CMA Publishes Court of Session Ruling Refusing Aramark's Challenge to Final Report in Completed Entier Acquisition
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published, on 7 October 2026, information confirming that the Court of Session had refused Aramark Limited's appeal against the final report requiring it to divest Entier Limited. Aramark had filed the underlying application for review with the Competition Appeal Tribunal in February 2026, alongside an application to extend time. The publication marks the latest development in a Phase 2 inquiry that has been running since March 2025, covering the food manufacturing and contract catering sector. The inquiry's history is substantial. The CMA referred the deal to Phase 2 in August 2025 and issued its final report in January 2026, finding competition concerns. A Final Order was published on 30 April 2026 and a remedy group was appointed on 1 May 2026. Derogations from the order were granted in June and August 2026, indicating ongoing operational management of the merger's interim arrangements. Aramark's application had sought to overturn the divestment remedy imposed following the CMA's Phase 2 findings, after the Tribunal refused its extension request and permission to appeal. The Court of Session granted permission in June 2026, but its 7 October 2026 ruling lets the CMA's final report and divestment requirement stand. No advisers are named in the source.
Why this matters
Aramark's failed challenge to the CMA's final report is an important reminder that the Phase 2 process does not end at publication of a final report. Parties can and do challenge the remedies imposed, which can significantly prolong the resolution of a completed acquisition, even where, as here, the challenge ultimately fails. In the food services and contract catering sector, the eight months of uncertainty about the divestment remedy created operational risk for both merging parties, their clients, and employees. The case also illustrates the CMA's continued willingness to impose binding orders rather than accept behavioural undertakings in Phase 2 matters.
On the Ground
This matter activates public M&A and regulatory clearance practices, particularly teams experienced in CMA Phase 2 proceedings and remedy negotiations. The review application required specialist competition law advice on the grounds for challenging a final report and the applicable procedural rules. A trainee on this matter would help maintain the CP (conditions precedent) checklist tracking outstanding CMA obligations, prepare summaries of the derogation history, coordinate correspondence with the monitoring trustee, and index documents for the review application bundle.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What grounds did Aramark rely on to challenge the CMA's final report, and why did the Court of Session ultimately refuse the appeal?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved