Three Things to Know About Just-Released Proposed CFIUS Rules
The new rules would expand requirements for review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the interagency panel, to include minority stakes in investments in more industries and additional real estate transactions, under the law enacted by Congress last year.
September 17, 2019 at 07:24 PM
4 minute read
This story has been updated.
More proposed regulations implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, affecting investments by foreign entities in U.S. companies, were released Tuesday by the Treasury Department for comment.
The new rules would expand requirements for review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, the interagency panel, to include minority stakes in investments in more industries and additional real estate transactions, under the law enacted by Congress last year.
"U.S. companies need to be aware of their business activities that are covered by these new rules in anticipation of receipt of any future investment from foreign investors. For foreign investors in the U.S., they need to be aware not only of the business activities of their U.S. targets but of where the U.S. businesses in which they are investing are located, because the U.S. government continues to demonstrate increasing interest in scrutinizing international transactions in the interest of national security," said Wiley Rein international trade, national security and telecom partner Richard C. Sofield, former director of the foreign investment review staff for the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice.
The new rules would apply broadly but CFIUS is looking to build in exceptions for certain countries, he said. The deadline for written comments is Oct. 17, according to the Treasury Department notice.
Briefly, here are three things to know about the new proposed rules:
- CFIUS is expanding jurisdiction to cover investments that are less than controlling investments in technology, infrastructure and data companies, collectively known as TID businesses. It is lowering the threshold level of investment in these three types of transactions to assert jurisdiction over more transactions.
- CFIUS is requiring mandatory filings for certain investments in which a foreign government has a "substantial interest," and it is extending its jurisdiction to cover a broad swath of real estate transactions. Any investment by a sovereign wealth fund, for example, a government-owned entity.
- CFIUS will apply to a broad swath of certain real estate transactions. Before it was mainly proximity issues. Transactions that are part of air or maritime ports within "close proximity" of military installations or "extended range" of certain military installations and within certain geographic areas associated with missile fields and offshore ranges are included.
According to an alert posted by Arent Fox partner David Hanke, the new rules also apply with respect to real estate if a parcel "meets one of three specific criteria in relation to a U.S. military installation or other U.S. government facility that is 'sensitive for reasons relating to national security.' These criteria are that the real estate: Is in 'close proximity' to that installation or facility; could enable foreign intelligence collection on activities conducted there; or could otherwise expose national security activities there to risk of foreign surveillance."
The Treasury Department previously released guidance for dealmakers on new CFIUS regulations concerning investment funds exceptions under its Critical Technology Pilot Program introduced in November 2018.
Partner Christian Davis at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C. summarized: "The proposed regulations reflect CFIUS's effort to implement the FIRRMA mandate while taking into consideration both national security and business concerns. The result is a much more complex regulatory regime that investors and businesses will need to unravel."
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
FTC, DOJ Withdrawal of Antitrust Guidelines for Collaboration Infuriates Republicans
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 2Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 3Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 4Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
- 5Georgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
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