ex post Definition

GLOSSARY

What does ex post mean?

ex ante is Latin for ‘beforehand’. When there is uncertainty about the value of a variable before a process has taken place, the estimate of this variable is called ‘ex-ante’. When the process is finished and the variable known, the formerly uncertain variable is called ex post ‘after the fact’.

View the related checklists about ex post

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived]

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived] Archived:This timeline has been archived. For developments from January 2024 onwards, see EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive—timeline if they relate to the EU BRRD, or UK bank recovery and resolution regime—timeline if they relate to the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, For further guidance on the EU BRRD, see Practice Note: Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—essentials. For further guidance on the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, see Practice Note: The UK bank recovery and resolution regime. Date Source Document Description 20 December 2023 European Banking Authority The EBA publishes amendments to disclosures and reporting on MREL and TLAC The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published its final draft implementing technical standards (ITS) on amendments to disclosure and reporting of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss absorbency requirement (TLAC). The amendments reflect the new requirement to deduct investments in eligible liabilities instruments of entities belonging to the same resolution group, the...

Evidence and disclosure in judicial review proceedings―checklist

Evidence and disclosure in judicial review proceedings―checklist This Checklist considers some of the key issues around evidence and disclosure that parties should consider before and during judicial review proceedings. It is intended to provide a starting point and is not exhaustive. Parties should keep in mind the relevant time limits and procedural requirements throughout. See Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol. Party Action Considerations and steps Claimant Consider exercising statutory rights to information before writing a letter before claim Before writing a letter before claim, a claimant may be able to seek information from a public authority under the UK General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) (where they are the data subject), the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI 2004/3391 (on environmental matters). For further information, see:—Data protection regime—overview—Freedom of information—overview—Environmental information regulation—overview Claimant Seek pre-action disclosure Claimants can request information and documents at the pre-action stage provided the request is proportionate and limited to...

Case C- 583/13 P Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (dawn raids) [Archived]

Case C- 583/13 P Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (dawn raids) [Archived] CASE HUB (date of judgment—18/06/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 June 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Deutsche Bahn and several subsidiaries against the General Court judgment upholding the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2011 authorising dawn raids at Deutsche Bahn premises on 29 March 2011 and subsequent decisions authorising additional inspections following allegations that Deutsche Bahn (and its subsidiaries) had abused a dominant position. On 18 June 2015, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court judgment to the extent that it rejected Deutsche Bahn's plea alleging infringement of the rights of defence in view of the irregularities affecting the conduct of the first inspection and annulled the contested Commission decisions. The case focuses on the scope of the Commission's powers of investigation when ordering and carrying out...

Chile merger control

Chile merger control A conversation with Diego Hernández, partner at Chilean law firm FerradaNehme, on key issues on merger control in Chile. NOTE–to see whether notification thresholds in Chile and throughout the world are met, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Chilean merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Chile? On 1 June 2023, the current Chilean merger control regime marked six years since coming into force. This new regime, set out in Section IV of the Chilean Competition Act (Decree Law No. 211, DL 211), established a pre-emptive mandatory notification with the National Economic Prosecutors Office (Fiscalía Nacional Económica, FNE) for transactions qualifiable as ‘concentration operations’ that meet the thresholds indicated in question 4 below. The merger control comprises a two-stage investigation process: 30 working days for phase I once the notification is declared complete and an additional 90 working days for phase II, which can be...

Discover our 96 Practice Notes on ex post

How do regulators decide if licensing is according to FRAND terms?

How do regulators decide if licensing is according to FRAND terms? Purpose of FRAND terms Occasionally, companies involved in high-tech industries co-operate to devise common standards. For example, mobile telephone operators co-operate on issues such as ensuring interoperability, like GSM, 3G and 4G, often through an agency like the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. Where a company contributes its patented technology to a common standard, it must agree in return to license the relevant patents to competitors on FRAND terms (ie terms which are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory). However, there is scope for dispute. FRAND terms are designed to ensure that essential protected technology incorporated in a standard is accessible to all the users of that standard on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions. In particular, FRAND terms can prevent intellectual property rights holders from making the implementation of a standard difficult by refusing to license or by requesting unfair or unreasonable fees (in other words excessive fees) after the industry has...

Where a buyer purchases registered land which has no registered interests noted, but it later transpires that an interest (easement) exists which was failed to be registered on first registration (as required under section 27 of the Land Registration Act 2002), is the registration of the interest ex post facto prohibited, or can it be registered regardless of the fact that it was not raised on first registration?

Where a buyer purchases registered land which has no registered interests noted, but it later transpires that an interest (easement) exists which was failed to be registered on first registration (as required under section 27 of the Land Registration Act 2002), is the registration of the interest ex post facto prohibited, or can it be registered regardless of the fact that it was not raised on first registration? We have assumed that: • the servient tenement was not registered when the easement was granted, and • the easement is a legal easement, having been granted by deed The first registration of the servient tenement, whether under the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925) or under the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002), will have been subject to existing legal easements binding the servient tenement, under LRA 1925, s 5(b), The Land Registration Rules 1925 (LRR 1925), SI 1925/1093, r 258, and LRA 2002, ss 11(4), 12(4), Sch 1, para 3. As to whether the easement binds subsequent...

See the 2 Q&As about ex post

EU Competition law—daily round-up (02/12/2024)

A round-up of EU competition law developments, including (amongst other things) the latest EUMR developments.

An end to below-threshold referrals under Article 22 EUMR (Illumina v Commission; Grail v Commission (Joined cases))

Competition analysis: In a landmark decision that agreed with the prior opinion of Advocate General Emiliou, the Court of Justice dealt a fatal blow to the expanded application of Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). The Court of Justice held that the mechanism did not permit Member States to refer proposed acquisitions that fall below the national jurisdictional thresholds to the European Commission (Commission) for review. In the short term, the decision deprives the Commission of a key tool in its ability to police potentially problematic transactions, including so-called ‘killer acquisitions’. For Illumina v Grail, this decision overturns the General Court’s judgment and annuls the Commission’s decision to prohibit its US$7.1bn acquisition. It is significant because it restores certainty as to when the Commission may scrutinise deals that are beyond the scope of the EUMR and Member State merger control thresholds. Written by Timothy McIver, partner at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

Read the latest 168 News articles on ex post

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"While we began looking at ��˾��ҹ�� products primarily for cost saving, it quickly became more about customer service, ease of onboarding, ongoing training and breadth of resources available."

Co-Op

Access all documents on ex post

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

��˾��ҹ��

GLOSSARY