1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFIUS Expands Types of Transactions Subject to Pre-Closing Mandatory Declarations

CFIUS Expands Types of Transactions Subject to Pre-Closing Mandatory Declarations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.01.20

On May 21, 2020, Treasury proposed to change its approach for identifying which foreign investment in a U.S. business will trigger the requirement for mandatory notification to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). With respect to covered transactions involving U.S. businesses which produce, design, test, manufacture fabricate or develop those “critical technologies” that are essentially export-controlled items, CFIUS will no longer focus on the nexus of such critical technologies to 27 specific industries (as defined by NAICS codes). Rather, the proposed rule would mandate disclosure of such a covered transaction to CFIUS where U.S. regulatory authorization – without regard to most available regulatory exemptions and exceptions – would be required to export, re-export, transfer (in-country) or retransfer the critical technology to a foreign person that is a party to the transaction (including certain individuals holding a 25% voting interest in the foreign person). Exempted from the new mandatory disclosure rule, however, would be certain covered transactions where export of the critical technology involved could be exported to the foreign person(s) involved under a few specific exceptions available under the Export Administration Regulations.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights