New U.S.-China Investment Dynamic Focuses On AI and Sensitive Technologies
An Executive Order released by the Biden Administration on Aug. 9 places increased importance on due diligence when investing in specific foreign countries. The Executive Order will regulate outbound investments in China with a focus on key technologies critical to safeguarding U.S. national security, including artificial intelligence.
September 07, 2023 at 04:12 PM
8 minute read
The Biden Administration released the highly anticipated, "Executive Order on Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern" (Executive Order) on August 9, which places increased importance on due diligence when investing in specific foreign countries. The Executive Order will regulate outbound investments in China with a focus on key technologies critical to safeguarding U.S. national security. It also directs the Treasury Department and other agencies to promulgate regulations that will place restrictions on investments within three sectors of China's economy: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and technologies involved with artificial intelligence.
The full implementation of the regulations is a long way away, as the Treasury Department released its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in parallel with the Executive Order. The timeline provides for a 45-day public comment period, to be followed by draft regulations issued by Treasury and a subsequent comment opportunity prior to the finalization of the regulations.
|Lay of the Land: Fortifying National Security with Economic Security
The key facets of the outbound investment regulations as stated in the Executive Order and proposed in the ANPRM include:
|- The Executive Order covers investments in China, which includes Hong Kong and Macau, together "countries of concern."
- The Executive Order will pertain to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, entities organized under the laws of the U.S. or any jurisdiction within the U.S., including any foreign branches of any such entities, and any person in the U.S. Treasury is considering whether "indirect" transactions will be in scope of the regulations, to prevent U.S. persons from seeking to end-around the rules by utilizing foreign intermediaries.
- Regarding technologies under consideration for regulation, the Executive Order and accompanying ANPRM defines the term "covered national security technologies and products" to include "sensitive technologies and products in the semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence sectors that are critical for the military, intelligence, surveillance, or cyber-enabled capabilities."
- The Executive Order imposes two types of restrictions on outbound investments. The first is an absolute prohibition on U.S. investment in certain Chinese "covered national security technologies and products." The other restriction is more akin to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), as modified by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) and provides for a notification requirement for U.S. investments in other Chinese "covered national security technologies and products."
- The notification process will seek detailed information about the transaction, including the identities and backgrounds of the parties to the transaction, the nature of the technology for which the investment will be applied, and copies of relevant transaction documents and other agreements, all to be provided electronically.
Once final regulations are promulgated, there will be an additional 12 months for the Treasury Department to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations, and subsequent revisions may be proposed should the rules not be meeting their desired outcomes or catch too many unanticipated investments — just as occurred with the FIRRMA regulations that were modified after a short experience with the original regulations. Given the runway ahead, there is time for organizations and investors to prepare for what this means for the future.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
An AI Danger to Minors: Two Texas Families Want to Shut Down Character.AI
4 minute readAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250