
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: November 26, 2018

Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comHeadlines show that foreign governments, particularly China, have used clandestine methods to obtain, copy and use intellectual property developed and owned by American businesses. These methods originally included criminal acts such as bribery, commercial spying and outright theft of property. Criminal indictments have been obtained against numerous foreign nationals and American citizens working conspiratorially with them, for outright stealing of intellectual property with military and national security implications, as well as improper purchase and shipping of protected military and national security assets.

With the advent of prosperity, aided in part by these thefts, and being welcomed into international commerce, there is a newer and more insidious threat to American intellectual property and to our worldwide commercial and military influence and might: foreign interests simply (and legally) buying access to and even control over strategic American business and military assets. This is an “invasion” that is real, that has happened and is a continuing threat.
Seeking to curtail the uncompensated taking of American intellectual property and business secrets, the U.S. Treasury has begun the process of implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). The law, which President Donald Trump signed this summer, significantly changes the procedures used to conduct national security reviews of foreign investments in the United States.
Prior to FIRRMA, section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) authorized the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers by or with any foreign person which could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States. The reviews are conducted to determine the effects of such transactions on the country’s national security.
FIRRMA modified and broadened the authorities of the President and CFIUS under section 721 to expand the scope of foreign investments in the United States subject to national security review pursuant to section 721. While several FIRRMA provisions took effect immediately, others require implementing regulations. FIRRMA also authorizes the U.S. Department of the Treasury, as chair of CFIUS, to conduct pilot programs to implement provisions in the legislation that did not become effective immediately upon enactment.
As set forth in the U.S. Treasury’s Pilot Program Interim Rule, the pilot program expands the scope of transactions subject to CFIUS review to include certain non-controlling investments in U.S. businesses involved in critical technologies related to specific industries. As detailed in the rulemaking, “the purpose of implementing a pilot program addressing these areas is to confront the rapid changes in certain critical technology industries, the significant growth of certain types of foreign investment in those industries, and the current inability of CFIUS to review non-controlling transactions, which creates an unacceptable risk of undermining U.S. technological superiority in industries with national security implications.” The pilot program also makes effective FIRRMA’s mandatory declarations provision for transactions that fall within the scope of the pilot program. Below are several key aspects of the regulations:
The pilot program started on November 10, 2018. It will end no later than the date on which the final FIRRMA regulations are fully implemented, which is no later than February 2020. Given the breadth and significance of the changes, we encourage private equity funds and other businesses that may now fall under the purview of CFIUS to contact an experienced business attorney.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!