POPULARITY
16 episodes with cfius
14 episodes with cfius
13 episodes with cfius
8 episodes with cfius
3 episodes with cfius
4 episodes with cfius
6 episodes with cfius
5 episodes with cfius
4 episodes with cfius
Let us know your thoughts. Send us a Text Message. Follow me to see #HeadsTalk Podcast Audiograms every Monday on LinkedInEpisode Title:
In this episode of Sanctions+, Milana Karayanidi and Shahrzad Noorbaloochi dive into the TikTok saga and the review process by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). As a result of the CFIUS process, a commercial transaction can be blocked due to US national security considerations, which is exactly what happened here. Following CFIUS' review, acquisition by ByteDance Ltd. of Musical.ly – later merged with TikTok – became subject to the US Presidential divestment order. The order was challenged in courts. The Congress passed the law that banned distributing, maintaining, and updating certain apps within the territory of the US – including TikTok. The US Supreme Court upheld the ban. And the new Administration ordered not to enforce the ban for now. Join us as we unravel the details of this saga and comment on our take on social media in general.
In the 20th episode of "Are We All Clear? Facilitating Security Clearances," host Molly O'Casey is joined by John Metz, a product manager at Agile Defense, and Antonia Tzinova, the head of Holland & Knight's CFIUS and Industrial Security Team. The trio discusses the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) in the industrial security space and its potential to help companies mitigate risks of Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI), insider threats and cybersecurity challenges. Mr. Metz touches on some helpful aspects of AI, such as automated red teaming, supply chain risk management and identifying potential intellectual property (IP) theft. However, he also clarifies that there are more dangerous uses of this technology, in particular deepfakes and autonomous malware development. Overall, the group agrees that AI needs to continue being used and developed and emphasizes that it should be viewed as a tool instead of a human replacement.
Andrew Bab, Partner & Co-Chair of the Healthcare Group at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP In this episode of M&A Science, Andrew Bab joins Kison Patel live in New York to dive into the fast-changing legal landscape facing private equity deals in healthcare. From emerging state-level regulations and reverse CFIUS to FDA policy shifts and CVR litigation, Andrew offers a masterclass in legal diligence and deal structuring. They also explore how political scrutiny and increasing regulatory complexity are driving the need for more proactive, buyer-led approaches in healthcare M&A. Things you will learn: How state-level regulation is changing the game for healthcare deals What private equity needs to know about DEI rollbacks and False Claims Act liability Impacts of recent Delaware case law and why some firms are leaving the state When to use CVRs in pharma M&A and the litigation risks they carry How new HSR rules and antitrust dynamics are shifting auction timelines _______________ What is the Buyer-Led M&A™ Virtual Summit This isn't just another webinar—it's an interactive experience designed to give you the tools and strategies to lead your M&A deals with confidence. This half-day event brings together corporate development leaders and M&A experts to explore Buyer-Led M&A™, showing how you can take control of every stage of the deal. Register Now: DealRoom.net/Summit ________ Episode Timestamps: [00:01:30] Andrew's background and overview of Debevoise & Plimpton's healthcare practice [00:03:00] Regulatory updates: DEI rollbacks, reverse CFIUS, foreign direct investment [00:05:30] National security laws expanding into tech, steel, and social media [00:06:00] Antitrust enforcement differences between Trump and Biden administrations [00:09:00] Delaware case law: MFW, Molus, Crispo and corporate governance implications [00:15:00] State-level regulation of healthcare deals (e.g., CA OHCA, MA law) [00:18:30] FDA's AI guidance and post-Chevron court deference [00:21:00] CVRs in pharma: structuring, litigation risk, and buyer incentives [00:29:00] Put/call deal structures for PE–strategic healthcare partnerships [00:32:30] HSR form overhaul and implications for auction vs. proprietary deals [00:34:30] Increased scrutiny of PE under False Claims Act and integration risk [00:44:00] Political scrutiny of PE in healthcare and rising public pressure [00:47:00] “Craziest M&A moment” – Mercury in the House of Orion delays closing
US equity futures are higher after a sharp selloff on Friday. European markets opened mixed, with gains in Germany following its election outcome. Asian equities ended mostly lower, with weakness in Greater China markets and South Korea. Markets remain focused on concerns over weakening economic indicators and rising inflation expectations. President Trump signed a memorandum directing CFIUS to restrict Chinese investment in strategic US sectors and further tightened curbs on US investment in sensitive Chinese technology. Meanwhile, attention is on potential China tariff increases, with reports suggesting higher duties on Chinese steel. In Europe, Germany's election outcome provided mild support to risk appetite as the center-right CDU/CSU bloc secured the largest share of the vote. Elsewhere, discussions over a US-Ukraine minerals deal are ongoing. Companies Mentioned: Hon Hai, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Blackstone, Shein
Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group's podcast, All Things Investigation. In this podcast, host Tom Fox is joined by Sean Reilly to explore the Nippon Steel/US Steel transaction. We begin with an in-depth explanation of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and its role in scrutinizing foreign transactions for national security risks. The conversation highlights the complex and detailed CFIUS filing process, stressing the importance of early compliance counsel involvement to avoid potential roadblocks. The discussion extensively covers the Nippon Steel and US Steel transactions, pointing out key developments and underlying political influences and analyzing how President Biden eventually barred the potential acquisition. In an addendum, the conversation also touches on recent changes under the Trump administration, emphasizing the need for companies and compliance officers to adapt dynamically amidst rapidly evolving regulations. Sean advises on practical steps for businesses considering transactions that might trigger CFIUS involvement, underscoring the importance of engaging with the committee early and thoroughly. The episode is an essential guide for corporate compliance professionals navigating the complexities of cross-border transactions and national security considerations. Key highlights: Understanding CFIUS Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel Acquisition CFIUS Concerns and Political Implications Advice for CFIUS Compliance Developments under Trump and Future Outlook Resources: Hughes Hubbard & Reed website Sean Reilly
In the 17th episode of "Are We All Clear? Facilitating Security Clearances," host Molly O'Casey is joined by Antonia Tzinova, the head of Holland & Knight's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and Industrial Security Team, to identify and analyze the many government entities that play a part in regulating mergers and acquisitions (M&A) that raise national security concerns. In addition to Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) mitigation and CFIUS review, Ms. O'Casey and Ms. Tzinova discuss the rules and responsibilities related to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Both attorneys stress the importance of accurate and timely filings to avoid potential consequences such as loss of export privileges and financial penalties. Adherence to these procedures will protect businesses and enhance national security. Although this field is undoubtedly complex, their concluding advice for companies navigating these regulatory landscapes is simple: "Get help, get it early."
Forecast: Breach storms surge with Chinese actors, Ivanti spreads wider, and malware disguises itself—stay alert and patched! This episode of Storm⚡️Watch features exciting developments in security tooling and concerning breaches in critical infrastructure. We're thrilled to finally talk about Censeye on the pod! It's Censys's powerful new automated hunting platform that's revolutionizing how security teams conduct threat hunting. This innovative tool combines automation with Censys's comprehensive internet scanning capabilities, complete with new gadgets that enhance threat detection and analysis capabilities. In major security news, a significant breach at the US Treasury's Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) has been attributed to Chinese state-sponsored actors. This concerning development potentially exposed sensitive data about national security reviews of foreign investments in American companies. The Ivanti vulnerability situation continues to evolve, with UK domain registry giant Nominet now confirming they've been impacted by the recent Ivanti VPN exploits. This development highlights the expanding blast radius of this critical security issue. 2025 has already seen sophisticated threat actors weaponizing exploits, with researchers uncovering an information stealer disguised as a proof-of-concept exploit for the LDAPNightmare vulnerability (CVE-2024-49113). We'll explore how Censys Search is strengthening phishing prevention through advanced SSL/TLS certificate monitoring, providing organizations with crucial tools to identify and prevent potential phishing campaigns. The episode concludes with an in-depth look at GreyNoise classifications, particularly focusing on suspicious activity patterns identified in the last 24 hours. We'll break down what these classifications mean for security teams and how to leverage this intelligence effectively. Storm Watch Homepage >> Learn more about GreyNoise >>
The Daily Business and Finance Show - Friday, 10 January 2025 We get our business and finance news from Seeking Alpha and you should too! Subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium for more in-depth market news and help support this podcast. Free for 14-days! Please click here for more info: Subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium News Today's headlines: Quantum computing stocks slump after Nvidia CEO sees use many years away Biden plans more limits on AMD, Nvidia AI chip exports before exit: report AMD slides as HSBC downgrades on Nvidia worries Bitcoin selloff deepens, wiping out early-2025 advance Drugs not selected for Medicare negotiations saw prices nearly double - report Nvidia highlights gen-AI opportunities and affordable supercomputing: Oppenheimer Biggest stock movers Wednesday: eBay, CALM, PLTR, and more Arcadium Lithium surges as CFIUS clears Rio Tinto takeover Explanations from OpenAI ChatGPT API with proprietary prompts. This podcast provides information only and should not be construed as financial or business advice. This podcast is produced by Klassic Studios Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of "Are We All Clear? Facilitating Security Clearances," host Molly O'Casey discusses the intersection of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and Foreign Ownership, Control, and Influence (FOCI) mitigation with Libby Bloxom, a fellow member of Holland & Knight's International Trade Group. They highlight the importance of understanding both CFIUS actions and FOCI requirements, as they can overlap and inform one another, particularly regarding national security measures in critical industries. They also note that companies should be proactive in navigating the regulations and timelines of the multiple agencies involved in security clearances.
This Day in Legal History: US Recognizes Castro GovernmentOn January 7, 1959, the United States formally recognized the new Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. This recognition followed the revolutionary forces' ousting of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista on January 1, 1959. The U.S. move reflected an initial acceptance of the political change in Cuba, as Batista's regime had become widely criticized for corruption and authoritarianism. Castro's rise to power was initially seen by some in the U.S. as a potential opportunity for reform and modernization in Cuba. However, underlying tensions between the two nations soon began to surface.As Castro consolidated power, his government initiated sweeping land reforms and began nationalizing industries, including those with significant American investments. These actions created friction with U.S. business interests and policymakers. By 1960, relations deteriorated further when Cuba aligned itself with the Soviet Union, entering the Cold War as a communist ally. The U.S. responded with economic sanctions, including a trade embargo, which severely strained diplomatic ties.The growing ideological divide culminated in January 1961, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower severed formal diplomatic relations with Cuba. Shortly thereafter, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis deepened hostilities. The recognition on January 7, 1959, marked the beginning of a complex and adversarial relationship that would define U.S.-Cuban interactions for decades. This moment remains a pivotal turning point in the history of both nations, highlighting the geopolitical struggles of the Cold War era.Former President Donald Trump lost a bid to delay his sentencing in the Manhattan hush money case, despite his legal team's arguments citing presidential immunity and his upcoming January 20 inauguration. Judge Juan Merchan, who previously scheduled sentencing for January 10, rejected the request, stating that Trump's motion repeated past arguments and emphasizing the need for finality in criminal proceedings. The judge noted he was not inclined to impose jail time, instead considering an unconditional discharge, which would mark a conviction without additional penalties.The case involves a $130,000 payment made by Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult film actor Stormy Daniels to silence her claims of an affair with Trump before the 2016 election—a claim Trump denies. Trump was found guilty in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to concealing this payment. His lawyers' appeals to dismiss the case, including citing the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity for official acts, have been rejected as the charges pertain to Trump's personal conduct.Prosecutors argued against the delay, stressing the public interest in timely prosecution. This case marks the first time a U.S. president, sitting or former, has been convicted of a crime. Trump's legal team previously claimed that the case impedes his ability to govern, but the court maintained that upholding the jury's verdict is vital to the rule of law.Trump loses bid to delay sentencing in hush money case as he appeals | ReutersU.S. Steel and Nippon Steel have filed lawsuits against President Joe Biden's administration over its decision to block Nippon Steel's $14.9 billion bid to acquire U.S. Steel, alleging the national security review process was politically influenced. The companies claim Biden prejudged the outcome to gain political favor with the United Steelworkers (USW) union ahead of the presidential election, violating their right to a fair review. They seek a federal court's intervention to overturn the decision and enable a new, impartial review.The merger was controversial, with both Biden and former President Donald Trump opposing the deal to keep U.S. Steel American-owned. Biden's administration cited national security concerns, while the companies argue the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) failed to conduct a proper review. U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel also filed a separate lawsuit against rival Cleveland-Cliffs, its CEO, and the USW for allegedly colluding to block the deal and monopolize the domestic steel market.The lawsuits accuse CFIUS staff of barring negotiations on a security agreement and allege the review process was manipulated to align with Biden's predetermined opposition. Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves and the USW deny the allegations, calling the lawsuits baseless. Despite Biden's decision, U.S. Steel's stock rose, as the company remains an attractive acquisition target amidst falling profits and revenues.U.S. Steel, Nippon sue Biden administration over decision to block merger | ReutersOn January 6, Congress officially certified Donald Trump's 2024 presidential election victory without objections, marking a stark contrast to the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob stormed the Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden's victory. Kamala Harris, the outgoing vice president and Trump's defeated Democratic opponent, presided over the ceremony, emphasizing the "sacred obligation" of the peaceful transfer of power in American democracy. Security at the Capitol was unprecedented, with heavy fortifications, bomb squads, snipers, and reinforcements from law enforcement agencies across the country. However, the atmosphere outside was calm due to a massive snowstorm that emptied the streets of Washington, D.C.During the session, Harris received state certifications of electoral votes and announced Trump's 312-vote victory total. Unlike the contentious 2020 certification process, no Democratic lawmakers objected. Trump decisively won both the popular vote and key swing states, defeating Harris, who had replaced Biden as the Democratic nominee after his withdrawal.The 2024 certification was designated a "national special security event," reflecting lessons learned from the violent 2021 attack. That event, which left numerous police officers injured and one dead shortly after, remains a symbol of threats to democracy. Trump, now reelected, has vowed to pardon those convicted in the 2021 Capitol attack, describing them as "patriots."Trump Declared Election Winner in Ceremony Four Years After Riot This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
(0:00) Intro(1:43) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel(2:29) Start of interview(3:11) Ben's origin story(9:39) His start at Cravath in 2010(10:54) His time at the U.S. Treasury Department and the White House. (15:04) About CFIUS. Reforms from FIRRMA (2018). Control transactions and minority investments in critical technologies, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal data.(24:45) Trends in transaction reviews. CFIUS Annual Report to Congress – CY 2023(30:00) Presidential prohibitions under CFIUS. (32:23) CFIUS and crypto.(34:02) The TikTok case.(36:14) Restrictions on outbound investments in China: AI, semiconductors, and quantum computing.(42:13) De-risking vs de-coupling from China. Geopolitics and the boardroom.(44:40) Industrial policies.(47:21) Advice for corporate directors on national security matters.(49:30) Books that have greatly influenced his life:Wind, Sand and Stars by Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1939)Elements of Style by Strunk and White (1918)(51:46) His mentors. (53:04) Quote that he thinks of often or lives his life by. The "Spirit of Liberty" Speech Judge Learned Hand (1944)(54:34) An unusual habit or absurd thing that he loves.(55:42) The person he most admires. You can follow Evan on social media at:X: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__To support this podcast you can join as a subscriber of the Boardroom Governance Newsletter at https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License
Jianggan Li, Founder & CEO of Momentum Works, and Jeremy Au discussed: 1. China Exporters vs. Trump: Jianggan Li shared his experiences from nine trips to China, highlighting how exporters are stockpiling goods to mitigate U.S.-China trade tensions amid 2025 Trump-era tariffs. Discussions in Hangzhou emphasized the limits of the “China Plus One” strategy, with countries like Vietnam and Indonesia struggling to match China's scale and supply chain efficiency. The conversation also covered China's cross-border logistics innovations, including the Xi'an-to-Budapest rail route, and the integration of Chinese labor into global supply chains, such as assembly work in Italy's luxury goods sector. 2. Expansion to Saudi Arabia & Middle East: Saudi Arabia's energy surplus, social contract with foreign labor and government openness to tech and e-commerce firms, such as Talabat and Bytedance, create market expansion opportunities for China exporters and manufacturers. Jeremy and Jianggan noted Saudi Arabia's interest in Singapore's industrial policies as a model for economic transformation and compared this approach to Southeast Asia's more protectionist policies. 3. Electric Vehicle Wars: Jianggan provides a candid look at the competitive landscape of China's EV sector, from the collapse of smaller players to BYD's dominance. They discuss how scale, innovation, and investment strategies are reshaping the industry. They discuss the implications of the price war vs. consolidation for both domestic and global producers and consumers. Jeremy and Jianggan also discussed startup drone delivery tests in Dubai, Vietnam VNG's struggles and competition vs. Chinese platforms, and the implications of U.S. 2025 “reverse CFIUS” regulations. === Watch, listen or read the full insight at www.bravesea.com/blog/chinaexportersvstrump Nonton, dengar atau baca wawasan lengkapnya di www.bravesea.com/blog/chinaexportersvstrump 观看、收听或阅读全文，请访问 www.bravesea.com/blog/chinaexportersvstrump Xem, nghe hoặc đọc toàn bộ thông tin chi tiết tại www.bravesea.com/blog/chinaexportersvstrump Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea Spotify English: https://open.spotify.com/show/4TnqkaWpTT181lMA8xNu0T Bahasa Indonesia: https://open.spotify.com/show/2Vs8t6qPo0eFb4o6zOmiVZ Chinese: https://open.spotify.com/show/20AGbzHhzFDWyRTbHTVDJR Vietnamese: https://open.spotify.com/show/0yqd3Jj0I19NhN0h8lWrK1 YouTube English: https://www.youtube.com/@JeremyAu?sub_confirmation=1 Apple Podcast English: https://podcasts.apple.com/sg/podcast/brave-southeast-asia-tech-singapore-indonesia-vietnam/id1506890464 Learn more about Nika.eco! Reach out to info@nika.eco if you are a geospatial data scientist or climate researcher who is interested to partner on a pilot or research opportunities
２０２４年１２月２７日放送 「町田徹のふかぼり」 前半はニュースカウントダウン！気になるニュースをわかりやすく、コンパクトに解説します。 番外月曜日、日本郵便の赤字体質脱却計画がとん挫。提携の不履行で、ヤマトを提訴！ 番外日鉄のUSスチール買収に暗雲。月曜日、CFIUS＝対米外国投資委員会が結論を出せず、買収に反対のバイデン大統領に判断を一任へ。 番外月曜日、日産の誤算が浮き彫りに、持ち株会社方式の統合でも、ホンダ主導の統合が明確に。 番外火曜日、ブラジル政府が、建設現場で"奴隷労働"があったとして、中国のEV=電気自動車大手BYDに工場建設の停止を命令！ 番外ウクライナ侵略での国際的孤立を恐れて、ロシアが対外公的融資を4年間で6割も拡大。 番外火曜日、消費者庁の有識者会合が報告書案で提言。公益通報者への解雇・異動といった報復に対し、刑事罰の新設を。 第５位火曜日。権力掌握へ、クルドを除くシリアの反体制派が解散して暫定政府の国防省の下に統合することに合意。 第４位アメリカのトランプ次期大統領、1月20日の就任日に、WHO＝世界保健機関からの脱退を表明も。 第３位今朝、政府が来年度予算案を閣議決定。115.5兆円と過去最大に。税収最大でも28兆円強の国債を発行へ。 第２位今年度、東京23区のうち20区がふるさと納税の返礼品競争に参入。 第１位１1人あたり名目GDP、実は2022年に韓国に抜かれ22位に転落していた！ そして後半、今日のふかぼりは、、、 「"一瞬の戒厳"が呼び込む朝鮮半島の激動。韓国の政局の行方と米朝の動向は？」 1987年の民主化以前の韓国ならばそれほどの驚きではないでしょうが、あれから40年近くの歳月が経った韓国で、わずか6時間という一瞬で撤回されたとはいえ、ユン・ソンニュル大統領が12月3日の夜、突然、軍が国を統治する戒厳令を発令したことに、世界は大きな衝撃を受けました。いったい、なぜ、ユン大統領は戒厳令を発したのでしょうか？ 日本経済研究センターの首席研究員、伊集院敦さんをリモートで繋ぎ、韓国の政局の混乱に伴う日韓、日米韓関係への影響、ユン大統領の弾劾と捜査への対応、などについてふかぼります。 番組公式X！！（旧Twitter）「町田徹のふかぼり3兄弟」 @tetsu_fukabori3 をフォローして、番組に関する情報をどんどんキャッチしましょう！ 動画コンテンツはこの下をクリック 町田徹の経済チャンネル 町田徹の税金チャンネル
The Daily Business and Finance Show - Thursday, 26 December 2024 We get our business and finance news from Seeking Alpha and you should too! Subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium for more in-depth market news and help support this podcast. Free for 14-days! Please click here for more info: Subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium News Today's headlines: Apple can't rely on Google, wants to testify at Search antitrust trial in April - report Tesla rallies into Christmas break as Q4 deliveries report looms Vermilion Energy to buy Alberta oil and gas producer Westbrick in C$1.07B deal American Airlines grounds all flights due to technical issues Biden to decide on US Steel takeover after CFIUS deadlocks Nasdaq 100 rebalance: Meta, Broadcom and Tesla index weighting reduced All eyes on Netflix as Christmas NFL games take the spotlight Bitcoin ETF declares monthly distribution of $1.1131 Teva Pharmaceutical shares surged for seven straight sessions Explanations from OpenAI ChatGPT API with proprietary prompts. This podcast provides information only and should not be construed as financial or business advice. This podcast is produced by Klassic Studios Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of French Insider, Reid Whitten, Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office and leader of the firm's CFIUS team, joins host and Sheppard Mullin's French Desk Co-Chair, Valérie Demont, to discuss the incoming Trump Administration's proposed tariffs and their potential impact on international trade. What We Discussed in This Episode: President-Elect Trump has signaled his intention to actively use tariffs as a key tool in trade policy. What has he said on the subject so far, and what can we expect on a general level? Where does Europe stand in terms of these tariffs, and will French products be impacted? Can we expect a process for tariff exemption under the incoming administration? What do we know about the pick for Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, and his views on tariffs? If these tariff policies are implemented and enforced as planned, what effects could they have on existing multilateral or bilateral agreements, and what global response might we see? What should businesses consider as they prepare for these tariffs, and are there any immediate steps they can take to better position themselves? Are there any developments within the United States that could make relocating production domestically more cost-effective for businesses? What was the outcome of the previous Trump Administration's tariff policy, and did they accomplish President Trump's goals? About Reid Whitten As Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office and leader of the firm's CFIUS Team, Reid Whitten's practice centers on international trade regulations and investigations. Reid is a member of Chatham House, the UK's Royal Institute of International Affair, as well as an adjunct lecturer at the New College of the Humanities in London, at the Université Catholique de Lille in France, and at Wake Forest University in the U.S. He also conducts seminars on regulatory updates for industry groups in the U.S., France, Belgium, Spain and the UK. As a thought leader in cross-border business regulation, Reid is frequently called upon to provide commentary and analysis for television news channels, international newspapers and trade publications. He is also the lead author and editor of The CFIUS Book. About Valérie Demont Based in the firm's New York office, Valérie Demont is a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Corporate Practice Group, where she focuses primarily on U.S. and cross-border mergers and acquisitions and corporate governance matters. As a leader of the firm's French Desk team, she advises foreign companies on the establishment and growth of their operations in the United States, acting as de facto "outside general counsel" for non-U.S. companies in the United States. Valérie has been involved in numerous mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and dispositions for corporations and private equity funds in the U.S., Europe (including France) and Asia (including India). Not only is she a frequent speaker at events focused on cross-border trade, but she is also an outside pro bono counsel to Girls Who Invest, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the number of women in portfolio management and executive leadership in the asset management industry. Contact Information Reid Whitten Valérie Demont Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every week. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Deezer, Amazon Music, or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.
In this episode of French Insider, Jonathan Meyer, a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Governmental Practice Group, former General Counsel of DHS, and leader of the firm's National Security team, joins host Valérie Demont, Sheppard Mullin's French Desk Co-Chair, to discuss anticipated changes under the incoming Trump Administration and its potential impact on business, national security, and other key areas. What We Discussed in This Episode: What is the Trump Administration's cabinet going to look like? Why has President-Elect Trump selected the individuals he has named to lead departments such as the DOJ and DHS, and what might we expect from them? What will be the priorities which the new Administration will be focused on in respect of enforcement? Will the Trump Administration's stance on immigration impact the growth of businesses within the country? What might CFIUS look like under the incoming administration, and how might the focus on foreign investments change, especially for countries like China? Under a Republican-controlled Congress, what can we expect to see from congressional investigations? About Jonathan Meyer Jonathan Meyer is a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Governmental Practice Group and leader of the firm's National Security team. Jonathan counsels clients on their interactions with federal and state government, as well as national and homeland security, Congressional oversight, cybersecurity, AI, high tech, transportation security, and more. Jonathan served as General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from 2021 to 2024, where he led legal teams, handled Supreme Court cases, and advised on sensitive national security issues. With extensive experience in Congress and the Justice Department, Jon offers an insider perspective on government and private sector interactions. Jon is a two-time recipient of the Secretary of Homeland Security's Outstanding Service Medal, along with the U.S. Secret Service Director's Honor Award, the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner's Ensign Award, and the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant's Distinguished Service Medal, among numerous other awards and honors. About Valérie Demont In the firm's New York office, Valérie Demont is a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Corporate Practice Group, where she focuses primarily on U.S. and cross-border mergers and acquisitions and corporate governance matters. As a leader of the firm's French Desk team, she advises foreign companies on the establishment and growth of their operations in the United States, acting as de facto "outside general counsel" for non-U.S. companies in the United States. Valérie has been involved in numerous mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and dispositions for corporations and private equity funds in the U.S., Europe (including France) and Asia (including India). Not only is she a frequent speaker at events focused on cross-border trade, but she is also an outside pro bono counsel to Girls Who Invest, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the number of women in portfolio management and executive leadership in the asset management industry. Contact Information: Jonathan Meyer Valérie Demont Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every week. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Deezer, Amazon Music, or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.
This week, John and Elliot discuss actions by the US Treasury against Hamas and fentanyl traffickers, new regulations from CFIUS to enhance enforcement of limitations on foreign investment in the US to protect national security, new guidelines from the European Banking Authority to streamline and standardize AML rules, observance of International Fraud Awareness Week, and several other items impacting the financial crime prevention community.
Join us as we interview Annie Wartanian Reisinger, Senior Counsel & CFIUS Co-Lead Counsel in the Office of the General Counsel for International Affairs at the US Department of the Treasury. We discuss her diverse background and reflect on her senior legal roles in private practice, in-house, academia, and the government. Tune in for insights regarding CFIUS' recent addition of over 50 new military installations to the existing list of installations around which CFIUS has jurisdiction and anticipated effects of the recent overturn of the Chevron doctrine by the US Supreme Court, on CFIUS and Treasury's work. Stay on for inspiring career advice from Annie and some tips on self-tanning from our hosts at the end. As of the date of this recording, Annie is on detail with the Office of Chief Counsel at OFAC.
Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of Hustle Fund, and Jeremy Au discussed: 1. Trump Win vs. Southeast Asia Trade: Trump's 2024 landslide election victory across the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, will reshape Southeast Asia's economic landscape. His proposed “global 10% tariff” on all US imports and a targeted 60% tariff on Chinese goods may severely disrupt Southeast Asia's trade flows. Singapore could face challenges for export-driven industries and its role as a key transit hub for US-China trade. Chinese-funded products manufactured in Southeast Asia—such as solar cells produced in Vietnam— may now face similar tariffs as those directly from China. Biden-era “reverse CFIUS” restrictions, which limit US investment in Chinese firms across sectors such as AI and advanced manufacturing, coupled with Trump's new China hawk administration will further accelerate American LPs and MNCs to redirect foreign direct investment (FDI) towards Southeast Asia instead of China. 2. China Talent Flows: Known as the “Delaware of Asia,” Singapore stands to benefit as both US and Chinese firms seek a neutral and stable base for regional Asia operations (versus Hong Kong). As US-China tensions deter many Chinese families and professionals from pursuing American education and career paths, Singapore has become an appealing alternative. Singapore, a nation built by immigrants, has long maintained a social contract that includes national service (NS) obligations as a cornerstone of fostering social cohesion among its diverse population. However, the country has historically faced complex challenges in determining which types of immigrants to accept, how best to integrate them into society and to improve income inequality. Jeremy shared a story about a former Thai employee who had to leave America after her H-1B visa renewal was denied during Trump's first term, illustrating how Trump's immigration policies could drive talent to return to the regional tech ecosystem. 3. Silicon Valley Divided: Opinions remain split, with Trump's pro-deregulation stance sparking optimism in some corners, evidenced by a surge in Bitcoin prices and positive reactions from equity markets. Supporters point to potential gains for sectors like crypto and tech equities, alongside corporate tax cuts that help maintain profits, boost R&D, and provide attractive exit opportunities for venture capitalists. Concerns were raised that while deregulation under Trump may fuel market growth, higher tariffs could exacerbate economic disparities and be the wrong solution for the middle class. Jeremy and Shiyan also talked about how China exporters like BYD electric cars will now increasingly focus on Southeast Asia markets, Singapore's low birth rate like Japan and the growing number of startups building digital AI companions. Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/trump-win-vs-se-asia Nonton, dengar atau baca wawasan lengkapnya di https://www.bravesea.com/blog/trump-win-vs-se-asia-id 观看、收听或阅读全文，请访问 https://www.bravesea.com/blog/trump-win-vs-se-asia-cn Xem, nghe hoặc đọc toàn bộ thông tin chi tiết tại https://www.bravesea.com/blog/trump-win-vs-se-asia-vn Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Bahasa Indonesia: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Chinese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Vietnamese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Learn more about Nika.eco! Reach out to info@nika.eco if you are a geospatial data scientist or climate researcher who is interested to partner on a pilot or research opportunities
Send us a textOriginally broadcast: February 27, 2024Discover how the 2024 US presidential election could transform the regulatory landscape for mergers, antitrust enforcement, and foreign investment. With the prospect of President Joe Biden facing off against former President Donald Trump, this episode unpacks the economic policies and national security priorities of these political titans. Milbank partners Adam DiVincenzo and John Bain join host Allan Marks to provide a sharp analysis of how both administrations have wielded the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), particularly in relation to China, and what that means for foreign investment strategies moving forward.As we navigate the intricate balance between market power, innovation, and regulation, learn how historical antitrust measures influence modern policies. Our conversation draws on the insights of economists like Schumpeter and Arrow to understand the role of large companies in fostering or stifling innovation. We explore the complex interplay of regulatory bodies like the FTC and DOJ in shaping market competition and how geopolitical considerations can impact merger activities. This episode offers a comprehensive look at how shifting political landscapes and economic strategies are poised to redefine the future of business.We also delve into the nuances of antitrust laws and market strategies, exploring how proposed bans and historical perspectives like the Sherman Act inform current debates. The discussion reflects on Robert Bork's theory of consumer welfare, questioning its relevance today. Learn how administrations may continue to leverage robust antitrust tools and how geopolitical tensions with countries like Russia and China could impact merger regulations. From ESG initiatives to strategies for navigating CFIUS reviews, we provide the insights you need to understand the forces shaping tomorrow's corporate environment.For more information and insights, follow us on social media and podcast platforms, including Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, iHeart, Google and Audible.Disclaimer
How might the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) change depending on the outcome of the 2024 US presidential election? Join Jerry Fowler, a director who leads our CFIUS and National Security practice in Washington, DC, for a conversation with James Brower, a partner in Morrison Foerster's Litigation Department. They discuss how CFIUS operated during former President Donald Trump's first term, how it has functioned under the Biden-Harris administration, and how businesses and investors can prepare for what CFIUS might look like post-election. Find out how we an support your organisation with risks related to CFIUS
Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of Hustle Fund, and Jeremy Au discussed: 1. Johor Special Economic Zone (SEZ): They explored the potential impact of the upcoming Johor-Singapore SEZ agreement, scheduled for signing in November. The SEZ, which is more than 4 times the size of Singapore, is seen as an opportunity to deepen economic ties between the two regions by leveraging Singapore's capital, technology, and skilled workforce alongside Johor's land and infrastructure. They noted regulatory challenges such as Johor's year-long permit approval process, which contrasts with quicker timelines in other Malaysian states like Selangor. Both emphasized that political cooperation across Malaysia's federal government, Singapore and Johor's state government & king would be essential to the SEZ's success, particularly in attracting multinational corporations (MNCs) and improving labor mobility across the border. 2. US Anti-China "Reverse CFIUS": The discussion covered the upcoming introduction of America's "reverse Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)" legislation, which restricts US citizens, entities and LPs from investing in Chinese funds or companies involved in sectors like artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and microchips. These measures are expected to reduce China VC investments as US LPs steer clear of the compliance risks associated any funds that invest into China-linked companies. Reverse CFIUS reflects a broader change in global capital flows, signaling the end of the globalization era that had previously driven much of the world's economic integration. This shift could redirect capital towards Southeast Asia, offering opportunities for local investors but also presenting serious challenges. 3. Regional Trade Diversification: They examined Southeast Asia's growing significance as part of the “China Plus One” strategy, where MNCs diversify operations beyond China due to rising trade tensions. The SEZ's strategic location and proximity to Singapore's financial and skilled labor markets could become a key hub for industries such as electronics and automotive manufacturing. They noted that improved infrastructure like direct international flights would enhance the region's connectivity and attractiveness for global businesses. They also underscored that seamless collaboration and regulatory improvements to streamline bureaucratic processes are critical to fully capitalizing on these emerging opportunities. Jeremy and Shiyan discussed several emerging topics including diabetic horses healthcare, Singapore's longevity, crypto and VC conferences and the challenges of maintaining balanced diplomatic and economic strategies amidst global policy shifts. Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/johor-singapore-sez Nonton, dengar atau baca wawasan lengkapnya di https://www.bravesea.com/johor-singapore-sez-id 观看、收听或阅读全文，请访问 https://www.bravesea.com/blog/johor-singapore-sez-cn Xem, nghe hoặc đọc toàn bộ thông tin chi tiết tại https://www.bravesea.com/blog/johor-singapore-sez-vn Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Bahasa Indonesia: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Chinese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Vietnamese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Join us at Geeks on a Beach! Use the code "BRAVESEA" for a 45% discount for the first 10 registrations, and 35% off for the next ones.
Despite evaluating fewer transactions for potential national security risks, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is taking longer than ever to complete its reviews, significantly impacting deal closing timelines for PE transactions involving foreign investors. In this Sidecar episode, Dechert private equity partner Bernardo Piereck and national security partners Jeremy Zucker and Hrishikesh Hari discuss the current length of CFIUS reviews, insights into the Committee's mitigation measures as detailed in its annual report to Congress, and steps that investors can take to structure their transactions with CFIUS considerations in mind.Show Notes“Highlights from the Annual CFIUS Report,” Dechert OnPoint (August 7, 2024)“Finally, An Update on Outbound Investment,” Dechert OnPoint (June 26, 2024)“The Evolving Global Foreign Direct Investment and National Security Review Landscape,” Dechert LLP (May 2024)
On this episode of EMBARGOED!, host Tim O'Toole is joined by Miller & Chevalier attorneys Caroline Watson and Melissa Burgess to discuss U.S. controls on investment transactions under the CFIUS program and the new reverse CFIUS program, as well as the potential impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy on enforcement by civil penalties. Roadmap: Intro CFIUS Outbound Investment Program (reverse CFIUS) Enforcement Penalties and the impact of Jarkesy ******* Thanks to our guests for joining us: Caroline Watson: https://www.millerchevalier.com/professional/caroline-j-watson Melissa Burgess: https://www.millerchevalier.com/professional/melissa-burgess Questions? Contact us at podcasts@milchev.com. EMBARGOED! is not intended and cannot be relied on as legal advice; the content only reflects the thoughts and opinions of its hosts. EMBARGOED! is intelligent talk about sanctions, export controls, and all things international trade for trade nerds and normal human beings alike. Each episode will feature deep thoughts and hot takes about the latest headline-grabbing developments in this area of the law, as well as some below-the-radar items to keep an eye on. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts for new episodes so you don't miss out!
In this episode, Lisa Mays, an international trade attorney with Sheppard Mullin and leader of the firm's Supply Chain Industry Team, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the state of the global supply chain, including the impact of the war in Russia, and the intensifying trade war with China. What We Discussed in This Episode: Most trade lawyers are on the East coast. What benefits do you bring to your clients being in California? What roles do the different government agencies play in enforcement, and why is recent inter-agency enforcement cooperation so significant? What is the compliance obligation regarding “diversion” of goods by suppliers, distributors, sales agents, and customers? How are U.S. trade wars playing out in the global supply chain? What specific supply chain issues are created by the war in Ukraine? What recent actions has the U.S. taken as the trade war with China intensifies? How is international trade law impacting the way the solar industry operates? Why has it become critical for companies to trace their supply chains for forced labor? Will supply chain regulation continue to be a priority for the remainder of President Biden's current term? About Lisa Mays An international trade lawyer based in Sheppard Mullin's Orange County office, Lisa Mays leads the firm's Supply Chain Industry Team and is a leading member of the Transportation Industry Team. Lisa's practice focuses on compliance counseling and investigations in the areas of export controls, economic sanctions, anti-corruption, and customs and import regulations. She regularly advises semiconductor manufacturers, automakers, airlines, aerospace and defense firms, importers, and exporters on sanctions; export controls, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR); trade agreements; the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA); Customs and imports; antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD); the False Claims Act; Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); anti-boycott controls; cybersecurity issues; and anti-money laundering (AML) matters. Lisa also represents clients before the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and CFIUS. About Scott Maberry An international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values. Contact Information Lisa Mays Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.
(0:00) Intro(1:20) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel.(2:06) Start of interview.(2:37) Natasha's "origin story." (6:25) On the risks and opportunities for AI.(8:39) On the regulatory landscape of AI in the US. Reference to President Biden's Executive Order.(11:40) On California's regulation of AI (SB 1047).(15:24) On the international AI regulatory landscape, including the EU AI legislation.(20:35) On the state of startups and venture capital in Silicon Valley.(25:34) On the 'stay private or go public' debate.(28:50) On the increased antitrust scrutiny by the FTC and DOJ, particularly in tech industry.(30:08) On the increased national security scrutiny via CFIUS reviews. The new geopolitics of dealmaking.(35:46) On the increased politicization of the boardroom, including ESG and DEI.(38:32) On boardroom diversity and challenges to SB-826 and AB-979 (California), and Nasdaq's Diversity Rule.(42:20) Books that have greatly influenced her life: To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee (1960)The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Altwood (1985)Animal Farm, by George Orwell (1945)(42:57) Her mentors.(43:49) Quotes that she thinks of often or lives her life by: "Don't Self-Select."(51:17) An unusual habit or absurd thing that he loves.(44:17) The living person that she most admires. One of them is Michelle Obama.Natasha Allen is a partner at Foley & Lardner in Silicon Valley, serving as Co-Chair for Artificial Intelligence, Co-Chair of the Venture Capital Committee, and a member of the Venture Capital, M&A, and Transactions Practices. You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__You can join as a Patron of the Boardroom Governance Podcast at:Patreon: patreon.com/BoardroomGovernancePod__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License
This week's guest on Off the Shelf is Tim Keeler, partner, and co-head of the International Trade team at Mayer Brown. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) plays a critical national security role regarding the industrial base. Keeler details the inter-agency structure, purpose, and scope of CFIUS, and explains the process and criteria whereby CFIUS reviews certain covered transactions involving foreign investments in the nation's industrial base that raise national security concerns. Keeler talks about the key considerations and practices for potential mergers and/or acquisitions involving foreign investors, and he shares key trends in the CFIUS decision-making process. Finally, Keeler provides his thoughts on key trends in international trade and trade agreements.
This week's guest on Off the Shelf is Tim Keeler, partner, and co-head of the International Trade team at Mayer Brown. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) plays a critical national security role regarding the industrial base. Keeler details the inter-agency structure, purpose, and scope of CFIUS, and explains the process and criteria whereby CFIUS reviews certain covered transactions involving foreign investments in the nation's industrial base that raise national security concerns. Keeler talks about the key considerations and practices for potential mergers and/or acquisitions involving foreign investors, and he shares key trends in the CFIUS decision-making process. Finally, Keeler provides his thoughts on key trends in international trade and trade agreements. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
This episode features CII General Counsel Jeff Mahoney covering the top 10 important events affecting institutional investors from April 26 to May 24, 2024.
Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.
In the latest episode of "Are We All Clear? Facilitating Security Clearances," host Molly O'Casey engages in an insightful conversation with Antonia Tzinova, leader of Holland & Knight's CFIUS and Industrial Security Team. This informative episode provides a comprehensive guide to key management personnel (KMPs) within the context of security clearances. Ms. Tzinova delves into the critical role of KMPs, discussing their significance in the corporate governance structure, who qualifies as a KMP and the specific issues involved in appointing KMPs. Listeners will gain a valuable understanding of the nuances surrounding KMPs and their importance within the facility security clearance process.
We are thrilled to share this Special Edition COBT episode featuring Peter Orszag, CEO of Lazard. Peter assumed the role as Lazard CEO in the fall of 2023, after serving as CEO of Lazard's Financial Advisory business. Prior to his tenure at Lazard, Peter's wide-ranging career includes serving as Director of the Office of Management and Budget and as Director of the Congressional Budget Office during the Obama Administration. Peter also served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in the Clinton Administration and Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution. Mike Bradley, Jeff Tillery and I were pleased to host Peter and hear his unique insights from his experience spanning both public service and private enterprise. Peter recently co-authored an OpEd for Foreign Affairs entitled “Geopolitics in the C-Suite” (linked here) that explores how corporations are increasingly struggling with geopolitical complexity, an area which impacts capital allocation and long-range investment decisions. In our conversation, we cover main themes from the article, global macroeconomic trends, managing a global corporation like Lazard amidst geopolitical challenges, the potential for a “US-EU Super Bloc” and missed opportunities for collaboration in trade and energy strategies, structural challenges facing Chinese economic growth, and the impacts of political polarization on foreign policy. We discuss shifting dynamics in the Middle East, implications of the Chevron deference case (additional information here), factors influencing M&A and restructuring activity, the integration of AI in various industries, Lazard's Power, Energy & Infrastructure team/effort, CFIUS, and overall antitrust activity. Peter shares his perspective on managing information overload, the challenge of addressing long-term US national debt, differences he's noticed between public and private sector planning timelines, and much more. We end by discussing Lazard's vision for 2030 and their “Banker-Scholar” culture. It was a fascinating discussion. For additional reading, Lazard's 2023 Annual Letter to Shareholders is linked here and Lazard's report on Top Geopolitical Trends in 2024 is linked here. For further watching, we have previously hosted two Lazard guests on COBT: George Bilicic, Vice Chairman and Global Head of Power Energy & Infrastructure (May 3, 2023 linked here) and Admiral William McRaven, Senior Advisor (July 28, 2020 linked here). We hope you enjoy the conversation as much as we did! Thank you again to Peter for joining. Our best to you all.
The gang discuss the challenges and controversies surrounding TikTok's ownership and the potential impact on national security. Jen, Justin and Heaton explore concerns about the potential control of platforms by Donald Trump and the dangers of giving the president the ability to cancel media outlets. The broad scope of the bill and its implications for any website or app owned by ByteDance are discussed. The potential fines for Apple, Google, and Oracle are highlighted, as well as the expansion of the bill beyond TikTok. The importance of the algorithm and the fear of losing control over American culture are examined.The conversation also delves into the manufacturing problems faced by Boeing. The conversation discusses safety concerns with Boeing planes, including the changes in Boeing's operations and the challenges in fixing the problems.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Volleyball Bar00:29 Coach Gordon Bombay and Dancing01:06 Congressional Resignations02:08 Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus Bills03:06 RFK Jr. and Regulatory Capture04:03 RFK Jr.'s Candidacy05:01 Andrew Heaton Sports Question of the Week05:41 RFK Jr.'s VP Candidacy Rumors06:21 No Labels and Potential VP Candidates07:46 TikTok Facing Ban in the US08:25 CFIUS and TikTok's Future09:20 RFK Jr.'s Presidential Campaign10:12 No Labels and RFK Jr.'s VP Nomination11:03 Bipartisan Support for RFK Jr.12:01 Rebuttal Speeches13:21 State of the Union Address14:16 Impressions of Biden's Speech15:05 Biden's Slurring and Heckling in Congress16:30 Bipartisan Cheering and Reactions to Biden's Speech19:55 Rebuttal Speeches and Political Tactics22:25 TikTok's Legislation and Support24:41 TikTok's Challenge in America26:31 CFIUS and TikTok's Future29:46 Concerns and Divestment of TikTok33:18 Concerns about Trump's control over platforms44:19 Fear of losing control over American culture45:16 The origin point of media narratives46:24 The influence of TikTok on national news48:57 The timing of information from TikTok49:57 TikTok as the origin point of media narratives50:38 The influence of digital platforms on news52:02 The need for credible evidence and whistleblowers55:19 Transparency in algorithms56:13 The danger of giving the executive branch power58:35 Potential impact on Gen Z and parents01:00:17 The danger of expanding executive power01:03:09 The need for credible evidence from CFIUS01:04:48 Potential market effects and whistleblower impact01:06:12 Boeing's manufacturing problems01:08:02 Safety concerns with Boeing01:09:28 Changes in Boeing's operations01:10:49 Monopoly issues and shareholder concerns01:11:48 Challenges in fixing the problems01:12:18 Issues with air traffic controllers and inspectors01:13:13 Concerns from a pilot's perspective01:13:41 Cover-up allegations and whistleblower01:15:30 Regulation and accountability for Boeing01:16:48 Nationalization or splitting up Boeing01:17:17 The lack of a free market in the aerospace industry01:18:41 The need for regulation and oversight01:20:34 The safety of air travel and alternative transportation01:26:49 Regulating congressional stock trading Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
What impact will the 2024 presidential election have on antitrust policy, federal merger approvals, and foreign investment in the United States? Uncertainty about future federal policy makes investment decisions this year especially challenging. In this episode, host Allan Marks speaks with Milbank partners Adam Di Vincenzo and John Beahn about antitrust and CFIUS policy under the administrations of President Biden and former President Trump, discovering both sharp differences and some surprising similarities. They discuss how to anticipate regulators' concerns and federal enforcement patterns in merger approvals amid political uncertainty in an election year. They analyze divergent trends in antitrust enforcement, highlighting tensions between economic goals that keep domestic markets competitive and national security goals that favor globally dominant US corporations with wide moats. And they explore how CFIUS, the FTC and DOJ are focusing on supply chains, domestic manufacturing, next-generation technology and AI, and the broader question of what it means to be competitive. About the SpeakersJohn Beahn is a partner in the Washington, DC office of Milbank LLP with a particular focus on matters related to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) and foreign direct investment (“FDI”). He has extensive experience representing clients in national security reviews before CFIUS, the “Team Telecom” executive branch agencies and the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. Adam Di Vincenzo is a partner in the Washington, DC office of Milbank and a member of the Litigation & Arbitration Group. He has served as lead antitrust counsel for Fortune 500 public companies, and private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, in dozens of antitrust matters before enforcement authorities in the United States (including the DOJ and FTC) and internationally.Podcast host Allan Marks is one of the world's leading project finance lawyers. He advises developers, investors, lenders, and underwriters around the world in the development and financing of complex energy and infrastructure projects, as well as related acquisitions, restructurings and capital markets transactions. Many of his transactions relate to ESG and sustainability, innovative clean technologies, and sophisticated contractual risk allocation. Allan serves as an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley at the Law School and previously at the Haas School of Business.For more information and insights, follow us on social media and podcast platforms, including Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, iHeart, Google and Audible.Disclaimer
What does national security have to do with AI, real estate, and even climate change? All are recent focuses for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency body with vast powers to influence or even block foreign purchases of and investments into of all kinds of U.S. businesses. BakerHostetler Partner Melissa Mannino and Associate Orga Cadet discuss 5 fast facts about CFIUS.Questions & Comments: ocadet@bakerlaw.com and mmannino@bakerlaw.com.
In this episode, Reid Whitten, Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the state of the semiconductor industry, including the U.S. regulatory approach and the lessons it holds for other industries centered on advanced technologies. Why is there so much focus on the semiconductor industry? What's new and different about the U.S. regulatory approach? What other industries could be candidates for similar regulation? If a business unit has an NSC licensing exemption, what should it do now to gain a strategic advantage in the future? What does the recent enhancement of the Foreign Direct Product Rule do? What are the implications of the U.S. Person Activity regulation? Can you explain the concept of “technological containment?” What is the state of U.S. technological containment of China? What's the big takeaway for the semiconductor industry? What's the message for every other industry? About Reid Whitten Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office and leader of the firm's CFIUS Team, Reid Whitten's practice centers on international trade regulations and investigations. Reid is a member of Chatham House, the UK's Royal Institute of International Affair, as well as an adjunct lecturer at the New College of the Humanities in London, at the Université Catholique de Lille in France and at Wake Forest University in the U.S, He also conducts seminars on regulatory updates for industry groups in the U.S., France, Belgium, Spain and the UK. A thought leader on cross-border business regulation, Reid is frequently called upon to provide commentary and analysis for television news channels, international newspapers and trade publications. He is also the lead author and editor of The CFIUS Book. About Scott Maberry An international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values. Contact Information Reid Whitten Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.
Today we were thrilled to visit with Brian Lee, Vice President and Head of US Clean Technology Research at Goldman Sachs, for 2023's final COBT episode. Brian has been with the firm since 2011 and offers a unique vantage point with his experience covering cleantech. Recently, Brian and his team released their 2024 Americas Clean Technology Outlook (linked here). With 2023 coming to a close, it was fantastic to hear Brian's end of year reflections as well as observations on the space heading into 2024. Goldman Sachs will kick off the New Year in Miami, Florida with their flagship Energy, CleanTech and Utilities Conference starting on January 3rd (agenda linked here). Veriten is excited to be attending. In our conversation with Brian, we discuss Goldman's approach to cleantech as part of the broader energy team, the cyclical nature of the sector, the gyrations of the last few years, the deeper appreciation investors are now gaining for the complexities of clean energy business models, the unique mix of stocks Brian and his team cover, the global investor footprint, current investor sentiment, and of course how rising interest ratees have greatly impacted his coverage group. Brian also shares his perspective on the total addressable market for solar including residential and utility-scale solar, residential solar market potential, policy impacts on solar, trends in solar energy, the latest IRA detailed guidance from the US Treasury, the outlook for more of such detail, and much more. With revised ratings out earlier this week, we also got Brian to share his specific stock views going into next year. Time flew as we were having fun! We ended with a “lightning round” and asked Brian to share his quick thoughts on China, the water space, and surging power demand growth to close out our conversation. It was a meaty and fantastic discussion. Thank you Brian! Mike Bradley kicked us off by highlighting year-to-date performance for bonds, commodities and equities. He noted the 10-year U.S. government bond yield began the year trading at 3.9%, peaked at ~5.0%, and has round-tripped back down to 3.9%, mostly because the rate of inflation has been cut in half and expectations that the FED could aggressively begin cutting interest rates beginning in March 2024. WTI price began the year trading at ~$80/bbl, peaked at ~$94/bbl and is now trading at ~$74/bbl. U.S. oil production in 2023 has grown by ~1mmbpd which has been offset by OPEC cuts of ~1mmbpd. U.S. natural gas began the year trading at ~$4.50/MMBtu and is now trading at ~2.50/MMBtu, mostly due to warm early winter weather, above average natural gas storage levels, and U.S. natural gas production that has grown ~5bcfpd in 2023. He highlighted that broader equity markets posted a stellar year with the S&P 500 up ~25% and the Nasdaq up ~55%, while the energy sector posted just a modest gain for the year. The best performing subsectors in 2023 on a "total return" basis were Nuclear (+60%), Coal (+35%) & Refiners (+20%), with the worst being Renewables (-25%) & Batteries/Solar (-30%). He flagged reasons why the Illinois Commerce Commission "rejected" a multi-year integrated grid plan from two key State electric utilities and highlighted the $15B merger agreement between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, further noting that it seems to be facing early opposition from both members of Congress and Unions and could face challenges from CFIUS (foreign investment in the U.S.). Arjun Murti shared a few of his reflections from 2023 including the disparities in energy access worldwide and the massive amount of energy demand 7-8 billion people will need, the continuing significance of energy as a
In this episode, Harper Batts, partner in Sheppard Mullin Silicon Valley's Intellectual Property Group and co-leader of its Semiconductor Industry Team, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the different forums for patent lawsuits, the complex nature of resolving semiconductor patent disputes, the timing to resolve the lawsuits and more. What We Discussed in This Episode: What are the different venues to resolve patent disputes? What sort of timing is associated with the different forums? Why has there been an uptick in filing lawsuits in international venues? Besides money, what sort of damages or relief can parties get? What is the benefit of showing competitive harm? How do you best litigate these complex matters in front of a jury? About Harper Batts Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group located in the firm's Silicon Valley office. He is also the leader of Sheppard Mullin's Post Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group and Semiconductor Industry Team. Harper has almost two decades of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Harper has obtained institution on more than 90% of the IPRs he has filed – a number unmatched across the country. Numerous Fortune 500 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent disputes in venues across the country. He has been selected multiple times as a Top IP Attorney in California by the Daily Journal (including this year), and IAM Patent 1000 noted that Harper “performs adroitly in post-grant proceedings on both the patent owner and petitioner sides.” In 2022 and 2023, he obtained institution of numerous petitions for inter partes review, obtained numerous final written decisions finding all claims unpatentable, and obtained an exceptional case finding and an award of attorney's fees in the Central District of California in 2020. He focuses on immediately determining the most relevant and effective pressure points against an adversary to quickly resolve a dispute with minimal disruption and cost to a client. Harper is one of the leading attorneys for handling complex PTAB challenges across a variety of technologies. Harper has represented patent challengers and patent owners in more than 80 CBM and IPR proceedings. He has extensive experience in cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as well as related appeals. About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values. Contact Information Harper Batts Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.
‘It's the biggest deal. It's the tip of the spear in the regulators effort to constrain Russia's war ability' -Melissa Duffy speaking about strategic trade and export controls In the latest episode of the Sanctions Space Podcast, Justine is joined by Melissa Duffy, Partner, Trade and National Security at Fenwick & West LLP. Speaking on the margins of the ACAMS Vegas conference, they discuss the increasing use of strategic trade controls and export controls in countering Russia and China, demystifying the HS codes identified by the US and its partners, and the growing expectations on financial institutions to be the ‘eyes and ears' of sanctions and export controls compliance. Melissa focuses her practice on a broad range of international trade matters, including export controls, OFAC sanctions, regulation of emerging technologies, digital trade, CFIUS, tariffs and national security issues involving several U.S. agencies, both civil and criminal. She advises multinational companies across a wide range of sectors, including technology, financial, manufacturing, consumer goods, and energy. Melissa counsels clients on day-to-day compliance operations, and she advocates daily before the U.S. government, in coordinating meetings for clients with regulators, drafting requests for regulatory guidance, preparing export and sanctions license requests, advising on rulemakings, preparing commodity classification and jurisdiction requests, counseling on tariff strategies, and investigating and preparing complex voluntary disclosures. Read more here: https://www.fenwick.com/people/melissa-duffy
The Cyberlaw Podcast is back from August hiatus, and the theme of the episode seems to be the way other countries are using the global success of U.S. technology to impose their priorities on the U.S. Exhibit 1 is the EU's Digital Services Act, which took effect last month. Michael Ellis spells out a few of the act's sweeping changes in how U.S. tech companies must operate – nominally in Europe but as a practical matter in the U.S. as well. The largest platforms will be heavily regulated, with restrictions on their content curation algorithms and a requirement that they promote government content when governments declare a crisis. Other social media will also be subject to heavy content regulation, such as transparency in their decisions to demote or ban content and a requirement that they respond promptly to takedown requests from “trusted flaggers” of Bad Speech. In search of a silver lining, I point out that many of the transparency and due process requirements are things that Texas and Florida have advocated over the objections of Silicon Valley companies. Compliance with the EU Act will undercut those claims in the Supreme Court arguments we're likely to hear this term, claiming that it can't be done. Cristin Flynn Goodwin and I note that China's on-again off-again regulatory enthusiasm is off again. Chinese officials are doing their best to ease Western firms' concerns about China's new data security law requirements. Even more remarkable, China's AI regulatory framework was watered down in August, moving away from the EU model and toward a U.S./U.K. ethical/voluntary approach. For now. Cristin also brings us up to speed on the SEC's rule on breach notification. The short version: The rule will make sense to anyone who's ever stopped putting out a kitchen fire to call their insurer to let them know a claim may be coming. Nick Weaver brings us up to date on cryptocurrency and the law. Short version: Cryptocurrency had one victory, which it probably deserved, in the Grayscale case, and a series of devastating losses over Tornado Cash, as a court rejected Tornado Cash's claim that its coders and lawyers had found a hole in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") regime, and the Justice Department indicted the prime movers in Tornado Cash for conspiracy to launder North Korea's stolen loot. Here's Nick's view in print. Just to show that the EU isn't the only jurisdiction that can use U.S. legal models to hurt U.S. policy, China managed to kill Intel's acquisition of Tower Semiconductor by stalling its competition authority's review of the deal. I see an eerie parallel between the Chinese aspirations of federal antitrust enforcers and those of the Christian missionaries we sent to China in the 1920s. Michael and I discuss the belated leak of the national security negotiations between CFIUS and TikTok. After a nod to substance (no real surprises in the draft), we turn to the question of who leaked it, and whether the effort to curb TikTok is dead. Nick and I explore the remarkable impact of the war in Ukraine on drone technology. It may change the course of war in Ukraine (or, indeed, a war over Taiwan), Nick thinks, but it also means that Joe Biden may be the last President to see the sky while in office. (And if you've got space in D.C. and want to hear Nick's provocative thoughts on the topic, he will be in town next week, and eager to give his academic talk: "Dr. Strangedrone, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Slaughterbots".) Cristin, Michael and I dig into another August policy initiative, the “outbound Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)” order. Given the long delays and halting rollout, I suggest that the Treasury's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the topic really stands for Ambivalent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” Finally, I suggest that autonomous vehicles may finally have turned the corner to success and rollout, now that they're being used as rolling hookup locations and (perhaps not coincidentally) being approved to offer 24/7 robotaxi service in San Francisco. Nick's not ready to agree, but we do find common ground in criticizing a study. Download 470th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.
In this episode, Michael Zhang, managing partner of Sheppard Mullin's Shanghai office, and Reid Whitten, managing partner of the firm's London office, join host Scott Maberry to discuss a new law that, for the first time, will prevent some U.S. investments in China. What We Discussed in This Episode: Why would the United States impose a new trade restriction on its third-largest trading partner? What sectors will be affected? When do the prohibitions come into effect? What investors will the investment restrictions apply to? How does the outbound investment restriction fit into overall U.S. China policy? How is this policy viewed from the Chinese business perspective? What reaction should we expect from the Chinese government? About Michael Zhang Michael Zhang is a lawyer and the managing partner of Sheppard Mullin's Shanghai office. He has a deep understanding of China's legal system and business practices, as well as broad experience in corporate transactions, corporate restructuring, antitrust law, intellectual property, cybersecurity, and personal information protection law in China. Throughout his career, Michael has represented many U.S. and European clients making investments in China and Asia, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and debt restructurings. He has helped invest in and create business in the internet technology, life sciences, healthcare, automotive, logistics, material hi-tech, telecommunication and software sectors. His extensive knowledge of international business transactions has allowed Michael to represent leading Chinese companies in their outbound equity and asset transactions outside Mainland China, specifically in life science and healthcare, e-commerce and green technology. Drawing on his rich knowledge of antitrust laws in China and other East Asian countries, Michael also counsels U.S. and international clients, as well as Chinese local companies, on international and PRC antitrust issues with respect to pre-merger control, price fixing and monopolistic agreement issues. About Reid Whitten As Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office and leader of the firm's CFIUS Team, Reid Whitten's practice centers on international trade regulations and investigations. He works with clients around the world to plan, prepare, and succeed in global transactions. He focuses on his clients' cross-border investments, particularly in the technology and aerospace sectors, helping clients navigate the international trade regulations that could disrupt their deals. Reid is a member of Chatham House, the UK's Royal Institute of International Affair. In addition to lecturing at the New College of the Humanities in London, at the Université Catholique de Lille in France, and Wake Forest University in the U.S, he also conducts seminars on regulatory updates for industry groups in the U.S., France, Belgium, Spain and the UK. A thought leader on cross-border business regulation, Reid is frequently called upon to provide commentary and analysis for television news channels, international newspapers, and trade publications. He is also the lead author and editor of The CFIUS Book. About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values. Contact Information Michael Zhang Reid Whitten Scott Maberry Resources Executive Order on Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern Treasury Department Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Previous episodes featuring Reid Whitten: https://www.sheppardmullin.com/notabene-447 https://www.sheppardmullin.com/notabene-356 https://www.sheppardmullin.com/notabene-278 Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, is one of the most important national security offices that you have probably never heard of. Responsible for reviewing foreign investment in the United States for possible national security threats, its jurisdiction and scope of work has expanded dramatically in recent years—and may be on the verge of expanding once again, as the Biden administration considers installing similar measures for outbound U.S. investment.To discuss, Lawfare Contributing Editor Brandon Van Grack and Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Assistant Treasury Secretary for Investment Security Paul Rosen, whose office oversees the CFIUS process, for the first of what we are calling “The Regulators”: a special series Lawfare is co-sponsoring with our friends at the law firm Morrison Foerster, where Brandon is a partner, featuring one-on-one discussions with the senior officials that are implementing our new era of economic statecraft. They discussed how the CFIUS process works in practice, how it's changed, and what challenges sit on the horizon, both for U.S. policymakers and the businesses they interact with.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The layers of corruption are so dense, major revelations often start with small hints. The burning light of exposure. Following deep into the pits of fire. Just a reminder, it's over and they have lost. The combined threats are what brings us together. Who knows the enemy the best? Their defense is to claim speech is emotional distress weaponized. Working hard to shift the blame. The Brunson case is still alive. There were nineteen IG's involved. No trigger happy people are needed. Tying together their nuclear energy angles. Was Uranium One to bribe Putin? The Democrat's Hiroshima. A good location to facilitate the Russia hoax. Giving them just enough rope. The exciting game of spy versus spy. Rule makers don't follow rules. The Storch interview has not aged well. Why would he need a job in Ukraine? DC is where the real thirsty people are. All the Obot appointments that were Chinese friendly. CFIUS is looking for transaction risks. Crash retrieval stories and body language. MTG with some old news. Time to focus. To stay balanced, always remember this. Smart people sound crazy to stupid people. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
TikTok might be banned from the United States. In this episode, hear testimony from TikTok's CEO and judge for yourself if you think the arrangement that TikTok has negotiated with the U.S. government is enough to ensure that the Chinese government will not have the ability to manipulate the app or acquire your data. We also take a detailed look at the bill that would ban TikTok (by granting vast new authorities to the government) and we examine the big picture arena in which TikTok and the RESTRICT Act are merely sideshows. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd271-restricting-tiktok/ Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD270: The Twitter Files CD230: Pacific Deterrence Initiative CD224: Social Media Censorship CD098: USA Freedom Act: Privatization of the Patriot Act Shou Chew “Meet Shou Zi Chew, TikTok's 40-year-old CEO who's entered the spotlight as he tries to defend the company from growing security concerns and ban threats.” Katie Canales and Sarah Jackson. Mar 22, 2023. Insider. “Shou Zi Chew Net Worth: How Rich Is The TikTok CEO?” Monica Aggarwal. March 23, 2023. International Business Times. Chinese Influence Over TikTok “There is no such thing as a private company in China. THEY DO NOT EXIST” [tweet]. Senator Marco Rubio [@SenMarcoRubio]. Mar 29, 2023. Twitter. Forced Sale “China Says It Will ‘Firmly Oppose' Forced Sale of TikTok.” Chang Che. Mar 23, 2023. The New York Times. Facebook “Meta fined $276 million over Facebook data leak involving more than 533 million users.” Emma Roth. Nov 28, 2022. The Verge. “Facebook paid GOP firm to malign TikTok.” Taylor Lorenz and Drew Harwell. Mar 30, 2022. The Washington Post. “Lobbying: Top Spenders 2022.” OpenSecrets. “Lobbying: Top Spenders 2021.” OpenSecrets. How the U.S. Has Governed the World Trade System U.S. Government-Corporate Spy Partnerships “Spying on the Homefront: Interview with Mark Klein.” May 15, 2007. Frontline. Iran Nuclear Deal “Iran nuclear deal: What it all means.” Nov 23, 2021. BBC News. Venezuela “Venezuela Slams US Over 'Vulgar' Central Bank Funds Seizure.” Agence France Presse. Apr 17, 2020. Barron's. Russia-Ukraine “Seizing Russian Assets Is Easier Said Than Done.” Adam Plowright. Feb 12, 2023. Barron's. China's Trade and Currency Agreements “'Petrodollar' at risk as TotalEnergies sells LNG to China in yuan.” Jan van der Made. March 31, 2023. RFI. “Brazil, China ditch US dollar for trade payments, favour yuan.” Jamie Seidel. Mar 31, 2023. news.com.au. “China, Brazil Strike Deal To Ditch Dollar For Trade.” Agence France Presse. Mar 29, 2023. Barron's. “RCEP: A new trade agreement that will shape global economics and politics.” Peter A. Petri and Michael Plummer. Nov 16, 2020. Brookings. The Pacific Deterrence Initiative “ US gains military access to Philippine bases close to Taiwan and South China Sea.” Brad Lendon. Apr 4, 2023. CNN. “The Pacific Deterrence Initiative: Peace Through Strength in the Indo-Pacific.” Sen. Jim Inhofe and Sen. Jack Reed. May 28, 2020. War on the Rocks. Chinese Economy “Remarks by Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva at the 2023 China Development Forum.” Kristalina Georgieva. Mar 26, 2023. International Monetary Fund. Chinese Authoritarianism “China Removes Presidential Term Limits, Enabling Xi Jinping To Rule Indefinitely.” James Doubek. Mar 11, 2018. NPR. “Xi Jinping Is Alone at the Top and Collective Leadership ‘Is Dead.'” Jeremy Page and Chun Han Wong. Oct 25, 2017. The Wall Street Journal. Bills S.686: RESTRICT Act Audio Sources US needs to ‘wake up' about the threat from China: Marco Rubio. March 30, 2023 Fox News Clips Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): Brazil - in our hemisphere, largest country in the western hemisphere south of us - cut a trade deal with China. They're going to, from now on, trade in their own currencies, get right around the dollar. They're creating a secondary economy in the world totally independent of the United States. We won't have to talk about sanctions in 5 years because there will be so many countries transacting in currencies other than the dollar that we won't have the ability to sanction them. Senator Marco Rubio: Private Companies Do Not Exist in China March 29, 2023 Twitter Mark Warner on the RESTRICT Act March 23, 2023 Fox News Clips Mark Warner: One of the things I always make clear is my beef is with the Communist Party of China. My beef is with Xi Jinping, the Communist Party leader, who treats his own people awfully... and I do think you need to make that distinction. Not about Chinese people. But to deny the authoritarian regime and their record is not based on a factual analysis. TikTok: How Congress Can Safeguard American Data Privacy and Protect Children from Online Harms March 23, 2023 House Committee on Energy and Commerce Watch on YouTube Witness: Shou Chew, CEO, TikTok Clips 7:15 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): TikTok collects nearly every data point imaginable, from people's location, to what they type and copy, who they talk to, biometric data, and more. Even if they've never been on Tik Tok, your trackers are embedded in sites across the web. Tik Tok surveys us all, and the Chinese Communist Party is able to use this as a tool to manipulate America as a whole. We do not trust Tik Tok will ever embrace American values; values for freedom, human rights, and innovation. Tik Tok has repeatedly chosen the path for more control, more surveillance, and more manipulation. Your platform should be banned. 15:25 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ): National security experts are sounding the alarm, warning that the Chinese Communist government could require TikTok to compromise device security, maliciously access American user data, promote pro-Communist propaganda, and undermine American interests. Disinformation campaigns could be launched by the by the Chinese Communist government through TikTok, which has already become rife with misinformation and disinformation, illegal activities, and hate speech. A recent report found that 20% of TikTok search results on prominent news topics contain misinformation. 20:35 Shou Chew: Let me start by addressing a few misconceptions about ByteDance, of which we are a subsidiary. ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government. It is a private company. 60% of the company is owned by global institutional investors, 20% is owned by the founder, and 20% owned by employees around the world. ByteDance has five board members, three of them are American. Now TikTok itself is not available in mainland China. We're headquartered in Los Angeles and in Singapore, and we have 7000 employees in the US today. 21:50 Shou Chew: The bottom line is this: American data stored on American soil by an American company overseen by American personnel. We call this initiative Project Texas. That's where Oracle is headquartered. Today, U.S. TikTok data is stored by default in Oracle's service. Only vetted personnel operating in a new company called TikTok U.S. Data Security can control access to this data. Now, additionally, we have plans for this company to report to an independent American board with strong security credentials. Now, there's still some work to do. We have legacy U.S. data sitting in our servers in Virginia and in Singapore. We're deleting those and we expect that to be completed this year. When that is done, all protected U.S. data will be under the protection of US law and under the control of the U.S.-led security team. This eliminates the concern that some of you have shared with me that TikTok user data can be subject to Chinese law. 22:55 Shou Chew: We also provide unprecedented transparency and security for the source code for the TikTok app and recommendation engine. Third party validators like Oracle and others will review and validate our source code and algorithms. This will help ensure the integrity of the code that powers what Americans see on our app. We will further provide access to researchers, which helps them study and monitor our content ecosystem. Now we believe we are the only company that offers this level of transparency. 23:35 Shou Chew: The potential security, privacy, [and] content manipulation concerns raised about TikTok are really not unique to us. The same issues apply to other companies. We believe what's needed are clear, transparent rules that apply broadly to all tech companies. Ownership is not at the core of addressing these concerns. 24:20 Shou Chew: TikTok will remain a place for free expression and will not be manipulated by any government. 27:30 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): Have any moderation tools been used to remove content on TikTok associated with the Uyghur genocide? Yes or no? Shou Chew: We do not remove that kind of content. Tik Tok is a place for freedom of expression. Chairwoman, just like I said, if you use our app, you can go on it and you will see a lot of users around the world expressing content on that topic and many others. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): Thank you. What about the massacre in Tiananmen Square? Yes or no? Shou Chew: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): The massacre in Tiananmen Square. Shou Chew: That kind of content is available on our platform. You can go and search it. 28:05 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): I will remind you that making false or misleading statements to Congress is a federal crime. 28:15 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): Can you say with 100% certainty that ByteDance or the CCP cannot use your company or its divisions to heat content to promote pro-CCP messages for an act of aggression against Taiwan. Shou Chew: We do not promote or remove content at the request of the Chinese government. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): The question is, are you 100% certain that they cannot use your company to promote such messages? Shou Chew: It is our commitment to this committee and all users that we will keep this free from any manipulation by any government. 39:10 Shou Chew: Congressman, since I've been CEO of this company I've not had any discussions with Chinese government officials. 43:55 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): The Chinese government has that data. How can you promise that that will move into the United States of America and be protected here? Shou Chew: Congresswoman, I have seen no evidence that the Chinese government has access to that data. They have never asked us; we have not provided it. I've asked that -- Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Well, you know what, I find that actually preposterous. Shou Chew: I have looked and I have seen no evidence of this happening. And in order to assure everybody here and all our users, our commitment is to move the data into the United States to be stored on American soil, by an American company, overseen by American personnel. So the risk will be similar to any government going to an American company asking for data. 44:40 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Well I'm one that doesn't believe that there is really a private sector in China. 54:55 Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): So I want to know from you, and I will give you time to answer this. You have current controls, but the current controls are not working to keep dosinformation mainly from young people, but from Americans in general. What more is is TikTok doing to try to strengthen its review to keep disinformation from coming across to people. Shou Chew: Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. The dangerous misinformation that you mentioned is not allowed on our platform. It violates the -- Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): I'm sorry to report it is on your platform, though. Shou Chew: Congresswoman, I don't think I can sit here and say that we are perfect in doing this. We do work very hard. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): How can you make yourself more perfect? I don't want you to say it's not there or you apologize. What can you do to limit it as much as possible, more than what you're doing now? Shou Chew: We invest a significant amount in our content moderation work. I shared that number in my written testimony -- Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): I know you're investing, but what steps are you taking to improve the AI, or whatever else you're doing, to limit this content? Shou Chew: For example, if you search for certain search terms, we do direct you on TikTok to safety resources. That's one of the things we have done. We will continue to invest in this I recognize and fully aligned with you that this is a problem that faces our industry that we need to really invest and address this. I'm very in alignment. 1:07:05 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): Does TikTok share user information from companies...from parent companies...from affiliated...or send user information to...overseas? Shou Chew: In the past, yes, for interoperability purposes. Now, after Project Texas, all protected U.S. data will be stored here with the access controlled by a special team of U.S. personnel. 1:07:55 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): I do want a quote from employees that you had, and here's the quote, "everything is seen in China" is really what they said. People who were in touch with the sensitive data were saying that. How do you respond to that? Shou Chew: I disagree with that statement. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): Well, I know you disagree with that statement. But my point is, how does that happen that employees of the company are saying that in fact, that's not true. Shou Chew: I cannot speak to, I don't know who this person is, so I cannot speak to what the person has or has not said. What I can say is, you know, based on my position in this company, and the responsibility that I have, that statement is just not true. 1:11:00 Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): Yes or no, ByteDance is required to have a member of the Chinese government on its board with veto power, is that correct? Shou Chew: No, that is not correct. ByteDance owns some Chinese businesses and you're talking about this very special subsidiary that is for Chinese business license -- Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): Mr. Chew, I'm gonna have to move on. 1:19:20 Shou Chew: First, anything that is violated and harmful, we remove. What I meant to say were [sic] content that is not inherently inherently harmful, like some of the extreme fitness videos about people running 100 miles, is not inherently harmful, but if we show them too much, the experts are telling us that we should disperse them more and make sure that they're not seen too regularly, especially by younger users. 1:33:20 Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): Do you realize that making false and misleading statements to Congress is a federal crime? Shou Chew: Yes, I do. Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): Okay. 1:39:35 Shou Chew: We do want to be leading in terms of safety of our users, particularly for teenagers. We were the first to launch a 60 minute watch limit. Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD): And let's talk about the 60 Minute -- Shou Chew: And I'm very glad to see others in our industry follow. For many of the recommendations, we will study them very seriously. We actually have a series of features. Like for example, if you're under 16, you cannot use a direct messaging feature, because we know we want to protect those younger users. If you're under 16, you cannot go viral by default. If you're under 18, you cannot go live. 1:48:20 Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY): Will you continue to get information from these third parties on its users health? Shou Chew: Get information? We do not get any user health information from third parties. 1:56:20 Shou Chew: The American data has always been stored in Virginia and Singapore in the past. And access of this is on an as required basis by engineers globally — Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): As required by who? Shou Chew: By engineers, for business purposes -- Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): Engineers? ByteDance? The Communist Party? Shou Chew: No, no. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): Why? How can you say that if they have access -- Shou Chew: This is a business. This is a private business, and like many other businesses, many other American companies, we rely on the global workforce. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): So the global workforce, that includes ByteDance, which is connected directly to the Chinese Communist Party. Shou Chew: That is a mischaracterization that we disagree with. Now, in the future -- Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): That's not what we can disagree with. That's a fact. Shou Chew: It's not, unfortunately. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): The CEO of ByteDance and your relationship to them. Shou Chew: Congressman, respectfully, in my opening statement, I said this is a private company, it's owned 60% by global investors. Three out of the five board members on ByteDance are Americans. This is a private business Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): You report directly to ByteDance, with a CEO who is a member of Communist Party. Let me move on — Shou Chew: He is not. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): -- I think we got the answer. 2:07:20 Shou Chew: We do not collect body, face, or voice data to identify our users. We do not -- Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): You don't? Shou Chew: No, the only face data that you get that we collect is when you use the filters to have sunglasses on your face. We need to know where your eyes are -- Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): Why do you need to know what the eyes are if you're not seeing if they're dilated? Shou Chew: -- and that data is stored on your local device and deleted after use if you use it for facial. Again, we do not collect body, face, or voice data to identify users. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): I find that hard to believe. 2:30:20 Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL): When the Chinese Communist government bought a share ByteDance, it's been described as the Chinese Communist Government's way of quieter form of control, and that companies have little choice in selling a stake to the government if they want to stay in business, and what I'd like to know is when the Chinese Communist government moved to buy shares of ByteDance, were you informed beforehand, yes or no? Shou Chew: No, Congressman, ByteDance -- Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL): Were you or anyone with TikTok asked for your opinion about the sale of shares of ByteDance to the Chinese Communist government? Yes or no? Shou Chew: It just, this hasn't happened. 2:34:55 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Mr. Chew, have any prior versions of TikTok's app collected precise GPS information from us users, yes or no? Shou Chew: Yes. From back in 2020, about three years ago. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Are there currently TikTok users who still hold old versions of the app that collect precise GPS information from U.S. users? Yes or no? Shou Chew: That could be, but that's a small percentage. 2:36:05 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Has TikTok, at any time, sold precise GPS information collected from U.S. users? Yes or no? Shou Chew: We do not sell data to data brokers if that's the question. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): And you've never done that? Shou Chew: I do not believe so. 2:37:15 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Has TikTok, at any time, provided the Chinese government with either precise GPS information collected from U.S. users or inferences made from that data? Shou Chew: That I can give you a straight answer: no. 2:37:30 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Mr. Chew, even in Congress, even if Congress were to ban Tiktok, I'm concerned that China or others would still have access to US consumer data by purchasing it through data brokers. Will you commit not to sell any of TikTok's data to data brokers now or in the future? Shou Chew: We do not do that. We do not sell data to data brokers now. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Will you commit to not do it in the future? Shou Chew: This is -- certain members of industry who do this. I think this has to be broad legislation to help us, the whole industry, address this problem. 3:13:15 Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ): A March 21, Forbes article revealed how troves of personal data of Indian citizens who once used TikTok remained widely accessible to employees at the company and its Beijing based parent ByteDance. A current TikTok employee told Forbes that nearly anyone with basic access to company tools, including employees in China, can easily look up the closest contacts and other sensitive information about any user. This current TikTok employee also said, "If you want to start a movement, if you want to divide people, if you want to do any of the operation to influence the public on the app, you can just use that information to target those groups." Mr. Chew, why would a current TikTok employee say this if it wasn't true? Shou Chew: This is a recent article, I have asked my team to look into it. As far as I know there is, we have rigorous data access protocols. There's really no such thing where anybody can get access to tools. Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ): Alright. Shou Chew: So I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of that. 3:18:20 Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL): So Mr. Chew, would TikTok be prepared to divest from ByteDance and Chinese Communist Party ties if the Department of Treasury instructed you all to do so? Shou Chew: Congressman, I said in my opening statement, I think we need to address the problem of privacy. I agree with you. I don't think ownership is the issue here, with a lot of respect. American social companies don't have a good track record with data privacy and user security. I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, just one example. So I do think that you know, it is not about the ownership, it is a lot about making sure we have Project Texas, making sure that we're protecting and firewalling U.S. user data from unwanted foreign access, giving third parties to come in to have a look at this and making sure that everybody is comfortable. We're giving transparency and third party monitoring and that's what we're doing for Project Texas. 4:24:15 Shou Chew: Congressman, we have only one process of removing content on our platform and the process is done by our content moderation team headquartered in Ireland and the US, and we will only remove content that violates our guidelines, and that's something that we audit, or if there's a valid legal order. 4:26:05 Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX): Here are my concerns with TikTok. Your claims are hard to believe. It's no secret to us that TikTok is still under the thumb of CCP influence and, let's be honest, TikTok is indoctrinating our children with divisive, woke, and pro-CCP propaganda. 4:27:15 Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX): Should we plan to have a committee hearing every time, every day, every time there's something brought up so that we can limit the content on TikTok? Should Congress plan to do that Mr. Chew? Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): Almost 30% of the videos that came up contained misinformation...a high level of misinformation...misinformation...disinformation...misleading information...harmful misinformation...misinformation...misinformation. Why are these dangerous videos falling through the cracks of your company's efforts to enforce its own community guidelines and remove harmful misinformation? 4:30:20 Shou Chew: Yes, any dangerous misinformation is...we partner with third party experts to be able to identify and help us with subject domain expertise. And with their expertise that we recognize, we rely on those to develop policies to recognize and remove could be -- Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): Well, your efforts I have failed, and they're dangerous. 4:33:10 Shou Chew: I can get back to you on the specifics, but dangerous misinformation is moderated regardless of language. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): Not to the degree that it needs to be. 4:58:40 Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX): Are keystroke patterns and rhythms part of TikTok gathering the data that is gathered by TikTok? Shou Chew: If you're talking, Congressman, specifically about keystrokes, you know, we do not. We do not engage in keystroke logging to monitor what the users say. It's to identify bots for security purposes, and this is a standard industry practice. 5:24:30 Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Here's the main point of concern: China's 2017 National Intelligence law states very clearly, that, "any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with state intelligence work in accordance with the law and maintain the secrecy of all knowledge of state intelligence work." In other words, ByteDance, and also your TikTok employees that live in China, they must cooperate with Chinese intelligence whenever they are called upon. And if they are called upon, they're bound to secrecy. That would include you. So Mr. Chew, if the CCP tells ByteDance to turn over all data that TikTok has collected inside the US, even within Project Texas, do they have to do so according to Chinese law? Shou Chew: Congressman, first, I'm Singaporean. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): That's fine. But there are employees of yours and ByteDance's in China. Shou Chew: We understand this concern. In my opening statement, we said we hear these concerns, we didn't try to avoid them or you know, trivialize them, we built something where we take the data and put it out of reach. This is what we did, we put it out of reach. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): But they own you. Shou Chew: No, we put it out of reach by -- Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): ByteDance owns Tiktok and the CCP owns ByteDance, because the CCP owns everybody in China. So by law, they can make them do whatever they want. And they say that by law, you can't tell anyone about it. So they can make you hand over that data is that correct? Shou Chew: Data is stored here in American soil, by an American company overseen by American -- Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Leaked audio from 80 internal TikTok meeting shows that US user data has been repeatedly accessed from China, when you said it hasn't been. And here's the other thing, following back on my colleagues line of questioning. In your own privacy policy, it says that you may share information within your so called "Corporate Group" is ByteDance part of that corporate group? Shou Chew: If you're talking about the share of the entity with the share, like I shared with the previous -- Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Is ByteDance part of the corporate group? Shou Chew: ByteDance, as a holding company, is part of the corporate group, yes. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Part of the corporate group. Okay, so your own privacy policy says you have to share data with ByteDance. And if the CCP says, Hey ByteDance, you're going to do what we say and you can't tell anyone about it because by law, according to that 2017 National Intelligence law, they have to do it. That's our concern. 5:26:50 Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Okay, so my last point is this, I want to say this to all the teenagers out there, and the TikTok influencers who think we're just old and out of touch and don't know what we're talking about, trying to take away your favorite app. You may not care that your data is being accessed now, but it will be one day when you do care about it. And here's the real problem: with data comes power. They can choose what you see and how you see it. They can make you believe things that are not true. They can encourage you to engage in behavior that will destroy your life. Even if it is not happening yet, it could in the future. The long term goal of the Chinese Communist Party is the demise of the American power, and that starts with our youth. At any moment, they could demand that all of TikTok's data be used to design an AI algorithm with the sole purpose of promoting Chinese interests and destroying our society from within. You want to know why Democrats and Republicans have come together on this? That's why we are so concerned. 2:07:55 Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): How do you determine what age they are then? Shou Chew: We rely on age-gating as our key age assur-- Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): Age...? Shou Chew: -gating, which is when you ask the user what age they are. We have also developed some tools where we look at their public profile to go through the videos that they post to see whether-- Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): Well that's creepy. Tell me more about that. Shou Chew: It's public. So if you post a video [and] you choose that video to go public, that's how you get people to see your video. We look at those to see if it matches up the age that you told. Combatting the Economic Threat from China February 7, 2023 House Committee on Financial Services Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Peter E. Harrell, Former Senior Director for International Economics and Competitiveness, National Security Council and National Economic Council Clips Rep. David Scott (D-GA): I am deeply concerned with the fast growing possibility of a China-led world order. That includes the Chinese military controlling the South Pacific trade route because the South Pacific trade war is now the lifeline of the entire global economy. Peter E. Harrell: I think it's important that we all, as we think about China policy, we all recognize that China, though a serious competitor, and by far our most significant economic competitor, is not 10 feet tall. It's not some sort of mythical beast that we cannot out-compete. I think you've highlighted a couple of the reasons, Congresswoman, why that's the case. They do have high levels of debt. They also have serious long term demographic problems, coming to having a shrinking working age population. Rep. William Timmins (R-SC): The question is what are we going to do to get China to reform their behavior and compete in the global economy and be good actors in the global economy. That's the question. Economic Danger Zone: How America Competes to Win the Future Versus China February 1, 2023 Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Samm Sacks, Senior Fellow, New America & Senior Fellow, Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center Clips Samm Sacks: I mean, to be honest, I think that the grading profiles based on aggregate data is primarily a counterintelligence concern for individuals with national security clearances and the military or access to sensitive information for your average American what that what the impact would probably be more in terms of would that population or individual preference information could that be used to push information that would make say, a spear phishing attack more appealing it might be more likely that someone would would be a would click on a link because it appealed to them based on information that was collected? And so I would say it's, I would look at it from that angle. But why highlighted in my testimony, the more sort of far reaching impact is on economic competitiveness, which is a distinct issue, right? It's on Chinese firms who are able to access diverse international data sets beyond China. What that allows them to do is train AI models that could be more competitive in markets outside of China, where they're competing head to head with US firms. So I would bucket the risk. You have national security issues. You also have missed it targeted misinformation that could be used from that, as well as economic competitiveness between us and Chinese firms. And it's important to sort of be clear about those distinct buckets of risk. Samm Sacks: I guess I'll start with the TikTok issue. But you know, I think that there are two important issues on the table. One is data security, who has access to what, and the other is the potential to push misinformation online, the recommendation algorithm. My understanding is that there is a national security agreement on the table. You know, from a data security standpoint, if Oracle has the data in the cloud, there are multiple third party auditors and an oversight board that reports to CFIUS, I think that that would be pretty much locked down. The question around what kind of information the recommendation system pushes forward is an important one. And that also under this agreement -- it's called Project Texas and I've published about it just a week or so ago -- would be again, subject to verification, source code reviewed, essentially vetted by CFIUS. I think it's important that the public understand what that national security agreement would look like and then have a debate. Is this enough to address those concerns? And to what extent would other social media companies also need to meet them? Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)
Become an exclusive member to get ad-free and bonus episodes at https://tmgstudios.tv Bummer… banning TikTok would have been funny, but there's a hidden agenda behind the TikTok ban also known as the RESTRICT Act. This week Ben and Emil give their thoughts on the bill that might be worse than the USA PATRIOT Act. A return to crypto corner and the crime potential of CashApp that Hindenburg seeks to unravel. Go to https://public.com/trill to unlock 5.3% APY Cancel unwanted subscriptions – and manage your expenses the easy way – by going to https://rocketmoney.com/trill For a limited time, try Notion AI for free when you go to https://notion.com/trill Get the only digital wallets with real cash access, activated by MoneyGram. Learn more at https://moneygram.com/stellarwallets Check out our channel page on Apple Podcasts, go to: https://apple.co/trillionaire SUBSCRIBE to Trillionaire Mindset at https://www.youtube.com/trillionairemindset Want to subscribe to our newsletter? http://bit.ly/3k4Nfar Trillionaire Highlights Channel: https://www.youtube.com/TrillionaireMindsetHighlights Trillionaire IG: https://www.instagram.com/trillionairepod Trillionaire Twitter: https://twitter.com/trillionairepod TMG Studios YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/tinymeatgang BEN https://www.instagram.com/bencahn/ https://twitter.com/Buncahn EMIL https://www.instagram.com/emilderosa/ https://twitter.com/emilderosa *DISCLOSURE: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS VIDEO ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED. THESE OPINIONS DO NOT REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF ANYONE ELSE. THIS IS NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE. THE VIEWER OF THE VIDEO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSIDERING ANY INFORMATION CAREFULLY AND MAKING THEIR OWN DECISIONS TO BUY OR SELL OR HOLD ANY INVESTMENT. SOME OF THE CONTENT OF THIS VIDEO IS CONSIDERED TO BE SATIRE AND MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FACTUAL AND SHOULD BE TAKEN IN SUCH LIGHT. THE COMMENTS MADE IN THIS VIDEO ARE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.* Chapters: 0:00 This week! 1:07 Yeeeew! Bruce Springy 3:27 Housekeeping 5:30 The Airpods Thief 8:00 The TikTok Ban 10:35 Thanks to Public! 11:58 RESTRICT Act Facade 14:44 The Patriot Act of the Internet 18:00 Jesse Watters' Coverage 21:50 CFIUS' Power & China 23:50 Thanks to Rocket Money! 25:50 The Bans on China 27:45 Arms War 31:20 New Spending on Defense 37:40 Thanks to Notion! 39:40 Crypto Corner 42:40 Crime Riddled Binance 44:30 CFTC Lawsuit 45:30 The Spirit of Crypto 48:15 Crypto as Securities 49:20 Thanks to Moneygram! 50:20 Hindenburg Short Sells Block 52:00 Cash App Promoting Crime? 55:20 Ben's Date 57:50 AI Luddites 59:20 Calling for AI Pause 1:02:45 AI Movie Images 1:05:40 Wrapping Up
In this episode, host Bidemi Ologunde discussed how geopolitics is intersecting with popular culture and national security, as seen in the ongoing issues with TikTok.TimestampsPart 1: "The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S." (2:06)Part 2: "An escalating tit-for-tat of tech protectionism." (8:49)Part 3: "Embroidery." (17:46)=======Organize your work and life, finally.Become focused, organized, and calm with Todoist. The world's #1 task manager and to-do list app.Start for free=======Receive $25 off orders of $149+ with code SWAPSRF at Snake River Farms!Whether you're a seasoned veteran or a beginner to beef, the pioneers of American Wagyu have got you covered with $25 off your order.Shop Delicious Meats Now=======Turn your Airtable or Google Sheets into modern business tools you need.Softr lets you stop waiting for developers. Build software without devs. Blazingly fast. Trusted by 100,000+ teams worldwide.Start building now.=======Sesame Care - Doctor appointments as low as $19.Find the best price for the highest quality physicians. Book an appointment in minutes.Get Started=======Compliantly hire anyone, anywhere, in 5 minutes with Deel.Deel is your one-stop shop for hiring, paying, and managing your remote team. We stay on top of local labor laws across the world to ensure compliance and mitigate risk so that you don't have to.Get Started=======Shut The Box Game.Dating back to 12th century France, sailors cherished playing Shut The Box Game. In modern times whether you're camping with friends or relaxing with family, you'll have endless fun with this easy-to-learn game! Buy 2, Get 1 Free, plus free shipping within the United States.Get Started=======Support the show
Subscribe to The Realignment to access our exclusive Q&A episodes and support the show: https://realignment.supercast.com/.REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail us at: realignmentpod@gmail.comAdam Kovacevich, Founder and CEO of the Chamber of Progress, joins The Realignment to discuss last week's TikTok hearings on Capitol Hill, the case for and against a TikTok ban/forced sale, how center-left views on technology shape the Washington, DC debate, and how the CFIUS mandated sale of the gay dating app Grindr should inform today's policy debates.
We're back with a Spring Break edition, featuring: ICC cases emerging against Russian defendants for (1) removing children from Ukraine to Russia and (2) attacking civilian infrastructure A UK drone strike in Syria, a US drone strike in Yemen, and a US drone struck (by the Russians) Renewal of Section 702 and the Rep. LaHood story TikTok, CFIUS, and the RESTRICT Act Another GTMO transfer Possible repeal of the 2002 and 1991 Iraq AUMFs And an early start to the annual Mets demoralization process.
From June 2, 2018: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) plays an essential role in advising the president on how to exercise his or her authority to block foreign investments that might let the U.S.'s adversaries acquire sensitive American technology or intellectual property. A bipartisan proposal in Congress aims to expand CFIUS's powers. On Thursday, the Center for Strategic and International Studies convened a panel of Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon official; Ivan Schlager, a partner with Skadden Arps' national security practice; Nova Daly, a senior public policy adviser with Wiley Rein; and CSIS Vice President James Andrew Lewis, to talk about CFIUS and how it might change under the new law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
