Category: 3. Business

Baker McKenzie Cairo has acted as lead legal counsel to The Arab Energy Fund on its strategic investment in Tagaddod, the tech-powered biofuel feedstocks platform operating across Africa, Asia and Europe. The investment was made through Series A funding round led by The Arab Energy Fund (TAEF) and included FMO, VKAV and A15.

The transaction marks a key milestone in The Arab Energy Fund’s commitment to advancing innovative and sustainable solutions in the energy and environmental sectors. The deal was successfully completed in September 2025.

Leading the transaction, Hani Nassef, Partner and Head of M&A at Baker McKenzie Cairo, commented: “We are proud to have supported The Arab Energy Fund on this impactful investment that aligns with their regional sustainability goals. By bringing together our teams in Cairo, Riyadh and Amsterdam, we were able to deliver strategic, coordinated advice that supported our client’s objectives and ensured a smooth execution”.

Baker McKenzie Cairo provided comprehensive legal counsel across all stages of the transaction, including deal structuring, regulatory advisory and closing. The team was led by Hani Nassef, with key support from Bassem Abdelrahman and Hala Mohamed, and was part of a cross-border team that included colleagues from Baker McKenzie’s Saudi Arabia office including Karim Nassar and Rami Younes as well as the Dutch offices, including Koen Bos, Suzanne van Balen and Hein Blaauwendraad, reflecting the firm’s integrated global approach to complex transactions.

This transaction is a great example of our distinguished cross-border capabilities in M&A mandates, reflecting the consistent quality of work delivered by Baker McKenzie in the M&A domain.

Leaving Dentons

Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, LLP (“大成”) is an independent law firm, and not a member or affiliate of Dentons. 大成 is a partnership law firm organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, and is Dentons’ Preferred Law Firm in China, with offices in more than 40 locations throughout China. Dentons Group (a Swiss Verein) (“Dentons”) is a separate international law firm with members and affiliates in more than 160 locations around the world, including Hong Kong SAR, China. For more information, please see dacheng.com/legal-notices or dentons.com/legal-notices.

Google may have to make changes in the UK so people have more choice over which search engine they use, following a landmark decision from the regulator.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has designated Google with “strategic market status” under a law which came into force in January.

The decision does not mean the regulator has found wrongdoing at this stage.

Instead, it opens the door to what it called “proportionate, targeted interventions” to ensure the market is competitive.

Google has warned against any measures which its says might “inhibit UK innovation and growth.”

The CMA said it expected to begin a consultation on what changes might be introduced later in 2025.

In response to the announcement, Google has attempted to emphasise what it sees as the advantages of the regulatory status quo.

“UK businesses and consumers have been amongst the first to benefit from Google’s innovations, often months before their European counterparts,” Google’s competition boss Oliver Bethell wrote in a blog post.

“As a result, they see significant value: Google Search contributes billions of pounds a year to the UK economy — £118 billion in 2023 alone.

“Many of the ideas for interventions that have been raised in this process would inhibit UK innovation and growth, potentially slowing product launches at a time of profound AI-based innovation.”

The CMA said Google’s market dominance was unquestionable.

“We have found that Google maintains a strategic position in the search and search advertising sector – with more than 90% of searches in the UK taking place on its platform,” CMA digital markets boss Will Hayter said.

“Having taken into account the feedback received following our proposed decision, we have today designated Google’s search services with strategic market status.”

The CMA previously unveiled what it called a “roadmap” of potential measures it could take if Google was found to have significant market status.

It said it could potentially force the tech giant to include “choice screens” which would let users see alternative search providers, as well as giving publishers more control over how their content was used.

It also included what it called “fair principles” for how websites are ranked in search results, and an “effective complaints process” for businesses unhappy about their listing.

The move has been well-received by consumer groups, with Which? policy boss Rocio Concha calling it “an important step”.

“The CMA’s careful evidence gathering makes a compelling argument,” she said.

“Online search is evolving as GenAI tools become more widely used, but the CMA must still act to tackle the harmful dominance Google has now.”

The European Commission has pledged to “launch a call for expression of interest inviting European companies to share their AI models and systems” with more than 250 digital innovation hubs situated across the EU, with a view to those hubs – now refocused as ‘experience centres for AI’ – promoting “their wide-scale deployment across European strategic sectors”.

The measure is one of a series of new actions that the European Commission has committed to support EU-wide development and deployment of AI, in pursuit of improved productivity and growth. It wants businesses to adopt an ‘AI first’ approach to solving everyday problems but said that just 13.5% of EU businesses use AI currently.

The actions are set out in two new AI strategies the Commission published on Wednesday.

The first strategy, the ‘apply AI’ strategy, includes sector-specific commitments for industries such as health, manufacturing, defence and energy, as well as pledges with cross-sector relevance.

General actions include measures to support compliance with the EU AI Act by default and by design, in respect of relevant AI models and AI systems.

In this regard, the Commission has set up a new AI Act Service Desk, which it said businesses can use to “access all relevant information about the AI Act, navigate its content, understand how it applies and get tailormade answers to any question related to its implementation”. Businesses will also be able to use the hub to check “whether they are subject to legal obligations and understand the steps they need to take to comply”.

The Commission said it will “work with priority” on developing new AI Act-related guidelines too. Those guidelines will concern the classification of AI systems as ‘high-risk’ – something the Commission consulted on earlier this year – as well as guidelines on the AI Act’s interplay with other EU law, with specific focus on sectoral legislation. It said it will also push EU member states that have not already done so, to establish “the responsible national competent authorities” they are supposed to, to support “successful implementation of the AI Act”.

The Commission’s new strategies contained no announcement in relation to whether it will delay the implementation of certain AI Act provisions, amidst calls on it from industry and other policymakers globally to do so. Only some of the chapters have taken effect so far – prohibitions on certain types and uses of AI began applying in February, while rules impacting providers of so-called ‘general purpose AI models’ came into effect on 2 August. Rules applicable to ‘high-risk’ AI systems do not come into effect until August next year as plans stand right now.

Other general actions include a series of measures to bolster AI literacy within the EU workforce, funding for “targeted research on next-generation AI agents”, as well as plans to support the development of next-generation AI – so-called ‘frontier AI’ – in the EU.

“Building on its assets – world-class computing infrastructure, excellent scientific talent, a distinctive approach with a clear emphasis on open source and safety, the Commission will launch and coordinate a frontier AI initiative to accelerate progress in frontier AI capabilities in Europe by bringing together Europe’s leading industrial and academic actors and supporting strategic efforts,” the Commission said. “This initiative will focus on unlocking advanced capabilities through cutting-edge AI architectures and high-quality data, leveraging the computing capacity offered by the AI factories and gigafactories.”

“To foster the collaboration, the community will be brought together through a call for expressions of interest. The initiative will address ecosystem bottlenecks and downstream demand by Europe’s industry enhancing both competitiveness and sovereignty in frontier AI development. As part of this initiative the Commission will launch major EU-wide competitions to develop open frontier AI models that are major drivers of innovation. These projects will receive free access to EuroHPC supercomputers, and their open models will be made widely available to public authorities across Europe as well as to the European scientific and business communities,” it said.

Sector-specific actions planned by the Commission include those in the health sphere, where it said actions aimed at supporting AI-related medical devices to enter the EU market will be considered.

The Commission also intends to run an initiative that would provide some medical researchers with access to EU computing power to help them bring forward new medicines that “address unmet medical needs and treat diseases that have proven difficult to cure, such as Alzheimer’s disease or certain cancers”.

That plan chimes with a wider agenda the Commission set out in its second strategy paper, the ‘AI in science strategy’, in which it laid out plans to create a “virtual institute that pools excellent talent, compute, data and research funding for AI”. This is to be called Resource for AI Science in Europe (RAISE). Under the RAISE umbrella, it is envisaged that European scientists will “advance AI technologies and apply them to the toughest scientific and technological challenges” – including across specific scientific disciplines – and have access to EU funding, data and computing power.

The Commission said the RAISE initiative is essential to help the EU compete with countries like the US, China, Japan and UK on integrating AI into scientific work.

Another sector earmarked for AI-related support by the Commission is manufacturing. The Commission said it will fund “continuous support” for the “AI-powered manufacturing solutions” so that they “progress from the lab to a high level of maturity suitable for real-world applications”. It has also pledged to “facilitate data pooling across industrial actors through trusted third parties, to ensure a sufficient volume of training data, while preserving intellectual property and data security and making use, as relevant, of the data labs in AI factories”. More details on this are expected to be set out by the Commission in a separate data union strategy later this month.

In relation to mobility, the Commission plans to make use of the EU’s AI factories and gigafactories to “fast track the development of innovative AI models and common software platforms for automated driving and vehicle management systems”. This is in addition to pursuing joint venture arrangements that facilitate real-world testing of AI-enabled self-driving vehicles in EU cities.

In the area of defence, the Commission said it will incentivise “dual use open architecture solutions for border security and critical infrastructure protection” and deploy dedicated European computing power infrastructure “for training of defence and space AI models and development of AI defence and space applications”.

The Commission has also promised to undertake “a targeted study to explore the legal challenges related to AI-generated outputs and how cutting-edge technological safeguards and technologies, including AI, could be used to prevent and mitigate the risks of copyright infringing AI content being generated, including by detecting and removing such content”, among other measures relevant to the EU’s creative industries.

Further plans to support the use of AI for helping to balance the energy system, and to make AI tools more visible to public sector bodies to make use of, were also set out by the Commission.

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said: “I want the future of AI to be made in Europe. Because when AI is used, we can find smarter, faster, and more affordable solutions. AI adoption needs to be widespread, and with these strategies, we will help speed up the process. Putting AI first also means putting safety first. We will drive this ‘AI first’ mindset across all our key sectors, from robotics to healthcare, energy and automotive.”

Main findings

For all GPs, regardless of user type, teachers and course leaders with insight into general practice and looking up specific knowledge related to an individual patient were crucial. Infrequent users of CME preferred self-study and fact-based lectures without participant involvement. However, they were open to courses designed for their own clinic. Although infrequent users preferred group-based learning to a lesser extent than frequent users, 68% versus 85%, it is still among the most preferred CME formats by infrequent users. Infrequent users and partial users were less inclined to attend weekly courses and courses abroad than frequent users. In contrast, frequent users valued interactive learning and did not mind more time-consuming courses. All user groups ranked online education, self-study, and sponsored meetings low, but infrequent users were less reluctant towards these formats.

Among infrequent users, 42% found the current mandatory CME extent appropriate, while 18% preferred it to be extended. Among partial and frequent users 61% and 63% respectively found the current mandatory CME extent appropriate. Additionally, 23% of partial users and 17% of frequent users preferred it to be extended. At first sight, this may seem contradictory to the GPs opposition to being obligated to participate in mandatory CME (72% among infrequent users, 58% and 53% among partial and frequent users respectively). This may indicate a difference between a ‘principled opposition’ to being obligated, which can be overridden by a ‘practical acceptance’ of mandatory CME.

Comparison with other studies

Most GPs preferred CME formats that involve peer engagement and interactive learning, which aligns with findings from other studies [10, 17]. These formats are also known to be the most effective in altering medical-care processes and improving patient health outcomes [18, 19]. But we also found that infrequent users preferred less interactive and less time-consuming formats. We did not find literature that have examined preferences divided by user type nor the consequences. Infrequent users more often relate their educational needs to patient centered knowledge gaps (look it up when needed, exclusively facts, reading on my own) this “point of care microlearning [20] can only rarely be documented and thus goes below the radar of remunerable CME.

Maher et al. [17] found that less than 9% of GPs indicated a preference for ‘totally online’ courses. The COVID-pandemic created a need to deliver education in virtual formats, and educators and health care professionals reported that they did not expect to return to previous models of educational delivery [21]. E-learning can make education mere accessible, immediate, and less time-consuming. Nevertheless, we found that although infrequent and partial users were slightly more inclined towards online education compared to frequent users, online formats were generally not a preferred preference for any user group.

This study showed that most GPs accepted the current extent of mandatory CME or even suggested it should be expanded. This aligns with a former study conducted before the introduction of mandatory CME in Denmark [10], where Danish GPs expressed positive attitudes towards mandatory CME elements if the content was selected by respected peers. Our findings differ from Macdougall et al. [22], who described mandatory training as frustrating, particularly if it is irrelevant or repetitive, characterizing it as a ‘tick-box culture’ and ‘CPD point-collecting’ regardless of engagement, with no allowance for prior experience. However, Macdougall et al. also noted that mandatory training can be beneficial if it is carefully designed, aligned with learners needs, and the topics appears relevant [22].

The high level of acceptance of mandatory CME among Danish GPs may be interpreted through the lens of self-determination theory [23, 24]. It describes that a movement from extrinsic towards intrinsic motivation requires three basic psychological needs: Perceived competence, relatedness, and autonomy. The Danish mandatory CME programme is based on an intensive learning needs analysis [14] which ensures relevant learning (perceived competence). Furthermore, the CME programme offers great variation in educational formats (autonomy). Consistency with the three basic psychological needs may help explain the seemingly contradictory finding of minimal resistance to mandatory CME among Danish GPs. Alternatively, the GPs may view mandatory CME as an opportunity for a break or as an educational guarantee rather than an unnecessary obligation [9].

The reluctance of the infrequent users towards user involvement appears to conflict with peer relatedness and may pose a challenge to learning, as it limits theoretically optimal learning opportunities [18, 19] and may thus contain a paradox. However, we do show that infrequent users engage in learning by participating in activities within their own clinics, and in group-based learning, both of which provide active learning opportunities and social interaction among colleagues (relatedness).

Methodological considerations

The strengths of this study include the use of a comprehensive questionnaire covering various aspects of CME, which was distributed to all GPs in Denmark. The questionnaire was validated through interviews, enhancing the reliability of the data collected [7]. The response rate was 40%, which introduces the potential for response bias, particularly if those with strong positive or negative attitudes toward CME were more likely to respond. The study sample was largely representative of the overall GP population in Denmark, apart from a slightly higher proportion of female GPs [8]. Moreover, the proportion of GPs identifying as infrequent users matched the annual report from Association of General Practitioners [25].

However, there are also limitations. The study was a cross-sectional questionnaire, which limits the ability to draw causal inferences from the observed associations. Using self-reported data introduces the risk of social desirability bias or recall bias, which can be a limitation if GPs are less likely to report themselves as infrequent users. However, the proportion of GPs who classify themselves as infrequent users corresponds with the proportion of GPs who do not use their reimbursement, as reported in the annual report from PLO-E [25]. Additionally, the questionnaire was developed based on a qualitative study with interviews with GPs who have not used their CME funds [7]. This may be a weakness of the questionnaire regarding preferences for CME formats, as it may risk underrepresenting the preferences of frequent and partial users. Nevertheless, our focus was on infrequent CME users, and the questionnaire offered an option to provide additional preferences for formats in the free-text comments, though no new preferences emerged from these comments.

Perspectives

To make CME effective and acceptable, it should align with the core psychological needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Teachers with practical experience and relevant patient-focused content boost perceived competence. Infrequent users prefer self-study and fact-based lectures without user involvement, but they are open to group-based learning and in-practice formats, which should be used strategically to foster relatedness and offer an opportunity to calibrate knowledge, exchange professional experience, and detect the unknown unknown.

Offering a variety of accessible, smaller-scale courses supports autonomy and diversity.

While mandatory CME can be seen as a valuable break or educational guarantee, especially to infrequent users, it must be balanced with voluntary options to avoid demotivating frequent users. Trust in professional integrity, combined with accountability, benefits practitioners, patients, and the healthcare system.