Canada
The Canadian government continues to scrutinize foreign investments by state-owned enterprises and state-linked private investors, especially if from "non-likeminded" countries.
Now a full decade in publication, White & Case's 2025 Foreign Direct Investment Reviews continues to provide a comprehensive look at foreign direct investment (FDI) laws and regulations across various countries and regions worldwide.
In this edition, we continue to offer key datapoints that can help inform parties and their advisors as they evaluate the new set of challenges presented by FDI screening requirements in cross-border transactions that span multiple countries.
FDI screening is continuously evolving, in fact, maturing. It is imperative to stay on top of the FDI requirements as transactions—be it mergers and acquisitions, investments, public equity offerings, or financial restructurings—are negotiated. Understanding the challenges, the potential remedies that could be required for approval and the proper allocation of FDI risk are key ingredients in avoiding unpleasant surprises related to timing, certainty and business plan execution.
With a new administration in the United States, a renewed US commitment to open foreign investment from allied countries, increased EU FDI cooperation, and the new geo-political lines and balances that are being drawn, the dynamics around FDI screening will be a driving consideration in the selection of investors in cross-border transactions. We continue to believe that most cross-border transactions will be successfully consummated in 2025, but understanding the evolving risks around FDI considerations will be critical.
The Canadian government continues to scrutinize foreign investments by state-owned enterprises and state-linked private investors, especially if from "non-likeminded" countries.
Foreign direct investments, whether undertaken directly or indirectly, are generally allowed without restrictions or without the need to obtain prior authorization from an administrative agency.
In the US, most FDI deals are approved without mitigation, but the landscape is evolving based on a combination of expanded jurisdiction and authorities, mandatory filings applying in certain cases, enhanced focus on a broad array of national security considerations, increased rates of mitigation, further attention to monitoring, compliance and enforcement, and a substantially increased pursuit of non-notified transactions.
The European Commission continues to be a driver of FDI screening across the EU, with Member States now moving toward coordinated enforcement.
The wide scope, low trigger thresholds and extensive interpretation of the Austrian FDI regime require a thorough assessment and proactive planning of the M&A process.
The Belgian FDI screening regime entered into force in July 2023. Investors and authorities alike are still coming to grips with the regime and the limited guidelines that help parties navigate it.
In 2024, Bulgaria established an FDI screening mechanism. Foreign investors' obligation to file for investment clearance did not become effective in 2024, but this should change soon.
The Czech Foreign Investments Screening Act took effect in May 2021, establishing the rights and duties of foreign investors and setting screening requirements for Czech targets.
The scope of the Danish FDI regime is comprehensive, and requires a careful assessment of investments and agreements involving Danish companies.
Estonia's FDI screening mechanism closed its first effective year in 2024.
FDI deals are generally not blocked in Finland, but the government is able to monitor and, if necessary, restrict foreign investment.
French FDI screening continues to focus on foreign investments involving medical and biotech activities, food security activities or the treatment, storage and transmission of sensitive data. The nuclear ecosystem is subject to very close scrutiny.
Following numerous amendments over the past years, Germany's FDI review continued in full swing in 2024, with further significant updates expected in the coming years.
Hungarian FDI regulation stands as a rock amid global economic storms, although there were few major changes in 2024.
Ireland's Screening of Third Country Transactions Act entered into force on January 6, 2025.
Italy's "Golden Power Law" review more tan ten years old and continuously expanding its reach.
The law in Latvia provides for sectoral FDI regimes for specific corporate M&A, real estate dealings and gambling companies.
All investments concerning national security are under the scope of review in Lithuania.
The Luxembourg FDI screening regime is now a year old, and the first notification filings have been made.
Malta's FDI regime regulates specific transactions that must be notified to the authorities and may potentially be subject to screening.
The Middle East continues to welcome foreign investment, subject to licensing approvals and ownership thresholds for certain business sectors or in certain geographical zones.
The Netherlands is set to expand its investment screening regime by extending the general mechanism to more sectors and by introducing additional sector-specific regulations.
Norway's foreign direct investment regime is in the process of being expanded, with more profound changes expected in the future.
After revision of the Polish FDI regime in 2024, the way the authorities are assessing transactions is evolving.
In Portugal, transactions involving acquisition of control over strategic assets by entities residing outside the EU or the EEA may be subject to FDI screening.
While far-reaching in its scope, compared to other EU countries, the Romanian FDI regime is generally perceived as investor-friendly.
The year 2024 was not marked by any major changes in the sphere of regulation of foreign investments in Russia, and the regulator continues to implement the course taken earlier in 2023.
After two years of foreign investment regulation in Slovakia, a supportive climate for foreign investments remains.
Slovenia's updated FDI regime now extends to branch offices and introduces new challenges for foreign investors navigating critical sectors.
Since 2020, certain foreign direct investments are subject to scrutiny in Spain and, since then, additional formalities have been introduced, specifically by a developing FDI regulation that entered into force on September 1, 2023. The FDI analysis is becoming increasingly crucial in the context of investments in Spain.
In its second year of operation, the Swedish FDI Act has become a standard component of a large portion of all transactions involving Swedish companies.
Apart from limited sector-specific regulations, there is currently no general FDI regime in Switzerland. An FDI Act is expected to come into force in 2026 at the earliest.
Strengthening Türkiye's position as a key investment hub remains a government priority.
Foreign direct investment is permissible in the UAE, subject to applicable licensing and ownership conditions.
FDI in the UK is covered by the National Security and Investment Act 2021, and in 2024 the government continued to update information and guidelines concerning the legislation.
Australia's FDI regimes underwent some modifications in 2024, designed to streamline the process of carrying out investments.
China continues to optimize its foreign investment environment by reducing investment restrictions, opening up market access and lowering investment thresholds into listed companies.
FDI continues to be an area of focus for the Indian government, which has announced plans to attract further foreign investment into the country.
The Japanese government expands business sectors subject to Japan's FDI regime to secure stable supply chains and mitigate the risk of technology leakage and diversion of commercial technologies into military use.
The Republic of Korea continues to welcome foreign investment, offering enhanced incentive packages and easing regulations while heightening scrutiny over transactions involving strategic industrial.
New Zealand has recently seen a period of stabilization of the overseas investment regime. However, following the formation of the coalition government at the end of 2023, this government has proposed significant changes to the overseas investment rules for 2025, making it easier for overseas investors to acquire New Zealand assets.
Taiwan continues to promote FDI under a two-track screening mechanism for foreign and PRC investors.
The Canadian government continues to scrutinize foreign investments by state-owned enterprises and state-linked private investors, especially if from "non-likeminded" countries.
Explore Trendscape Our take on the interconnected global trends that are shaping the business climate for our clients.
Oliver Borgers, Jason Gudofsky, Gideon Kwinter & Erin Keogh (McCarthy Tétrault) authored this publication
Foreign investment into Canada is subject to the Investment Canada Act (ICA). The ICA includes an industrial and economic policy regime that imposes a mandatory filing obligation on certain investments, some of which are subject to a review to assess whether they are of "net benefit" to Canada. The ICA also includes a national security regime, which applies more broadly and does not currently impose any filing obligations. The ICA is an act of general application, but includes particular rules for a defined class of cultural businesses.
Under the ICA's industrial and economic policy regime, foreign investors must make a filing in connection with any acquisition of control of a Canadian business and the establishment of a new Canadian business. An acquisition of control is defined to include an acquisition of greater than 50 per- cent of the voting interests of a corporation or economic interests of a non-corporate entity, and, in certain cases, an acquisition of one-third or more of the voting interests of a corporation.
Acquisitions of control require either an application for net benefit review or an administrative notification, depending on whether prescribed financial thresholds are exceeded. The establishment of a new Canadian business is subject only to notification. The indirect acquisition of a Canadian business through the acquisition of a foreign non-Canadian parent is typically exempt from net benefit review and generally only requires notification.
The applicable financial threshold for net benefit review depends on the structure of the transaction, the investor's and the target's country of ultimate control, and whether the target is a cultural business. For the direct acquisition of a non-cultural Canadian business by a foreign investor ultimately controlled by nationals of a World Trade Organization (WTO) member state, the 2025 review threshold is an enterprise value of CAD 1.386 billion (US$961 million).
Higher thresholds apply to investors that are parties to certain free trade agreements with Canada. Lower thresholds apply to state-owned enterprises, non-WTO investors and to investments in cultural businesses.
If the relevant financial threshold is exceeded (subject to certain exceptions), approval is required on the basis of whether the investment is of net benefit to Canada, which must generally be obtained pre-closing. Where the applicable financial threshold is not exceeded, only an administrative notification is required, which can be filed up to 30 days after closing.
Under the ICA's national security regime, the government has the power to review on national security grounds both those investments subject to the industrial and economic policy regime and a broader range of investments into entities with operations in Canada, including minority investments. For investments subject only to the national security regime, foreign investors have the option to voluntarily notify the investment either before or after closing in order to benefit from a shorter limitation period, as described below.
Acquisitions of control that exceed prescribed thresholds are subject to net benefit review. Below the threshold, cultural business acquisitions may also be subject to net benefit review where Canada's federal cabinet determines such a review to be in the public interest.
Under the national security regime, the Canadian government has the power to review nearly any investment in an entity with operations in Canada if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the investment could be injurious to national security.
The types of transactions that have been the subject of formal review under the national security lens include those relating to critical minerals (including lithium), satellite technology, telecommunications, computer systems and software, fiberlaser technology and critical infrastructure, as well as where a non-Canadian investor proposed to build a factory located in close proximity to Canadian Space Agency facilities. Investors subject to Canadian national security reviews have included US companies, although ultimately controlled outside the US, as well as investors from emerging markets, but particular scrutiny can be expected for state-owned investors and investors from so-called "non-likeminded" countries.
A net benefit review will focus on the investment's alignment with Canadian industrial policy, including the investment's impact on employment, economic activity, productivity, innovation, competition and the role of Canadians in the business. Net-benefit cultural business reviews will also focus on specific cultural policies. Generally, investors will be required to enter into binding commitments or "undertakings" related to these areas with the Canadian government in order obtain net-benefit approval.
A national security review will generally focus on the nature of the business to be acquired and the parties involved in the transaction, including the potential for third-party influence. In assessing whether an investment poses a national security risk, the Canadian government has indicated that it will consider factors that focus on the potential effects of the investment on defense, intelligence, sensitive technology and know-how, sensitive personal data, critical minerals and critical infrastructure and supply. The Canadian government will also focus on transactions related to public health or involved in the supply of critical goods and services to Canadians or to the Canadian government.
Where the Canadian government determines that an investment would be injurious to national security, it may deny the investment, ask for undertakings or provide terms or conditions for the investment—similar to mitigation requirements in the US—or, where the investment has already been made, require divestment.
Obtaining approval under a net-benefit review can take anywhere from 45 days to a number of months, depending on the complexity of the investment. In recent years, the length of the average net-benefit review has varied between 69 days and 97 days.
The national security review process can take up to 200 days—or longer with the consent of the investor—from the date an initial filing is made with respect to the investment. The filing of a mandatory application for review or an administrative notification filing, or a voluntary notification under the ICA's national security regime, triggers a 45-day period within which the responsible federal cabinet minister may initiate the national security review process, either by issuing a notice of potential national security review or formally ordering such a review.
If the minister does not take any action within the initial 45-day period, the government's national security jurisdiction expires. For an investment that is subject only to the national security regime, and not the industrial and economic policy regime, and for which a voluntary filing is not made, the minister can initiate the national security review process at any time up to five years following the investment's implementation.
For investments subject to net-benefit review, investors should expect to be required to enter into binding undertakings in order to obtain approval. Investors can establish limits on the commitments they are required to make through the applicable efforts covenants in the transaction agreement.
With respect to the national security regime, the Canadian government can initiate a national security review at any time from when the responsible minister first becomes aware of the transaction until 45 days from when a filing is made under the ICA. Accordingly, where an investment gives rise to national security risks, foreign investors should consider making a pre-closing ICA filing and including a closing condition predicated on obtaining national security clearance in Canada—for example, if the 45-day national security screening period has expired without the minister taking any action or a national security review has otherwise been dispensed with. The investor can also seek to allocate the national security risk through the efforts covenant in the transaction agreement.
In March 2024, the Canadian parliament enacted significant amendments to the ICA through Bill C-34; however, many of the most consequential changes are not yet in force and are expected to be implemented over the course of 2025.
In particular, provisions of Bill C-34, expected to take effect in 2025, will establish a mandatory pre-closing notification obligation for investments of any size in an entity carrying on prescribed business activities, where prescribed indicia of control are satisfied. Key details underpinning this notification obligation, including the business activities to which it will relate, will be provided for by regulation.
Other significant amendments to the ICA expected to come into force this year include the power for the federal cabinet to order a net-benefit review of investments by state-owned enterprises that are subject to a mandatory filing obligation but do not exceed the relevant financial threshold, and the expansion of the national security regime to explicitly capture partial asset acquisitions.
More generally, over the coming year, Canada's recent trend of more rigorous national security scrutiny is likely to continue, and the responsible minister's expanded ability to accept mitigation under Bill C-34 is likely to result in more investments being cleared subject to conditions.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2025 White & Case LLP