CFIUS Pilot Program May Not Cast as Wide a Net as Feared, Experts Say
Last week's sudden announcement that more foreign investments in American technology businesses would be subjected to national security reviews as early as November as part of a federal pilot program startled many, but some international trade law experts say not as many businesses may be affected as initially feared.
October 18, 2018 at 01:34 PM
4 minute read
The dust is settling after the shock of last week's sudden announcement that more foreign investments in American technology businesses would soon be subjected to national security reviews and mandatory reporting requirements as part of a federal pilot program.
But it appears that the initiative, which caught many by surprise, might not cast as wide a net as initially feared, according to Richard Matheny, a litigation partner at Goodwin Procter in Washington, D.C., who heads the firm's global trade practice.
“I liken the pilot program to a mortar round launched into your practice group. It exploded and there's rubble and dust everywhere and your ears are ringing and you're not sure if you're bleeding,” he said. “What I've tried to do is calm the ringing in the ears and help people understand what this means.”
The pilot program is part of the recently enacted Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act and is slated to take effect on Nov. 10. Under the new rules, any American business that has a hand in “critical technology” and accepts certain types of foreign investments, including noncontrolling investments, must file a declaration that provides details of the transaction to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the U.S. Treasury Department.
The program applies to “critical technologies” in 27 industries, which includes a wide range of businesses. They cover aircraft manufacturing, aluminum production, battery makers, biotech, nanotech and communications equipment, among others.
“People are going to rush to that list of 27 industries and say, 'Holy smokes! I'm in that industry. I must be covered by the program,'” Matheny said. But that might not be the case.
Like Matheny, Kevin Wolf, a partner in Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's international trade practice in Washington, D.C., said the scope of the mandatory filing requirement is “narrower in the sense that not everything involving the technologies … is triggering.”
“It has to be a critical technology, which is defined as what's on one of the export control lists and even then it's not all technologies on one of the export control lists,” he added. “Everybody has to become an export control attorney now. Everybody has to get into the weeds of the commerce control list.”
Matheny noted that the company in question must have a hand in at least one of five categories of critical technologies that trigger the reporting requirements. Four of the five categories apply to weapons and defense services technologies.
“Most U.S. businesses don't do anything in those categories,” Matheny said.
But the fifth category, which concerns “emerging and foundational technologies,” could be troublesome. The problem now is that the government has yet to define this category, Matheny said.
He said clarity would eventually emerge through the rulemaking process and an upcoming public comment period, the date of which has not been set.
It's also expected that the U.S. government will look to the Chinese government's “Made in China 2025” plan and define the high-tech sectors highlighted in that program, which includes the agricultural, aerospace and biotech fields, as “emerging and foundational.”
“It's going to be key to see what things are added to foundational and emerging tech,” said Clif Burns, an international trade lawyer and counsel at Bryan Cave in Washington, D.C. “That will vastly expand the scope of things that are subject to these mandatory declarations.”
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 AllSoundCloud GC Takes Legal Reins of Condé Nast at Tumultuous Time
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
As AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
FTC, DOJ Withdrawal of Antitrust Guidelines for Collaboration Infuriates Republicans
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1AI Tools, Antitrust Risks: The Hidden Dangers of Software Pricing Tools
- 2In Merger Hunt, Legacy New York Firms With Less Than $1B in Revenue in Crosshairs
- 3Population and Caseload Boom Birth New West Georgia Judicial Circuit
- 4California’s Workplace Violence Laws: Protecting Victims’ Rights in the Workplace
- 5Dealing With an Undocumented Witness in the Second Trump Era
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