CMA Requires Aramark to Divest Entier After Court of Session Refuses Appeal Against Divestiture Order
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has reached the end of a protracted enforcement process requiring Aramark Limited to divest Entier Limited, following a series of legal challenges that concluded in Scotland's highest civil court. The CMA's Phase 2 investigation into Aramark's completed acquisition of Entier, a deal in the food manufacturing sector, resulted in a final report published on 15 January 2026 finding competition concerns and requiring divestiture. A Final Order was made on 30 April 2026. Aramark then mounted a challenge before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), filing a notice of application on 13 February 2026, one day after the applicable deadline of 12 February 2026. The CAT refused Aramark's application to extend time on 10 March 2026, and on 23 April 2026 refused permission to appeal to the Court of Session in Scotland. Aramark applied directly to the Court of Session for permission to appeal, which was granted at a hearing on 24 June 2026. A substantive hearing took place on an expedited basis on 10 September 2026. On 7 October 2026, the Court of Session handed down its opinion refusing Aramark's appeal. The case is notable for the procedural journey: a missed filing deadline triggered the entire appeal chain, which ultimately ran through two rounds at the CAT and a full hearing before the Inner House of the Court of Session. The CMA's divestiture order is now final, and a remedy group has been appointed to oversee its implementation, chaired by Crispin Wright and including Frances McLeman and Stephen Rose.
Why this matters
This case illustrates how a procedural misstep, missing a statutory challenge deadline by a single day, can set the parameters for an entire appellate process. The Court of Session's refusal to overturn the CMA's divestiture order confirms the robustness of Phase 2 remedies under the Enterprise Act 2002 and signals that courts will not easily reopen CMA final reports on appeal. For practitioners, the case is a live lesson in the importance of statutory timetable management when challenging CMA decisions. The appointment of a remedy group signals that divestiture monitoring is now the active legal workstream.
On the Ground
The active legal work has now shifted from challenge litigation to remedy implementation, involving the appointment and supervision of a monitoring trustee and the negotiation of derogations from the Final Order (two derogations have already been published, in May and July 2026). Competition law practices at firms advising either Aramark or a prospective buyer of Entier will be focused on the divestiture process, including negotiating the sale agreement, advising on any regulatory conditions attached to the buyer, and managing the monitoring trustee relationship. A trainee on this matter would assist with disclosure review in the divestiture process, preparation of regulatory notification filings for the buyer's acquisition, and tracking compliance with interim order conditions.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What lessons does the Aramark/Entier case hold for companies that have completed an acquisition and then face a CMA Phase 2 investigation requiring divestiture?”
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