
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.

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

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Author: Graham Staton

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Author: Chris Seelinger
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!