generally limited. In investment screening cases, challenges are to be brought by affected parties (eg, the investor and/or the
57 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook