Regulatory: A brief guide to CFIUS
The U.S. continues to attract foreign investment at an unparalleled rate.
May 31, 2012 at 05:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The U.S. continues to attract foreign investment at an unparalleled rate (to the tune of more than $225 billion in 2010). U.S. entities that find themselves across the bargaining table from foreign investors should consider the potential impact that review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) may have on their prospective transaction. Failure to understand CFIUS's mission and process can threaten a transaction and deprive your company of a valuable injection of foreign capital.
CFIUS, which is composed of nine federal agencies (and several agencies participating as observers and ex officio members) reviews transactions in which a foreign entity obtains control of a U.S. business to determine whether the transactions pose a threat to U.S. national security. If they do, CFIUS may impose conditions on the parties to mitigate those threats or, if the threats cannot effectively be mitigated, recommend to the president that he prohibit the transaction.
On average, CFIUS reviews approximately 100 transactions each year, but a company should consider CFIUS's applicability and effect any time it is a party to a transaction in which a foreign entity acquires a significant share of a U.S. business.
1. Although CFIUS is vested with the authority to initiate its own review of transactions, in the vast majority of cases the parties to the transaction initiate review by filing a voluntary notice. Why would any party do that? Three reasons: Once a transaction has been reviewed by CFIUS, it enters a statutory “safe harbor” in which it is sheltered from further review. If, on the other hand, the parties proceed with a transaction without CFIUS review, they run the continuing risk that the government will unwind the transaction and force the foreign entity to divest its ownership of the U.S. business.
If that seems unlikely, consider that two years after encouraging a Chinese investor to withdraw its bid for a Nevada mine near a sensitive military base, reports have recently surfaced that CFIUS has initiated an investigation of the 2010 purchase by a Hong Kong-based company of another mine near the base which many expect will result in forced divestment.
2. CFIUS approves roughly 90 percent of the transactions it reviews, and approval, which requires CFIUS to notify Congress that there are no unresolved national security concerns with respect to a transaction, may insulate against poor publicity and other transaction-threatening pressures.
3. The CFIUS process is designed to identify and mitigate threats to U.S. national security. U.S. businesses should feel compelled by a sense of corporate responsibility and citizenship to participate in the process.
So there are good reasons to consider filing a voluntary notice with CFIUS. However, the CFIUS process is often referred to as a “black box” because deliberations are not public and are based, in part, on a classified intelligence assessment.
Here are steps corporate counsel can take to protect their company against undue delay or an adverse CFIUS determination.
- Seek expert advice early. An expert CFIUS attorney will often be able to advise your company that a contemplated transaction is not subject to CFIUS because it does not involve a foreign entity, does not result in control of a U.S. business or simply does not raise any national security concerns. If review is advisable, an expert can help you prepare a complete and thorough notice and navigate the CFIUS process.
- Coordinate with other parties to the transaction.The CFIUS process is most efficient when all parties to a transaction join in the notice and cooperate with CFIUS.
- Take advantage of informal consultation. Companies frequently engage with individual CFIUS member agencies that may have a particular interest in a transaction. CFIUS guidance issued by the government also encourages companies to consult the CFIUS staff informally prior to submitting a notice and even to submit a draft notice for informal review. By making good use of these opportunities for informal consultation, companies can increase their odds of receiving a timely approval from CFIUS.
Addressing the CFIUS process early and openly will protect not only your company, but also U.S. national security.
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
© 2025 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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 2Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 3Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 4Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
- 5Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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