CFIUS Issues More Guidance for Dealmakers, Lawyers Say
The updated FAQs provide new insight on the specific circumstances that would trigger the need for review of an investment fund transaction, but they are still very fact-specific and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis with counsel, lawyers say.
July 16, 2019 at 07:28 PM
3 minute read
The interagency panel within the U.S. Treasury Department that reviews foreign deals for national security risks dropped more guidance recently about investment funds exceptions under its Critical Technology Pilot Program.
Chris Griner, chair of the national security practice/CFIUS/compliance practice group at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in Washington, D.C., and special counsel Shannon Reaves explained in a special bulletin issued by the firm last week that updated Frequently Asked Questions guidance just released by the Treasury Department's committee on foreign investment in the U.S., or CFIUS, confirms that the pilot program introduced in November under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 applies to investments “by or through investment funds.” They said that broader fund exceptions under FIRRMA also apply to the pilot program.
The updated FAQs provide new insight and clarifications on the specific circumstances that would trigger the need for review of an investment fund transaction, but they are still very fact-specific and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis with counsel, the Stroock lawyers said.
As little as 1% foreign equity in a deal for a U.S. company covered by the pilot program could now trigger the need for a CFIUS review, a far smaller share than the controlling equity or controlling rights that used to trigger the CFIUS review requirement, so M&A dealmakers must pay close attention.
“It could be at any equity level. That's an important difference,” Griner said.
“The determining factor will be the rights the foreign investor holds in the pilot program U.S. businesses,” Reaves added.
The Treasury Department is also expected to issue new proposed regulations this fall. Firms and clients should watch for the opportunity to comment on them during the rulemaking comment period, Griner and Reaves said, because the regulations are sure to affect transactions.
Meanwhile, just as law firms have been busy hiring and poaching other CFIUS practitioners from competitors to meet increased demand, the government also has been on a hiring spree to meet the need for more officials to perform the regulatory reviews, which should cut down some of the backlog that had been previously reported, the attorneys said.
“We are seeing some improvement in the timing for completing the CFIUS process,” Griner said.
But Reaves warned, “also, CFIUS will now have more personnel who dedicate time to monitoring for transactions that should have been notified but were not. The pilot program allows fines of up to the value of the transaction for non-compliance.”
Read More:
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 AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
- 1Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 2Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 3Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 4Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
- 5Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
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