Businesses may take advantage of rapid technological developments to increase sales by designing products with a short lifespan and encouraging consumers to buy a replacement more quickly than they otherwise might have to, which is commonly known as planned obsolescence. While employing a holistic approach and exploring planned obsolescence from three different angles—the demand side, supply side and environmental side—the article argues that the current measures in the fields of unfair competition and consumer protection law, competition law and environmental law are quite insufficient to deal with planned obsolescence. Therefore, there is a need for an EU measure outlawing planned obsolescence in the context of the circular economy.

Debates have surged in the EU on how EU competition policy can best support the European Green Deal. In the theoretical and practical scopes, non-economic factors in competition law analysis are problematic due to the difficulty in measuring the concrete benefits of trade-offs. The National Competition Authorities (NCAs) rather than the European Commission (EC) are leading the 'sustainability in competition law' debates, which is the focus of this paper. Therefore, this study reviews the current status quo of all NCAs' positions concerning sustainability-related matters by classifying them into four typologies in terms of their willingness to incorporate sustainability in their assessments. It further identifies four emerging NCAs models which seem to divert from the EC's view.This can be problematic in ensuring the uniform application of competition law. IntroductionSustainability is at the heart of the European Union (EU) with its pressing challenges to decouple economic development from environmental degradation. In light of the European Green Deal (EGD), which is a long-term plan to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, inter alia, Commissioner Vestager (2020) noted that "the time has come to launch a European debate on how EU competition policy can best support the Green Deal". Indeed, the European Commission (EC) signals its intention towards more sustainability-friendly competition practices (European Economic and Social Committee, 2022; European Commission, 2022a) by committing to providing concrete examples of how sustainability objectives can be pursued by different types of cooperation agreements (i.e. joint production/purchasing agreements, standard setting etc.) without restricting competition. The EC in its long-awaited Draft Horizontal Cooperation Agreements Guidelines (Draft Guidelines) incorporated a new chapter on how to self-assess sustainability agreements (European Commission, 2022b). Apart from these draft guidelines and draft of the revised R&D and Specialisation Block Exemption Regulations (known as 'HBERs') (European Commission, 2022c), the EC is not leading this debate, most likely due to limited cases in this field. Instead, the National Competition Authorities (NCAs) have taken a lead for some time now, which is the focus of this paper.

Stock buyback programmes have been at least as important as dividend payments for almost a quarter of a century given their positive effect on financial metrics such as the price-to-earnings and return on equity ratios. Stock buyback is considered one of the most effective remedies against hostile takeovers and manipulations. Although there are several pre-bid corporate defense mechanisms -the paper only covers the option of poison pills -acquisition by a company of its own shares is increasingly seen as an efficient alternative to those. An Anglo-Saxon-centric concept of stock buybacks is commonly used to address concerns regarding shareholder short-termism and analyst forecasts. This stream of thought predominantly deems the buyback of undervaluaed stocks significant for capital maintenance as opposed to the dominant European view that repurchasing shares for commercial reasons may run counter to capital maintenance. This study, accordingly, conceptualises whether a stock buyback is indispensable in protecting a company's assets or used for mitigating agency problems through signalling managerial optimism.

Tontine insurance, one of the oldest and abstruse but upwardly-mobile types of life insurance, was doomed to be forgotten in the past but its value is currently re-appreciated by insurers. This study, accordingly, is to examine whether tontines can become fashionable again by considering current problems of Turkish insurance law. By doing this, due to the lack of legal arguments and case law in Turkey, comparative methodology was adopted, such as investigating France, where the most modern and common version of the use of tontine is found. Also, cases from Anglo-Saxon law systems were argued to demonstrate the legal nature of tontines. The study reaches a conclusion that the tontine is a very convenient form of insurance in today's condition.

It is very common to encounter commercial law regulations designed towards encouraging shareholders to make long-term investments in different jurisdictions in response to the issue of short-termism. Until a few months ago, EU Shareholder Rights Directive was seen as the most effective step, which was put into effect as of 3 September 2020, as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement. However, when the latest developments are considered, a new era has just started in Spain with Law No. 5/2021, which entered into force on 3 May 2021, regarding the duties and responsibilities of managers to increase shareholders’ long-term loyalty to listed companies by complying with the modifications envisaged by Directive 2017/828. This study, in light of what has been covered hitherto, examines the amendments (reform) brought by Law No. 5/2021 as well as evaluating its possible effects on the functioning of company law. Spanish Corporate Law Reform, Short-Termism, Shareholder Activism