D.C. Circuit Issues Ruling in Important CFIUS Case

by Ropes & Gray LLP
Contact

I. Introduction

The D.C. Court of Appeals recently issued a landmark decision in Ralls Corporation v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), No. 13-5315, slip. op. (D.C. Cir. July 15, 2014), that could have far-reaching implications on how the government reviews transactions in which foreign individuals or entities acquire control of U.S. companies with potential national security implications.  In particular, this recent opinion suggests that foreign persons are entitled to access the unclassified evidence that the government relies on during the CFIUS review process, and rebut that evidence, before a potential transaction is blocked.

II. CFIUS Background

CFIUS is the federal inter-agency committee responsible for reviewing transactions that result in a foreign person controlling a U.S. business in order to assess the implications the transaction would have on national security. Pursuant to statute, CFIUS is charged to review “covered” transactions, which are defined to include any merger, acquisition, or takeover by a foreign person that results in control of any U.S. business. Parties to a covered transaction are not required to provide notice to CFIUS prior to closing. But not submitting such a voluntary notice, however, exposes the foreign purchaser to risk because CFIUS can force the foreign purchaser to divest after closing if it later determines that the covered transaction threatens U.S. national security. Indeed, the CFIUS review process has delayed a number of high-profile deals involving foreign purchasers in recent years, including the Wanxiang Group Corp.’s acquisition of A123 Systems Inc. and Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd.’s purchase of Smithfield Foods Inc.

III. Case Background

Ralls Corporation (Ralls) is an American company incorporated in Delaware that is owned by two Chinese nationals. In March 2012, Ralls purchased four American companies previously formed to develop windfarms in Oregon. All of the windfarm sites acquired by Ralls were located close to, or within, a restricted airspace and bombing zone controlled by the United States Navy. Despite the proximity of the windfarms to these areas, Ralls did not submit a joint notice to CFIUS prior to completing the transaction. 

Following closing, and despite the fact that the Ralls windfarms were not the only foreign-owned windfarms in or near the restricted airspace, CFIUS took an interest in the transaction. In response to that interest, Ralls submitted a notice related to its acquisition of the four companies to CFIUS. CFIUS thereafter determined that Ralls’s acquisition of the Project Companies threatened national security and issued temporary orders restricting Ralls’s access to, and preventing further construction at, the project companies’ windfarm sites. President Obama later concluded through a Presidential Order that the transaction posed a threat to national security and issued a permanent order prohibiting the transaction. Pursuant to the Presidential Order, Ralls was given 90 days to divest its interest in the four companies and 14 days to remove physical objects and structures from the sites.

Ralls challenged the CFIUS and Presidential Orders in federal district court in Washington, D.C., alleging inter alia that the orders resulted in an unconstitutional taking of property that was contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Ralls specifically claimed the fact that neither CFIUS nor the President provided Ralls the opportunity to review and rebut the evidence the government relied upon in reaching their decisions violated its due process rights. The D.C. district court found that Ralls lacked a protected property interest in the four companies because it had acquired the companies knowing that it could be subject to divestiture following a CFIUS review. And even if Ralls had such an interest, its ability to submit agreements to CFIUS, meet with CFIUS personnel, and respond to CFIUS’s inquiries provided Ralls with sufficient due process procedures. Ralls subsequently appealed. 

As an initial matter, the D.C. Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Ralls’ due process claim. In reaching this conclusion, the D.C. Circuit rejected CFIUS’s arguments that (1) the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA”) imposed a statutory bar to judicial review and (2) the challenge to the Presidential Order raised a non-justiciable political question. The DPA states that Presidential Orders “shall not be subject to judicial review.” Nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit found that it had jurisdiction because it was not reviewing the final decision made by President Obama with respect to the transaction but rather the process pursuant to which such a decision was made. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the CFIUS’s political question argument was inapposite for a similar reason. 

After dealing with the jurisdiction issues, the D.C. Circuit analyzed Ralls’ substantive due process arguments. The D.C. Circuit reversed the district’s decision and held that “Ralls possesses substantial property interests and that the Presidential Order deprives Ralls of its interests without due process of law.” The D.C. Circuit explained that “due process requires, at the least, that an affected party be informed of the official action, be given access to the unclassified evidence on which the official [government] actor relied and be afforded an opportunity to rebut that evidence.” Ralls did not receive these constitutionally mandated procedural protections, even though Ralls suffered approximately $6 million in losses as a result of having to divest its interest in the companies it acquired. The D.C. Circuit further noted the fact that Ralls had “the opportunity to present evidence to CFIUS and to interact” with government officials during the review process was not sufficient “because Ralls never had the opportunity to tailor its submission to [CFIUS’s] concerns or rebut the factual premises underlying the President’s action.” The D.C. Circuit found that the government’s substantial interest in national security supported CFIUS’s decision to withhold classified information but did not justify its “failure to provide notice of, and access to, the unclassified information used to prohibit the transaction” that Ralls engaged in. But the D.C. Circuit clarified that its decision that the procedure followed in issuing the Presidential Order violated due process would not require public disclosure of “the President’s thinking on sensitive questions” related to national security. It only requires that Ralls must receive the procedural protections before the Presidential Order prohibits the transaction. The court further clarified that “[a]dequate process at the CFIUS stage” would also satisfy the President’s due process obligation. The D.C. Circuit also declined to consider whether executive privilege shielded CFIUS from disclosing the non-classified information to Ralls.

The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to district court and instructed that Ralls be provided with sufficient due process, including “access to the unclassified evidence on which the President relied and an opportunity to respond thereto.” 

IV. Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit’s decision could potentially allow foreign persons taking part in acquisitions that result in foreign control of a U.S. business to obtain more information about the CFIUS review process, how covered transactions are reviewed, and the evidentiary basis for why CFIUS or the President declines to approve certain transactions and, importantly, an opportunity to rebut the government’s evidence before the CFIUS or Presidential action is taken. But these significant changes to the CFIUS review process are far from inevitable. Given the importance of this case, it is likely that the Department of Justice will seek an en banc hearing before the D.C. Circuit or successfully petition the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision. Subsequent events related to this case and the CFIUS review process bear watching closely.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ropes & Gray LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ropes & Gray LLP
Contact
more
less

Ropes & Gray LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.