Corporate directors and their counsel should understand the nuances of cross-border independent investigations, which can create pitfalls for even the most experienced corporate advisers.
Although the stated risks are common to many types of cross-border investigations, they can be unexpected for corporate advisers whose primary experience is U.S.-based.
Strategically navigating the pitfalls stated within is vital because the business judgment rule does not protect a board or a company from violations of the foreign laws discussed.
In recent history, investments originating from China have accounted for nearly a quarter of CFIUS reviews, with investments from the UK, Japan, Hong Kong, Israel and South Korea also among the most reviewed.
The U.S. has indicated it intends to more aggressively review and regulate foreign investment in industries that may implicate national security via the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency committee headed by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
While CFIUS is largely a voluntary regime, it is important for foreign investors to consider the potential implications of an investment in, or the purchase of, a U.S. company.
Recent judgments have provided victims with a new route to claim damages from third parties, and thereby widen the pool from which to make a recovery.
Claimants in numerous common law jurisdictions now can bring two new types of claims against associates of fraudsters who have assisted in the dissipation of assets after a freezing order or judgment has been obtained.
Creditors seeking to make recoveries against fraudsters based in offshore jurisdictions should consider these two new, but related, claims against third parties when developing their asset recovery strategy.
U.S. courts traditionally have been a generous forum for foreign judgment creditors.
A recent ruling from a New York state court has further broken down barriers for recognition of a foreign judgment in the U.S., even when the debtor is subject to a foreign insolvency proceeding.
The New York decision is part of a trend of U.S. courts rejecting "fairness" and "corruption" challenges to Russian courts' judgments. Similar challenges can be overcome with the aid of proper counsel.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are aggressively directing their enforcement resources to combat against digital currency traders in the UK and greater EMEA.
Counsel located in the UK and greater EMEA region needs to be aware of the risks involved with this new-found aggression and how to prepare for any U.S.-driven regulatory inquiries or subpoenas.
Firms representing European entities and individuals involved in cryptocurrency should be more comprehensive in their preparation.
