Pay-to-Play 2: CFIUS Filing Fees Go Into Effect May 1, 2020
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.28.20
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) has announced an Interim Final Rule requiring payment of filing fees in connection with any Joint Voluntary Notices submitted on or after May 1, 2020 for “covered transactions” under 31 C.F.R. Part 800 or for “covered real estate transactions” under Part 802. The Interim Final Rule adopts, without change, the sliding scale fee structure as initially proposed, but in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, will continue to accept comments until June 1, 2020.
The fee schedule is:
Total Transaction Value |
Filing Fee |
|
< $500,000 |
$0 |
|
> $500,000 but < $5 million |
$750 |
|
> $5 million but < $50 million |
$7,500 |
|
> $50 million but < $250 million |
$75,000 |
|
> $250 million but < $750 million |
$150,000 |
|
> $ 750 million |
$300,000 |
CFIUS rejected comments seeking to limit the transaction value to just the value of the U.S. business and denied concerns that the lack of any fee for submission of mandatory or voluntary declarations would provide a financial or administrative incentive for CFIUS to fail to conclude action under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act in evaluating such declarations.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
