Tuesday, January 26, 2021
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

U.S. Election Raises Questions about CFIUS’s Role in Foreign Investments

by Wendy Wysong
November 22, 2016
in Compliance
Changes to come concerning U.S. trade

with contributing authors Nick Turner and Ali Burney

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States is expected to significantly transform U.S. foreign policy, particularly with respect to trade and economic sanctions. Among the economic tools available to the President for protecting U.S. national security is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS, acting under the direction of the President, has the power to suspend, prohibit or seek modifications to proposed investments by foreign persons in U.S. companies and assets which raise specific national security concerns. In recent years, CFIUS has made headlines for its involvement in several high-profile transactions by foreign firms, including notable cases involving Chinese investors.

Looking Forward

As under previous administrations, foreign investors should consider the potential U.S. national security implications of any proposed investment in the United States. This includes direct investment in critical infrastructure and noncritical infrastructure that raises questions of information security, geography, major suppliers or other factors related to U.S. national security.

Thus far, the incoming administration has not made any specific proposals with respect to CFIUS. It is also unclear to what extent the President-elect will follow through with aspects of his campaign rhetoric in regard to foreign trade and investment.  Policy changes are likely to crystallize rapidly during the first few months of the new administration starting on 20 January 2017.

CFIUS Background

Under the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA), the President is authorized to review mergers, acquisitions and takeovers of U.S. companies or assets by any foreign person where the transaction could result in foreign control of a target company or asset which is engaged in interstate commerce (collectively, “covered transactions”). FINSA calls for additional investigation of covered transactions involving foreign government-controlled entities, potential threats to U.S. national security or critical U.S. infrastructure, as defined in the act.

FINSA tasks the Director of National Intelligence with performing an analysis of any threat to U.S. national security posed by any covered transaction. CFIUS’s members include the heads of the Departments of Treasury, Energy, Commerce, Homeland Security, Justice and Defense, as well as the U.S. Trade Representative and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, among others. Any party to a covered transaction may initiate a review by submitting written notice to CFIUS. However, CFIUS may also unilaterally review any covered transaction, whether proposed or completed, that did not undergo CFIUS review or that previously underwent CFIUS review on the basis of false or misleading information or where a party has breached an agreement with CFIUS pertaining to a transaction.

CFIUS reviews follow a three-step process with deadlines as defined in FINSA. The first step is a 30-day review of any covered transaction, which does not begin until after a formal filing.  The second step is a 45-day investigation of any covered transaction involving a foreign government-controlled entity or which could impair U.S. national security or result in foreign control of critical U.S. infrastructure.

Additionally, parties to a covered transaction typically engage in informal discussions with CFIUS members in advance of submitting a filing for review. These informal discussions provide an opportunity to gauge objections and conduct preliminary negotiations over changes to proposed investments needed to satisfy CFIUS members’ concerns regarding U.S. national security considerations.

The President has 15 days after the conclusion of an investigation to publicly announce a determination. The President may only block a covered transaction where there is credible evidence that the transaction will impair U.S. national security and where other U.S. laws are inadequate to address the perceived risks. These laws include, for example, the Export Administration Regulations and International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Past Trends

As of 2016, the President has exercised authority to oppose a covered transaction in only one case. That case involved the 2012 acquisition of a wind farm in Oregon by Ralls Corporation, whose owners included Chinese nationals. Although the parties did not submit a filing to CFIUS prior to the acquisition, CFIUS determined, after the acquisition, that the transaction posed a threat to U.S. national security due to the wind farm’s proximity to a U.S. Navy training facility. On 28 September 2012, President Obama issued an executive order calling for Ralls to divest itself of the wind farm. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia largely upheld the President’s order in July 2014.)

Negative publicity surrounding CFIUS investigations or congressional opposition may, in some cases, be sufficient to result in the termination of a proposed covered transaction. This was the case, for example, with China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s proposed acquisition of Unocal in 2005 and China-based Northwest Nonferrous International Investment Corporation’s proposed acquisition of Firstgold in 2009.  In 2011, Huawei abandoned its proposed acquisition of 3Leaf, a U.S.-based server company following scrutiny from CFIUS. In 2013, in response to CFIUS’s concerns, Japan’s SoftBank and Sprint Nextel reportedly agreed to drop Huawei as a supplier for certain mobile projects in connection with Softbank’s acquisition of Sprint Nextel. In 2016, members of Congress called on CFIUS to review Chongqing Casin Enterprise Group’s proposed takeover of the Chicago Stock Exchange.

Most recently, in November 2016, CFIUS reportedly objected to the acquisition of Germany-based Aixtron SE by a subsidiary of China-based Fujan Grand Chip Investment Fund LP due to U.S. national security concerns. Although CFIUS does not have formal jurisdiction over foreign transactions, the committee has occasionally opined on overseas acquisitions involving suppliers to U.S. defense contractors or sensitive technologies.

Despite these high-profile cases, CFIUS has approved the vast majority of covered transactions it has reviewed, including acquisitions of U.S. firms by Chinese investors. These include, for example, Shuanghui International’s acquisition of Smithfield Foods and Wanxiang Group’s acquisition of A123 Systems, both in 2013.

Conclusion

Looking forward, CFIUS may serve as a focal point for discussions concerning foreign investment controls under the new administration. At this time, we recommend that clients take a wait-and-see approach to this and other issues. As a best practice, clients may choose to designate staff members who are responsible for monitoring and communicating U.S. legal and regulatory updates to internal stakeholders. Clifford Chance will provide updates and analysis to our clients as developments warrant.


Previous Post

Resilient: Keith Wandell on Value-Focused Leadership

Next Post

Federal Regulators Unveil Proposed Cybersecurity Standards for Large Financial Firms

Wendy Wysong

Wendy L. Wysong is a partner at Steptoe & Johnson. She served previously as a litigation partner with Clifford Chance, offering clients advice and representation on compliance and enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Arms Export Control Act, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Export Administration Regulations, and OFAC Economic Sanctions. She was appointed by the State Department as the ITAR Special Compliance Official for Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) in 2010. Wendy combines her experience as a former federal prosecutor with the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for 16 years with her regulatory background as the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce. She managed its enforcement program and was involved in the development and implementation of foreign policy through export controls across the administration, including the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury and Homeland Security, as well as the intelligence community. Wendy received her law degree in 1984 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where she was a member of the University of Virginia Law Review.

Related Posts

illustration of mafia man in silhouette with red tie

The Mafia’s Jackpot: How Criminal Organizations are Profiting from COVID-19

January 22, 2021
illustration of videoconference, screen and speech bubbles

New Risks as COVID-19 Forces Rapid Technology Adoption

January 21, 2021
hand showing three fingers on gray background

A Culture of Compliance: The 3 R’s

January 19, 2021
2021 with light bulb in place of zero on orange background

Why 2021 is a Fresh Start for Compliance Training

January 18, 2021
Next Post
Federal Regulators Unveil Proposed Cybersecurity Standards for Large Financial Firms

Federal Regulators Unveil Proposed Cybersecurity Standards for Large Financial Firms

Access realtime data
Dynamic Risk Assessments with Workiva

Special Coverage

Special COVID page graphic

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management Coronavirus/COVID-19 corporate culture crisis management cyber crime cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making diversity DOJ due diligence fcpa enforcement actions financial crime GDPR GRC HIPAA information security internal audit KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk supply chain technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Vendor News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights