375 Search Results

September 20, 2019 |
Proposed CFIUS Regulations: The U.S. Remains Open for Business … but Read the Fine Print

Click for PDF On September 17, 2019, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued over 300 pages of proposed regulations to implement the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (“FIRRMA”), legislation that expanded the scope of inbound foreign investment subject to review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or the “Committee”). FIRRMA expanded—subject to the promulgation of these implementing regulations—the Committee’s jurisdiction beyond transactions that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business. The Committee’s jurisdiction will now include non-passive but non-controlling investments, direct or indirect, in U.S. businesses involved in specified ways with critical technologies, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal data (referred to as “TID U.S. businesses” for technology, infrastructure, and data) and certain real estate transactions. The comment period will conclude on October 17, 2019, and as required by FIRRMA, the final regulations will become effective no later than February 13, 2020. To date, only certain provisions of FIRRMA have been fully implemented. In late 2018, CFIUS launched a pilot program to require mandatory filings in higher risk “critical technology” investments. For the past year, the pilot program has served as a regulatory laboratory for the Committee—allowing it to experiment with the use of a short-form “declaration” and better assess the issues that arise in non-controlling but non-passive investments. Notably, the pilot program will remain in place for the foreseeable future, and the new proposed regulations will implement the remainder of the Committee’s expanded authority under FIRRMA. Other developments are still to come—including the publication of a list of excepted foreign countries from which certain investors will receive less scrutiny. Key developments are described below. Covered Investments No Changes to the Critical Technologies Pilot Program. The proposed regulations leave the existing pilot program for critical technologies untouched. Notably, “critical technologies” is defined to include certain items subject to export controls and other existing regulatory schemes, as well as emerging and foundational technologies controlled pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (“ECRA”). Throughout the summer, several political and non-political leads at the Department of Commerce reported that we can expect new emerging technologies to be identified under specific Export Administration Regulations export control classification numbers (“ECCNs”) within weeks. However, no new emerging technologies ECCNs have been identified since Commerce issued its advanced notice of proposed rule-making (“ANPRM”) on the subject last fall. Commerce has also noted that it plans to release an additional ANPRM focused on foundational technologies in the coming weeks. Identification of Critical Infrastructure Sectors. CFIUS may review transactions related to U.S. businesses that perform specified functions—owning, operating, manufacturing, supplying, or servicing—with respect to critical infrastructure across subsectors such as telecommunications, utilities, energy, and transportation. Relying in part on the definition provided in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, the new regulations define “critical infrastructure” to include physical or virtual systems or assets the destruction or incapacitation of which would have a debilitating impact on U.S. national security. Previously, President Obama used this definition to identify 16 critical infrastructure sectors meriting special protection and assistance. CFIUS is more specific in its new regulations, listing 28 particular types of “covered investment critical infrastructure” that require additional investment protection. This list, provided in an Appendix to the new regulations, includes a range of technology and assets—from producers of certain steel alloys to industrial control systems used by interstate oil pipelines with specified diameters. However, only U.S. businesses that perform the specific functions matched to each particular type of infrastructure are TID U.S. businesses. For example, companies providing physical or cyber security to a crude oil storage facility would be TID U.S. businesses, but those that provide fencing around the facility or commercially available off-the-shelf cyber security software to the facility are not. The new proposed regulations also provide specific definitions for the listed “covered investment critical infrastructure” functions. Definition of “Sensitive Personal Data.” CFIUS may review transactions related to U.S. businesses that maintain or collect sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens that may be exploited in a manner that threatens national security. “Sensitive personal data” is defined to include ten categories of data maintained or collected by U.S. businesses that (i) target or tailor products or services to sensitive populations, including U.S. military members and employees of federal agencies involved in national security, (ii) collect or maintain such data on at least one million individuals, or (iii) have a demonstrated business objective to maintain or collect such data on greater than one million individuals and such data is an integrated part of the U.S. business’s primary products or services. The categories of data include types of financial, geolocation, and health data, among others. Genetic information is also included in the definition regardless of whether it meets (i), (ii), or (iii). Excepted Investors from Excepted Foreign States. Under the new regulations, certain foreign investors with ties to “excepted foreign states” will receive preferential treatment with respect to the review of covered investments. The proposed regulations create an exception from covered investments (but not transactions that could result in control) for investors based on their ties to certain countries identified as “excepted foreign states,” and their compliance with certain laws, orders, and regulations (including U.S. sanctions and export controls). An investor’s nationality is not dispositive—the proposed regulations identify criteria that a foreign person must meet in order to qualify for excepted investor status. Among these, investors cannot qualify for and may lose their excepted status if they are parties to settlement agreements with OFAC or BIS, or are debarred by the Department of State, for sanctions or export control violations. This will have a significant impact on foreign companies who run afoul of U.S. sanctions and export control regulations—the potential loss of this status for respondents might have the unintended effect of deterring disclosures to OFAC and BIS by those concerned about the loss of excepted investor status. A list of factors will be posted on the Department of the Treasury’s website outlining what the Committee will consider when making a determination on whether certain investors from a foreign state will be excepted from CFIUS scrutiny. Such factors will include whether the state has established and is effectively utilizing a robust process to assess foreign investments for national security risks and to facilitate coordination with the United States on matters relating to investment security. The proposed regulations indicate that excepted states will be identified by the CFIUS Chairperson with the agreement of two-thirds of the voting members of the Committee, beginning two years after the effective date of the final rule (most likely February 2022). At the outset, the foreign state exception will likely apply to allies with whom the United States shares intelligence data under the multilateral UKUSA Agreement—Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Mandatory Filing Requirement. The proposed regulations implement FIRRMA’s requirement for mandatory declarations for certain transactions where a foreign government has a substantial interest, in addition to the mandatory filing requirement for certain investments in U.S. critical technology companies under the pilot program. The submission of a declaration is not required with respect to investments by qualified investment funds.Notably, a majority of the declarations filed under the pilot program have been pushed into the standard review process, meaning that the streamlined “light” filing actually resulted in a longer review process for the parties involved. Anecdotal evidence suggests that fewer than 10 percent of cases filed under the pilot program have been decided on the basis of the short-form declaration alone, despite a relatively low volume of filings. Numerous transactions have required the submission of the full notice, and it has been difficult for the intelligence community to complete their full assessment within the allocated 30 days. Real Estate Transactions FIRRMA expanded the scope of transactions subject to CFIUS review to include the purchase or lease by a foreign person of real estate that “is, located within, or will function as part of, an air or maritime port…”; “is in close proximity to a United States military installation or another facility or property of the United States Government that is sensitive for reasons relating to national security;” “could reasonably provide the foreign person the ability to collect intelligence on activities being conducted at such an installation, facility, or property; or;” “could otherwise expose national security activities at such an installation, facility, or property to the risk of foreign surveillance.” Although FIRRMA sought to codify the Committee’s standard practice of examining such risks, it punted on the task of defining such terms. As a result, the proposed regulations resolve a number of uncertainties in FIRRMA with respect to how national security risks associated with real estate transactions will be ascertained. Property Rights that Trigger CFIUS Review. The proposed regulations clarify that—subject to certain exceptions for single housing units and real estate in urbanized areas—real estate transactions subject to the Committee’s review include the purchase or lease by, or a concession to, a foreign person of certain real estate in the United States that affords the foreign person three or more of the following property rights: to physically access; to exclude; to improve or develop; or to affix structures or objects. Covered Real Estate. Coverage is focused on transactions in and/or around specific airports, maritime ports, and military installations. The relevant military installations are listed by name and location in an appendix to the proposed regulations. The relevant airports and maritime ports are on lists published by the Department of Transportation. Notably, such real estate will include properties located within “close proximity” of any military installation identified in Appendix A, parts 1 and 2, “extended range” of any military installation identified in part 2, and any county or geographic area identified in connection with a military installation set forth in part 3 of Appendix A. Definition of “Close Proximity” and “Extended Range.” The proposed rule defines close proximity as “the area measured outward from the boundary of the relevant installation or other facility or property.” The close proximity definition applies with respect to most of the military installations described in the proposed rule and in particular, those identified in the list in parts 1 and 2 of Appendix A. “Extended range” is defined as “the area that extends 99 miles outward from the outer boundary of close proximity” but, where applicable, “no more than 12 nautical miles seaward from the coastline of the United States.” The extended range definition applies with respect to military installations described in part 2 of Appendix A. Exceptions for Certain Investors and Foreign States. The proposed rule sets forth a narrow definition of excepted real estate investor in the interest of protecting national security, in light of increasingly complex ownership structures, and to prevent foreign persons from circumventing CFIUS’s jurisdiction. Thus, the criteria specified in § 802.216 require that a foreign person have a substantial connection (e.g., nationality of ultimate beneficial owners and place of incorporation) to one or more particular foreign states in order to be deemed an excepted real estate investor. Note that foreign persons who have violated, or whose parents or subsidiaries have violated, certain U.S. laws will lose their excepted investor status under these provisions. Urban Cluster Exception. FIRRMA requires that real estate in “urbanized areas,” as defined by the Census Bureau in the most recent U.S. census, be excluded from CFIUS’s real estate jurisdiction except as otherwise prescribed by the Committee in regulations in consultation with the Secretary of Defense. The urbanized area exclusion applies to covered real estate everywhere except where it is in “close proximity” to a military installation or another sensitive facility or property of the U.S. Government as listed in appendix A, or is, is within, or will function as part of, an airport or maritime port. Intersection of Real Estate and Other Covered Transactions or Investments. The proposed regulations clarify that real estate transactions that are also subject to CFIUS’s existing and proposed regulations regarding control transactions and non-controlling investments involving U.S. businesses should be analyzed under those regulations. No Mandatory Filing Requirement. The transactions described in the proposed rule on real estate are not subject to a mandatory declaration requirement. As a general matter, parties to a covered real estate transaction will decide whether to file a notice voluntarily or submit a declaration to CFIUS. CFIUS Filings Voluntary Short Form Declarations as Alternative to Notice. The proposed regulations provide a short-form declaration as an alternative to the Committee’s traditional voluntary notice. To date, declarations have only been available under the pilot program. Declarations will allow parties to submit basic information regarding a transaction that should generally not exceed five pages in length. The Department of the Treasury will accept declarations submitted by parties using a standard template form which will be available on the Department of the Treasury’s website by the time the final regulations become effective. The Committee will have 30 days to assess a covered transaction that is the subject of a declaration (as opposed to the 45-day initial review period available for notices). No Fees to Date. The Department of the Treasury will publish separate proposed regulations regarding fees at a later date. 5 p.m. Eastern Deadline.  The new regulations impose a 5 p.m. EST filing deadline—a seemingly small point that could have a substantial impact in a cross-border deal involving players in multiple time zones. Regulatory Framework The proposed regulations would replace the current regulations found at part 800 of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (31 C.F.R. part 800) and implement the changes that FIRRMA made to CFIUS’s jurisdiction and process with respect to transactions that could result in foreign control of any U.S. business, as well as certain non-controlling “other investments” that afford a foreign person certain access, rights, or involvement in certain types of U.S. businesses. These proposed regulations would establish a new part 802 of title 31 of the C.F.R. and implement the authority FIRRMA provided to CFIUS to review the purchase or lease by, or concession to, a foreign person of certain real estate in the United States. The proposed regulations do not at this time modify the regulations currently at 31 C.F.R. part 801, which set forth the scope of, and procedures for, a pilot program to review certain transactions involving foreign persons and critical technologies. CFIUS continues to evaluate the pilot program. The following Gibson Dunn lawyers assisted in preparing this client update: Judith Alison Lee, Jose Fernandez, Adam M. Smith, Stephanie Connor, Chris Timura and R.L. Pratt. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the above developments.  Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any of the following leaders and members of the firm’s International Trade practice group: United States: Judith Alison Lee – Co-Chair, International Trade Practice, Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3591, jalee@gibsondunn.com) Ronald Kirk – Co-Chair, International Trade Practice, Dallas (+1 214-698-3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com) Jose W. Fernandez – New York (+1 212-351-2376, jfernandez@gibsondunn.com) Marcellus A. McRae – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7675, mmcrae@gibsondunn.com) Adam M. Smith – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com) Christopher T. Timura – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3690, ctimura@gibsondunn.com) Ben K. Belair – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3743, bbelair@gibsondunn.com) Courtney M. Brown – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com) Laura R. Cole – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3787, lcole@gibsondunn.com) Stephanie L. Connor – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8586, sconnor@gibsondunn.com) Henry C. Phillips – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8535, hphillips@gibsondunn.com) R.L. Pratt – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3785, rpratt@gibsondunn.com) Audi K. Syarief – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8266, asyarief@gibsondunn.com) Scott R. Toussaint – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3588, stoussaint@gibsondunn.com) Europe: Peter Alexiadis – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 00, palexiadis@gibsondunn.com) Nicolas Autet – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, nautet@gibsondunn.com) Attila Borsos – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 10, aborsos@gibsondunn.com) Patrick Doris – London (+44 (0)207 071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com) Sacha Harber-Kelly – London (+44 20 7071 4205, sharber-kelly@gibsondunn.com) Penny Madden – London (+44 (0)20 7071 4226, pmadden@gibsondunn.com) Steve Melrose – London (+44 (0)20 7071 4219, smelrose@gibsondunn.com) Benno Schwarz – Munich (+49 89 189 33 110, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com) Michael Walther – Munich (+49 89 189 33-180, mwalther@gibsondunn.com) Richard W. Roeder – Munich (+49 89 189 33-160, rroeder@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

September 13, 2019 |
Les classes de créanciers dans le nouveau droit des procédures collectives : pistes de réflexion.

Paris restructuring partners Benoît Fleury, Jean-Philippe Robé, Jean-Pierre Farges, and Pierre-Emmanuel Fender are the co-authors of “Les classes de créanciers dans le nouveau droit des procédures collectives : pistes de réflexion” [PDF] published in Fusions & Acquisitions Magazine on September 13, 2019. The paper discusses the dramatic modifications that will be undergone by the French restructuring landscape as a result of Directive 2019/1023 of June 20, 2019 on restructuring and insolvency. The co-authors focus on the innovative Directive-introduced concept of ‘class formation’ and concentrate on its potential consequences for debtors’, shareholders’ and creditors’ strategies.

September 9, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Adds M&A Partner David C. Lee in Orange County

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that David C. Lee will join the firm as a partner in the Orange County office.  Lee, formerly with Latham & Watkins, will continue his mergers and acquisitions, capital markets and venture capital practice at Gibson Dunn. “David is a terrific addition to the firm,” said Ken Doran, Chairman and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn.  “David’s M&A, venture, capital markets and cross-border practice will strengthen our corporate practice in Southern California.  His experience in the life sciences, health care, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, cleantech, digital media and energy sectors will add to our depth.” “We’re thrilled to have David join us,” said Michael Flynn, Partner in Charge of the Orange County office.  “David is very well regarded in the local legal community.  He also has strong relationships in the Chinese and Chinese-American business communities.  His extensive experience across an array of sectors, ranging from healthcare to cleantech to energy, will make him a valuable addition to our corporate department.” “I am looking forward to beginning the next chapter of my career at Gibson Dunn,” Lee said.  “I have long admired the firm and am eager to join a team of attorneys known for delivering exceptional results and service.” About David C. Lee Lee has a broad corporate practice, with a particular focus on domestic and cross-border M&A.  He also has significant experience with capital markets, private equity, emerging companies, and venture capital, including debt offerings, initial public offerings and follow-on offerings, private placements, recapitalizations, take-private transactions and venture capital and private equity investments in public companies.  He regularly advises companies in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, cleantech, digital media and energy sectors. Prior to joining the firm, he practiced with Latham & Watkins since 2004.  He has also previously served as Certified Public Accountant in the audit and valuations department of Price Waterhouse and as Controller and Vice President of Finance of a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 energy company. Lee graduated magna cum laude in 2004 from Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law where he received the Raoul Berger Prize and was Order of the Coif.  He also earned his MBA with distinction from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management in 2004.

August 15, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Lawyers Recognized in the Best Lawyers in America® 2020

The Best Lawyers in America® 2020 has recognized 158 Gibson Dunn attorneys in 54 practice areas. Additionally, 48 lawyers were recognized in Best Lawyers International in Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Singapore, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.

July 24, 2019 |
Linda Curtis and Barbara Becker Named IFLR1000 Women Leaders for 2019

New York partner Barbara Becker and Los Angeles partner Linda Curtis were named among the IFLR1000 Women Leaders, featuring 300 female attorneys that “are working at the top of their professions in their jurisdictions.” The guide will be published July 31, 2019. Linda Curtis is Co-Chair of the firm’s Global Finance Practice Group.  Her practice focuses on all aspects of corporate finance, including leveraged financings, with a specific focus on acquisition financings. She also represents clients in debt capital markets transactions and other secured and unsecured senior, mezzanine and subordinated financings, and has experience in real estate financings and debt restructurings.  Her clients include private equity firms, commercial lending institutions and public and private companies in a variety of industries. Barbara Becker is Co-Chair of Gibson Dunn’s Mergers and Acquisitions Practice Group.  She advises companies on all significant business and legal issues, including mergers and acquisitions (including domestic and cross-border), spin-offs, joint ventures and general corporate matters. She also advises boards of directors and special committees of public companies.

July 8, 2019 |
UK Take Privates

Click for PDF Bloomberg (here) recently reported that PE firms are increasingly scoping out take privates in the UK and “are fed up with waiting for Brexit”.  That is consistent with our experience and current mandates, and the recent deals for Merlin Entertainments and BCA Marketplace provide further evidence. The UK takeover regime brings particular challenges to take private transactions which differ from the US in a number of significant respects.  We thought it timely therefore to send out a reminder of a few of the early stage issues described in our client alert last year explaining how they can be overcome. 1.  Who can management talk to? Senior executives owe duties to act in the best interests of their companies and so need to tread carefully.  However, they are free to have exploratory conversations with potential bidders provided they comply with a few basic principles: they need to be sure they have internal authority and support – keeping the Chairman of the Board informed is usually sufficient during the early stages. Notably in the UK, the role of the Chairman and the CEO are invariably separate roles. they must not disclose any confidential information to third parties – but usually there will be enough public information to allow for preliminary discussions. the number of people they speak to should be limited, both to minimise the risk of a leak and to ensure compliance with the Panel’s rule that there should be no more than six “live” discussions at any one time. advice must be taken from financial advisers and lawyers prior to engaging in any discussion around management incentive arrangements or any possible equity participation in the bidder. Once a bidder is willing to submit a written proposal to the target company, the Chairman will inform the entire board and an independent committee of the board, excluding anyone who might be involved with the bidder, will be established.  The independent committee will determine what information can be disclosed to bidders and management have an obligation to share with the board any information they disclose to potential bidders.  It should be remembered that any information disclosed to one bidder has to be disclosed to other potentially less welcome bidders. 2.  Diligence, costs and timing The due diligence process will be run by the independent committee so management should avoid disclosing any non-public information without prior approval from the independent committee.  Target companies are not permitted to underwrite bidders’ costs although if a white knight bid is made in response to a hostile offer then an inducement fee, capped at 1%, is possible. There is also a rule (“Put up or shut up”) that requires a formal offer to be announced not later than 28 days following the first public announcement of a possible offer.  However, if discussions are ongoing it is usually possible to obtain an extension. 3.  Management and other significant shareholdings Sometimes management will own shares in the target company which are material in the context of an offer.  Under the Takeover Code all target shareholders have to be treated equally.  Therefore, if management wish to roll over their shares into shares of the bidder then either (i) all target shareholders must be offered the same opportunity to take equity in the bidder (which may result in the financial sponsor having to accommodate unwanted minority shareholders in the bidder) or (ii) independent shareholder approval must be obtained to management being treated differently.  The other structural alternative is for the Takeover Panel to agree that those “rolling over” can be treated as joint offerors with the financial sponsor – this is not an easy test to satisfy.  For these reasons great care needs to be taken before any discussions take place around management’s future interests in the bidder. It is worth noting that if management own a material interest in the target, a financial sponsor may be able to secure significant deal certainty by negotiating with management either a hard irrevocable undertaking to accept the offer or a hurdle irrevocable (under which management can only accept an alternative offer if the second offer is circa 15% higher than the initial offer). 4.  No financing condition and no MAC It must be remembered that in the UK a formal offer can only be made when there are “certain funds” in place to satisfy the cash consideration.  Financing conditions are not permitted and, for all practical purposes, there can be no MAC condition either.  The only substantive conditions that are permitted are regulatory and the requirement for acceptances of up to 90% which can be waived down 50% plus one.  This means that all financing needs to be in place on an unconditional basis at the time the offer is announced. 5.  Finally: “It’s good to Talk” – Should we consult the Panel? The UK Panel on Takeovers and Mergers is responsible for administering the Takeover Code which govern takeovers of UK companies.  The Panel Executive (the Panel), which is primarily staffed by current or former corporate finance practitioners, regulates bids on a day-to-day basis. The UK system of takeover regulation is principles-based. The Panel will seek to ensure that the six General Principles (here) which form the cornerstone of the Code are respected in all cases, and an understanding of the principles is essential to deftly navigate the regime. Consultation with regulators on takeover bids is not typical nor always helpful under many regulatory regimes. In the UK by contrast, consultation often will prove to be helpful. Derogations, dispensations and waivers are possible from many Code rules subject to consultation with the Panel.  The Panel responds on a timely basis to queries and is available for consultation on an “out of office hours” emergency basis. PS The Political Environment It is also clear that the growth in take privates will bring private equity more into the public eye.  Government and the wider political community are increasingly focusing their attention on private equity.  While policy thinking is incomplete, it would not be surprising if at some point private equity hits the front pages again and the old chestnuts of leverage, thin capitalisation and carried interest attract the attention of legislators. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these issues.  For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Mergers and Acquisitions and Private Equity practice groups, or the following lawyers in London: Thomas M. Budd (+44 (0)20 7071 4234, tbudd@gibsondunn.com) Gregory Campbell (+44 (0)20 7071 4236, gcampbell@gibsondunn.com) Jonathan Earle (+44 (0)20 7071 4211, jearle@gibsondunn.com) Charlie Geffen (+44 (0)20 7071 4225, cgeffen@gibsondunn.com) Chris Haynes (+44 (0)20 7071 4238, chaynes@gibsondunn.com) James R. Howe (+44 (0)20 7071 4214, jhowe@gibsondunn.com) Anna Howell (+44 (0)20 7071 4241, ahowell@gibsondunn.com) Jeremy Kenley (+44 (0)20 7071 4255, jkenley@gibsondunn.com) Amy Kennedy (+44 (0)20 7071 4283, akennedy@gibsondunn.com) Mitri Najjar (+44 (0)20 7071 4262, mnajjar@gibsondunn.com) Selina Sagayam (+44 (0)20 7071 4263, ssagayam@gibsondunn.com) Alan Samson (+44 (0)20 7071 4222, asamson@gibsondunn.com) Mark Sperotto (+44 (0)20 7071 4291, msperotto@gibsondunn.com) Nigel Stacey (+44 (0)20 7071 4201, nstacey@gibsondunn.com) Steve Thierbach (+44 (0)20 7071 4235, sthierbach@gibsondunn.com) Nicholas Tomlinson (+44 (0)20 7071 4272, ntomlinson@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

June 20, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Transactions Named Private Equity Deal of the Year and Consumer, Retail, Food & Beverage Deal of the Year by The Deal

The Deal named “Veritas Capital Fund Management LLC and Evergreen Coast Capital Corp. take athenahealth Inc. private” as its Private Equity Deal of the Year. Gibson Dunn was counsel to the investor Group. The Gibson Dunn team included New York partners Richard Birns, Aaron Adams and Eric Sloan. The Deal also recognized Gibson Dunn when naming “PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) acquires carbonated beverage specialist SodaStream International Inc.” as its Consumer, Retail, Food & Beverage Deal of the Year. Gibson Dunn represented PepsiCo Inc. and the team was led by New York partners Barbara Becker and Saee Muzumdar. The awards were announced on June 20, 2019. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Private Equity Practice represents many of the largest and most active financial sponsors, sovereign wealth funds and other investor groups around the world. We provide a full-service solution to our private equity clients.  We handle deals ranging from venture and growth capital transactions through multibillion-dollar club deals.  In close coordination with lawyers in other Gibson Dunn practice areas, we provide a comprehensive service including: due diligence and compliance; deal negotiation, documentation and execution; tax structuring; acquisition finance; corporate governance and management equity. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Mergers and Acquisitions Practice Group is an international leader in mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs, proxy contests and joint ventures.  Our lawyers deliver sophisticated judgment, technical excellence, creative solutions, and vast market knowledge to each transaction entrusted to us. Our M&A clients include public and private companies, ranging from Fortune 100 and multinational corporations to smaller companies; private equity firms; boards of directors and special committees; selling shareholders; management teams; and financial advisors.  Clients also regularly enlist Gibson Dunn to provide advice regarding takeover preparedness and the implementation of defensive measures.  

May 17, 2019 |
In the Wake of International Protectionism, France Strengthens Its Enforcement Scheme Applicable to Foreign Investments

Click for PDF On May 16, 2019, the French Constitutional Court (Conseil constitutionnel) cleared most of the provisions of the ambitious so-called “Pacte” Statute on the development and transformation of businesses. Pacte addresses a number of significant legal issues. Among them, in the wake of international protectionism and EU regulation on establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments (see Gibson Dunn’s alert of March 5, 2019), Pacte significantly strengthens the French enforcement scheme applicable to foreign investments. Government Approval Required for Foreign Investments in Strategic Business Sectors Existing French regulation requires foreign investors, prior to making an investment in one of 14 specified sectors[1], irrespective of its size, to obtain an authorization from the French Minister of the Economy. The affected business sectors comprise those impacting France’s public order, public safety or national defense interests. Since November 29, 2018, are also covered certain R&D activities regarding cybersecurity and artificial intelligence as well as the hosting of data pertaining to sensitive businesses. During the discussions in Parliament on Pacte, the French Government indicated it would further broaden the scope of the business sectors affected to better protect “industries of the future” and innovation. The authorization process applies to EU and non-EU investors who acquire: directly or indirectly a controlling stake in a company whose registered office is located in France; or all or part of a line of business of a company whose registered office is located in France. It applies also to non-EU investors who acquire more than 33.33% of the stock or voting rights of a company whose registered office is located in France. The Minister of the Economy may order an investor in breach of this process to withdraw from the investment, to modify the scope of its investment or to revert it. Failure to abide by the Minister’s order exposes the investor to a fine in a maximum amount equal to two times the investment amount (in addition to the potential cancellation of the investment). Pacte Strengthens the Sanctioning Power of the French Minister of the Economy Under Pacte, the French Minister of the Economy is entrusted with a new power of injunction against an investor in breach of either the authorization process or the terms of the authorization[2]. The Minister may, thus, without delay and without any requirement for a prior Court approval, force the investor, under a daily penalty[3], to abide by the process (or by the conditions imposed as part of the authorization), to revert the investment at its cost or to modify its terms. The Minister may also now withdraw its authorization. If an investment has been made without authorization, the Minister may appoint a representative in charge of ensuring that -within the conduct of the acquired business- France’s interests will be protected; to this effect, the representative will be empowered to block any management decision likely to undermine these interests. In situations where France’s interests are or may be compromised, the Minister of the Economy may take new additional interim protective measures and: suspend voting rights attached to the fraction of the share capital held in violation of the authorization process; freeze or restrict distributions and remunerations pertaining to the share capital held in violation of the authorization process; and suspend, restrict or temporary prohibit the disposal of all or part of the assets falling within the ambit of the strategic business sectors. While none of these measures is subject to a prior Court approval, the investor must be given a formal notice and a 15-day delay to present its arguments, except in case of an emergency, exceptional circumstances or imminent breach of public order, public security or national defense. Effective implementation of the Minister’s extended powers will be outlined in decrees to be released later this year by the French government which will be important to monitor. Pacte Increases Fines Against Non-Complying Investors In addition, Pacte increases the amount of the fines that may be imposed by the Minister on an investor in breach of either the process or the terms of the authorization. The maximum fine that can be inflicted may amount to the higher of the following: two times the amount of the investment, 10 percent of the annual turnover (excluding taxes) of the company engaged in the strategic business sector, or 5 million euros for legal entities and 1 million euros for individuals. Pacte Improves the French Parliament’s Information on Foreign Investments Eventually, in line with the EU Regulation, Pacte aims at improving transparency regarding foreign investments and compels: the Minister of the Economy to disclose annually to the Parliament statistical no-names data regarding the screening of foreign investments in France; and the French government to provide annually to certain members of the Parliament (e.g., the chairmen of the Commissions in charge of economic matters and the secretary (rapporteurs) of the finance Commissions) a report containing qualitative and statistical information on measures taken to protect and promote national interests and strategic business sectors as well as on the screening of foreign investments and the outcomes achieved thanks to the new legislation.    [1]   The list of the 14 covered business sectors is as follows: 1°) gambling industry (except casinos); 2°) private security services; 3°) research and development or manufacture of means of fighting the illegal use of toxics; 4°) wiretapping and mail interception equipment; 5)° security of information technology systems and products; 6°) security of the information systems of companies managing critical infrastructure; 7°) dual-use items and technology; 8°) cryptology goods and services; 9°) companies dealing with classified information; 10°) research, development and sale of weapons; 11°) companies that have entered into supply contract with the French Ministry of Defense regarding goods or services involving dual-use items and technology, cryptology goods and services, classified information or research, development and sale of weapons; 12°) activities related to goods, products or services, essential to preserve French interests in relation to public order, public security and national defense (such as energy supply water supply, electronic communication networks and services); 13°) R&D in relation to business sectors 4°), 8°), 9°) or 12°) regarding cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, robotics; 14)° data hosting with respect to data pertaining to business sectors 11°) to 13°).    [2]   The Minister may in particular order the investor to dispose of all or part of the concerned business.    [3]   The amount of which will be defined by a decree to be released later by the French government. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the issues discussed in this update. For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or any of the following members of the Paris office by phone (+33 1 56 43 13 00) or by email (see below): Nicolas Baverez –nbaverez@gibsondunn.com Benoît Fleury – bfleury@gibsondunn.com Jean-Philippe Robé – jrobe@gibsondunn.com Nicolas Autet – nautet@gibsondunn.com © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

May 16, 2019 |
Webcast: Insuring the Deal: Key Considerations when Utilizing Transactional Insurance

Join a panel of seasoned Gibson Dunn partners and an Aon transactional insurance specialist for a presentation regarding the use of transactional insurance products in public and private M&A transactions, with particular focus on the use of representation and warranty insurance when acquiring a company. The webinar discusses complex issues, market developments, the claims process and key considerations. View Slides (PDF) PANELISTS: Matthew Dubeck is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he practices in the firm’s Mergers and Acquisitions, Private Equity and Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance Practice Groups. He advises companies, private equity firms and investment banks across a wide range of industries, focusing on public and private merger transactions, stock and asset sales and joint ventures and strategic partnerships. Mr. Dubeck also advises public companies with respect to corporate governance matters. Jonathan Whalen is a partner in the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. He is a member of the firm’s Mergers and Acquisitions, Capital Markets, Energy and Infrastructure, and Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance Practice Groups. Mr. Whalen’s practice focuses on a wide range of corporate and securities transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, and public and private capital markets transactions. Matthew Wiener is the head of Aon’s Transaction Liability team for the Southwest region and the national leader for its energy practice. In this role, Mr. Wiener is responsible for the development and implementation of transactional-based risk solutions, including the deployment of insurance capital for M&A transactions through representations and warranties, litigation, tax and other contingent liabilities insurance. MCLE INFORMATION: This program has been approved for credit in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board for a maximum of 1.0 credit hour, of which 1.0 credit hour may be applied toward the areas of professional practice requirement. This course is approved for transitional/non-transitional credit. Attorneys seeking New York credit must obtain an Affirmation Form prior to watching the archived version of this webcast. Please contact Jeanine McKeown (National Training Administrator), at 213-229-7140 or jmckeown@gibsondunn.com to request the MCLE form. This program has been approved for credit in accordance with the requirements of the Texas State Bar for a maximum of 1.0 credit hour, of which 1.0 credit hour may be applied toward the area of accredited general requirement. Attorneys seeking Texas credit must obtain an Affirmation Form prior to watching the archived version of this webcast. Please contact Jeanine McKeown (National Training Administrator), at 213-229-7140 or jmckeown@gibsondunn.com to request the MCLE form. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1.0 hour. California attorneys may claim “self-study” credit for viewing the archived version of this webcast.  No certificate of attendance is required for California “self-study” credit.

May 9, 2019 |
UK Nationalisation – Investment Treaties can offer opportunities to reorganise now to protect valuations

Click for PDF The political instabilities caused by Brexit raise the possibility that a General Election may be held in the UK sooner than the scheduled 5 May 2022.  Given current political turbulence, the prospect of Labour winning any such snap election can no longer be dismissed.  If this happens, a future Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell is expected to consider nationalising a range of assets, including utilities (such as water, rail and energy), the Royal Mail and possibly even certain private finance initiative (PFI) companies.  Nationalising profitable UK companies on this scale  has not happened since the post-WWII 1945 Labour government. How might nationalisation happen? There is not yet much detail on how any nationalisation programme would be carried out.  Industry-specific regulations and arrangements mean that the process will probably differ depending on the sector.  Some businesses – e.g. rail, certain PFI contracts – are run under  time-limited franchises and a Labour government might simply allow these contracts to run their course before bringing them back under government control.  However, other utilities are run under perpetual licences (e.g. regional water franchises in England and Wales were sold, not leased).  Here, the Government would need to impose a compulsory takeover, possibly issuing Government bonds to shareholders in exchange for their shares in the company owning the asset. Valuations It will not be possible to prevent the expropriation of these assets if it is approved by the UK Parliament.  However, a key question will be how the owners of such nationalised assets will be compensated.  Valuing shares is typically complex (especially with unlisted SPV ownership structures).  Labour has suggested valuations would be made on a case by case basis, with a role for Parliament in the process.  There is a concern, however, that Labour may seek to save money by refusing to pay full market value for the expropriated assets, or that the use of Government bonds as consideration may mean that payment is deferred over extremely long periods (some of the stock issued as consideration for the post-WWII nationalisations was not redeemable for 40 years). Valuations that are seen as unfair will inevitably trigger compensation claims by investors.  There are a number of routes to possible claims, such as under the Human Rights Act 1998 and/or the European Convention on Human Rights.  However, investment treaties may offer some investors a better chance of reclaiming the full value of their expropriated investments.  The standard of compensation under most investment treaties is fair market value.  In order to take advantage of an investment treaty, an investor will need to have in place a corporate structure which includes an entity located in a jurisdiction that is party to an investment treaty with the UK to pursue a treaty claim. What is an investment treaty? An investment treaty is an agreement between states that helps facilitate private foreign direct investment by nationals and companies of one state into the other.  Most investment treaties are bilateral (known as “bilateral investment treaties” or “BITs”), but the UK is also a party to the Energy Charter Treaty, which is a multilateral investment treaty with 51 signatories.  The purpose of an investment treaty is to stimulate foreign investment by reducing political risk.  Amongst other things, it is intended to protect an international investor if an asset it owns in the other state is subsequently nationalised without adequate compensation.  Investment treaties generally provide that the overseas investor will receive fair and equitable treatment and that the compensation for any nationalisation will be appropriate and adequate.  There are currently more than 3,200 BITs in force worldwide. The definition of what constitutes an investment is usually quite broad including, for example, security interests, rights under a contract and rights derived from shares of a company. Importantly, most investment treaties provide investors with a right to commence arbitration proceedings and seek compensation if the state has breached its obligations under the treaty (e.g. for failing to provide adequate compensation for a nationalisation).  This means a UK investment treaty could offer an avenue of protection for an overseas investor of a nationalised UK asset.  A list of countries with a UK BIT is here. How to benefit from a UK investment treaty? Some investors in UK assets that may be the subject of nationalisations are considering restructuring their UK investments to take advantage of investment treaties to which the UK is a party.  In some circumstances, this can be achieved by simply including a holding company in the corporate chain which is located in a jurisdiction that has an investment treaty with the UK.  So long as the restructuring is completed before a dispute regarding nationalisation arises, it will be effective.  Therefore, investors who hold UK assets that potentially may be the subject of nationalisation should consider restructuring now. The UK has investment treaties in force with over 100 jurisdictions but not all of them will be suitable for a restructuring.  Investors will want to analyse not only the substance of the UK investment treaty to which the host country is a signatory (some are more rudimentary than others) but also other risk factors.   In particular, investors will want to check the tax treatment of a particular investment vehicle, including making sure that the new company is not obliged under local rules to withhold tax on any interest or dividends.  Equally, some jurisdictions may be considered unattractive because of geopolitical uncertainties or because their courts and professionals have limited business experience.  The costs and governance associated with any possible restructuring would also need to be carefully considered, especially if the restructuring involves a jurisdiction where the new entity will be required to establish a more substantive business presence.  Given all these risks, there are probably only a very small set of  jurisdictions where investors might consider incorporating an entity within their deal structures. Each investment treaty is different and the possible structure will depend on the exact terms of the relevant treaty.  However, in general terms, the restructuring would usually involve the insertion of a new entity incorporated at the top of the corporate structure that holds the UK assets (but below any fund) via a share-for-share exchange with the existing holding entity. Conclusion If a future Labour government seeks to nationalise private assets it is inevitable that claims will be made, particularly regarding the amount of compensation paid to owners.  Although it is not yet clear how a Labour government would assess compensation levels, investors may wish to consider structuring their investments so that they will have the option of using a UK investment treaty for any valuation disputes. This client alert was prepared by London partners Charlie Geffen, Nicholas Aleksander and Jeffrey Sullivan, of counsel Anne MacPherson and associate Tamas Lorinczy. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments.  Please feel free to contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or any of the following lawyers: Jeffrey Sullivan – International Arbitration jeffrey.sullivan@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4231 Sandy Bhogal – Tax SBhogal@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4266 Charlie Geffen – Corporate CGeffen@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4225 Nicholas Aleksander – Tax NAleksander@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4232 Tamas Lorinczy – Corporate tlorinczy@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4218 © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

April 25, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Earns 79 Top-Tier Rankings in Chambers USA 2019

In its 2019 edition, Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business awarded Gibson Dunn 79 first-tier rankings, of which 27 were firm practice group rankings and 52 were individual lawyer rankings. Overall, the firm earned 276 rankings – 80 firm practice group rankings and 196 individual lawyer rankings. Gibson Dunn earned top-tier rankings in the following practice group categories: National – Antitrust National – Antitrust: Cartel National – Appellate Law National – Corporate Crime & Investigations National – FCPA National – Outsourcing National – Real Estate National – Retail National – Securities: Regulation CA – Antitrust CA – Environment CA – IT & Outsourcing CA – Litigation: Appellate CA – Litigation: General Commercial CA – Litigation: Securities CA – Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations CA – Real Estate: Southern California CO – Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations CO – Natural Resources & Energy DC – Corporate/M&A & Private Equity DC – Labor & Employment DC – Litigation: General Commercial DC – Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations NY – Litigation: General Commercial: The Elite NY – Media & Entertainment: Litigation NY – Technology & Outsourcing TX – Antitrust This year, 155 Gibson Dunn attorneys were identified as leading lawyers in their respective practice areas, with some ranked in more than one category. The following lawyers achieved top-tier rankings:  D. Jarrett Arp, Theodore Boutrous, Jessica Brown, Jeffrey Chapman, Linda Curtis, Michael Darden, William Dawson, Patrick Dennis, Mark Director, Scott Edelman, Miguel Estrada, Stephen Fackler, Sean Feller, Eric Feuerstein, Amy Forbes, Stephen Glover, Richard Grime, Daniel Kolkey, Brian Lane, Jonathan Layne, Karen Manos, Randy Mastro, Cromwell Montgomery, Daniel Mummery, Stephen Nordahl, Theodore Olson, Richard Parker, William Peters, Tomer Pinkusiewicz, Sean Royall, Eugene Scalia, Jesse Sharf, Orin Snyder, George Stamas, Beau Stark, Charles Stevens, Daniel Swanson, Steven Talley, Helgi Walker, Robert Walters, F. Joseph Warin and Debra Wong Yang.

April 24, 2019 |
CFIUS Developments: Notable Cases and Key Trends

Click for PDF The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or the “Committee”) kicked into high gear this spring with a number of notable cases and developments.  Six key trends have emerged: (1)  CFIUS has forced several companies to divest from U.S. businesses involved in the collection of sensitive personal data or cybersecurity; (2)  The pilot program for mandatory filings of certain critical technology investments has yet to streamline the CFIUS review process, as only a small percentage of pilot program cases have been decided on the basis of the “short-form” declaration (a 5-page alternative to the lengthier 45-page voluntary notice); (3)  CFIUS and its member agencies are increasing staff and resources (including a new office dedicated to detecting transactions that have not been notified); (4)  Mitigation strategies are of critical importance, and CFIUS is encouraging parties to think through such terms when negotiating a deal and to initiate a dialogue with CFIUS regarding proposed mitigation prior to the submission of a notice; (5)  Additional regulations to be published later this year will offer further guidance for investment funds with minority foreign investors (possibly including a “black” and “white” list of countries whose investors may be subject to different levels of scrutiny); and (6)  Large investors may tread carefully with respect to the new rules for non-controlling investments, refraining from appointing board members or exercising the types of governance rights which could trigger CFIUS scrutiny. Background CFIUS is an inter-agency group authorized to review the national security implications associated with foreign acquisitions of or investments in U.S. businesses (“covered transactions”), and to block transactions or impose measures to mitigate any threats to U.S. national security.  Historically, the Committee’s jurisdiction has been limited to transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person.  Recent legislation, the Foreign Investment Risk Review and Modernization Act (“FIRRMA”), expanded the scope of transactions subject to the Committee’s review by granting CFIUS the authority to examine the national security implications of a foreign acquirer’s non-controlling investments in U.S. businesses that deal with critical infrastructure, critical technology, or the personal data of U.S. citizens.  FIRRMA also provided CFIUS with authority to review real estate transactions—including leases, sales, and concessions—involving air or maritime ports or in close proximity to sensitive U.S. government facilities. Emerging Trends (1) Increasing Number of Forced Divestitures The Committee forced divestitures of several investments due to concerns regarding cybersecurity or access to sensitive personal data, suggesting that CFIUS will continue to scrutinize investments in higher risk sectors under the authority granted to it by FIRRMA. Two matters bear note: Kunlun/Grindr.  In late March 2019, the Committee ordered Beijing Kunlun Tech Co. Ltd. (“Kunlun”) to sell its interest in Grindr LLC, a popular dating application focused on the LGBTQ community.  Kunlun, a Chinese technology firm, acquired an approximately 60 percent interest in Grindr in January 2016, and subsequently completed a full buyout of the company in January 2018.  Although CFIUS has not commented publicly, observers have speculated that the action was prompted by concerns over Kunlun’s access to sensitive personal data from Grindr users—such as location, sexual preferences, HIV status and messages exchanged via the Grindr app. iCarbonX/PatientsLikeMe.  CFIUS is forcing the Shenzhen-based iCarbonX to divest its majority stake in PatientsLikeMe, an online service that helps patients find people with similar health conditions.  In 2017, PatientsLikeMe raised $100 million and sold a majority stake to iCarbonX, which was started by genomic scientist Jun Wang.  About 700,000 people use the PatientsLikeMe website to report their experiences with medical conditions.  The company claims to have tens of millions of “data points about disease,” and its partners range from large pharmaceutical companies like Biogen to non-profit health organizations like the International Bipolar Foundation, which uses the site to find patients for clinical studies and research.  The 2017 iCarbonX deal was designed to marry the Chinese company’s artificial intelligence technology for improving health care with PatientsLikeMe’s customers and data sets. (2) Not-So “Expedited” Critical Technology Pilot Program Reviews In late 2018, CFIUS launched a pilot program under which mandatory filings are required for certain types of investments in U.S. critical technology companies.  As of November 10, 2018, non-U.S. companies seeking to acquire control (or, in certain circumstances, a non-controlling stake) in U.S. companies involved in making or designing certain critical technologies related to 27 specific industries must file a mandatory declaration with CFIUS.  In lieu of the lengthy notice that is currently used in voluntary CFIUS filings, the pilot program provides for the submission of “light” or short-form declarations (not to exceed 5 pages).  This filing must be submitted at least 45 days before the expected completion date of the transaction.  The pilot program aimed to provide a streamlined review process, as FIRRMA requires the Committee to respond to a declaration within 30 days by approving the transaction, requesting that the parties file a full written notice, or initiating a further review. Notably, however, a majority of the declarations filed under the pilot program have been pushed into the standard review process, meaning that the streamlined “light” filing actually resulted in a longer review process for the parties involved.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that fewer than 10 percent of cases filed under the pilot program have been decided on the basis of the short-form declaration alone, despite a relatively low volume of filings.  Numerous transactions have required the submission of the full notice, and it has been difficult for the intelligence community to complete their full assessment within the allocated 30 days.  In light of these risks, we continue to advise clients who may qualify for the pilot program to consider submitting the full notice at the outset of the process. The Committee is contemplating the imposition of filing fees for expedited reviews, and expects to publish proposed regulations later this year. (3) Increasing Staff and Resources In late March 2019, the Department of Justice requested a significant budget increase for its national security division to review foreign investments, an effort to increase the resources available to the Committee.  In its proposal for the fiscal year 2020 budget, DOJ requested an increase of $5 million and 21 positions (including 16 attorneys) for its national security division to assist with reviewing CFIUS cases.  At the current budget level, the DOJ employs 13 individuals (including 9 attorneys), which means the national security division is asking to significantly increase its current staff working on CFIUS matters.  Additionally, DOJ requested an increase of $18.3 million—part of which will cover 6 new positions—for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to spend on counterintelligence matters, including work on CFIUS-related cases.  The existing budget and number of positions allocated towards this goal is classified, according to the DOJ.  Last November, the DOJ unveiled its so-called “China Initiative,” which was created to reflect the DOJ’s efforts to counter Chinese national security threats.  The initiative seeks to enforce a full range of laws against espionage, foreign agents and threats to supply chains, as well as to identify U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases that involve Chinese companies that compete with American businesses. Furthermore, CFIUS has hired staff to head an office responsible for monitoring the market for covered transactions that had not been notified.  The office is not yet up and running. (4) The Importance of Mitigation It remains critical to think about CFIUS mitigation strategies at the outset of any deal, and to reach out to the Committee before filing the notice to begin a dialogue.  Despite the growing concerns regarding Chinese investments (as demonstrated by the divestitures discussed above), the Committee has approved Chinese deals with appropriate mitigation.  (Notably, Gibson Dunn secured clearance for a Chinese investment in a U.S. semiconductor company in January 2018—the only Chinese-controlled acquisition to be cleared by CFIUS within the statutory period and without mitigation under the Trump administration.) More independent monitors are likely in longer term mitigation agreements, and Treasury is working to build consistency between other U.S. government agencies responsible for the oversight of CFIUS national security agreements. Last year CFIUS imposed a $1 million penalty related to repeated breaches of a 2016 mitigation agreement, including failure to establish requisite security policies and failure to provide adequate reports to CFIUS. Although the penalty was imposed in 2018, it was posted on the Committee’s website in mid-April 2019. (5) More Regulations Are Coming Proposed regulations will be published later this year.  The Committee is taking lessons learned from the pilot program and incorporating them into the new rules. The Committee expects to provide more guidance with regard to what it means to be a foreign person in the context of an investment fund, which may include “black” and “white” lists of countries whose investors will be subject to different levels of scrutiny.  Notably, the Committee recently approved a Chinese investment in a U.S. business through an investment vehicle with a U.S. manager, in keeping with the investment fund carve out set forth in FIRRMA. (6) Cautious Investors Finally, it is worth noting that a number of major foreign investors are treading cautiously with respect to the Committee’s new rules—in some cases, by refraining from appointing board seats despite substantial investments. By contrast, certain Chinese investors are abandoning transactions altogether.  China’s ENN Ecological Holdings Co. recently announced that it had withdrawn its offer for Toshiba’s U.S. liquefied natural gas business because of failure to win approval from CFIUS and shareholders by a specified closing date.  Toshiba announced earlier this month that CFIUS approval had been delayed because of the U.S. government shutdown in early 2019.  Pursuant to FIRRMA, all pending CFIUS reviews were tolled for the duration of the government shutdown. The following Gibson Dunn lawyers assisted in preparing this client update: Judith Alison Lee, Jose Fernandez and Stephanie Connor. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the above developments.  Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any of the following leaders and members of the firm’s International Trade practice group: United States: Judith Alison Lee – Co-Chair, International Trade Practice, Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3591, jalee@gibsondunn.com) Ronald Kirk – Co-Chair, International Trade Practice, Dallas (+1 214-698-3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com) Jose W. Fernandez – New York (+1 212-351-2376, jfernandez@gibsondunn.com) Marcellus A. McRae – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7675, mmcrae@gibsondunn.com) Adam M. Smith – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com) Christopher T. Timura – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3690, ctimura@gibsondunn.com) Ben K. Belair – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3743, bbelair@gibsondunn.com) Courtney M. Brown – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com) Laura R. Cole – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3787, lcole@gibsondunn.com) Stephanie L. Connor – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8586, sconnor@gibsondunn.com) Henry C. Phillips – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8535, hphillips@gibsondunn.com) R.L. Pratt – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3785, rpratt@gibsondunn.com) Scott R. Toussaint – Palo Alto (+1 650-849-5320, stoussaint@gibsondunn.com) Europe: Peter Alexiadis – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 00, palexiadis@gibsondunn.com) Attila Borsos – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 10, aborsos@gibsondunn.com) Patrick Doris – London (+44 (0)207 071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com) Sacha Harber-Kelly – London (+44 20 7071 4205, sharber-kelly@gibsondunn.com) Penny Madden – London (+44 (0)20 7071 4226, pmadden@gibsondunn.com) Benno Schwarz – Munich (+49 89 189 33 110, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com) Michael Walther – Munich (+49 89 189 33-180, mwalther@gibsondunn.com) Steve Melrose – London (+44 (0)20 7071 4219, smelrose@gibsondunn.com) Richard W. Roeder – Munich (+49 89 189 33-160, rroeder@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

April 19, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Ranked in Legal 500 EMEA 2019

The Legal 500 EMEA 2019 has recommended Gibson Dunn in 14 categories in Belgium, France, Germany and UAE.  The firm was recognized in Competition – EU and Global in Belgium; Administrative and Public Law, Dispute Resolution – Commercial Litigation Industry Focus – IT, Telecoms and the Internet, Insolvency, Insurance, Mergers and Acquisitions, and Tax in France; Antitrust, Compliance, Internal Investigations and Private Equity in Germany; and Corporate and M&A and Investment Funds in UAE. Chézard Ameer, Ahmed Baladi,  Jean-Pierre Farges and Dirk Oberbracht were all recognized as Leading Individuals. Jérôme Delaurière was listed as a “Next Generation Lawyer.”  

March 28, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Wins Corporate Team of the Year at the Legal Business Awards

Legal Business magazine has named Gibson Dunn as the “Corporate Team of the Year” at The Legal Business Awards 2019. The firm received the award for its representation of William Hill on its entry into a U.S. partnership with Eldorado Resorts, which Legal Business described as “a groundbreaking and high-pressure transaction.” The awards were presented at a ceremony in London on March 28, 2019.

March 26, 2019 |
Global Competition Review Recognizes Gibson Dunn for Merger Control Matter of the Year

Global Competition Review has named the AT&T/Time Warner matter as the “Merger Control Matter of the Year – Americas” at its annual GCR Awards. Gibson Dunn was counsel to AT&T. The awards were presented on March 26, 2019.

March 25, 2019 |
M&A Report – 2018 Year-End Activism Update

Click for PDF This Client Alert provides an update on shareholder activism activity involving NYSE- and Nasdaq-listed companies with equity market capitalizations in excess of $1 billion during the second half of 2018. Shareholder activism underwent a modest decline in the second half of 2017, but accelerated again in the first half of 2018. A similar pattern emerged during the second half of 2018, with a modest decline relative to the second half of 2017 in the numbers of public activist actions (40 vs. 46), activist investors taking actions (29 vs. 36) and companies targeted by such actions (34 vs. 39). However, in light of the robustness of shareholder activism activity in the first half of 2018, full-year numbers for 2018 are virtually identical to those of 2017, including with respect to the numbers of public activist actions (98 vs. 98), activist investors taking actions (65 vs. 63) and companies targeted by such actions (82 vs. 82). During the period spanning July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, four of the 34 companies targeted by activists were the subject of multiple campaigns, led by Dell Technologies Inc., which was the subject of four different activist campaigns. Bunge Limited was also the subject of two simultaneous campaigns by D.E. Shaw Group and a company before settling both campaigns at the same time. As to the activists, seven out of the 29 covered in this Client Alert launched multiple campaigns. The market capitalizations of those companies reviewed in this Client Alert ranged from just above the $1 billion minimum to just under $100 billion, as of December 31, 2018 (or as of the last date of trading for those companies that were acquired and delisted). By the Numbers – 2018 Full Year Public Activism Trends Additional statistical analyses may be found in the complete Activism Update linked below.  Compared to the first half of 2018, activists focused their campaigns more squarely on M&A as compared to other rationales. In the case of 65% of campaigns, M&A, including advocacy for or against spin-offs, acquisitions and sales, was an activist motivation (as compared to 32% in the first half of 2018), followed by business strategy (50% of campaigns, as compared to 36% in the first half of 2018). Changes to board composition, which had gained prominence in the first half of 2018 as the most common rationale for activist campaigns, represented the goal of activists in 45% of campaigns in the second half of 2018 (as compared to 76% in the first half of 2018). On the other hand, advocacy for changes in governance (20% of campaigns in the second half of 2018), return of capital (15% of campaigns), managerial changes (13% of campaigns) and attempts to take corporate control (5% of campaigns) represented less-frequently cited rationales for activist campaigns. Proxy solicitation transpired in 15% of the campaigns, representing a modest decline relative to the first half of 2018, in which 20% of campaigns featured activists filing proxy materials. (Note that the above-referenced percentages sum to over 100%, as certain activist campaigns had multiple rationales.) Consistent with the heightened focus on M&A and diminished attention paid by activists in their campaigns to board composition and governance, the number of publicly filed settlement agreements declined to nine (as compared to 21 in the first half of 2018). Consistent with prior trends, certain key terms have become increasingly standard in such settlement agreements. Voting agreements and standstill periods appeared in each of the settlement agreements, and non-disparagement covenants and minimum and/or maximum share ownership covenants appeared in all but one of the settlement agreements. Expense reimbursement appeared in over half of the settlement agreements reviewed (five), continuing a trend that began in the first half of 2018, when 62% of publicly filed settlement agreements contained such a provision (as compared to an historical average of 36% from 2014 through the first of 2017). Strategic initiatives did not figure prominently in settlement agreements entered into during the second half of 2018, being included in only two settlement agreements. We delve further into the data and the details in the latter half of this edition of Gibson Dunn’s Activism Update. We hope you find Gibson Dunn’s 2018 Year-End Activism Update informative. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to a member of your Gibson Dunn team. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the issues discussed in this publication.  For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or any of the following authors in the firm’s New York office: Barbara L. Becker (+1 212.351.4062, bbecker@gibsondunn.com) Dennis J. Friedman (+1 212.351.3900, dfriedman@gibsondunn.com) Richard J. Birns (+1 212.351.4032, rbirns@gibsondunn.com) Eduardo Gallardo (+1 212.351.3847, egallardo@gibsondunn.com) Saee Muzumdar (+1 212.351.3966, smuzumdar@gibsondunn.com) Daniel Alterbaum (+1 212.351.4084, dalterbaum@gibsondunn.com) William Koch (+1 212.351.4089, wkoch@gibsondunn.com) Please also feel free to contact any of the following practice group leaders and members: Mergers and Acquisitions Group: Jeffrey A. Chapman – Dallas (+1 214.698.3120, jchapman@gibsondunn.com) Stephen I. Glover – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8593, siglover@gibsondunn.com) Jonathan K. Layne – Los Angeles (+1 310.552.8641, jlayne@gibsondunn.com) Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance Group: Brian J. Lane – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3646, blane@gibsondunn.com) Ronald O. Mueller – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8671, rmueller@gibsondunn.com) James J. Moloney – Orange County, CA (+1 949.451.4343, jmoloney@gibsondunn.com) Elizabeth Ising – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8287, eising@gibsondunn.com) Lori Zyskowski – New York (+1 212.351.2309, lzyskowski@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

March 19, 2019 |
China Revamps Laws on Foreign Investments

Click for PDF On March 15, 2019, the National People’s Congress of China passed the Foreign Investment Law (the “Foreign Investment Law”) which, upon taking effect on January 1, 2020, will replace some of the basic laws and regulations relating to foreign investments in China (the “Existing Laws”).  This new law represents a major overhaul of China’s foreign investment regulatory regime developed over the last four decades. Current Regime The Existing Laws consist primarily of three pieces of legislation:  the Sino-Foreign Joint Venture Law (the “Equity JV Law”), the Foreign Enterprise Law (the “WFOE Law”) and the Sino-Foreign Co-operative Joint Venture Law (the “Co-operative JV Law”).  Each of these laws allows foreign investors to invest in a particular type of legal entity in China.  Under the WFOE Law, for example, a foreign investor can incorporate a wholly foreign owned enterprise (a “WFOE”).  Similarly, under the Equity JV Law and the Co-operative JV Law, foreign investors can set up equity or co-operative joint ventures with Chinese partners (the “Joint Ventures”).  The WFOEs and the Joint Ventures are collectively referred to as foreign invested enterprises (the “FIEs”).  Apart from these laws, China has (and periodically updates) a foreign investment catalogue (the “Foreign Investment Catalogue”) which divides foreign investments into those that are encouraged and those that are on a negative list (the “Negative List”).  The Negative List contains two sub-categories: the prohibited (i.e., no foreign investment is allowed) and the restricted (i.e., foreign investment is allowed subject to satisfaction of certain conditions).  Those sectors that are not on the encouraged list or the Negative List are treated as permitted. The overriding feature of China’s regulation of foreign investments is that the FIEs are treated very differently from companies that are not owned by foreign investors (the “Domestic Companies”).  While China is not unique in this regard, it is the degree of such difference that sets China apart from many other countries.  For instance, the FIEs not only have to satisfy the requirements under the Foreign Investment Catalogue, they also must be registered as different legal entities and subject to different governance procedures compared with the Domestic Companies.  Furthermore, the FIEs are often required to obtain more approvals and enjoy less benefits than the Domestic Companies. Over the last several years, partly as a result of complaints and pressure from foreign governments and businesses, China has taken steps to grant more equal treatment to the FIEs.  While the incorporation documents for all FIEs had to be reviewed and approved by China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), such requirement is now only applicable to investments in sectors on the Negative List.  The Foreign Investment Law can be seen as another step towards creating a more level playing field in China for both the FIEs and the Domestic Companies. Major Provisions The major provisions of the Foreign Investment Law include the following: National Treatment The Foreign Investment Law specifically provides that the market entry management system for foreign investments in China consists of national treatment plus complying with the Negative List.  In other words, unless otherwise required under the Negative List, the FIEs should be treated in the same way as the Domestic Companies.  This is the first time such national treatment principle is expressly and unequivocally provided in a national law in China. The law also includes some specific requirements for national treatment, including that government policies in supporting business development be applied equally to the FIEs and that equal treatment be accorded to the FIEs in respect of government procurements. Moreover, after the Foreign Investment Law becomes effective, the FIEs will undergo the same incorporation process required under the PRC Company Law (instead of the Existing Laws) as the Domestic Companies.  The FIEs will also be governed in the same way as the Domestic Companies. Protection of Foreign Investments In addition to national treatment, the Foreign Investment Law also contains some  general principles which apparently are aimed at allaying concerns over lack of protection of foreign investments in China, including: there will be no expropriation of foreign investments, unless in special circumstances required for public interest and conducted through a legal process with fair and reasonable compensation made in a timely fashion; the intellectual property rights of the foreign investors and FIEs will be protected and infringements of such rights will be prosecuted strictly according to law; while voluntary technological cooperation between Chinese and foreign investors is encouraged, the terms of such cooperation should be discussed by the investing parties themselves based on principles of fairness and equality, and government authorities or officials may not force transfer of technology through administrative means; government authorities and officials must keep confidential commercial secrets obtained from the foreign investors and FIEs while performing normal government functions; government authorities may not decrease the lawful rights of the FIEs, increase their obligations, impose market entry or exit conditions or interfere with their normal business activities, unless otherwise required by law; local government authorities must honor and perform promises to and contracts with the foreign investors and FIEs made pursuant to law; and a mechanism will be established to collect and address complaints from the FIEs. Requirements under Other Laws The Foreign Investment Law also refers to a number of other laws and regulations relating to foreign investments in China, such as the PRC Anti-Monopoly Law and regulations relating to national security review.  These laws and regulations will continue to be applicable after the Foreign Investment Law comes into effect. Unanswered Questions The Foreign Investment Law is generally viewed as an improvement over the Existing Laws, but it also leaves some important questions unanswered.  One glaring example is that MOFCOM issued a prior draft of the Foreign Investment Law in 2015 for public comments (the “2015 Draft”), which, among other things, dealt with issues relating to variable interest entities (the “VIEs”) (please click here for our comments on the 2015 Draft).  However, the VIE related provisions have all been dropped from the promulgated Foreign Investment Law.  As the VIE structure has been widely used in investments in certain sectors in China for many years, the fact that the Chinese government is still unwilling or unready to tackle this issue is a disappointment to many foreign investors. Furthermore, the Foreign Investment Law is a rather short piece of legislation which contains primarily broad language on general principles.  The extent to which it will actually improve the environment for foreign investments in China will depend on what specific rules and policies will be adopted to implement the law.  For instance, the current Negative List was issued in June 2018.  Many foreign investors are hoping that, with the passage of the Foreign Investment Law, the Negative List will be updated again to further liberalize restrictions on foreign investments in certain sectors.  Similarly, the Foreign Investment Law provides that foreign investors can freely remit out of China their earnings, royalties, capital gains and proceeds from disposal of assets.  However, given China’s tight foreign exchange controls, foreign investors often encounter obstacles and delays in actually making such remittance.  One encouraging development was that three days after the Foreign Investment Law was passed, China’s forex authority issued a circular revising and simplifying rules on cross border financing activities by multinational companies. The Foreign Investment Law is intended to promote and protect foreign investments by making the FIEs less “foreign” in China.  This is a challenge as well as a welcome step in a country which traditionally has believed strongly that there is a big difference between what is domestic and what is foreign.  It remains to be seen whether the purported benefits for foreign investors under  the Foreign Investment Law will be fully realized in real life. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have about this development.  Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or the following authors: Yi Zhang – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3988, yzhang@gibsondunn.com) Fang Xue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8687, fxue@gibsondunn.com) Keron Guo – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8505, kguo@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

March 11, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Receives China Business Law Award for Mergers & Acquisitions

Gibson Dunn was among the firms recognized by China Business Law Journal in the category of Mergers & Acquisitions – International Firms for its annual 2019 awards.  The awards were announced on March 11, 2019. Gibson Dunn’s Mergers and Acquisitions Practice Group is an international leader in mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs, proxy contests and joint ventures.  Our M&A capabilities are worldwide.  Gibson Dunn’s combination of U.S.-based lawyers and network of offices in financial centers abroad allows us to handle the most complex cross-border deals effectively and efficiently.  Our lawyers are accustomed to serving clients from around the world, and all of our lawyers, regardless of location, share our approach to delivery of the highest quality of service to our clients.

March 8, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Ranked in Chambers Europe 2019

Gibson Dunn received 30 rankings in Chambers Europe 2019: 22 individual rankings and eight firm rankings. The firm was recommended in the following categories: Competition/European Law – Belgium; Corporate Investigations – Europe-wide; Corporate/M&A: High-End Capability – France; Restructuring/Insolvency – France; TMT: Information Technology – France; Compliance – Germany; Corporate/M&A: High-End Capability – Germany; Dispute Resolution: White-Collar Crime: Corporate Advisory – Germany. The following Gibson Dunn partners were recognized as leaders in their fields: Peter Alexiadis, Ahmed Baladi, Sandy Bhogal, Jérôme Delaurière, Jean-Pierre Farges, Benoît Fleury, Charlie Geffen, Ariel Harroch, Chris Haynes, Ali Nikpay, Dirk Oberbracht, Wilhelm Reinhardt, Sebastian Schoon, Benno Schwarz, Steve Thierbach, David Wood, and Finn Zeidler.

March 5, 2019 |
EU Regulation on Establishing a Framework for Screening of Foreign Direct Investments into the European Union Has Been Adopted

Click for PDF The regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments (“FDI”) into the European Union (“EU”) was adopted on March 5, 2019.  This new regulation (“FDI Regulation”) is based on a proposal by the European Commission (“Commission”) presented in September 2017 following an initiative for investment reviews at the EU level by the French, German and Italian governments from February 2017. The FDI Regulation will come into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the EU, hence, presumably sometime in April. It will, however, only apply 18 months after entry into force, thereby giving the EU member states (“Member States”) enough time to take necessary measures for its implementation. The FDI Regulation establishes an EU-coordinated cooperation among Member States and is the result of the EU’s efforts to strike a balance between the opportunities globalization offers and the potential cross-border impact of FDI inflows on security or public order of the Member States and the EU as a whole. By establishing a common framework for screening by Member States and for a mechanism for cooperation on EU level concerning FDI, the FDI Regulation seeks to provide legal certainty for Member States’ screening mechanisms on the grounds of security and public order (by, e.g., expressly determining critical infrastructure, critical technologies, supply of critical inputs, access to sensitive information, and freedom and pluralism of the media as factors that may be taken into consideration in national screening decisions) and to ensure EU-wide coordination and cooperation on the screening of FDI likely to affect security or public order.[1] The creation of designated contact points and the regulated exchange of information at an EU level is aimed to increase transparency and awareness on FDI likely to affect security or public order. The FDI Regulation also provides the Members States and the Commission with the means to address such risks to security or public order. The Commission may issue an opinion and the other Member States may provide comments which are both non-binding but shall be given due consideration by the Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed. Where an FDI is likely to affect projects and programs of EU interest (regarding areas such as research, space, transport and energy), the Member State concerned will even have to take utmost account of the Commission’s opinion and provide an explanation to the Commission if its opinion is not followed. The FDI Regulation neither aims to harmonize national screening mechanisms (which currently exist in 14 out of 28 Member States), nor does it replace national screening mechanisms with a single EU screening mechanism, i.e., it does not create a European one-stop shop solution. The FDI Regulation also does not oblige Member States without screening mechanisms in place to establish one. The decision whether to set up a screening mechanism, or to screen a particular FDI, remains the sole responsibility of the Member State concerned.[2] Any maintenance, amendment or adoption of a screening mechanism, however, needs to be in line with the provisions of the FDI Regulation.[3] Even though the FDI Regulation stresses that Member States without screening mechanisms are not required to create one, the mere existence of a screening framework at the EU level may nonetheless increase the likelihood of more Member States establishing a national screening mechanism – examples being Hungary, which has introduced a national screening mechanism in January 2019, as well as Sweden and the Czech Republic which may follow suit in the near future. The establishment of a screening framework will also have an impact on currently existing screening mechanisms, most of which will have to be adjusted to allow for the integration of the new EU cooperation process. It is likely that besides extending time frames, national screening rules may be tightened (further), as it is for instance expected in the case of Germany. The developments in Europe can be seen as part of a global trend towards more awareness and scrutiny of foreign investments. Background Prior to the FDI Regulation, there was no comprehensive framework at EU level for the screening of FDI on the grounds of security or public order. No formal coordination was in place, neither between the Commission and the Member States nor amongst the Member States themselves. When the Commission presented its draft proposal for the FDI Regulation in September 2017, only 12 out of 28 Member States had a national mechanism for screening of FDI in place; meanwhile 14 Member States screen FDI, namely Austria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These national FDI screening mechanisms are not aligned and may differ widely in their scope and design. Key Aspects of the FDI Regulation Enhanced Cooperation A key aspect of the FDI Regulation is the establishment of a formal mechanism for cooperation between the Member States, and between Member States and the Commission, which takes on an active role. The cooperation mechanism is enabled through the following instruments: Designated Contact Points. All Member States (regardless of a national screening mechanism being in place or not) and the Commission have to establish a contact point for the implementation of the FDI Regulation.[4] Such contact points should be appropriately placed within the respective administration, and have the qualified staff and the powers necessary to perform their functions under the coordination mechanism and to ensure a proper handling of confidential information.[5] Direct cooperation and exchange of information between the contact points shall be supported through a secure and encrypted system provided by the Commission. The Member States (and the Commission alike) need to ensure the protection of confidential information acquired in application of the FDI Regulation in accordance with EU law and their national law. It also needs to be ensured that classified information shared under the FDI Regulation is not downgraded or declassified without the prior written consent of the originator.[6] The foregoing confidentiality obligations are particularly important to protect and avoid misuse of commercially sensitive information. The FDI Regulation further stipulates that personal data has to be processed in accordance with EU data protection laws and only to the extent necessary for screening of FDI by the Member States and for ensuring the effectiveness of the cooperation provided for in the FDI Regulation, and may only be kept for the time necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was collected.[7] Group of Experts. A group of experts on the screening of FDI into the EU was set up by Commission decision of November 29, 2017.[8] The group of experts consists of representatives of the Member States and is chaired by a representative of the Commission’s Directorate General for trade. It functions as a second institutional coordination body – next to the envisaged FDI screening contact points – and provides advice and expertise to the Commission on matters relating to FDI into the EU.[9] The group of experts provides a forum to discuss issues relating to the screening of FDI, share best practices and lessons learned, and exchange views on trends and issues of common concern relating to FDI.[10] International Cooperation. The FDI Regulation encourages international cooperation by expressly stating that the Member States and the Commission may also cooperate with the responsible authorities of (like-minded) third countries on issues related to the screening of FDI on grounds of security and public order.[11] Other Stakeholders and Interest Groups. Albeit not directly invited to share their viewpoint (and somewhat hidden in the recital), economic operators, civil society organizations, and social partners such as trade unions may convey relevant information in relation to FDI likely to affect security or public order to the Member States and the Commission, which might consider such information.[12] Active Role of the Commission. The Commission is now equipped with the competence to request information and share its opinion on FDI that are likely to affect (i) projects and programs of EU interest on grounds of security or public order, or (ii) security and public order in more than one Member State which allows it to play an active role in the cooperation mechanism. The Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed needs to give due consideration to the Commission’s opinion, or, in case of projects and programs of EU interest likely being affected, is even required to take utmost account of it and provide an explanation if it does not follow the Commission’s opinion. Increased Transparency on FDI The FDI Regulation introduces certain notification, reporting and information requirements related to FDI inflows and screening mechanisms, which shall increase the level of transparency and information exchange. The Member States are required to initially notify the Commission of their existing screening mechanisms no later than 30 days after the entry into force of the FDI Regulation. No later than three months after having received such notifications, the Commission will make publicly available (and keep up to date) a list of the Member States’ existing screening mechanisms. Any newly adopted screening mechanism or any amendment to an existing screening mechanism needs to be notified to the Commission within 30 days of the entry into force of the newly adopted screening mechanism or of any amendment to an existing mechanism. By March 31 of each year, the Member States are required to submit to the Commission an annual report which shall include aggregated information on (i) FDI that took place in their territory, on the basis of information available to them, (ii) the requests received from other Member States, and (iii) the application of their screening mechanisms (including the decisions allowing, prohibiting or subjecting FDI to conditions or mitigating measures and the decisions regarding FDI likely to affect projects and programs of EU interest), if any.[13] The Commission is expected to provide standardized forms in order to improve the quality and comparability of information provided by the Member States and to facilitate compliance with the notification and reporting obligations.[14] The Commission in turn will provide an annual report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the FDI Regulation, which will be made public for greater transparency. The FDI Regulation further provides for a notification requirement regarding FDI undergoing screening in a Member State with screening mechanism as well as a minimum level of information with regard to all FDI falling under the scope of the FDI Regulation, to be shared either mandatorily (for FDI undergoing screening) or upon request (for FDI not undergoing screening for lack of a national screening mechanism), unless such information is not available in exceptional circumstances despite best efforts. Minimum information to provide includes aspects such as the ownership structure and the business operations of the foreign investor and the target company, as well as the financing of the planned or completed investment and its source. Legal Certainty By creating a framework for screening mechanisms of Member States, the FDI Regulation aims to provide legal certainty for Member States and investors. Screening mechanisms of Member States need to be based on the grounds of security and public order, thereby being compliant with the requirements for imposing restrictive measures under GATS,[15] OECD,[16] or Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), and sending a signal against protectionism.[17] Member States shall apply time frames under their screening mechanisms and allow for the consideration of comments of other Member States and the opinion of the Commission. Rules and procedures relating to screening mechanisms shall provide for the protection of confidential information made available to the Member State conducting the screening, not discriminate between third countries and be transparent by way of setting out the circumstances triggering the screening, the grounds for screening and the applicable detailed procedural rules. National screening mechanisms shall also be equipped with measures necessary to identify and prevent circumvention of the screening mechanisms and screening decisions, and provide foreign investors and target companies concerned with the possibility to seek recourse against the screening decisions of the national authorities. Scope of Application A foreign direct investment, pursuant to the FDI Regulation, is an investment of any kind by a foreign investor aiming to establish or to maintain lasting and direct links between the foreign investor and the entrepreneur to whom or the target company to which the capital is made available in order to carry on an economic activity in a Member State, including investments which enable effective participation in the management or control of a company carrying out an economic activity. Not covered by the FDI Regulation are portfolio investments, i.e. investments without any intention to influence the management and control of a company. Foreign investor is defined as a natural person of a third country or a company of a third (i.e., non-EU) country, intending to make or having made an FDI. How does the new EU cooperation mechanism work? There are three different scenarios to distinguish: (a) FDI undergoing screening by a Member State, (b) FDI not undergoing screening for lack of a national screening mechanism, and (c) FDI likely to affect projects or programs of EU interest. (a) FDI undergoing screening in a Member State with screening mechanism Step 1: The Member State conducting the screening notifies the Commission and the other Member States of the FDI and provides information. The Member States shall, as soon as possible, notify the Commission and the other Member States of any FDI in their territory that is undergoing screening. The notification may include a list of Member States whose security or public orders is deemed likely to be affected and shall indicate whether the FDI is likely to fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. Information to be provided in the notification of an FDI includes: the ownership structure of the foreign investor and of the target company in which the FDI is planned or has been completed, including information on the ultimate investor and participation in the capital; the approximate value of the FDI; the products, services and business operations of the foreign investor and of the target company in which the FDI is planned or has been completed; the Member States in which the foreign investor and the target company in which the FDI is planned or has been completed, conduct relevant business operations; the funding of the investment and its source, on the basis of the best information available to the Member State; and the date when the FDI is planned to be completed or has been completed. The Member State conducting screening may request the foreign investor or the target company in which the FDI is planned or has been completed to provide the above information.[18] Step 2: The other Member States and the Commission notify the Member State conducting the screening of their intention to provide comments or an opinion and may request additional information. After being notified of the FDI, other Member States and the Commission have 15 calendar days to notify the Member State conducting the screening of their intent to provide comments or an opinion, and to request additional information. Any request for additional information, however, has to be duly justified, limited to information necessary to provide comments or issue an opinion, proportionate to the purpose of the request and not unduly burdensome for the Member State conducting the screening. The Member State conducting the screening shall endeavor to provide such additional information, if available, to the requesting Member States and/or the Commission without undue delay. Step 3: Determining whether the FDI is likely to affect security or public order (screening factors). The FDI Regulation provides for a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Member States and the Commission may take into consideration when determining whether an FDI is likely to affect security or public order. Firstly, the Member States and the Commission may consider the FDI’s potential effects on, inter alia: critical infrastructure, whether physical or virtual, including energy, transport, water, health, communications, media, data processing or storage, aerospace, defense, electoral or financial  infrastructure, and sensitive facilities as well as land and real estate crucial for the use of such infrastructure; critical technologies and dual-use items as defined in point 1 of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) no. 428/2009[19], including artificial intelligence, robotics, semiconductors, cybersecurity, aerospace, defense, energy storage, quantum and nuclear technologies as well as nanotechnologies and biotechnologies; supply of critical inputs, including energy and raw materials, as well as food security; access to sensitive information, including personal data, or the ability to control such information; or the freedom and pluralism of the media. Secondly, the Member States and the Commission may also take into account, in particular: whether the foreign investor is directly or indirectly controlled by the government, including state bodies or armed forces, of a third country, including through ownership structure or significant funding; whether the foreign investor has already been involved in activities affecting security or public order in a Member State; or whether there is a serious risk that the foreign investor engages in illegal or criminal activities. Step 4: The other Member States and the Commission may provide comments or an opinion. Other Member States may provide comments to the Member State conducting the screening if they consider that the FDI is likely to affect their security or public order, or if they have information relevant for such screening. The Commission may issue an opinion addressed to the Member State conducting the screening if it considers that the FDI is likely to affect security or public order in more than one Member State, or if it has relevant information in relation to that FDI. The Commission may issue an opinion irrespective of whether other Member States have provided comments. The Commission shall, however, issue an opinion where justified following comments from at least one-third of Member States considering that the FDI is likely to affect their security or public order. Other Member States’ comments and the Commission’s opinion have to be duly justified. The Member State conducting the screening may also itself request that the Commission issues an opinion, or other Member States provide comments if it considers that the FDI in its territory is likely to affect its security or public order. Comments and opinions are to be addressed and sent to the Member State conducting the screening no later than 35 calendar days following the receipt of the information conveyed with the notification of the FDI (see above). If additional information was requested, such comments or opinions are to be issued no later than 20 calendar days following receipt of the additional information or the notification that such additional information cannot be obtained. Moreover, the Commission – irrespective of having notified its intention to issue an opinion (pursuant to Step 2 above) – may issue an opinion following comments from other Member States where possible within the aforementioned deadline(s), but not later than 5 calendar days after those deadline have expired. Should the Member State conducting the screening consider that its security or public order requires immediate action, it may issue a screening decision before the time frames above have lapsed. The Member State conducting the screening will need to notify the other Member States and the Commission of said intention and duly justify the need for immediate action. The other Member States and the Commission shall hence endeavor to provide its comments or opinion expeditiously. The Commission will notify the other Member States that comments were provided or that an opinion was issued. Step 5: The Member State conducting the screening makes final screening decision after having given due consideration to the comments of the other Member States and to the opinion of the Commission. The Member State conducting the screening needs to give due consideration to the comments of the other Member States and to the opinion of the Commission. Recital 17 of the FDI Regulation elaborates in this regard that a Member State should give due consideration through, where appropriate, measures available under its national law, or in its broader policy-making, in line with its duty of “sincere cooperation” laid down in Article 4 para. 3 Treaty on European Union (“TEU”). The final screening decision in relation to any FDI, however, remains the sole responsibility of the Member State conducting the screening. For the sake of clarity, the Commission and the other Member States do not have the power to overrule the screening decision made by the competent national authority of the Member State conducting the screening. (b) FDI not undergoing screening (for lack of a national screening mechanism) Step 1: The other Member States and the Commission may request information from the Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed without undergoing screening. Where the Commission or a Member State considers that an FDI planned or completed in another Member State, where it is not undergoing screening for lack of a national screening mechanism, is likely to affect security or public order, it may request information from the Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed. Such information may include: the ownership structure of the foreign investor and of the target company in which the FDI is planned or has been completed, including information on the ultimate investor and participation in the capital; the approximate value of the FDI; the products, services and business operations of the foreign investor and of the target company in which the FDI is planned or has been completed; the Member States in which the foreign investor and the target company in which the FDI is planned or has been completed, conduct relevant business operations; the funding of the investment and its source, on the basis of the best information available to the Member State; and the date when the FDI is planned to be completed or has been completed. Additional information to the above may be requested. Please note that the Member State where an FDI is planned or has been completed may request the foreign investor or the target company in which the FDI is planned or has been completed to provide the above information.[20] Any request for information, however, has to be duly justified, limited to information necessary to provide comments or to issue an opinion, proportionate to the purpose of the request and not unduly burdensome for the Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed which, in turn, shall ensure that the requested information is made available to the Commission and the requesting Member States without undue delay. Step 2: Determining whether the FDI is likely to affect security or public order (screening factors). See above Step 3 for FDI undergoing screening in a Member State with screening mechanism. Step 3: The other Member States and the Commission may provide comments or an opinion. Other Member States may provide comments to the Member State where an FDI is planned or has been completed which is not undergoing screening in that Member State if they consider that the FDI is likely to affect their security or public order, or if they have relevant information in relation to that FDI. The Commission may issue an opinion addressed to the Member State in which the FDI is planned or has been completed if it considers that the FDI is likely to affect security or public order in more than one Member State, or if it has relevant information in relation to that FDI. The Commission may issue an opinion irrespective of whether other Member States have provided comments. The Commission shall, however, issue an opinion where justified following comments from at least one-third of Member States considering that the FDI is likely to affect their security or public order. Other Member States’ comments and the Commission’s opinion have to be duly justified. The Member State which duly considers that an FDI in its territory is likely to affect its security or public order may also itself request the Commission to issue an opinion, or other Member States to provide comments. Comments and opinions are to be addressed and sent to the Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed no later than 35 calendar days following the receipt of the requested information or the notification that such information cannot be obtained. Should the Commission issue an opinion following comments from other Member States, it has 15 additional calendar days for issuing that opinion. In order to provide greater certainty for investors, Member States and the Commissions may only issue comments and an opinion in relation to completed FDI not undergoing screening for lack of a national screening mechanism for a limited period of 15 months after the FDI has been completed.[21] This time frame, however, does not apply to FDI completed before the entry into force of the FDI Regulation. The Commission will notify other Member States that comments were provided or that an opinion was issued. Step 4: The Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed shall give due consideration to the comments of the other Member States and to the opinion of the Commission. The Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed needs to give due consideration to the comments of the other Member States and to the opinion of the Commission. Recital 17 of the FDI Regulation elaborates in this regard that a Member State should give due consideration through, where appropriate, measures available under its national law, or in its broader policy-making, in line with its duty of “sincere cooperation” under Article 4 para. 3 TEU. The decision to screen an FDI or to establish a screening mechanism for that matter, however, remains the sole responsibility of the Member State in question. (c) FDI likely to affect projects or programs of EU interest If an FDI potentially affects “projects or programs of EU interest” on grounds of security and public order, the Commission’s opinion carries more weight in the sense that the Member State in which the FDI is planned or has been completed (i.e., regardless of whether the FDI is undergoing screening or not) needs not only to give due consideration to, but needs to take utmost account of, the Commission’s opinion and, additionally, provide an explanation to the Commission in case its opinion is not followed. Recital 19 of the FDI Regulation elaborates in this regard that a Member State should take utmost account of the opinion received from the Commission through, where appropriate, measures available under its national law, or in its broader policy-making, and provide an explanation to the Commission if it does not follow its opinion, in line with their duty of “sincere cooperation” under Article 4 para. 3 TEU. The underlying objective is to give the Commission a tool to protect projects and programs, which serve the EU as a whole and represent an important contribution to its economic growth, jobs and competitiveness.[22] “Projects or programs of EU interest” shall include projects and programs which involve a substantial amount or a significant share of EU funding, or which are covered by EU law regarding critical infrastructure, critical technologies or critical inputs, which are essential for security or public order. In its annex, the FDI Regulation sets out a list of eight projects and programs of EU interest, namely the European GNSS programs (Galileo & EGNOS), Copernicus, Horizon 2020, Trans-European Networks for Transport (TEN-T), Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E), Trans-European Networks for Telecommunications, European Defense Industrial Development Program, and the Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO). The Commission is authorized to amend this list by way of adopting a delegated act. As for the cooperation mechanism, the above outlined procedures for FDI undergoing screening / not undergoing screening apply accordingly except for three modifications: (i) the Member State conducting the screening may indicate in the FDI notification whether it considers that the FDI is likely to affect projects and programs of EU interest; (ii) the Commission’s opinion shall be sent to the other Member States (instead of the Commission only notifying the other Member States of the fact that an opinion was issued); and (iii) the Member State where the FDI is planned or has been completed needs to take utmost account of the Commission’s opinion and provide an explanation to the Commission in case its opinion is not followed. Interplay with German Foreign Investment Control Current German Investment Control Regime Germany has had an FDI screening mechanism in place since 2004, which is based on the German Foreign Trade and Payments Act (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz or “AWG”) and codified in more detail in the German Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Außenwirtschaftsverordnung or “AWV”). The German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (the “German Ministry”) has the competence to review and potentially prohibit or restrict investments in domestic companies (direct or indirect acquisition of 25% – if in a security-sensitive sector or a critical infrastructure now already of 10% – or more of the voting rights) by a foreign investor on the grounds of public order or security, or to ensure the protection of essential security interests of the Federal Republic of Germany. The rules for German investment control distinguish between so-called “sector-specific reviews” (defense and certain parts of IT security industry) and “cross-sector reviews” (all other industry sectors). In case of sector-specific reviews (defense and certain parts of IT security industry), the foreign investor – EU and non-EU investor – is obliged to report the transaction to the German Ministry which then has three months to initiate formal review proceedings or otherwise clearance is deemed granted. Should the German Ministry decide to enter into formal review proceedings, it has a further period of three months of receipt of certain information on the transaction to render a screening decision. Any such decision by the German Ministry, that is any clearance, restriction or prohibition of a transaction, is consensually agreed with the Foreign Office (Auswärtiges Amt), the Federal Ministry of Defense (Bundesministerium der Verteidigung), and the Federal Ministry of the Interior (Bundesministerium des Inneren). In case of cross-sector reviews (all industry sectors but defense and certain parts of IT security), German Ministry has the competence to review the transaction independently despite the foreign investor – non-EU/non-EFTA – being obliged to report the transaction to the German Ministry, that is if the target company operates a critical infrastructure as listed in sec. 55 para. 1 sentence 2 AWV. The German Ministry then has three months to initiate formal review proceedings; otherwise it foregoes its right to review the transaction. Foreign investors also have the option to apply – even prior to the signing of the acquisition agreement – for a certificate of non-objection (Unbedenklichkeitsbescheinigung), which shall be deemed granted if the German Ministry does not initiate formal review proceedings within two months of receipt of the application. For the sake of transaction security and time, investors will often make use of this option and apply for a certificate of non-objection (Unbedenklichkeitsbescheinigung). Either way, should the German Ministry decide to enter into formal review proceedings, it has a further period of four months of receipt of certain information on the transaction to render a screening decision. Any decision to restrict or prohibit the transaction requires the consent of the German government. Hence, both types of review proceedings, the sector-specific as well as the cross-sector review, may take up to six (or even seven) months. It is noteworthy, however, that, regardless of the industry sector concerned, the ultimate duration of a formal review proceeding is likely to stretch even longer in the individual case as the review period is suspended if and so long as negotiations on contractual arrangements ensuring the protection of public order and security are taking place between the German Ministry and the parties involved in the transaction. In December 2018, the German government further tightened its rules for German foreign investment control. The amended rules provide for greater scrutiny of FDI by lowering the threshold for review of investments in German companies by foreign investors from the acquisition of 25% of the voting rights down to 10% in circumstances where the target operates in security-sensitive sectors (defense and certain parts of IT security industry) or a critical infrastructure. In addition, the amendment also expands the scope of the German screening mechanism to include certain media companies that contribute to influencing the public opinion by way of broadcasting, teleservices or printed materials and stand out due to their special relevance and broad impact. While the lowering of the review threshold as such has the purpose to increase the number of reported, and ultimately, reviewed investments, the broader scope is aimed at preventing German mass media from being manipulated with disinformation by foreign investors or governments. Interplay and Potential Friction between German Investment Control and the FDI Regulation As said above, the newly established framework for screening of FDI into the EU does not supersede German investment control but rather adds a layer of overall transparency and awareness among the Member States and, arguably even more importantly, provides the German Ministry with additional screening factors it may consider when reviewing an FDI under German investment control rules. In the case of the German robot manufacturer Kuka for instance, this would have allowed the German Ministry to actually prohibit the takeover of Kuka by Chinese investors. While, in 2016, robotics itself was not deemed to affect the public order or security of the Federal Republic of Germany – even under the current, more tightened regime, it still is not – it is considered a critical technology pursuant to the FDI Regulation and, as such, may be taken into account by the German Ministry in its screening decision. The EU-wide cooperation process under the FDI Regulation will take place between the respective contact points appointed for the implementation of the FDI Regulation by the Commission and the Member States. The German contact point will almost certainly be the department of the German Ministry in charge of investment control. The German Ministry, therefore, continues to be the sole point of contact for investors. It will need to inform the Commission and other Member States of FDI which undergo German review. The time frame for cooperation activities under the FDI Regulation is generally set to 55 calendar days (60 calendar days in case the Commission decides to issue an opinion following comments from other Member States) but may be longer depending on the individual circumstances that go with the obligation of the Member State concerned to make available additional information requested “without undue delay”. At first glance, the time frames under the FDI Regulation do not seem to conflict with the German screening procedure given that the German Ministry has, depending on the sector concerned, two or three months, to decide on entering into formal screening proceedings while the Commission/other Member States have 15 calendar days to notify their intent to provide an opinion/comments and no longer than 35 calendar days to actually do so. The time frame to issue an opinion or comments, however, may easily stretch longer than 35 calendar days in the event that the Commission or other Member States include a request for additional information in their notification of intent because an opinion or comments only need to be issued (no later than) 20 calendar days following receipt of the additional information. Even though the Member State concerned – in our example the German Ministry – is to ensure that the information requested is made available without undue delay, it is highly unlikely that the Member State concerned will be in a position to provide the information the same day. Therefore, the Commission/other Member States may actually have (much) longer than 35 calendar days to provide an opinion/comments in the individual case which in turn may collide with current time frames under German investment control rendering it impossible for the German Ministry to effectively consider such opinion/comments. This will be true especially in case of applications for certificates of non-objection (Unbedenklichkeitsbescheinigung) which need to be processed within two months. Therefore, it is certain that the German rules will be amended to ensure that both time frames are reconciled. Instead of simply extending the time frames to allow for the inclusion of the new EU cooperation mechanism, it is also conceivable that the German screening process will not start or be suspended until the EU cooperation procedure is completed. There will also be a need to reconcile information requirements. The information to be provided under the EU cooperation mechanism goes beyond what is required under the German screening mechanism. It is to be expected that the information to be submitted under the German screening procedure will be extended to comply with information requirements under the FDI Regulation. Alongside of extended information requirements, foreign investors should also prepare for an increased need for translations, as the German Ministry requires information to be submitted in German – and will continue to do so – whereas information to be shared with the Commission and other Member State will most likely (and at least) need to be provided in English. The German Ministry anticipates that the implementation of the FDI Regulation will take at least until end of 2019 and that the German investment control regime most likely will be tightened even further in the process.    [1]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 7.    [2]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 8 and article 1 para. 3.    [3]   See FDI Regulation, article 3 para. 1.    [4]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 26 and 27.    [5]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 27.    [6]   See FDI Regulation, article 10 para. 3.    [7]   See FDI Regulation, article 14.    [8]   Commission Decision of November 29, 2017 setting up the group of experts on the screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union (not published in the Official Journal), C(2017) 7866 final.    [9]   See article 2 and article 5 of the Commission Decision of November 29, 2017 setting up the group of experts on the screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union (not published in the Official Journal), C(2017) 7866 final.   [10]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 28.   [11]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 29 and article 13.   [12]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 14. [13]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 22 and article 5.   [14]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 22.   [15]   The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a treaty of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which establishes a framework of rules to ensure that services regulations are administered in a reasonable, objective and impartial manner and do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade.   [16]   The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international organization with currently 36 member countries committed to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world by providing a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems.   [17]   Statement made by Commission member Dr. Sylvia Baule during her presentation at the panel discussion “M&A – The evolving landscape of foreign direct investment – Just another thing to deal with or the new ice age for cross-border M&A?” at the German & American Lawyers Association (Deutsch-Amerikanische Juristen-Vereinigung or “DAJV”) Working Group Day 2018.   [18]   See FDI Regulation, article 9 para. 4.   [19]   Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (OJ L 134 29.5.2009, p. 1) (whereby ‘dual-use items’ shall mean items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, and shall include all goods which can be used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices).   [20]   See FDI Regulation, article 9 para. 4.   [21]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 21.   [22]   See FDI Regulation, recital no. 19. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the issues discussed in this update. For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you work or any of the following: Wilhelm Reinhardt – Frankfurt (+49 69 247 411 520, wreinhardt@gibsondunn.com) Jens-Olrik Murach – Brussels (+32 2 554 7240, jmurach@gibsondunn.com) Stefanie Zirkel – Frankfurt (+49 69 247 411 513, szirkel@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.