Is Chinese Investment in the U.S. Film and Entertainment Industry the Next Area of CFIUS Scrutiny?

Sep 29, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

As background, CFIUS is an interagency committee with the authority to review certain investments in the United States for national security considerations. The Committee has authority to review “covered transactions” that could result in a foreign person having the ability to control a U.S. business. If it identifies national security concerns related to a covered transaction, CFIUS can require mitigation measures for the transaction to be cleared or can recommend that the President block an ongoing transaction. If the transaction has closed, the President can order that the non-U.S. buyer divest its stake in the U.S. business. To address these risks, companies can submit a voluntary notice to obtain “safe harbor” for a transaction to close without fear of CFIUS intervention.

CFIUS’s national security review centers on whether the non-U.S. buyer poses a threat to U.S. national security and whether the U.S. business exposes a U.S. national security vulnerability. In recent years, Chinese investment, particularly by state-owned or -sponsored entities, has been a focus of scrutiny from the threat perspective. Still, CFIUS concerns can and do arise with investors from various nationalities.

As noted above, the types of U.S. businesses that have been a focus of CFIUS reviews has evolved. Certain U.S. industries have been a fairly consistent focus of the Committee such as the defense, high-technology and energy industries. However, CFIUS has also recently taken interest in investments in other areas, including those in the food, agriculture, insurance and information-related sectors.

With that context in mind, 16 members of the U.S. Congress submitted a letter to the GAO on September 15, 2016, requesting that this investigative arm of the U.S. government review CFIUS to ensure that it is effectively assessing “the growing scope of foreign acquisition in strategically important sectors” and determine whether it has sufficient statutory authority to address these risks. As an example, the letter identified Dalian Wanda’s completed and proposed investments acquisitions of U.S. movie studios Legendary Entertainment and Paramount Studios, and the AMC and Carmike theatre chains. They cited growing concerns about China’s efforts to censor topics and exert propaganda controls on American media, and they implied that these investments could be used to further such efforts.

Consequently, non-U.S. parties seeking to invest in the U.S. film and entertainment industry and their counterparties should not assume that CFIUS does not apply to the transaction due to the nature of the U.S. investment. Instead, these parties would be wise to consider CFIUS risks throughout the deal process. This includes assessing the feasibility of the transaction from a CFIUS perspective, conducting diligence, negotiating appropriate terms and conditions, and submitting a notice to CFIUS, as necessary. These measures will reduce the uncertainty regarding CFIUS risks in a pending transaction and facilitate the accomplishments of each party’s goals.

*This blog post was originally on AG Trade Law.

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

© 2024 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.