1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Deadlines Fast Approaching for U.S. Companies with Foreign Subsidiaries to Report Foreign Investment to Commerce

Deadlines Fast Approaching for U.S. Companies with Foreign Subsidiaries to Report Foreign Investment to Commerce

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.18.15

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is currently conducting a Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad (BE-10 Survey) for 2014 and, unlike in prior years, BEA is requiring every U.S. entity with more than a 10 percent ownership interest in a foreign entity, whether direct or indirect, to submit a report on behalf of themselves and their U.S. subsidiaries.

U.S. companies are responsible for submitting a Form BE-10A on behalf of the company's consolidated domestic business enterprise, and Forms BE-10B, BE-10C, or BE-10D, as appropriate, on behalf of each foreign affiliate. Participation in the survey is mandatory and failure to file a required report could result in civil or criminal penalties and an injunction compelling responses. 

The number of foreign affiliates dictates whether the deadline is May 29, 2015 (<50 forms) or June 30, 2015 (>50 forms). 

Because these deadlines are fast approaching, companies might consider seeking an extension, a form for which is available here.

The BE-10 Report forms and instructions are available here.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26

Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow

In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity....

View All Insights