Series
Blogs
Series
Blogs
After ten months, the US Department of the Treasury has released further details on its proposed outbound foreign investment regime. The release of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 21 gives the latest view into which investments into China may be prohibited or notifiable under the proposed regulations.
The draft regulations are still not fully baked, and a final rule is not likely to take effect for some time. The NPRM includes 25 specific questions for which Treasury is still seeking public input. Public comments on the NPRM will be accepted until August 4, 2024, after which Treasury and other US government agencies participating in the regulatory process will consider the responses to the questions and any other comments, make whatever changes to the draft rules they deem advisable, and publish a final rule. It is unlikely that the final rule will take effect immediately upon publication; except in some situations, new regulations usually take effect at least 30 days after publication, giving the private sector and relevant government agencies additional time to prepare.
In our August 2023 blog post, we identified a number of key questions concerning the regime as well as a number of open issues. We recap below the developments in outbound investment so far, and highlight both what we’ve learned from the NPRM and what key issues remain unresolved.
President Biden created a framework for outbound foreign investment restrictions under Executive Order 14105, issued August 9, 2023, targeting certain Chinese technology companies. The new regime will require notification for some transactions (notifiable transactions) either before or within 30 days after closing, while prohibiting other transactions outright (prohibited transactions).
Immediately following issuance of the executive order, the US Department of the Treasury released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public inputs on 83 different subjects relating to the types of investors, technologies, and transactions that will be within the scope of both notifiable and prohibited transactions. The period for collecting public inputs responding to the ANPRM ended in September 2023, and on June 21, 2024, Treasury released the lengthy NPRM containing draft regulations implementing the new regime. The regime can affect transactions where neither party is based in the United States, so non-US strategic and financial investors in relevant activities should consider how the regime could affect them as well.
The NPRM uses a more specific “covered activities” approach rather a potentially unwieldy sectoral approach, though the activities are described by the three sectors previously identified in Executive Order 14105 and the ANPRM:
Executive Order 14015 and the NPRM are concerned with investments enabling these activities by “countries of concern.” That term has different meanings in various contexts, but for purposes of the outbound foreign investment regime, the only country of concern is China, including its special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau.
The NPRM applies to “persons of countries of concern,” defined as:
The application of the NPRM to any entity in which the Chinese government can direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the entity could be very broad. We know that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), led by the same Office of Investment Security responsible for implementing the outbound foreign investment regime, has largely stopped distinguishing between its treatment of state-owned and private-sector Chinese companies because of the degree of influence the government in Beijing can exert (and has exerted) on private enterprises. A similar approach in implementing the NPRM would broaden its scope significantly.
The NPRM also applies to any individual or entity (including non-Chinese individuals or entities) who holds a voting interest, board seat, or equity interest in any of the entities described above and also satisfies any of the following criteria, based on the most recent annual financial statement:
This provision could theoretically affect investments in various businesses outside China. For example, a US company that designs semiconductors in the United States but spends more money producing or selling them through a joint venture in China could fall within the scope of the NPRM. One issue for which Treasury has specifically requested public comment is how best to handle situations like these when an US person could also be a person of a country of concern.
Finally, in an effort to coordinate the outbound foreign investment regime with other restrictions on US dealings with China, the NPRM also prohibits any covered activities (whether they are listed as prohibited or notifiable) with entities named:
The outbound foreign investment regime will directly apply to US citizens and permanent residents, as well as US-domiciled entities and their non-US branches, and “any person in the United States.” This last provision is intended to capture individuals who are not US citizens or permanent residents but whose presence in the United States (e.g., pursuant to work or student visas) could allow them to accrue knowledge that could further Chinese capabilities in the three covered sectors.
There are also indirect investors who could be covered due to the involvement of a US person. “Controlled foreign entities” are non-US entities in which a US person is a majority owner of voting interests, a general partner or equivalent, or investment adviser to a pooled investment fund. That US person is obligated to take any reasonable steps that would prevent a transaction by the US person’s controlled foreign entity that would be a prohibited transaction if undertaken directly by a US person or to submit a notification for any notifiable transaction.
US persons are also prohibited from “knowingly directing” a transaction by a non-US person that would be a prohibited transaction if undertaken by a US person, and are required to submit a notification for any notifiable transaction knowingly directed by the US person. The definition of “knowingly directing” is critical for US persons who work with non-US entities and need to know the scope of this provision.
The NPRM’s explanatory note states that the purpose of this provision is not to limit employment of US persons by non-US companies—it is only aimed at capturing involvement by key personnel in decisions involving potentially covered transactions.
In addition to direct equity investments in relevant target businesses, the scope of the reporting requirements and prohibitions extend to the following additional transaction types:
The NPRM proposes a number of exceptions, though some of the Treasury Department’s requests for additional public inputs concern the scope of these exceptions:
The NPRM contemplates another exception for transactions deemed by the Secretary of the Treasury to be in the national interest following an application by the US person making the investment. Treasury has also asked for public input on this proposal; it is not clear how an application can be submitted without notifying Treasury of the transaction, implying that the exception would only have a meaningful effect if the applicants were hoping to receive Treasury clearance for investments that would otherwise be prohibited transactions. This would place Treasury in the role of reviewing the merits of specific transactions—something the regime was not intended to do (despite being referred to colloquially as “reverse CFIUS”). Furthermore, using “national interest” as the standard for granting an exception would place Treasury in the unusual position of assessing the potential benefits of a transaction, which is arguably a more difficult challenge than the current practice (at CFIUS) of identifying risks transactions may pose to US national security.
Once the new regulations take effect, violations of the notification and prohibition requirements will carry potential civil and criminal penalties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. In addition, the accuracy of notifications must be certified by an authorized person, and if the certification proves false, the individual making the certification could be subject to criminal penalties for making a false statement in a government proceeding.
If the transaction was a prohibited transaction, it can be voided if still pending, or the acquirer can be forced to divest its interest if the transaction was already completed.
Also, a US person who learns after the fact about a transaction that should have been notified or prohibited must notify the Treasury Department within 30 days. This disclosure does not preclude liability for failure to notify or prevent the transaction, but a voluntary self-disclosure may mitigate sanctions imposed by Treasury.
The NPRM includes 25 questions for which Treasury is seeking public inputs. Some of the issues are discussed above, but the first question is fairly existential:
"Are there areas where the proposed rule is broader than necessary to address the national security concerns identified in the Outbound Order? Are there areas where it is narrower than necessary or contains loopholes? If so, where and what adjustments should be made?"
When considered along with the more specific questions asked by Treasury in the NPRM, this question suggests that there is still considerable work to be done before a final rule is issued.
Public comments on the NPRM will be accepted until Sunday, August 4, 2024. Once the NPRM has been published in the Federal Register, comments can be submitted electronically at https://www.regulations.gov/ or by mail to the Treasury Department address specified in the NPRM.
24 June 2024
Up next