CFIUS Releases Annual Report

Mar 6, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

CFIUS cleared a total of 46 transactions in 2013, during the initial 30-day review phase. It went to the 45-day investigation phase in 48 of the 97 notices reviewed in 2013. Although this number is slightly higher than CFIUS’ 40 investigations in 2011 and 45 investigations in 2012, the report suggested that the increase did not represent a broader trend. Five cases automatically proceeded into the investigation phase because CFIUS had been unable to review them during the federal government shutdown in October 2013.

CFIUS required mitigation measures as conditions to clearing 11 covered transactions. Mitigation measures are legally binding terms that require parties to modify their agreements or implement measures to address specific national security concerns. CFIUS reported that mitigation measures had been applied to investments in the telecommunications, software, mining, oil and gas, manufacturing, consulting and technology industries. Examples of these measures included limitations on access to certain technology and information, guidelines for U.S. government contracts and government notification requirements regarding security incidents or visits by foreign nationals. To ensure compliance with the measures, CFIUS will require periodic reporting, third-party audits and on-site compliance reviews by U.S. agencies, as well as investigations and remedial action in response to violations of mitigation measures or even suspicion of anomalous behavior.

CFIUS also approved the withdrawal of three notices during the initial 30-day review period and another five in the 45-day investigation period. Parties may request a withdrawal to have more time to respond to CFIUS’ questions and address potential national security concerns.

For the second year in a row, China accounted for the most CFIUS notices filed (21) by a foreign country in a single calendar year. Chinese investors filed 22 percent of the notices reviewed in 2013, compared to 20 percent of the notices reviewed in 2012. The stronger showing may signal growing Chinese confidence and sophistication regarding the CFIUS review process. In 2013, CFIUS approved the largest Chinese acquisition yet, Hong Kong-based Shuanghui Group’s $4.72 billion acquisition of the world’s largest pork producer, Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Japan accounted for the second highest number of notices reviewed (18) in 2013, a significant increase from the country’s nine notices in 2012 and seven notices in 2011. Canada’s 12 notices made it the third most represented country in 2013. Although the United Kingdom filed 68 notices from 2010-2012, it accounted for just seven notices in 2013.

Finally, CFIUS updated the U.S. intelligence community’s 2012 assessment of national security threats to U.S. critical technology. In the 2012 report, CFIUS backed off a previous assessment that there was a coordinated strategy among foreign governments to acquire U.S. critical technology. In the 2013 report, CFIUS reported the U.S. intelligence community’s revised position, advising that “foreign governments are extremely likely to continue to use a range of collection methods to obtain critical U.S. technologies,” including espionage. Nevertheless, CFIUS approved 85 mergers with, or acquisitions of, U.S. critical technology companies in 2013.

The 2013 report confirms that CFIUS will continue to keep close watch on critical technology and other potentially sensitive investments while it continues to approve, albeit with mitigation measures, an increasing number of foreign investments and acquisitions.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.