Proposed New CFIUS Filing Fees: What Dealmakers and In-House Counsel Need to Know
Proposed new fees for filing transaction reviews before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States were published Monday in the Federal Register, adding another significant CFIUS consideration for deals, international trade and national security lawyers said. And President Trump rejects another deal after CFIUS review, his third such order.
March 10, 2020 at 02:42 PM
4 minute read
Proposed new fees for filing voluntary transaction reviews before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States were published Monday in the Federal Register.
Kirkland & Ellis partner and international trade/national security practice leader Mario Mancuso said the final rule would "add an additional important CFIUS consideration for transactions. In addition to deciding how substantive CFIUS risks are allocated in a purchase agreement (for example, relating to potential mitigation measures), transaction parties will need to decide how to allocate payment of fees," in a statement.
The fees range from $750—where the deal value is equal to or greater than $500,000 but less than $5 million—up to $300,000, where the transaction value is equal to or greater than $750 million.
The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act enacted in 2018 authorized CFIUS, the interagency panel at the U.S. Treasury Department, to collect filing fees so long as the fees don't exceed $300,000 or 1% of the transaction value, whichever is less, adjusted annually for inflation.
Mancuso, who was a former senior member of President George W. Bush's national security team and a CFIUS decision-maker, said in a statement that the proposed fees amount to 0.15% or less of transaction values. Not all transactions notified to CFIUS will require payment of a filing fee, he said.
The proposed fees are for "covered transactions" under the Part 800 rule and "covered real estate transactions" under the Part 802 rule, which are filed with CFIUS as voluntary written notices, said Chris Griner, partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in Washington, D.C., in an interview.
Griner said they apply to notices filed by parties to a covered transaction, or a covered real estate transaction, after CFIUS has completed evaluating a declaration and taken action in cases where CFIUS requests the parties file a written notice; and also in cases where the committee informs parties that it is not able to conclude action, and the parties may file a written notice. The filing fee also applies where parties choose to notify CFIUS of a transaction through a certain type of notice instead of a declaration, he said.
"CFIUS went out of their way to make the new fees reasonable and with a view towards not discouraging transaction, but allowing appropriate scrutiny as necessary," Griner said.
But he added, "It's important to remember that this is only a proposed rule. CFIUS is not yet requiring payment of fees, and public comments may prompt meaningful changes in the eventual final rule."
Stroock associate Tatiana Sullivan said, "Funds generated by new filing fees will add to existing appropriations to ensure the government panel can keep staffing and resource levels up to meet the FIRRMA-expanded CFIUS workload."
Comments on the proposed rule are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, with the expected deadline of April 8.
On Friday, President Donald Trump blocked the third foreign acquisition or divestiture of a company after a CFIUS review of his administration. He ordered Beijing Shiji Information Technology Co. Ltd, based in China, and its subsidiary Shiji (Hong Kong) Ltd., in Hong Kong to divest from StayNTouch, a hotel management software company based in Delaware, which Shiji had acquired in September 2018.
Earlier, Trump blocked the hostile takeover of Qualcomm Inc., then organized in Singapore, by Broadcom Ltd. in 2018. He also stopped the proposed purchase of a U.S. semiconductor company by a Chinese venture fund in 2017. Presidents have only blocked six transactions since 1990, according to an alert from Hogan Lovells.
Meanwhile, the formerly obscure CFIUS recently had a moment in the spotlight when it was mentioned in the final season of "Silicon Valley," the HBO series. In the show, the interagency panel put the kibosh on the fictional tech company's plan to relocate its headquarters to the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
Although the show's writers misunderstood how CFIUS functions, it probably marks one of the panel's few mentions in popular entertainment, as noted by Lowenstein Sandler attorneys Abbey E. Baker and Doreen Edelman in a recent commentary in Corporate Counsel affiliate Legaltech News.
Note: This story has been updated with information about the presidential order issued on March 6.
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 AllNew Merger-Review Process Could Doom Some Deals, Add Headaches, Subjectivity to Others
7 minute readFTC Bans Exec From Chevron Board—Exercising Authority It Doesn't Have, GOP Dissenters Say
5 minute read$5.3 Billion Sale of MotoGP's Parent Hammered Out by Lawyers From Around Globe
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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