Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: March - April 2020 by Holland & Knight

期刊

Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................3 NEW CALIFORNIA LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWS FOR 2020 ........................................................4 2020 年加州新劳动及雇佣法律 ..................................................................................................................11 PROPOSED ICTS SUPPLY CHAIN REVIEW REGIME RAISES PROCEDURAL CONCERNS .............17 拟议的信息和通信技术及服务供应链审查制度引起程序上的顾虑 .............................................................20 AMENDMENT TO RESIDUAL EXCEPTION TO BROADEN SCOPE OF ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................................23 修订联邦证据规则的“剩余例外”规定以扩大可被采纳的传闻证据的范 ...................................................26 NEW CFIUS REGULATIONS FINALLY TAKE EFFECT ..........................................................................29 新的 CFIUS 规则终于生效了 ...................................................................................................................37 ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ..................................................................................................................44 有关本期刊 ..............................................................................................................................................44 ABOUT THE AUTHORS..........................................................................................................................44 关于本期作者 ...........................................................................................................................................44

China Practice Newsletter Holland & Knight is a U.S.-based global law firm committed to provide high-quality legal services to our clients. We provide legal assistance to Chinese investors and companies doing business or making investments in the United States and Latin America. We also advise and assist multinational corporations and financial institutions, trade associations, private investors and other clients in their China-related activities. With more than 1,300 professionals in 28 offices, our lawyers and professionals are experienced in all of the interdisciplinary areas necessary to guide clients through the opportunities and challenges that arise throughout the business or investment life cycles. We assist Chinese clients and multinational clients in their China-related activities in areas such as international business, mergers and acquisitions, technology, healthcare, real estate, environmental law, private equity, venture capital, financial services, taxation, intellectual property, private wealth services, data privacy and cybersecurity, labor and employment, ESOPs, regulatory and government affairs, and dispute resolutions. We invite you to read our China Practice Newsletter, in which our authors discuss pertinent Sino-American topics. We also welcome you to discuss your thoughts on this issue with our authors listed within the document.

霍兰德奈特律师事务所是一家位于美国的全球性法律事务所，我们致力于向客户提供高质量的法律服务。我们向在美国及拉丁美洲进行商业活动或投资的中国投资人及公司提供他们所需的各类法律协助。我们也向跨国公司、金融机构、贸易机构、投资人及其他客户提供他们于其与中国相关活动中所需的咨询和协助。我们在 28 个办公室的 1300 多名对各领域有经验的律师及专业人员能够协助客户处理他们在经营或投资过程中所遇到的各种机会及挑战。我们向中国客户及从事与中国有关活动的跨国客户提供法律协助的领域包括国际商业、企业并购、科技法律、医疗法律、房地产、环保法律、私募基金、创投基金、金融法律服务、税务、知识产权、私人财富管理法律服务、信息隐私及网络安全、劳动及雇佣法律、员工持股计划、法令遵循及政府法规、及争议解决。我们邀请您阅读刊载我们各作者就与中美有关的各议题所作论述的 China Practice 期刊。我们也欢迎您向本期刊的各作者提供您对各相关议题的看法。

New California Labor and Employment Laws for 2020 By Linda Auerbach Allderdice, Deisy Castro, John H. Haney, Thomas E. Hill, Austin K. Stack, Samuel J. Stone and Tina Tellado

HIGHLIGHTS  The California Legislature passed numerous labor and employment bills that became effective on Jan. 1, 2020.  California's minimum wages and exempt salary thresholds increased on Jan. 1, 2020. ______________________________ In 2019, California enacted numerous labor and employment laws. Unless otherwise noted, each of the laws listed below went into effective on Jan. 1, 2020. This Holland & Knight article highlights selected and significant new laws, as well as California's rising minimum wages and exempt salary thresholds: 

California's Minimum Wages and Exempt Salary Thresholds Increase in 2020



AB 5 – Codification and Expansion of Strict ABC Test for Independent Contractor Status



AB 9 – Statute of Limitations for Filing Complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment Extended from One to Three Years



SB 778 – Harassment-Prevention Training Compliance Deadline Extended for Small Employers and Nonsupervisory Employees to Jan. 1, 2021



AB 51 – Restrictions on Applicant/Employee Waiver of Rights, Forums and Procedures for Alleged Violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Labor Code



SB 707 – Penalties for Failure to Timely Comply with Arbitration Fee Provisions in Arbitration Agreements



AB 25 – One-Year Exemption for Certain Applicant- and Employee-Related Data under the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018



AB 673 – Employees May Now Recover Statutory Penalties for Employer's Late Payment Wages During Employment



AB 749 – Restrictions on "No-Rehire" and "No Future Employment" Clauses in Settlement Agreements



SB 142 – Expanded Lactation Accommodation Requirements



SB 188 – CROWN Act: Race Discrimination Protections Expanded to Traits Historically Associated with Race Such As Hair Textures and Protective Hairstyles



SB 229 – Expedited Procedural Requirements for the Administrative Enforcement of Unlawful Retaliation Citations



SB 688 – Labor Commissioner's Citation Authority Expanded to the Recovery of "Contract Wages"

CALIFORNIA'S MINIMUM WAGES AND EXEMPT SALARY THRESHOLDS INCREASE IN 2020 SB 3, enacted in the 2015-2016 legislative session, sets forth a schedule for minimum wage increases through 2023. Beginning Jan. 1, 2020, for employers with 26 employees or more, the minimum wage increased from $12 per hour to $13 per hour, and the exempt annual salary threshold increased from $49,920 to $54,080. For employers with 25 employees or less, the minimum wage increased from $11 per hour to $12, and the exempt annual salary threshold increased from $45,760 to $49,920.

AB 5 – CODIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF STRICT ABC TEST FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS As discussed in a previous alert, AB 5 codifies the strict "ABC" test for employee versus independent contractor classification adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Dynamex), 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). Dynamex was limited to California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order violations. But AB 5 expands the reach of the "ABC" test generally to Labor Code violations, as well as to California unemployment insurance and workers' compensation proceedings. The codified test in the newly created Section 2750.3 of the Labor Code provides that a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: A. the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of work and in fact B. the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business C. the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed AB 5 includes seven categories of exemptions for 1) specific occupations, 2) certain contracts for "professional services," 3) certain real estate licensees and repossession agencies, 4) certain bona fide business-tobusiness contracting relationships, 5) certain relationships between contractors and individuals working under a subcontract in the construction industry, 6) certain relationships between referral agencies and service providers, and 7) certain relationships related to motor club services. AB 170, also passed signed into law this legislative session, created additional exemptions for a newspaper distributor working under contract with a newspaper publisher, and a newspaper carrier working under contract either with a newspaper publisher or newspaper distributor. The "exemptions" are not true carve-outs – an individual whose work meets the exemption requirements is not automatically an independent contractor. Rather, an individual whose work meets the exemptions means that the ABC test does not apply, but the hiring party must still be able to demonstrate that contractor status is appropriate under Borello and/or by other statutory provisions as specified in the bill. AB 5 specifically provides that it "does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law, with regard to wage orders of the [IWC] and violations of the Labor Code related to wage orders." Thus, the strong indication is that the ABC test will apply retroactively, at least as to wage and hour claims. However, AB 5 also Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

provides that the exemptions in categories 1 through 7 above will apply retroactively to existing claims and actions to the maximum extent permitted by law. In addition to adding Section 2750.3 to the Labor Code, AB 5 also amends Section 3351 of the Labor Code, the workers' compensation definition of "employee." AB 5 provides that for purposes of workers' compensation, "employee" will include individuals who are employees under Section 2750.3 "[b]eginning on July 1, 2020," but that the subdivision "shall not apply retroactively." AB 5 also amends Section 621 of the Unemployment Insurance Code to restate the ABC test as one of the definitions of "employee" for unemployment insurance purposes. However, there is no similar statement as to retroactivity and, given that the addition was not in effective until Jan. 1, 2020, it remains to be seen whether the ABC test will apply retroactively for unemployment insurance purposes. On Jan. 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of California from enforcing AB 5 as to any motor carrier operating in California, pending the entry of final judgment in the action.

AB 9 – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING COMPLAINT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT EXTENDED FROM ONE YEAR TO THREE YEARS Under current law, a person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) must generally file a verified complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year from the date upon which the alleged unlawful conduct occurred. AB 9 extends this this timeframe to three years subject to specified exceptions.

SB 778 – HARASSMENT-PREVENTION TRAINING COMPLIANCE DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR SMALLER EMPLOYERS AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES TO JAN. 1, 2021 The FEHA requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide sexual harassment prevention training to all supervisory employees within six months of their assumption of a supervisory position and once every two years. SB 1343, which as passed in the 2017-2018 legislative session, extended training requirements to small employers and to nonsupervisory employees. More specifically, the bill required that by Jan. 1, 2020, employers with five or more employees provide at least two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to supervisory employees, and at least one hour of sexual harassment prevention training to nonsupervisory employees within six months of their assumption of a position. SB 778 extends this compliance date to Jan. 1, 2021. The bill makes clear that an employer who has provided this training in 2019 is not required to provide it again until two years thereafter.

AB 51 – RESTRICTIONS ON APPLICANT/EMPLOYEE WAIVER OF RIGHTS, FORUMS AND PROCEDURES FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT, AND LABOR CODE AB 51, aimed at curbing mandatory employment arbitration agreements, adds Section 432.6 to the Labor Code. Section 432.6 prohibits employers from requiring applicants or employees from waiving any rights, forums or procedures for alleged violations of the FEHA or Labor Code, as a condition of employment, Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

continued employment or the receipt of any employment-related benefit. AB 51 prohibits threatening, retaliating or discriminating against for refusal to consent to any such waiver. AB 51 applies to agreements entered into or extended on or after Jan. 1, 2020, but does not apply to postdispute settlement agreements or negotiated severance agreements. By its express language, the bill is not intended to invalidate a written arbitration agreement that is otherwise enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. Employers should note that on Dec. 6, 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among other parties, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California seeking to invalidate AB 51 as preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. On Jan. 31, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of California from enforcing AB 51 with respect to mandatory employment arbitration agreements to the extent covered by the Federal Arbitration Act, pending the entry of final judgment in the action.

SB 707 – STRICT ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH ARBITRATION FEE PROVISIONS IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS SB 707 is an arbitration agreement enforcement provision that creates strict penalties for failure to comply with the agreement, particular the timely payment of any arbitration fees and costs. Specifically, it provides that any drafting party to an arbitration agreement that fails to pay the fees needed to commence or continue arbitration, within 30 days after such fees are due, is held to have materially breached the agreement and, as such, is in default and waives its right to compel arbitration. SB 707 further provides remedies to employees for such a material breach of the arbitration agreement. In particular, it enables the employee to remove the matter to court or move to compel arbitration. For instance, if the drafting party fails to pay the required arbitration fees to continue an arbitration that is currently in progress, the employee can move the matter to court; seek a court order compelling payment of the fees; continue the arbitration and permit the arbitrator to seek collection of their fees; or pay the costs and fees and seek them from the drafting party at the conclusion of the arbitration regardless of the outcome of the arbitration. SB 707 also provides for the tolling of the statute of limitations with regard to all claims brought in the arbitration. SB 707 also imposes mandatory monetary sanctions on any drafting party found to be in default of an arbitration through such a failure to pay the arbitration fees and costs. Most notably, it also allows the court or arbitrator to impose evidentiary, terminating or contempt sanctions. Lastly, SB 707 requires private arbitration companies to collect and report aggregate demographic data of all arbitrators. Accordingly, employers should pay careful attention to timely pay any arbitration fees and costs in order to preserve its right to arbitration and avoid any potential sanctions.

AB 25 – ONE-YEAR EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN APPLICANT- AND EMPLOYEE-RELATED DATA UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT OF 2018 The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) relates to the collection, use and protection of consumer data. While the CCPA went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, AB 25 exempts certain applicant- and employee-related data collected by businesses covered under the CCPA until Jan. 1, 2021. Despite this one-year exemption, Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

covered businesses must still provide certain disclosures to applicants and employees regarding the collection and sharing of personal information, and can be subject to private lawsuits in the event of certain data breaches.

AB 673 – EMPLOYEES MAY NOW RECOVER STATUTORY PENALTIES FOR EMPLOYER'S LATE PAYMENT WAGES DURING EMPLOYMENT Under current law, Labor Code Section 210 provides that only the Labor Commissioner may recover civil penalties for employer violations of the Labor Code Sections 201.3, 204, 204b, 204.1, 204.2, 205, 205.5, and 1197.5, which includes late payment of wages during employment. AB 673 amends Section 210 to allow employees to sue employers directly for statutory penalties under Section 210 for violations of the aforementioned Labor Code sections, as well as Section 204.11, at the following rates: 1) for any initial violation, $100 for each failure to pay each employee; 2) for each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, $200 for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the amount unlawfully withheld. AB 673 also specifies that an employee may only recover either statutory penalties under Labor Code Section 210, or civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for violations of the same violations. In other words, there will be no double recovery of penalties arising from the same Labor Code violation.

AB 749 – RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF "NO-REHIRE" AND "NO FUTURE EMPLOYMENT" CLAUSES IN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS A common type of term in settlement agreements arising from a dispute between an employee and an employer, especially when the employee is no longer employed by the employer, is one that specifies that the employee is not to apply for a position with the employer in the future, makes clear that the employee has no guarantee of future employment with the employer, or establishes that the employer does not have to consider any application for employment submitted by that employee. AB 749 sharply restricts, if not precludes, the use of these types of clauses. AB 749 adds Section 1002.5 to the Code of Civil Procedure. The new Section 1002.5 provides that settlement agreements resolving employment disputes "shall not contain a provision prohibiting, preventing, or otherwise restricting a settling party that is an aggrieved person from obtaining future employment with the employer against which the aggrieved person has filed a claim[.]" Any provision of a covered agreement entered into after Jan. 1, 2020, which violates Section 1002.5 is void as a matter of law and void as against public policy. The section does not preclude the employer and employee from entering into an agreement that ends the employment relationship. Also, an employer may restrict future employment opportunities or rehire eligibility with the employer when the employer has made a good-faith determination that the aggrieved employee engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault. Finally, nothing in the section requires an employer to employ or rehire a person if there is a legitimate non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reason for terminating the employment relationship or refusing to rehire the person.

SB 142 – EXPANDED LACTATION ACCOMMODATION REQUIREMENTS SB 142 amends Sections 1030, 1031 and 1033 of the California Labor Code and adds a new Section 1034. In general, these changes now require all employers to provide an employee a break to express breast milk for the employee's infant child each time they need to express milk. The breaks may run concurrently with any Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

break already provided to the employee, but any such breaks that do not run concurrently with another break may be unpaid. To accommodate such breaks, employers must provide the employee with a clean and safe room or other location to express milk in private that is close to the employee's work area. The room or location must satisfy certain conditions, including 1) contain a surface to place a breast pump and personal items; 2) contain a place to sit; and 3) have access to electricity or another device that enables the use of an electric or battery-powered breast pump. The room cannot be a bathroom. In addition, employers must provide access to a sink with running water and a refrigerator suitable for storing milk (or, if a refrigerator cannot be provided, some other suitable cooling device) that is close to the employee's workspace. Multiple employers in the same building can provide a shared space within the building/worksite if an employer cannot provide a lactation location within the employer's own workspace. Failure to comply with the new Labor Code requirements constitutes a violation of Labor Code Section 226.7, which requires the employer to pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of pay for each workday that an accommodating break period is not provided. In addition, an employee may file a complaint under Labor Code Section 98 for employer violations of the new Labor Code requirements. Employers are prohibited from discharging or in any way retaliating against an employee for exercising or attempting to exercise rights under the new Labor Code requirements. If the Labor Commissioner determines that a violation of the requirements has occurred, the Labor Commissioner may impose a penalty of $100 for each day an employee is denied reasonable break time or an adequate space to express milk. Under new Labor Code Section 1034, employers must also develop and implement a policy regarding lactation accommodation that includes, in part, 1) a statement about the employee's right to request lactation accommodation and the process to make such a request, and 2) a statement about the employee's right to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner for any violation of such right. The policy must be provided in the employee handbook or set of policies the employer provides to employees. Employers with fewer than 50 employees may qualify for an exemption if it can demonstrate that complying with the requirement would impose an undue hardship, but the employer must still make reasonable efforts to provide employees with a room or other location to express milk in private.

SB 188 – CROWN ACT: RACE DISCRIMINATION PROTECTIONS EXPANDED TO TRAITS HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH RACE SUCH AS HAIR TEXTURES AND PROTECTIVE HAIRSTYLES SB 188, known as the CROWN Act, amends Section 212.1 of the California Education Code and Section 12926 of the California Government Code to expand the definition of "Race" to include traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and "protective hairstyles." The term "protective hairstyles" is defined to include, but not be limited to, "braids, locks, and twists." As a result, workplace dress codes and grooming policies may not prohibit such "protective hairstyles," otherwise such dress codes/grooming policies will be found to discriminate on the basis of race.

SB 229 – EXPEDITED PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF UNLAWFUL RETALIATION CITATIONS SB 229, which amends Section 98.74 of the Labor Code, expands the administrative enforcement of the Labor Commissioner's citations for enforcement of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Labor Code. Specifically, if the Labor Commissioner investigates a retaliation complaint and determines that the employer violated the Labor Code, the Labor Commissioner may issue a citation to the person or employer who is responsible for the violation. SB 229 establishes expedited procedural requirements and deadlines for the Labor Commissioner Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

to file such citations with the court for judicial enforcement and the collection of remedies. It also sets out the procedural requirements for anyone who wishes to appeal such a citation. Specifically, if the employer does not request an informal hearing with the Labor Commissioner within 30 days after service of the citation, the citation becomes final, and 10 days later, the Labor Commissioner is required to apply for an entry of judgment.

SB 688 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; LABOR COMMISSIONER'S CITATION AUTHORITY EXPANDED TO THE RECOVERY OF "CONTRACT WAGES" SB 688 amends Section 1197.1 of the Labor Code in a couple of ways. First, it expands the Labor Commissioner's citation authority to include citations for recovery of "contract wages," which are wages, based on an agreement, in excess of the applicable minimum wage for regular, nonovertime hours. Accordingly, the Labor Commissioner can now hold employers liable for the failure to pay wages set by contract, regardless of whether all of the hours were actually paid at or above the minimum wage, and in essence now permits the Labor Commissioner to enforce breach of contract claims for wages. As such, employers should ensure that any agreement setting out an employee's wages is clearly communicated and, most importantly, that the employee accurately paid, pursuant to the agreement, for all of the hours worked. SB 688 also amends the procedure involved in contesting the assessment of such a civil penalty. As it existed, California law requires an employer seeking to file a writ of mandate with the court to contest the Labor Commissioner's assessment of a civil penalty to post an "undertaking" in a specified amount, some or all of which may be forfeited to the affected employee if the employer does not pay the court's judgment, regarding any wages or damages owed, within 10 days of the entry of judgment. SB 688 now provides that the "undertaking" will instead be forfeited to the Labor Commissioner for appropriate distribution.

2020 年加州新劳动及雇佣法律原文作者： Linda Auerbach Allderdice, Deisy Castro, John H. Haney, Thomas E. Hill, Austin K. Stack, Samuel J. Stone 及 Tina Tellado

重点摘要  加州立法机关通过了许多劳动和雇佣法律，并于 2020 年 1 月 1 日生效。  加州的最低工资和豁免员工工资起点于 2020 年 1 月 1 日起提高。 ___________________________________ 2019 年，加州颁布了许多劳动和雇佣法律。除非另有说明，下列法律均于 2020 年 1 月 1 日起生效。本文重点标示出一些重要的新法律，以及加州不断提高的最低工资和豁免员工工资起点： 

加州 2020 年最低工资和豁免员工工资起点提高



AB 5 – 对独立承包商身份的严格 ABC 认定测试加以明文规定及扩大



AB 9 – 向加州公平雇佣部提出申诉的诉讼时效从一年延长到三年



SB 778 – 针对小型雇主和不负管理职责的雇员的性骚扰防治训练的合规期限延长至 2021 年 1 月 1 日



AB 51 – 对工作申请人/雇员因涉嫌违反《加州公平雇佣和住房法》和《劳动法》的权利、申诉渠道和程序的放弃加以限制



SB 707 – 对未能及时遵守仲裁协议中的仲裁费用规定的处罚



AB 25 – 对依 2018 年加州消费者隐私法规定所搜集的某些工作申请人和员工的数据豁免适用该法一年



AB 673 – 雇员现在可以对雇主于雇佣期间拖欠工资的法定罚款进行追偿



AB 749 – 对和解协议中关于“不再重新雇用”和“未来不再雇用”的条款的使用加以限制



SB 142 – 扩大泌乳设施的要求



SB 188–皇冠法案：种族歧视保护扩大到历史上与种族相关的特征，如头发纹理和保护的发型



SB 229 号 – 对非法报复行为的告发的行政强制执行的快速程序要求



SB 688 号 – 劳工委员告发权限扩大到追偿“合同工资”

加州 2020 年最低工资和豁免员工工资起点提高 2015-2016 年立法会期所订立的参议院第 3 号法案（SB 3）规定了直到 2023 年将提高的最低工资的时间表。从 2020 年 1 月 1 日起，对于雇用 26 名或以上雇员的雇主，最低工资标准从每小时 12 美元提高到每小时 13 美元，豁免员工年度工资起点从 49,920 美元提高到 54,080 美元。对于雇员人数不超过 25 人的雇主，最低工资标准从每小时 11 美元提高到 12 美元，豁免员工年度工资起点从 45,760 美元提高到 49,920 美元。

AB 5 – 对独立承包商身份的严格的 ABC 认定测试的明文化及扩大如之前一期 China Practice Newsletter 所述，参议院第 5 号法案（AB 5）将加州最高法院在 Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Dynamex), 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018)一案中所采用的严格的“ABC”测试员工与独立承包商分类的方法加以明文立法。Dynamex 案仅适用于加州工业福利委员会（IWC）的工资令的违反。但是 AB 5 将“ABC”测试的范围扩展到了违反劳动法的行为，以及加州的失业保险和工人赔偿程序。新制定的《劳动法》第 2750.3 条中的明文化测试规定，除非雇佣实体证明满足以下所有条件，否则为获得报酬而提供劳务或服务的人士应被视为雇员而非独立承包商： A、根据工作履行合同和事实情况，该人士不受雇佣实体对工作履行的控制和指导 B、该人士从事的工作超出了招聘单位一般业务范围 C、该人士一般从事与所从事的工作性质相同的独立的行业、职业或业务 AB 5 包括七类豁免：1）特定职业；2）某些“专业服务”合约聘用；3）某些房地产许可证持有人和收回机构；4 ）某些真实的企业对企业的承包关系，5）建筑业分包合同下的承包商和个人之间的某些关系，6）转介机构和服务提供商之间的某些关系，以及 7）与汽车俱乐部服务相关的某些关系。AB 170 也在本次立法会上被通过了并被签署成为法律，为与报纸出版商签订合同的报纸发行商和与报纸出版商或报纸发行商签订合同的报纸运营商创造了额外的豁免。而“豁免”并不是真正地将其从法案中排除出去——工作符合豁免要求的个人不会自动地成为独立承包商。相反地，其工作符合豁免条件的个人意味着 ABC 测试不适用，但雇佣方仍必须能够证明，根据 Borello 案的判决和/或法案中规定的其他法定条款，承包商的身份是适当的。 AB 5 明确规定，“在关于《工业福利委员会》的工资命令和违反工资命令的劳工争议中，不存在对现有法律的改变，而是对现有法律的声明。”强烈的迹象表明，ABC 测试将追溯适用，至少适用于工资和小时索赔。然而， AB 5 还规定，上述 1 至 7 类的豁免将在法律允许的最大范围内追溯适用到现有的索赔和诉讼。除了在《劳动法》中增加第 2750.3 条外，AB 5 还修改了《劳动法》第 3351 条，即员工补偿中的“雇员”的定义。AB 5 规定，就员工补偿而言，“雇员”将包括自 2020 年 7 月 1 日开始的第 2750.3 条下的雇员，但该款“不得追溯适用”

AB 5 还修改了《失业保险法》第 621 条，将 ABC 测试作为失业保险中“雇员”的定义之一进行了重申。然而，目前还没有关于追溯的类似声明，而且考虑到这一增加在 2020 年 1 月 1 日之前不会生效，ABC 测试是否会追溯适用于失业保险，还有待观察。 2020 年 1 月 16 日，美国加州南区联邦地方法院发出了一个初步禁令，禁止加州在一个诉讼最终判决确定前对任何在加州运营的汽车托运运输业者执行 AB 5 的规定。

AB 9 法案 – 向加州公平雇佣部提出申诉的诉讼时效从一年延长至三年根据现行法律，声称因《加州公平雇佣和住房法》（FEHA）项下的非法行为而受到损害的人通常必须在所称非法行为发生之日起一年内向加州公平雇佣和住房部（DFEH）提交经核实的投诉。参议院第 9 号法案（AB 9）将这一期限延长至三年，但有特定的例外情况。

SB 778 法案 – 针对较小型雇主和不负管理职责的雇员的性骚扰防治训练的合规期限延长至 2021 年 1 月 1 日 FEHA 要求雇用 50 名或 50 名以上雇员的雇主对所有负管理职责的员工在其接受该负管理职责的工作后 6 个月内及其后每两年提供一次性骚扰防治训练。参议院第 1343 号法案（SB 1343）在 2017-2018 年立法会期上通过，将训练的要求扩展适用到小型雇主和不负管理职责的雇员。更具体地说，该法案要求到 2020 年 1 月 1 日前，雇用 5 名或 5 名以上雇员的雇主向负管理职责的员工提供至少 2 小时的性骚扰防治训练，并对不负管理职责的员工在其就职后 6 个月内为其提供至少 1 小时的性骚扰防治训练。参议院第 778 号法案（SB 778）将此合规日期延长至 2021 年 1 月 1 日。该法案明确规定，在 2019 年提供过此类训练的雇主在两年后才需要再次提供此类训练。

AB 51 法案 – 对申请人/雇员因涉嫌违反《加州公平雇佣和住房法》和《劳动法》的权利、申诉渠道和程序的放弃加以限制参议院第 51 号法案(AB 51)旨在限制强制性就业仲裁协议，在《劳动法》中增加了第 432.6 条。第 432.6 条禁止雇主要求工作申请人或雇员放弃任何权利、申诉渠道或程序，以涉嫌违反联邦医管局或劳动法，作为就业条件、继续就业或获得任何与就业有关的福利。AB 51 禁止威胁、报复或歧视拒绝同意任何此类弃权。 AB 51 适用于在 2020 年 1 月 1 日或之后签订或延长的协议，但不适用于争端发生后的解决协议或经协商达成的资遣协议。通过其明确的语言，法案并不打算使根据《联邦仲裁法》可以强制执行的书面仲裁协议变成无效。雇主应注意到，2019 年 12 月 6 日，美国商会等各方向美国加州东区地方法院提起联邦诉讼，主张 AB 51 已被《联邦仲裁法》的规定所取代而寻求将 AB 51 无效。 2020 年 1 月 31 日，美国加州东区联邦地方法院发出了一个初步禁令，禁止加州在该诉讼最终判决确定前对《联邦仲裁法》所涵括的强制性雇佣仲裁协议的范围内执行 AB 51 的规定。

SB 707 法案 – 对未能及时遵守仲裁协议中仲裁费用规定的严格执行和处罚参议院第 707 号法案（SB 707）是一项仲裁协议执行条款，对未能遵守该协议，特别是未能及时支付任何仲裁费用和支出，规定了严格的处罚。具体而言，该法案规定，仲裁协议的任何起草方如未能在该等费用到期后 30 天内支付开始或继续仲裁所需的费用，则被视为严重违反了该协议，因此，该方违约并放弃其强制仲裁的权利。 SB 707 还为雇员提供了此类严重违反仲裁协议的补救措施。特别是，它使雇员能够将该事项移交到法院或提出强制仲裁的动议。例如，如果起草方未能支付所需的仲裁费以继续进行目前正在进行的仲裁，雇员可以将该事项移交到法院、寻求法院命令强制支付费用、继续进行仲裁并允许仲裁员寻求收取其费用、或在仲裁结束时，不论仲裁结果如何，支付费用并向起草方寻求该费用。SB 707 还规定了对仲裁中提出的所有索赔的诉讼时效。 SB 707 还对因未能支付仲裁费用和支出而被认定为仲裁违约的任何起草方施加强制性的金钱惩罚。最值得注意的是，它还允许法院或仲裁员实施与证据有关的惩罚、或终止或藐视法庭的惩罚。最后，SB 707 要求私人仲裁机构收集和报告所有仲裁员的人口统计数据。因此，雇主应注意及时支付任何仲裁费用和支出，以维护其仲裁权及避免任何可能遭受的惩罚。

AB 25 法案 – 对依 2018 年加州消费者隐私法规定所搜集的某些工作申请人和员工数据加以豁免适用该法一年 2018 年加州消费者隐私法（CCPA）涉及消费者数据的收集、使用和保护。当 CCPA 于 2020 年 1 月 1 日生效时，众议院第 25 号法案（AB 25）豁免了 CCPA 涵盖的企业在 2021 年 1 月 1 日之前收集的某些工作申请人和员工相关数据。尽管有这一年的豁免，但涵盖的企业仍必须向工作申请人和员工提供有关个人信息收集和共享的某些披露，并且在某些数据泄露的情况下可能会受到私人诉讼。

SB 673 法案 – 雇员现在可以对雇主于雇佣期间拖欠工资的法定罚款进行追偿根据现行法律，《劳动法》第 210 条规定，只有劳动委员可以就雇主违反《劳动法》第 201.3、204、204b、 204.1、204.2、205、205.5 和 1197.5 条的行为追讨民事处罚，其中包括在雇佣期间拖欠工资。参议院第 673 号法案（AB 673）修订了第 210 条，允许员工根据第 210 条直接起诉雇主，要求对违反上述《劳动法》第 210 条和第 204.11 条的行为进行法定处罚，费率如下：1）任何初始违规行为，每次未向每位员工支付者处 100 美元；2）每次后续违规行为，或任何蓄意或故意的违规行为，每次向每位员工支付者处 200 美元并加上非法扣留金额的 25%。 AB 673 还规定，员工仅可根据《劳动法》第 210 条或或劳动法 2004 年私人律师总法（PAGA）规定的民事处罚，就违反同样规定的违法行为追讨法定罚款。也就是说，不会因为同一个违反劳动法的行为而受到双重处罚。

AB 749 法案 – 对和解协议中关于“不再重新雇用”和“未来不再雇用”的条款的使用加以限制因雇员与雇主之间的争端而产生的和解协议中的一种常见条款（特别是当雇员不再受雇于雇主时），为清楚规定雇员在未来不得向雇主申请职位、雇员没有保证将来得与雇主就业、或雇主不必考虑该雇员提交的任何就业申请的条款。

众议院第 749 号法案（AB 749）就算没有排除这些类型的条款的使用，也对它们使用加以严格限制。 AB 749 增加了民事诉讼法第 1002.5 条。新的第 1002.5 条规定，解决就业纠纷的和解协议“不应包含禁止、阻止或以其他方式限制作为受害方的和解方在受害方提出索赔的雇主处获得未来的就业机会。在 2020 年 1 月 1 日之后签订的协议如包含违反第 1002.5 条规定的任何条款，将因为违反公共政策而在法律上无效。本条并不妨碍雇主和雇员订立终止雇佣关系的协议。此外，当雇主真诚地确定受害雇员从事性骚扰或性侵犯时，雇主会限制其未来的就业机会或重新雇用资格。最后，如果有正当的非歧视性或非报复性理由终止雇用关系或拒绝重新雇用某人时，本条中的任何规定都不要求雇主雇用或重新雇用该人。

SB 142 法案 – 扩大泌乳设施的要求参议院第 142 号法案（SB 142）修订了《加州劳动法》第 1030、1031 和 1033 条，并增加了新的第 1034 条。一般来说，这些变化现在要求所有雇主在雇员每次需要泌乳时，都为其婴儿提供一次泌乳的休息时间。休息时间可与已提供给员工的任何休息时间同时进行，但任何此类不与另一个休息时间同时进行的休息时间可不支付报酬。为了适应这种休息，雇主必须为雇员提供一个干净、安全的房间或其他地方，在靠近雇员工作区的地方私下泌乳。房间或位置必须满足某些条件，包括 1）包含放置吸奶器和个人物品的平面地方；2）包含一个可坐的地方；3）能够通电或使用电动或电池驱动的吸奶器的其他设备。这个房间不能是浴室。此外，雇主必须提供一个带自来水的水槽和一个适合储存母奶的冰箱（或者，如果不能提供冰箱，则提供一些其他合适的冷却设备），该冰箱靠近雇员的工作区。如果雇主不能在雇主自己的工作区内提供泌乳地点，同一建筑物内的多个雇主可以在建筑物/工作区内提供共享空间。未能遵守新的《劳动法》要求构成违反《劳动法》第 226.7 条的行为，该条要求雇主在没有提供住宿休息期的每个工作日，按照雇员的正常工资率向雇员支付额外一小时的工资。此外，雇员可根据《劳动法》第 98 条就雇主违反新《劳动法》要求的行为提出投诉。禁止雇主解雇或以任何方式报复雇员行使或试图行使新《劳动法》规定的权利。如劳工处处长裁定有违反规定的情况发生，劳工处处长可就雇员被拒绝给予合理休息时间或足够空间泌乳的每一天，处以 100 元罚款。根据新的《劳动法》第 1034 条，雇主还必须制定和实施一项有关泌乳期住宿的政策，其中包括，在部分内容中，1）关于雇员要求泌乳期住宿的权利和提出这一要求的过程的声明，以及 2）关于雇员有权就任何侵犯该权利的行为向劳工专员提出申诉的声明。该政策必须在员工手册或雇主提供给员工的一套政策中提供。雇员少于 50 人的雇主，如能证明遵守规定会造成不适当的困难，则有资格获得豁免，但雇主仍必须作出合理努力，为雇员提供一个房间或其他地方，供他们私下泌乳。

SB 188 法案 – 皇冠法案：种族歧视保护扩展到历史上与种族相关的特征，如头发纹理和保护的发型参议院第 188 号法案（SB 188）被称为《皇冠法案》，修订了《加州教育法》第 212.1 条和《加州政府法》第 12926 条，扩大了“种族”的定义，将历史上与种族有关的特征包括在内，如头发纹理和“保护性发型”。 “保护性发型”一词的定义包括但不限于“辫子、锁和弯子”。因此，工作场所的着装规范和梳妆政策不得禁止此类“保护性发型”，否则此类着装规范/梳妆政策将被视为基于种族的歧视。

SB 229 法案 – 对非法报复行为的告发的行政强制执行的快速程序要求参议院第 229 号法案（SB 229）修订了《劳动法》第 98.74 条，扩大了劳动委员对《劳动法》反报复条款的行政执法。具体来说，如果劳工委员调查报复投诉并确定雇主违反了《劳动法》，劳工委员可以向违反行为的责任人或雇主发出罚单。SB 229 规定了劳工委员向法院提交此类罚单以供司法执行和收集补救措施的快速程序要求和截止日期。它还规定了任何人谁希望上诉这样的罚单的程序要求。具体来说，如果雇主在罚单送达后 30 天内没有要求与劳工委员举行非正式听证会，则罚单将成为最终及有效的罚单，10 天后，劳工委员必须申请将罚单作成判决。

SB 688 法案 – 劳工委员告发权限扩大到追偿“合同工资” 参议院第 688 号法案（SB 688）以多种方式修改了《劳动法》第 1197.1 条。首先，它扩大了劳工委员的告发权限，将追偿“合同工资”的告发包括在内，这些“合同工资”是基于一项协议，超过正常非加班时间适用的最低工资。因此，劳工委员现在可以要求雇主对未能支付合同规定的工资承担责任，而不管所有工时的实际工资是否达到或高于最低工资，而且实际上现在允许劳工委员强制执行对工资的违约索赔。因此，雇主应确保任何列明雇员工资的协议的内容都得到明确传达，最重要的是，雇员应根据协议准确支付所有工作时间的工资。 SB 688 还修改了对这种民事处罚判定提出异议的程序。在修订之前，加州法律要求向法院提出委任状以对劳动委员所做成的民事处罚判定提出异议的雇主，必须向法院提出一定金额的保证金，如果雇主在关于任何积欠的工资或损害赔偿判决作成后 10 日内不支付法院的判决，部分或全部保证金可能被没收而支付给雇员。SB 688 现在规定“保证金”将被没收，而由劳工委员进行适当分配。

Proposed ICTS Supply Chain Review Regime Raises Procedural Concerns By Ronald A. Oleynik, Farid Hekmat and Dariya V. Golubkova

HIGHLIGHTS:  The U.S. Department of Commerce's recent proposed rule that implements the terms of President Donald Trump's executive order to secure the U.S. information and communications technology and services (ICTS) supply chain against "foreign adversaries" subjects a potentially broad swath of transactions to national security scrutiny.  The proposed rule allows the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to unwind deals concluded before May 15, 2019, if the transaction poses an unacceptable or undue risk to U.S. national security or the safety of U.S. persons.  The draft regulations give wide discretion and decline to delineate the countries/entities/persons considered to be "foreign adversaries." ___________________________________________________ The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has proposed a rule implementing the terms of President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13873 (the EO) on securing the United States' information and communications technology and services (ICTS) supply chain against "foreign adversaries."1 By its terms, the proposed ICTS rule casts a wide net, capturing transactions such as infrastructure projects for the delivery of wireless, internet and digital networks. The rule's proposed "case-by-case" and "fact-specific" review approach gives great discretion to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in deciding whether a transaction should be prohibited, unwound, or allowed to continue subject to some mitigating measure. To be subject to review, a "transaction" must involve a "foreign adversary." Contrary to industry expectations, the proposed rule neither clarifies the scope of transactions subject to review nor identifies the foreign persons, entities and states considered to be "foreign adversaries." Instead, Commerce explicitly notes that discretion to identify such actors is vested in the Executive Branch. Significantly, in a stark contrast to the process available under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) regulations, Commerce's proposed rule specifically refuses to allow the issuance of advisory opinions and declaratory rulings. Commerce's proposed rule, published on Nov. 27, 2019, is expected to affect the following industries: 1. telecommunications service providers (including, but not limited to, wireless, satellite, resellers, paging, wirelines) 2. internet and digital service providers (including, but not limited to, internet, software, cloud, and app developers and/or operators, as well as managed security service providers) 3. vendors and equipment manufacturers (including, but not limited to, radio and television, connected devices, broadcasting and wireless communications)

PROPOSED REVIEW PROCESS: ROADMAP TO KEY PROVISIONS A review can be commenced in three ways: 1) by Commerce, on its own initiative; 2) upon the request of another U.S. government agency; or 3) upon receipt of credible information from a private party. The threshold for a review is a "transaction" with a "foreign adversary." A "transaction" is defined as "any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology or service."2 A "foreign adversary" is defined as "any foreign government or foreign non-government person determined by the Secretary to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons for the purposes of Executive Order [13873]."3 Commerce's proposed rule does not identify or propose for consideration any entities, persons or countries meeting the definition. Under the proposed rule, Commerce would review transactions on a "case-by-case" and "fact-specific" basis and, similar to a CFIUS proceeding, engage the expertise of agencies such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Commerce will evaluate whether: 1. a "foreign adversary" controlled, influenced, or directed the development, manufacture or design of the ICTS by looking for evidence of de jure and de facto control exercised by the foreign adversary, e.g., voting, rights, equity interest, contractual arrangements, relevant laws in the adversary country or applicable to the adversary person or entity, access rights, composition of the board of directors or governing body, and control over business affairs, and 2. the reviewed transaction poses an unacceptable or undue risk to U.S. persons or the country's national security, critical infrastructure or digital economy. If, based on its evaluation, the Secretary concludes that a transaction should be prohibited or mitigated, it will notify the affected parties and share the basis for its preliminary determination. Notified parties will have 30 days to respond to Commerce's preliminary findings by submitting an opposition brief. Commerce will then have 30 days to issue its written final determination and publish a public summary thereof in the Federal Register and on Commerce's website. No recourse for appeal is available under the proposed rule; however, the proposed regulation does note that the final determination is a final agency determination. Therefore, an appeal can be brought before a U.S. court.

TWO OTHER PROVISIONS OF NOTE: PENALTIES AND SUSPENSION OF PROCESS IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS Under the proposed rule, Commerce may impose penalties on parties subject to or providing information in a review. Actionable violations include failure to comply with material provisions of Commerce's final determination. Parties may face a penalty up to $302,584 or twice the value of a transaction. The ultimate dollar amount will depend on the agency's assessment of the "nature of the violation." Under the proposed rule, the Secretary may forego all or a part of the proposed review process if national security interests require it or if adhering to the procedures is likely to cause public harm. In such a circumstance, the Secretary is required only to briefly summarize the basis for its final decision.

ANALYSIS The proposed review process hands an unlimited measure of discretion to the Secretary in selecting which transactions to review and how to structure the review process. For example, a party may not know until it Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

receives a preliminary determination that a completed transaction it was involved in has been scrutinized. The proposed rule also, seemingly, leaves the door open for the Secretary to scrutinize the same transaction more than once. Further, the Secretary is not subject to a deadline by which it must conclude its evaluation. As such, an evaluation may remain ongoing for a significant period of time and potentially result in parties being asked to unwind or mitigate ICTS supply systems long in place. Orders to unwind may therefore require dismantling already built up infrastructure. Although the proposed rule indicates that Commerce may extend all proposed deadlines, it does not offer a procedure by which parties may request a filing extension. The proposed rule also does not address whether Commerce will maintain a record of the information it relied upon or requested, or if it will share evidence underpinning its preliminary determination with the affected parties. Finally, given that the proposed rule explicitly prohibits advisory opinions and declaratory rulings, there appears to be no specific safe harbor provision. While the concept of the review may be needed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a means to review certain ICTS transactions for national security concerns that are not caught by any existing trade or telecom review, the bare-bones, ad hoc, highly discretionary regime set out in the proposed regulation is likely to raise real concerns on the part of industry. Companies executing ICTS-related deals with a U.S. nexus should be proactive in assessing existing and planned deals with an eye toward safeguards, liability and potential involvement of actors that the U.S. government may deem adversarial to its interests. ____________________________________________________________ 1

This proposed rule is separate and apart from the emerging technologies issue, which was part of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) and referenced in the new regulations related to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). 2

Commerce's definition for "transaction" mirrors that provided in the EO.

3 Commerce's

definition for "foreign adversary" mirrors that provided in the EO.

拟议的信息和通信技术及服务供应链审查制度引起程序上的顾虑原文作者：Ronald A. Oleynik、Farid Hekmat 及 Dariya V. Golubkova

重点摘要  美国商务部（U.S. Department of Commerce）最近所提出为执行特朗普总统旨在确保美国信息和通信技术及服务（ICTS）供应链免受“外国对手”侵害的行政命令的条款的规则，而这一规则可能会使大量的交易受到国家安全审查。  拟议规则允许美国商务部长撤销 2019 年 5 月 15 日前达成的交易，如果该等交易对美国国家安全或美国人的安全构成不可接受或不适当的风险的话。  拟议规则提供广泛的裁量权以将或拒绝将某些国家/实体/个人界定为“外国对手”。 ___________________________________________________ 美国商务部（商务部）提出一项为执行特朗普总统有关确保美国信息和通信技术及服务（ICTS）供应链不受“外国对手”侵害的 13873 号行政命令（行政命令）的规则 1 根据其条款，拟议的信息通信技术及服务规则撒出了一个大网，将诸如无线、互联网和数字网络交付的基础设施项目等交易揽括其中。该规则下的“逐案”和“特定事实”审查做法赋予美国商务部长（部长）很大的自由裁量权，以决定是否应禁止或撤销交易、或允许交易在适用某些缓解措施的情况下继续进行。为适用审查，一“交易”必须涉及“外国对手”。与行业预期不同的是，拟议的规则既没有澄清适用审查的交易范围，也没有指明被视为“外国对手”的外国个人、实体和国家为何。相反地，商务部明确指出，确定此类行为者的自由裁量权归于行政部门。值得注意的是，与美国外国投资委员会（CFIUS）规则规定的程序形成鲜明对比的是，商务部提出的规则明确拒绝允许发布咨询性意见和宣告性裁决。商务部于 2019 年 11 月 27 日公布的拟议规则预计将影响以下行业： 1. 电信服务提供商（包括但不限于无线、卫星、转售商、寻呼、有线） 2. 互联网和数字服务提供商（包括但不限于互联网、软件、云端和应用程序开发商和/或运营商，以及托管安全服务提供商） 3. 供应商和设备制造商（包括但不限于无线电和电视、连接设备、广播和无线通信）

拟议的审查程序：关键规定指引审查可以通过三种方式开始：1）由商务部主动进行；2）应另一个美国政府部门的要求；或 3）在收到一个私营方的可信信息后进行。审查的门槛是与“外国对手”的“交易”，“交易”被定义为“从事或使用任何信息和通信技术或服务的任何收购、进口、转让、安装交易” 。2 “外国对手”被定义为“部长认定就行政命令[13873]而言，从事长期

或严重危害美国国家安全或美国人员的安全的行为的任何外国政府或外国非政府人员” 3。商务部拟议规则没有确定或提议考虑那些实体、人员或国家符合该定义。根据拟议的规则，商务部将在“逐案”和“具体事实”的基础上审查交易，并与外国投资委员会的程序类似，聘请美国财政部和美国贸易代表办公室等部门的专业人员参与。商务部将评估是否存在下列情况： 1. 透过外国对手行使法律或事实的控制的证据发现“外国对手” 对信息和通信技术及服务的开发、制造或设计存在控制影响或有权制定方向的情形。而法律或事实的控制包括投票权、权利、股权、合同安排、对手国家或适用于对手个人或实体的相关法律、接触权限、董事会或管理机构的组成、对业务的控制，以及 2. 受审查的交易对美国人士或国家安全、关键基础设施或数字经济构成不可接受或不适当的风险。如果根据评估结果，部长认为交易应被禁止或应被加诸某些缓解措施，他将通知受影响的各方，并分享初步决定的依据。被通知方将有 30 天的时间提交一份反对意见书，对商务部的初步调查结果作出回应。届时，商务部将有 30 天时间发布书面最终决定，并在《联邦公报》和商务部网站上公布该决定的公开摘要。根据拟议的规则，并不存在上诉权利；不过，拟议的规则确实注意到，最终决定属于政府部门的最终裁决。因此，可以向美国法院提出上诉。

其他两项应注意的规定事项：处罚和紧急情况下的程序暂停根据拟议的规则，商务部可以对接受审查或在审查中提供信息的当事方施加处罚。可处罚的违法行为包括未能遵守商务部最终决定中的实质规定。当事人可能面临高达 302,584 美元或交易价值两倍的罚款。最终的金额将取决于政府部门对“违规行为性质”的评估。根据拟议的规则，如果国家安全利益需要，或者如果严格遵照程序可能造成公众伤害，部长可以跳过拟议的审查程序的全部或部分。在该种情况下，部长只需简要总结其最终决定的依据。

分析拟议的审查程序在选择审查那些交易以及如何构建审查程序方面，赋予部长未加限制的裁量权。例如，一方当事人在收到初步决定之前，可能不知道其所参与的已完成交易已受到审查。拟议的规则似乎也为部长不止一次地审查同一笔交易敞开了大门。此外，部长不受其必须在最后期限前完成评估的限制。因此，评估可能会持续很长一段时间，并可能导致签约方被要求撤销或缓解已存在多时的信息和通信技术及服务的供应系统。因此，撤销的命令可能需要拆除已经建成的基础设施。虽然拟议的规则显示商务部可以延长所有拟议的最后期限，但它没有提供一个当事人可以要求延长提交期限的程序。拟议的规则也没有谈到商务部是否将保留其所依赖或要求的信息的记录，或者是否将与受影响各方分享支持其初步决定的证据。最后，鉴于拟议规则明确禁止给予咨询性意见和宣告性裁决，似乎没有具体的安全港规定。虽然为了国家安全顾虑对某些未受到现行贸易及通信审查的信息和通信技术及服务交易进行某一方式的审查是必要的，但透过拟议规则订出一个的框架性、特设性、及高度自由裁量权的制度，可能会造成产业的真实顾虑。进行与美国有联系关系的信息和通信技术及服务的相关交易的公司应该积极地评估现有和计划的交易，并关注如何避免美国政府可能认为有与其利益对立的潜在方的参与及责任等。

____________________________________________________________ 附注 1 这一拟议规则与新兴技术问题是分开的，而新兴技术问题是

2018 年出口管制改革法案（ECRA）的一部分，并在与美国外国投资委员

会（CFIUS）有关的新法规中引用。 2

商务部对“交易”的定义与行政命令中的规定相同。

商务部对“外国对手”的定义与行政命令中的规定相同。

Amendment to Residual Exception to Broaden Scope of Admissible Hearsay Evidence By Mary Goodrich Nix and Morgan J. Kleoppel

HIGHLIGHTS:  A recent and significant amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 807, known as the residual exception, took effect on Dec. 1, 2019.  Rule 807 has historically allowed an argument for the admissibility into evidence of hearsay statements that do not meet the hearsay exceptions contained in Rules 803 or 804, as long as the statement meets certain guarantees of reliability. This exception has traditionally and intentionally been very difficult to meet.  The amendment, which includes four noteworthy changes that will undoubtedly broaden this hearsay exception and allow more hearsay statements into evidence than previously available, has the potential to substantially change the course of a trial. ___________________________________________________ The Federal Rules of Evidence usually deem all hearsay – out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted – inadmissible unless the statement falls into one of the hearsay exceptions contained in Federal Rules of Evidence 803 or 804. Federal Rule of Evidence 807, known as the residual exception, has historically allowed an argument for the admissibility into evidence of hearsay statements that do not meet another exception as long as the statement meets certain guarantees of reliability. This exception has traditionally and intentionally been very difficult to meet. The old rule read as follows: (a) In General. Under the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804: (1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact; (3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and (4) admitting it will best serve the purpose of these rules and the interests of justice. (b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if, before the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement and its particulars, including the declarant's name and address, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it. However, a recent amendment to Rule 807 took effect on Dec. 1, 2019. The amendment is intended to broaden this hearsay exception and allow more hearsay statements into evidence than previously available. The amendment has the potential to substantially change the course of a trial. The new rule reads as follows: Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

(a) In General. Under the following conditions, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not admissible under a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804: (1) the statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness – after considering the totality of the circumstances under which it was made and evidence, if any, corroborating the statement; and (2) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts. (b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement – including its substance and the declarant's name – so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it. The notice must be provided in writing before the trial or hearing – or in any form during the trial or hearing if the court, for good cause, excuses a lack of earlier notice.

KEY CHANGES IN NEW RULE The amended rule includes four significant changes: 1. Old Rule 807 allowed hearsay evidence under the exception only if it was offered to prove a "material fact." This requirement has been removed from the rule. 2. The hearsay statement no longer has to be surrounded by "equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness." Per the new Rule 807, the statement must simply be supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness when considering the totality of the circumstances and corroborating evidence of the statement. This is specifically meant to be an easier standard for the courts to apply. 3. Old Rule 807 included a requirement that the hearsay evidence being admitted will serve the purpose of the Rules of Evidence and the interests of justice. This language has been removed. 4. The new Rule 807 requires that a party provide notice in writing to other parties of an intention to admit a statement under the residual exception. The notice must describe the substance of the statement. The amended rule still requires that any evidence offered as hearsay must be more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence the proponent can provide or obtain through reasonable efforts.

CONSIDERATIONS AND TAKEAWAYS To challenge whether a hearsay statement is admissible, a party must seek a 104(a) hearing and ask the judge to decide the admissibility of the evidence. Note that the Rules of Evidence do not apply in a 104(a) hearing, and that all circumstances and corroborating evidence, whether admissible in trial or not, can be presented to and considered by the judge when evaluating the trustworthiness of the hearsay statement to be admitted. In addition to the four changes enumerated above, all courts must now consider corroborating evidence when performing their trustworthiness analysis. Some circuits have been evaluating corroborating evidence even before the rule change while others, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, previously held that circumstantial evidence could not be considered. Although the advisory committee notes about these amendments state that the changes are not meant to broaden the scope of admissible evidence under the rule, the new language will undoubtedly serve to broaden the scope of admissible hearsay evidence. For example, although a statement about a collateral or circumstantial matter previously may have been inadmissible because it was not information about a "material Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

fact," the new Rule 807 language will allow any relevant hearsay evidence to be admissible if it is determined to be trustworthy under the circumstances and to be the most probative evidence reasonably available to the proponent. Thus, objections to the admissibility of testimony about what one employee "understands" to be a fact about another employee have typically been sustained. What someone "understands" to be fact is typically based not on first-hand information but on second-, third- or even fourth-hand information (i.e., rumors and gossip). Under the new rule, what a witness "understands" to be fact may now have a legitimate chance of being allowed into evidence. How far the courts will take the new language is difficult to predict at this time, but there is the potential for considerably more hearsay to be admissible in federal courts going forward. Historically, Rule 807 has been used only in exceptional cases. This could change under the new version. Litigators should therefore be aware of the possibility that much more hearsay may be admissible and should plan accordingly.

修订联邦证据规则的“剩余例外”规定以扩大可被采纳的传闻证据的范围原文作者： Mary G. Nix 及 Morgan J. Kleoppel

重点摘要  最近对联邦证据规则第 807 条（即剩余例外条款）的一项重大修正案，于 2019 年 12 月 1 日生效。  第 807 条历来允许一种论点，即只要传闻陈述符合某些可靠性保证，即使该传闻陈述不符合第 803 条或第 804 条所规定得成为可被采纳的传闻证据的例外情况，该等传闻陈述应可作为可被采纳的证据。但这一例外在传统上和主观意图上都很难被满足。  修正案包括四项值得注意的修改，这无疑将扩大这一传闻例外，并和以往相比，可允许更多传闻陈述成为可被采纳的证据，而有可能实质性改变审判过程。 ___________________________________________________ 联邦证据规则通常认为，所有传闻——即为证明所称事项的真实性而提出的庭外陈述——均不可被采纳作为证据，除非该陈述属于联邦证据规则第 803 条或第 804 条所载的传闻例外之一。而被称为剩余例外的联邦证据规则第 807 条，历史上允许一种关于传闻证据应被允许成为可被采纳的证据的论点，那就是即使传闻陈述不符合其他允许其成为可被采纳证据的例外情形，只要该陈述符合一定的可靠性保证，那么该传闻陈述应被允许成为可被采纳的证据。这一例外在传统上和主观意图上都很难被满足。旧的规则如下：（a）一般规定。在符合下列条件时，传闻陈述不被传闻规则排除而可作为证据，即使传闻陈述不具体包含于联邦证据规则第 803 条或第 804 条所规定的传闻例外情况：（一）该陈述具有同等的可信赖的间接保证；（二）它是作为为证明一个重要事实的证据而被提供；（三）在提供其作为证据所要证明的事项，它比证据提供人通过合理努力可以获得的任何其他证据更具证明力；以及（四）允许它成为可被采纳的证据最符合这些证据规则的目的和司法利益。（b）通知。只有在庭审或听证前，证据提供人向对方发出合理通知，说明其提出该陈述的意图及其详情，包括陈述人的姓名和地址，以便对方有公平的机会因应该陈述时，该陈述才可被作为可被采纳的证据使用。不过，最近对第 807 条的修正案于 2019 年 12 月 1 日生效。修正案的目的是扩大这一传闻例外，并允许比以往更多的传闻陈述成为证据。修正案有可能实质性地改变审判过程。新的规则如下： Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

（a）一般规定。在符合下列条件时，传闻陈述不被传闻规则排除而可作为证据，即使传闻陈述不具体包含于联邦证据规则第 803 条或第 804 条所规定的传闻例外情况：（一）在考虑了作出该陈述的整体情况以及证实该传闻的证据（如有）后，显示该陈述得到充分的可信保证的支持；且（二）在提供其作为证据所要证明的点上，它比证据提供人通过合理努力可以获得的任何其他证据更具证明力。（b）通知。证据提供人向对方发出合理通知，说明其提供陈述的意图（包括陈述的实质内容和声明人的姓名），以便对方有公平的机会因应该陈述时，该陈述才可被作为可被采纳的证据。该通知必须在审判或听证前以书面形式提供，或者在审判或听证期间，如经法院基于正当理由同意免除其提前通知的要求时，以任何形式通知。

新规则中的关键改变修订后的规则包括四项重大的修改： 1. 旧的规则的第 807 条允许传闻证据在只有当它被提出以证明一个“重要事实”的例外情况下成为可被采纳的证据。这一要求已从规则中删除。 2. 传闻陈述不必再被“同等的可信赖保证”所围绕。根据新的规则的第 807 条，在考虑了作出该陈述的整体情况以及证实该传闻的证据后，该传闻只需要得到充分的可信保证的支持。这具体表示对法院而言它是更容易适用的标准。 3. 旧的规则的第 807 条包括一项要求，即传闻证据成为可被采纳的证据将有助于证据规则的目的和司法利益。此语言已被删除。 4. 新的规则的第 807 条要求一方当事人向另一方当事人提供书面通知，说明在剩余例外情况下将此一项陈述作为可被采纳的证据的意图。通知必须描述陈述的实质内容。修正后的规则仍然要求，作为传闻提供的任何证据，在其提供所为证明的点上，必须比证据提供人通过合理努力可以获得的任何其他证据更具证明力。

考虑和结论为了质疑传闻陈述是否可成为可被采纳的证据，一方当事人必须寻求 104（a）条听证会，并要求法官决定证据的可被采纳性。需注意的是，联邦证据规则不适用于 104（a）听证会，且所有情况和佐证性证据，无论其是否在庭审中可被采纳，均可在评估拟采纳的传闻陈述的可信度时提交法官并由其考虑。除了以上列举的四个改变化之外，所有法院在进行可信度分析时，现在都必须考虑佐证性证据。一些巡回法院甚至在规则改变前就已经在评估佐证性证据，而其他一些巡回法院，例如美国第五巡回法院上诉法院，先前认为不能考虑间接证据。尽管咨询委员会关于这些修正案的附注指出，这些修改并不意味着扩大该规则下可被采纳的证据的范围，但新的文字无疑将有助于扩大成为可被采纳的传闻证据的范围。例如，尽管先前关于担保物或间接事项的陈述可能因不是关于“重大事实”的信息而不可被采纳，新的规则第 807 条的文字将允许任何相关的传闻证据被采纳，如果它被确定在当时的情况下是可信的，并且是证据提供人可以合理获得的最具证明力的证据。 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

因此，对于一名雇员“了解”的关于另一名雇员的事实的证词的可采纳性的反对意见通常得到了支持。一个人“了解 ”的事实通常不是基于第一手信息，而是基于第二、第三甚至第四手信息（即谣言和八卦）。根据新的规则，证人 “了解”到的事实现在可能有合法的机会被允许作为证据。目前很难预测法院将在多大程度上采用这一新的文字规定，但今后联邦法院可能会允许将相当更多的传闻作为可被采纳的证据。历史上，证据规则第 807 条只在例外情况下使用。这在新版本下可能会改变。因此，诉讼方应意识到更多传闻可能成为可被采纳的证据的可能性，并应作出相应的准备。

New CFIUS Regulations Finally Take Effect By Antonia I. Tzinova and Caroline D. Bisk

HIGHLIGHTS:  Regulations implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) took effect on Feb. 13, 2020.  The new rules build on FIRRMA and are intended to strengthen the oversight and expand the jurisdictional reach of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS).  Additional rules on fees, penalties and other procedural matters, as well as rolling back some of the requirements of the CFIUS Pilot Program on critical technologies, are expected in the near future. ___________________________________________________ After a few years of debating and making into law, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) regulations implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) took effect on Feb. 13, 2020. The new rules are intended to strengthen the oversight and expand the jurisdictional reach of CFIUS. CFIUS released on Jan. 13, 2020, two final sets of regulations to implement some of the more significant jurisdictional changes that FIRRMA mandated. Additional rules on fees, penalties, and other procedural matters, as well as rolling back some of the requirements of the CFIUS Pilot Program on critical technologies, are expected in the near future. CFIUS is an interagency committee chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury that is authorized to review certain foreign investment transactions in the United States that pose a threat to national security. Since its inception in 1975, CFIUS has confronted both shifting concepts of national security and a changing global economic order, marked by the rise of new emerging markets and state-led firms that are playing a more active role in the global economy. Established by President Gerald Ford to respond to fears that OPEC investments in the U.S. economy were threatening national security, CFIUS has subsequently tackled evolving concerns sparked by various global developments. These include Japanese investments in the 1980s that resulted in congressional passage of the Exon-Florio law, granting the president the power to block proposed or pending foreign mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threatened to impair national security; Arab investments in the wake of 9/11 that culminated in the political firestorm caused by Dubai Ports World's proposed takeover of the U.S. maritime terminal operations of P&O Ports resulting in the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA), which specifically called transactions involving critical infrastructure as subject to CFIUS jurisdiction and codified CFIUS practices; and recently Chinese investments on the background of geopolitical and technological ambitions – particularly in the areas of semiconductors and 5G technology – have resulted in FIRRMA and the new CFIUS regulations. With some changes to accommodate industry comments from more than 60 organizations, the new CFIUS regulations build on the Nov. 10, 2018, Pilot Program concerning critical technologies and the proposed rules of Sept. 17, 2019. The new rules include an interim rule on the new definition for "principal place of business," on which CFIUS is seeking public comments by Feb. 18, 2020.1 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

CFIUS also plans to issue additional rules to scale back some of the requirements introduced by the Pilot Program (reportedly moving away from North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to export controlled categories), and introducing filing fees.

MAJOR CHANGES UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS Before FIRRMA, CFIUS reviews were only triggered when an acquisition resulted in foreign "control" of a U.S. business that might pose a threat to U.S. national security. CFIUS termed these acquisitions "covered transactions." The concept of "national security" was purposefully not defined and interpreted broadly by CFIUS to allow maximum flexibility in determining the outcome of a transaction. FIRRMA expanded CFIUS jurisdiction in two key ways. First, FIRRMA permits CFIUS to review certain "other" investments – namely, non-controlling foreign investments in U.S. businesses involved in certain critical technologies, critical infrastructure, or the personal data of U.S. nationals (referred to as TID businesses for technology, infrastructure, and data). Covered non-controlling investments afford the foreign investor access to material nonpublic technical information or substantive involvement in the U.S. business's decision-making with respect to the technology, infrastructure, or data. Second, FIRRMA allows CFIUS to review certain real estate transactions, which would not otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of CFIUS, including undeveloped land, which were previously exempt from review as "greenfield" investments. Broadly, the proposed regulations define covered real estate as real estate that is: a) located within or functioning as part of a "covered port" (either airport or maritime port), b) located within close proximity of military installations and other government facilities, c) located within an extended range of certain military installations or d) any part of certain military installations located within the territorial sea of the United States. (See Holland & Knight's previous alert, "Foreign Ownership of Real Estate: New Rules from CFIUS," Oct. 16, 2019.) This article focuses on some of the most significant changes to CFIUS review of investment in a U.S. business, whether controlling or non-controlling investments (Part 800 of the CFIUS regulations). It also analyzes CFIUS' response to industry concerns with the proposed regulations, and how the rule was modified in the final regulations. 1. Non-Controlling Investments in a TID Business Under the new regulations, in addition to controlling investments, foreign non-controlling investments (or covered investments) are subject to CFIUS jurisdiction if 1) the acquired U.S. business qualifies as a TID business and 2) the minority foreign investment is allowed a) access to material nonpublic technical information, b) membership or observer rights on the board of directors or equivalent governing body or c) substantive involvement in the U.S. business' decision-making with respect to the technology, infrastructure, or data.2,3 

Technologies: Critical technologies are defined as 1) items on the United States Munitions List, 2) items on the Commerce Control List, 3) nuclear equipment controlled under 10 C.F.R. Part 110; 4) select agents and toxins covered under 7 C.F.R. Part 331, 9 C.F.R. Part 121, or 42 C.F.R. Part 73; or 5) "emerging and foundational technologies" controlled under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA).4



Infrastructure: Covered investment critical infrastructure is a new term introduced by CFIUS in drafting the new regulations. This is a subset of critical infrastructure5 specifically listed in Appendix A to new Part 800 that a U.S. business owns, operates, manufactures, supplies or services. Non-controlling investments in this category are now also subject to CFIUS jurisdiction. Examples include certain

internet protocol networks, telecommunication services, internet exchange points, submarine cable systems and landing facilities, financial market utilities, rail lines that service U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) installations, etc. 

Data: Businesses that engage with "sensitive personal data" are those that maintain or collect, directly or indirectly, the sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens,6 if identifiable, as opposed to aggregate, which 1) targets or tailors its products to sensitive U.S. government personnel or contractors; 2) maintains or collects data on more than 1 million individuals; or 3) has a demonstrated business interest in collecting data on more than 1 million individuals and that data is a part of the U.S. business's primary products or services. Sensitive data is defined to include 10 categories of data maintained or collected by U.S. businesses. These include data used to analyze or determine an individual's financial distress or hardship; the set of data in a consumer report; the set of data in an application for health insurance, long-term care insurance, professional liability insurance, mortgage insurance, or life insurance; data relating to the physical, mental, or psychological health condition of an individual; nonpublic electronic communication; geolocation data; biometric enrollment data; data stored and processed for generating a state or federal ID card; data concerning U.S. government personnel security clearance status; and the set of data in an application for a U.S. government personnel security clearance or an application for employment in a position of public trust. Genetic information is also included in the definition regardless of whether it meets 1), 2) or 3).7

Genetic Data and Biotechnology. The definition of sensitive personal data was left in FIRRMA to be developed by CFIUS. Under the final regulations, and in response to comments from industry participants, the final regulations recalibrate the provision on genetic testing in two ways: 1) by focusing the definition on genetic tests and 2) by limiting the coverage of the rule to identifiable data.8 CFIUS will be closely observing biotechnology and life sciences companies that operate in these sectors and identifying instances in which a foreign investment raises a national security concern. CFIUS will have expanded jurisdiction over U.S. businesses that collect or maintain records relating to a U.S. citizen's genetic information, such as a genetic test or individual or family history. This is the type of information that biotechnology or life sciences companies might collect and could lead to review. 2. Mandatory Filings Another significant change in the review regime is the introduction of mandatory filings for certain transactions. Historically, all filings made to CFIUS were submitted on a voluntary basis. However, FIRRMA introduces, and the new regulations implement, the concept of mandatory filings. Despite this, the process remain mostly based on voluntary filings, with a relatively small number of transactions requiring a mandatory filing, namely, 1) a substantial foreign government investment in a TID U.S. business, or 2) controlling or non-controlling investments in critical technologies within the scope of the CFIUS Pilot Program on critical technologies. 

A substantial foreign government investment in a TID business. Under the new regulations, there is a substantial interest if a foreign person obtains 25 percent or more voting interest in the TID business, and a foreign government owns 49 percent or more of the foreign person.9,10



CFIUS Pilot Program on critical technologies of Nov. 10, 2018. Controlling or non-controlling investments in U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate or develop one or more critical technologies in one of 27 identified industries – including aviation, defense, semiconductors, telecommunications and biotechnology – are subject to a mandatory filing with CFIUS. The final regulations, for now, will continue to use the same NAICS codes. However, CFIUS announced that it will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, perhaps moving away from an industry-based approach for these filing requirements in favor of "export control licensing requirements." In the meantime, mandatory declarations must be filed 45 days before the close of a transaction.

For either mandatory or voluntary filings, FIRRMA has developed an abbreviated filing process through a declaration, allowing parties to submit basic information to CFIUS.11 These provisions are expanded in the new, final regulations.12 The declarations should generally not exceed five pages in length, and it is likely that a form will be ultimately designed to increase the ease and usefulness of the process. Although declarations are intended to streamline the process by moving less complex transactions through the CFIUS review process with less administrative burden on the filing companies, filing a declaration may actually increase the processing time: CFIUS has 30 days to render a decision on a mandatory declaration, but may at that time require a full notice, adding a full review cycle to reach a decision, thereby delaying the overall timing of a mergers and acquisition (M&A) transaction. This may act as a deterrent to the use of this mechanism. 3. Excepted Foreign States and Excepted Investors FIRRMA issued a high-level directive13 to limit the application of CFIUS to particular groups of investors, thereby reining in the expanded jurisdiction but leaving CFIUS to develop these limitations. CFIUS published the list of the initial excepted states at the time it published the final regulations on Jan. 13, 2020. It includes Australia, Canada, and the UK. However, the new rules introduce a number of requirements before an investor from an excepted sate would qualify as an "excepted investor."14 To qualify, a foreign person must have a substantial connection to an excepted foreign state and additionally not have violated certain U.S. laws, including not having submitted material misstatement to CFIUS, violated material provision of a mitigation agreement, been subject to a presidential action under section 721, violated export control laws, or been convicted of a felony in U.S. The rule proposes that the excepted foreign state15 definition operate as a two-factor conjunctive test. First, the state must be included in a defined group of eligible foreign states, which is separately published, effectively establishing a "white list." The countries on this initial list will have two years to ensure that their national security-based foreign investment review process and bilateral cooperation with the U.S. on such a process meet the requirements of the new regulations.16 This requires the establishment of a robust process to assess foreign investments for national security risk and to facilitate coordination with the United States. Beginning Feb. 13, 2022, CFIUS may add other countries to the initial list published on Jan. 13, 2020.17 In addition, the foreign investor must ensure that the "minimum excepted ownership"18 – at least 50 percent of a publicly traded company or at least 80 percent of a privately held fund or entity – is held by U.S. persons or citizens of the excepted foreign state who are not also citizens of other countries. In addition, the investor must satisfy several specific tests – including having all of its directors, observers, and 10 percent or greater owners be from an excepted foreign state19 – before it can qualify for excepted status. It is expected that there will considerable lobbying activity both by industry groups and states regarding the white list of excepted foreign states, vying for excepted foreign state privileges. 4. Private Equity Funds Certain exceptions apply to investment by private equity funds in a TID business. Under FIRRMA, U.S. private equity funds with foreign limited partners will not be considered foreign – and thus within the reach of CFIUS – if four conditions are met.20 First, a fund with a foreign limited partner must be managed exclusively by a general partner (or equivalent) who is not a foreign person. Second, the firm's advisory board on which the foreign person sits may not have the ability to control in any way the investment decisions of the firm. Third, the foreign person may not have the ability to control the fund, including through investment decisions, ability to approve or disapprove decisions made by the managing partner, or unilaterally determine the compensation of the general partner. Finally, the foreign person may not have access to material, nonpublic technical information.

As a corollary to this exception, if a decision by a board requires a unanimous vote by the limited partners, CFIUS may find that the foreign limited partner control the investing fund or general partner. Similarly, if the foreign limited partner has been granted negative rights, CFIUS may find sufficient control by the foreign person to justify a review, regardless of whether the rights are exercised. This treatment of private equity funds is in line with CFIUS' well-established practices and prior regulations. 5. Penalties FIRRMA directs CFIUS to impose certain fees on parties who violate the CFIUS review process. Any person who submits a material misstatement or omission in a declaration or notice, or who makes certain other false statements, may be liable for a civil penalty of up to $250,000 per violation.21 Any person who fails to comply with the mandatory filing procedures may be liable for a civil penalty of up to $250,000 or the value of the transaction, whichever is greater.22 Furthermore, any person who, after Dec. 22, 2018, intentionally or through gross negligence violates a material provision of a mitigation agreement entered into before Oct. 11, 2018, will also be liable for a civil penalty of up to $250,000 or the value of the transaction.23 Further guidance on penalties is expected in new rules by CFIUS. 6. Procedural Changes and Filing Fees FIRRMA imposes a number of procedural changes to the CFIUS process. FIRRMA maintains core components of the current CFIUS three-step process for evaluating proposed or pending investments in U.S. firms, but increases the allowable time for reviews and investigations: 1) a 30-day declaration filing; 2) a 45-day national security review (from 30 days), including an expanded time limit for analysis by the Director of National Intelligence (from 20 to 30 days)24; 3) a 45-day national security investigation, with an option for a 15-day extension in extraordinary circumstances25; and 4) a 15-day presidential determination (unchanged).26 Beyond new timing requirements and decision timelines, FIRRMA introduces a filing fee of 1 percent of the transaction, not to exceed $300,000.27 Thus, the funding for CFIUS will be sourced from a $20 million annual appropriation, the filing fees, and through penalties. This funding will be critical as CFIUS estimates that under the new regime they will receive approximately 1,000 filings per year for review. New CFIUS regulations on filing fees are expected soon.

COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES As already noted, more than 60 companies and organizations submitted comments with regard to the proposed CFIUS regulations that took effect on Feb. 13, 2020. In summary, below are some of the more significant concerns of industry: a) Definition of U.S. Business No fewer than 10 organizations commented on the proposed definition of a U.S. business. In the original language, a U.S. business was defined as: "any entity, irrespective of the nationality of the persons that control it, engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, but only to the extent of its activities in interstate commerce." Under FIRRMA, the final clause is eliminated. It was commenters' position that the traditional jurisdiction should be maintained, as it would be counterproductive to remove that language from the definition. Businesses with no assets in the United States should not be considered U.S. businesses. Commenters also requested clarification with regard to whether an ownership interest in a U.S. business that invests in another U.S. business results in a covered transaction. CFIUS suggested "any entity, irrespective of nationality of the persons that control it, engaged in interstate commerce in the United States." Parties have until Feb. 18, 2020, to comment on this proposed definition. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

b) Narrow the Scope of Sensitive Personal Data Many organizations also commented on the scope of sensitive personal data. Biotechnology companies noted that they have access to genetic information and suggested that they be removed from the list of industries covered by the mandatory declaration requirement. Other companies requested that sensitive personal data be tailored to actual national security risks, positing that the current formulation is overbroad. In the final regulations, CFIUS declined to raise the threshold from 1 million individuals, but narrowed the definition of "genetic tests" and limited the coverage of the rule to identifiable data. c) Foreign Excepted States It was the position of a number of companies that "foreign excepted states" should be broadly designated, and that the definition should be clarified. Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, Japan, and Switzerland all requested excepted state status. Others commented that foreign excepted states should be tied to existing government lists (including all U.S. economic and military allies). There have been calls to clarify the "minimum excepted ownership" process, and suggestions that the rate be lowered from 90 percent to 75 percent. In the final regulations, CFIUS did lower the rate of minimum excepted ownership to 75 percent. Additionally, it named Australia, Canada, and the U.K. to an initial list of foreign excepted states. Commenters were outraged that directors, observers, and 5 percent or greater owners of a company must be from an excepted foreign state before it can qualify for excepted status. They termed 5 percent "arbitrarily" and "unnecessarily low." They suggested either eliminating the requirement entirely, or raising the cap to at least 20 percent. In response, CFIUS revised the board member nationality criterion to allow up to 25 percent representation by foreign nationals of foreign states that are not excepted foreign states. In addition, it revised the percentage ownership limit for an individual investor in an excepted state from 5 percent to 10 percent. d) Excepted Foreign Investor Several companies submitted comments regarding excepted foreign investors, many indicating that the definition was too limited. Some requested clarification regarding which crimes would strip an entity of excepted foreign investor status, and whether an excepted foreign investor could be a dual-citizen. Some noted that the test for serving as an excepted investor is extremely difficult to satisfy even for well-respected investors from U.S. allied countries. Others promoted expanding the benefits awarded to excepted foreign investors, and implementing a more inclusive definition that should be based on certain criteria and not just on an excepted state. Finally, some proposed that CFIUS allow "excepted trusted investors" who are not from excepted foreign states be afforded the same excepted status. CFIUS made no changes to this rule in this regard. e) Veto Rights v. Voting Rights A number of companies sought to reaffirm the distinction between veto rights and voting rights, and sought a clarification of "voting interests" and the scope of "limited partner voting interest." They posited that voting interest should not include consent, veto, or other special rights, and should only include voting rights with regard to operations of the business. CFIUS made no change to this rule in response to comments. f) Mandatory v. Voluntary Filing Many organizations submitted comments regarding mandatory versus voluntary declarations. Most noted that the roles of the declarations should be narrowed and clarified, emphasizing that parties should be incentivized to file voluntary declarations, and that those declarations should be fast-tracked. They requested a carve-out from any mandatory filing requirements investments in early-stage research and development biotechnology Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

companies. They expressed concern regarding the fact that CFIUS can still request a full notice after the 30-day review period and that this would inadvertently increase filing time. They further requested that the scope of the mandatory filing requirements for critical technology businesses be narrowed. Finally, they requested a clarification of the "substantial interest" requirement. CFIUS noted in its guidance to the final published regulations that the rule integrates the mandatory declaration requirement from the Pilot Program. However, CFIUS anticipates issuing a separate notice of proposed rulemaking that would replace this requirement with a mandatory declaration requirement based upon export control licensing requirements. Additionally, in response to public comments, the rule exempts certain transactions from the critical technology mandatory declaration requirement. These exemptions relate to excepted investors, among others. According to the guidance, CFIUS anticipates that these exemptions will continue to apply even if the scope of the mandatory declaration requirement is modified. g) Other Comments 

Waivers: Certain organizations commented that there should be a waiver system in place from mandatory filing requirements. They suggested CFIUS create a waiver process through which a foreign person may petition to be exempted from mandatory filing requirements for a specified period, such as five years. They point out that FIRRMA creates a mechanism for this, but it does not appear in the regulations. The rule makes no change in response to these comments.



"Material nonpublic information": Several commenters wrote that "access" to material nonpublic information should be limited to actual access, not potential access. The rule makes no change in response to these comments.

CONCLUSION FIRRMA and the much-awaited final regulations make a variety of sweeping changes to the CFIUS process that promise to bring more transactions under the scope of CFIUS review. These changes were implemented in response to increased national security concerns that were broadly shared by members of Congress. Although CFIUS will now be subjecting certain non-controlling investments to more scrutiny, the rules were carefully tailored so as not to stymie welcome foreign direct investment in the United States.

Notes 1

Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the federal government's eRulemaking portal or by mailing comments to: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Attention: Laura Black, Director of Investment Security Policy and International Relations, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20220. 2

New 31 C.F.R. §800.211.

FIRRMA §1703(a)(4)(D)(i)(I)-(III); 31 CFR §800.211(b).

FIRRMA §1703(a)(4)(B)(iii); new 31 C.F.R. §800.215.

Critical infrastructure is generally defined as systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems or assets would have a debilitating impact on national security. FIRRMA §1703(a)(5); 31 CFR §800.214. This definition closely tracks the definition of "critical infrastructure" under FINSA and prior CFIUS regulations. 6

FIRRMA §1703(a)(4)(B)(iii)(III); 31 CFR §800.248(c).

31 CFR ยง800.241.

31 C.F.R. 241(a).

FIRRMA ยง1705(v)(IV)(bb)(AA).

31 CFR ยง800.244.

FIRRMA ยง1706(v)(1).

31 CFR ยง800.401.

FIRRMA ยง1703(a)(4)(E).

31 CFR ยง800.219.

31 CFR ยง800.218.

31 C.F.R. 800.218; 31 C.F.R. 802.1001

See Frequently Asked Questions on Final CFIUS Regulations Implementing FIRRMA, Jan. 13, 2020

31 CFR ยง800.233,

19 C.F.R. 800.219(a)(3)(iv).

FIRRMA ยง1703(a)(4)(D)(iv)(I).

31 C.F.R. 800.901(a).

31 C.F.R. 800.901(b).

31 C.F.R. 800.901(c).

31 C.F.R. 800.503(b).

31 C.F.R. 800.508(e).

FIRRMA ยง1714.

FIRRMA ยง1723(3)

新的 CFIUS 规则终于生效了原文作者： Antonia I. Tzinova 及 Caroline D. Bisk

重点摘要  《2018 年外国投资风险审查更新法案》（FIRRMA）的施行规则于 2020 年 2 月 13 日生效。  新的规则建立在《2018 年外国投资风险审查更新法案》的基础上，旨在加强美国外国投资委员会 CFIUS）的监督权限及扩大其管辖范围。

（

 有关收费、处罚和其他程序性事项的额外规则、以及取消 CFIUS 关键科技试点项目的一些要求预计将在不久的将来出台。 ___________________________________________________ 经过几年的议会辩论和立法，美国外国投资委员会（CFIUS）实施《2018 年外国投资风险审查更新法案》（FIRRMA）的施行规则于 2020 年 2 月 13 日生效。新的规则旨在加强 CFIUS 的监管权限及扩大 CFIUS 的管辖范围。 CFIUS 于 2020 年 1 月 13 日发布了两套最终规则，以实施 FIRRMA 要求的一些更重要的管辖权变更。有关费用、处罚和其他程序性事项的额外规则、及 CFIUS 关键技术试点项目的部分要求，预计将在不久的将来出台。 CFIUS 是一个由财政部长主持的跨部门委员会，被赋予权限审查对国家安全会构成威胁的某些外国对美国的投资交易。自 1975 年成立以来，CFIUS 一直面临着国家安全观念的转变和全球经济秩序的变化，而新兴市场的崛起和在全球经济中发挥更积极作用的国家引导企业的产生又是这些转变及变化的表征。 CFIUS 由美国总统福特（Gerald Ford）设立，是为了应对石油输出国组织（OPEC）对美国经济的投资造成国家安全威胁的担忧，CFIUS 随后处理了引发不断变化的顾虑的各种全球情势发展。其中包括导致国会通过了授权总统阻止可能损害国家安全的拟议或正在进行的外国合并、收购或接收的《埃克森-弗洛里奥法案》的日本在 1980 年代的投资、最终引发了政治风暴迪拜港口世界公司（Dubai Ports World）提议接收 P&O 港口公司在美国的海运码头业务，从而产生了 2007 年将涉及关键基础设施的交易规定为受 CFIUS 管辖的交易及将 CFIUS 处理作法成文立规定的《外国投资和国家安全法案》（FINSA）的阿拉伯在 9/11 事件后的投资、以及促成 FIRRMA 和新的 CFIUS 规则制定的最近的中国在地缘政治和技术企图的背景之下的投资—特别是在半导体和 5G 技术领域的投资。包括了为回应 60 多家机构所提出的行业意见所作出某些调整，新的 CFIUS 法规建立在 2018 年 11 月 10 日所公布的 CFIUS 关键科技试点项目和 2019 年 9 月 17 日公布的拟议规则之上。新的规则包括一项关于"主要营业地" 的新的定义的暂行规定，而 CFIUS 将在 2020 年 2 月 18 日前征求公众意见。1 CFIUS 还计划发布额外的规则，以缩减试点项目引入的一些要求（据报道，从北美工业分类系统（NAICS）代码改为出口管制类别），并引入申请费。

新规则下的重大变化 FIRRMA 颁布之前，只有当一项收购导致外国"控制"一家可能对美国国家安全构成威胁的美国企业时，才会触发 CFIUS 的审查。CFIUS 称这些收购是"受 CFIUS 管辖的交易"。"国家安全"的概念刻意不加定义而由 CFIUS 作出宽泛的界定和解释，以在其决定交易结果时发挥最大的灵活性。 FIRRMA 在两个关键方面扩大了 CFIUS 的管辖权。首先，FIRRMA 允许 CFIUS 审查某些"其他"投资，即外国对涉及某些关键技术、关键基础设施或美国国民个人数据的美国企业的非控制性投资（在技术、基础设施和数据方面称为 TID 事业）。受 CFIUS 管辖的非控制性投资使外国投资者能够获得重大的非公开技术信息、或实质地参与美国企业在技术、基础设施或数据方面的决策。第二，FIRRMA 允许 CFIUS 审查某些不属于 CFIUS 管辖范围的房地产交易，包括以前作为"新设"投资而免受审查的对未开发土地的投资。概括地说，拟议的规则将受 CFIUS 管辖的房地产定义为： a) 位于"覆盖港口"（机场或海运港口）的一部分之内或作为其功能; b) 位于军事设施和其他政府设施的附近; c）位于某军事设施的扩展范围内; 或 d）位于美国领海内的某些军事设施的任何部分的房地产。（请见 Holland & Knight 先前的提示文章，" 外国人拥有房地产：CFIUS 的新规定"，2019 年 10 月 16 日）本文主要关注 CFIUS 对美国企业的投资的审查的一些最重大变化，无论是控制性投资还是非控制性投资（ CFIUS 规则第 800 部分）。此外，本文还分析了 CFIUS 对业界关注的拟议规则的回应，以及在最终规则中的规定是如何修改的。一、TID 事业中的非控制性投资根据新规定，除了控制性投资外，外国非控制性投资（或称为受管辖的投资）在下列情况下受到 CFIUS 的管辖：1）被收购的美国企业符合 TID 事业的情况；且 2）少数外国投资被允许： a）接触到重要的非公开技术信息、b）取得董事会或同等管理机构的成员或观察员权利、或 c）实质地参与美国企业在技术、基础设施或数据方面的决策。2、 3 

技术：关键科技被定义为：1）在美国弹药清单上的项目、2）商务部控管清单上的项目、3）在 10 C.F.R.第 110 部分控管下的核设备、4）7 C.F.R.第 331, 9 部分 C.F.R.部分 121 或 42 C.F.R.第 73 部分所包括的特定物质和毒素；或 5）2018 出口管制改革法案"（ECRA）所控管的"新兴和重大技术"。4



基础设施：受管辖的投资的关键性基础设施是 CFIUS 在起草新法规时引入的一个新术语。这是美国企业拥有、运营、制造、供应或服务的新第 800 部分附录 a 中特别列出的关键基础设施的分类。这类非控制性投资现在也受外国投资委员会管辖。例如某些互联网协议网络、电信服务、互联网交换点、海底电缆系统和着陆设施、金融市场公用事业、为美国国防部（DOD）设施提供服务的铁路线等。5



数据：涉及"敏感个人数据"的企业是指直接或间接保存或收集可作为识别身份 6 的美国公民敏感个人数据的企业，且满足以下情况者：1）其产品目标对象为敏感的美国政府人员或承包商或为其所特制者；2）保存或收集超过 100 万个人的数据；或 3）展现出收集超过 100 万个人的数据方面的商业兴趣，并且该数据是美国企业主要产品或服务的一部分。敏感数据的定义包括美国企业保存或收集的 10 类数据。这些数据包括用于分析或确定个人财务困境或困难的数据、消费者报告中的数据、健康保险、长期护理保险、职业责任保险、抵押保险或人寿保险申请中的数据、与身体、精神或个人心理健康状况有关的数据、非公开电子通信、地理位置数据、生物特征注册数据、为生成州或联邦身份证而存储和处理的数据、有关美国政府人员安全许可状态的数据、以及美国政府人员安全许可申请或公众所信赖的职位的就业申请中的数据。基因信息也包括在定义中，无论它是否满足 1），2）或 3）。7

遗传数据和生物技术。敏感个人数据的定义根据 FIRRMA 的规定留给 CFIUS 来制定。根据最终的规则，并因应行业参与者的意见，最终规则以两种方式重新调整了关于基因测试的规定：1）将定义集中在基因测试上；及 2 ）将规则的范围限制在可识别的数据上。8 CFIUS 将密切关注在这些领域开展业务的生物技术和生命科学公司，并确认外国投资引起国家安全顾虑的情况。CFIUS 将扩大对收集或保存与美国公民遗传信息有关的记录（如基因测试或个人或家庭病史）的美国企业的管辖范围。这是生物技术或生命科学公司可能收集并导致审查的信息类型。二、强制性申报审查制度的另一个重大变化是引进对某些交易实行强制性申报规定。过去，所有提交给 CFIUS 的文件都是在自愿的基础上提交的。然而，FIRRMA 引入并实施了强制备案的概念的新的规定。尽管如此，这一过程仍主要基于自愿申报，而需要强制申报的交易相对较少，即 1）外国政府对 TID 美国事业的重大投资、或 2）在 CFIUS 关键科术试点项目范围内，对关键科技进行控制性或非控制性的投资。 

外国政府对第 TID 事业的重大投资。根据新的规定，如果外国人士获得 TID 事业 25%或以上的投票权、且外国政府拥有该外国人士 49%或以上的股份，则存在重大利益。9、 10



2018 年 11 月 10 日公布的 CFIUS 关键科技试点项目。对美国企业的控制性或非控制性投资，而这些企业在 27 个确定的行业中生产、设计、测试、制造、制造或开发一项或多项关键技术，包括航空、国防、半导体，电信和生物技术—必须向 CFIUS 提交强制性申报。目前，最终规则将继续使用相同的 NAICS 代码。然而，CFIUS 宣布它将发布一份拟议规则制定的通知，对这些申请可能会改变以行业为基础的方法转而采用"出口管制许可要求"。同时，强制性声明必须在交易交割前 45 天提交。

对于强制性或自愿性申报，FIRRMA 制定了一个透过提交声明的简化的申报程序，允许各方向 CFIUS 提交基本信息。11 这些规定在新的最终规则中作了扩充。12 声明的长度一般不应超过五页，而且很可能最终会设计一个表单，以增加流程的易用性和有用性。尽管声明旨在通过 CFIUS 审查流程简化流程，减轻申报公司的行政负担，但提出声明实际上可能会增加处理时间：CFIUS 有 30 天的时间对强制性声明作出决定，但届时可能需要全面通知，增加一个完整的审查周期，以达成一个决定，从而推迟了并购交易的整体时间。这可能会对使用这种机制的使用起到遏制作用。三、例外外国和例外投资者 FIRRMA 发布了一项高级指令 13，以限制 CFIUS 对特定投资者群体的适用，从而控制了扩大的管辖范围，但让 CFIUS 制定这些限制。CFIUS 在 2020 年 1 月 13 日公布最终规则时公布了最初的例外国家名单。它包括澳大利亚、加拿大和英国。然而，新规则在例外国家的投资者有资格成为"例外投资者"之前提出了一些要求。14 要获得资格，外国人必须与例外外国有实质性联系，并且没有违反某些美国法律，包括没有向 CFIUS 提交重大错报、没有违反了缓解协议的重要条款、没有根据第 721 条受到总统的起诉、没有违反了出口管制法律、或没有在美国被判重罪。该规则建议，例外外国定义作为一个双因素连接测试。15 首先，该国必须被纳入一个确定的合格外国国家组，并单独公布，有效地建立了一个"白名单"。在这一初步名单上的国家将有两年时间确保其基于国家安全的外国投资审查程序和与美国在这一程序上的双边合作符合要求新法规的要求。16 这需要建立一个强有力的程序，评估外国投资对国家安全的风险，并促进与美国的协调。从 2022 年 2 月 13 日开始，CFIUS 可能会在 2020 年 1 月 13 日公布的初步名单中增加其他国家。17

此外，外国投资者必须确保"最低例外所有权" 18—即至少 50%的上市公司或至少 80%的私人基金或实体—由同样不是其他国家公民的美国人士或例外外国公民持有。此外，投资者必须满足几个特定的测试，包括让其所有董事、观察员和 10%或以上的所有者来自一个例外的外国，19 才有资格获得例外地位。预计无论是行业组织还是各国，都将在例外外国白名单方面开展大量游说活动，争取例外外国特权。四、私募股权基金某些例外情况适用于私募股权基金对 TID 事业的投资。根据 FIRRMA，如果满足四个条件，具有外国有限合伙人的美国私人股权基金将不被视为外国基金而不受 CFIUS 的管辖。20 首先，拥有外国有限合伙人的基金必须由非外国人士的普通合伙人（或同等性质合伙人）独家管理。其次，外国人士所在的公司顾问委员会不得具有以任何方式控制公司的投资决策的能力。第三，外国人士不得具有控制基金的能力，包括通过投资决定、批准或不批准管理合伙人作出的决定的能力，或单方面决定普通合伙人的报酬。最后，外国人士不得获得实质或非公开的技术信息。作为这一例外的必然结果，如果董事会的决定需要有限合伙人的一致投票，CFIUS 可能会认为外国有限合伙人控制着投资基金或普通合伙人。同样，如果外国有限合伙人被授予否定权利，CFIUS 可能会认为外国人士拥有足够的控制权（无论是否行使了这些权利），以作为对其进行审查的理由。对私募股权基金的这种处理方式符合 CFIUS 的既定做法和先前的规定。五、处罚 FIRRMA 指示 CFIUS 对违反 CFIUS 审查程序的当事人征收某些费用。任何人如在声明或通知中提出重大错报或遗漏，或作出某些其他虚假陈述，可对每项违规行为处以最高 25 万美元的民事罚款。21 任何人如不遵守强制性提交程序，可被处以最高 25 万美元或相等于交易金额的民事罚款（取其较高者）。22 此外，任何人在 2018 年 12 月 22 日之后故意或因重大过失违反了 2018 年 10 月 11 日之前签订的缓解协议的重要条款，也将承担高达 25 万美元或相等于交易金额的民事罚款。23 CFIUS 的新规则中预计会有关于处罚的进一步指导。六、程序变更及备案费 FIRRMA 对 CFIUS 的程序进行了许多修改。FIRRMA 保留了当前 CFIUS 评估美国公司拟议或待决投资的三步流程的核心部分，但增加了审查和调查的允许时间：1）30 天的申报文件；2）45 天的国家安全审查（从 30 天开始），包括扩大了国家情报主任的分析时限（从 20 天延长到 30 天）24；3）45 天的国家安全调查，并在特殊情况下可选择延长 15 天；25 及 4）15 天的总统决定（不变）。26 除了新的时间要求和决策时间表，FIRRMA 引入了以交易金额 1%计算但最高不超过 30 万美元的申请费。27 因此，CFIUS 的资金将来自 2000 万美元的年度拨款、申请费和罚款。这笔资金将是至关重要的，因为 CFIUS 估计，在新的制度下，他们每年将收到大约 1000 份文件供审查。CFIUS 对申请费的新规定有望很快出台。

相关方意见如前所述，超过 60 家公司和组织提交了关于 CFIUS 于 2020 年 2 月 13 日生效的拟议规则的意见。总的来说，以下是产业界较为关注的一些问题：

a）美国企业的定义至少有 10 个组织对美国企业的拟议定义发表了评论。在最初的语言中，美国企业的定义是："在美国从事州际贸易的任何实体，无论其控制者的国籍为何，但仅限于其在州际贸易中的活动范围"。根据 FIRRMA，最后的条款文字被删除。评论者的立场是，应维持传统的管辖权，因为从定义中删除这一措辞将适得其反。在美国没有资产的企业不应被视为美国企业。评论人士还要求澄清，拥有投资于另一家美国企业的美国企业的所有权权益是否会导致受 CFIUS 审查的交易。CFIUS 建议"在美国从事州际贸易的任何实体，无论其控制者的国籍如何。"缔约方必须在 2020 年 2 月 18 日之前对这一拟议定义发表意见。 b）缩小敏感个人数据的范围许多组织也对敏感个人数据的范围发表了评论。生物技术公司指出，它们可以获得遗传信息，并建议将其从强制性声明要求所涵盖的行业清单中删除。其他公司要求根据实际的国家安全风险调整敏感的个人数据，他们的立场是目前的表述过于宽泛。在最后的法规中，CFIUS 拒绝将这一门槛从 100 万人提高，但缩小了"基因测试"的定义，并将规则的覆盖范围限制在可识别的数据上。 c）外国例外国一些公司的立场是，应广泛指定"外国例外国家"，并应澄清这一定义。加拿大、英国、新加坡、澳大利亚、日本和瑞士都要求获得例外状态。其他人则评论说，外国例外的国家应该与现有的政府名单（包括美国所有的经济和军事同盟）联系在一起。有人呼吁澄清"最低例外所有权"程序，并建议将比率从 90%降至 75%。在最后的法规中，CFIUS 确实将最低除外所有权比率降低到了 75%。此外，它还将澳大利亚、加拿大和英国列为最初的外国例外国家名单。评论人士愤怒地说，一家公司的董事、观察员和 5%或以上的所有者必须来自一个例外的外国，才有资格获得例外地位。他们称 5%为"任意"和"不必要的低"。他们建议要么完全取消这一要求，要么将上限提高到至少 20%。作为回应，CFIUS 修订了董事会成员的国籍标准，允许外国国民在不排除外国的情况下最多有 25%的代表。此外，它还将例外国的个人投资者持股比例限制从 5%修改为 10%。 d）例外外国投资者一些公司提交了关于例外外国投资者的评论，许多公司表示，这一定义过于有限。一些人要求澄清哪些犯罪行为会剥夺一个实体的例外外国投资者地位，以及一个例外外国投资者是否可以是双重公民。一些人指出，即使是来自美国同盟国的受人尊敬的投资者，也很难满足作为例外投资者的考验。其他人则推动扩大给予例外外国投资者的利益，并执行一个更具包容性的定义，该定义应以某些标准为基础，而不仅仅是以例外国家为基础。最后，一些人建议，CFIUS 允许"例外的可信投资者"不来自例外的外国，获得同样的例外地位。在这方面，CFIUS 没有对这一规则作出任何修改。 e）否决权与表决权一些公司试图再确认否决权和表决权之间的区别，并要求澄清"表决权"和"有限合伙人表决权"的范围。它们认为表决权不应包括同意权、否决权或其他特别权利，只应包括与企业经营有关的投票权。CFIUS 在回应评论时没有对这一规则做出任何修改。

f）强制 v.自愿申请许多组织提交了关于强制性声明与自愿声明的评论。大多数代表指出，应缩小和澄清声明的作用，强调应鼓励缔约方提交自愿声明，并应迅速跟踪这些声明。他们要求从任何强制性申报要求中划出对早期研发生物技术公司的投资。他们对 CFIUS 在 30 天的审查期之后仍然可以要求全面通知，这会无意中增加提交时间表示关切。他们还要求缩小关键技术业务的强制性备案要求的范围。最后，他们要求澄清"重大利益"要求。 CFIUS 在其最终公布的法规指南中指出，该规则整合了试点项目的强制性声明要求。然而，CFIUS 预计将发布一份单独的拟议规则制定通知，以根据出口管制许可要求，用强制性声明要求取代这一要求。此外，为了回应公众的意见，该规则免除了某些交易的关键技术强制性声明要求。这些豁免涉及例外投资者等。根据指导意见， CFIUS 预计，即使强制性声明要求的范围被修改，这些豁免仍将继续适用。 g）其他意见 

弃权：某些组织评论说，应该有一个从强制性备案要求的弃权制度。他们建议，CFIUS 建立一个豁免程序，通过该程序，外国人士可以申请在特定期限（如五年）内免除强制性备案要求。他们指出， FIRRMA 为此建立了一种机制，但并未出现在法规中。这条规则对这些评论没有任何改变。



"重大非公开信息"：一些评论人士写道，对重大非公开信息的"访问"应限于实际接触，而不是潜在接触。这条规则对这些评论没有任何改变。

结论 FIRRMA 和人们期待已久的最终规则对 CFIUS 程序进行了各种全面的修改，承诺将更多交易纳入 CFIUS 审查范围。这些改变是为了回应国会议员广泛认同的国家安全问题。尽管 CFIUS 现在将对某些非控制性投资进行更严格的审查，但这些规定是细心制定的，以免妨碍外国直接投资美国。

附注 1 感兴趣的人士可以通过联邦政府的

eRulemaking 门户网站以电子方式提交意见，或将意见邮寄至：美国财政部，收件人：Laura Black ，投资安全政策和国际关系总监，地址：华盛顿特区宾夕法尼亚大道西北 1500 号，邮编：20220。 2 新的美国联邦法规第

31 章第 800.211 条。

FIRRMA 第 1703（a）（4）（D）（i）（i）-（III）条；31 美国联邦法规第 800.211（b）条。

FIRRMA 第 1703（a）（4）（B）（iii）条；新的美国联邦法规第 31 章第 800.215 条。

5 关键基础设施通常被定义为对美国至关重要的系统和资产，无论是物理的还是虚拟的，如果这些系统或资产丧失能力或遭到破坏，将对

国家安全产生削弱性影响。FIRRMA 第 1703（a）（5）条；31 美国联邦法规第 800.214 条。这一定义密切跟踪了美国投资及国家安全法案（FINSA）和美国外国投资委员会（CFIUS）先前法规中"关键基础设施"的定义。 6

FIRRMA 第 1703（a）（4）（B）（iii）（iii）条；31 美国联邦法规第 800.248（c）条。

31 美国联邦法规第 31 卷第 800.241 条。

8 美国联邦法规第 9

31 卷第 241（a）条。

FIRRMA 第 1705（v）（IV）（bb）（AA）条。

31 美国联邦法规第 31 卷第 800.244 条。

11 FIRRMA 12

第 1706（v）（1）条。

31 美国联邦法规第 31 卷第 800.401 条。

13 FIRRMA

第 1703（a）（4）（E）条。

31 美国联邦法规第 31 卷第 800.219 条。

31 美国联邦法规第 31 卷第 800.218 条。

31 美国联邦法规第 31 卷第 800.218 条；31 C.F.R.802.1001

17 参见《外国投资委员会实施外国投资风险管理条例（FIRRMA）的最终条例》常见问题解答，2020 18

年 1 月 13 日

31 美国联邦法规第 31 卷第 800.233 条，

19 美国联邦法规第

19 卷第 800.219（a）（3）（iv）条。

20《外国投资风险审查更新法案》第

1703（a）（4）（D）（iv）（I）条。

21 美国联邦法规第

31 卷第 800.901（a）条。

22 美国联邦法规第

31 卷第 800.901（b）条。

23 美国联邦法规第

31 卷第 800.901（C）条。

24 美国联邦法规第

31 卷第 800.503（b）条。

25 美国联邦法规第

31 卷第 800.508（e）条。

FIRRMA 第 1714 条。

FIRRMA 第 1723（3）条

About This Newsletter 有关本期刊 Information contained in this newsletter is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel. Holland & Knight lawyers are available to make presentations on a wide variety of China-related issues. 本期刊所刊载的信息仅供我们的读者为一般教育及学习目的使用。本期刊并不是为作为解决某一法律问题的唯一信息来源的目的所设计，也不应被如此使用。此外，每一法律管辖区域的法律各有不同且随时在改变。如您有关于某一特别事实情况的具体法律问题，我们建议您向合适的律师咨询。美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的律师能够对许多与中国相关的问题提出他们的看法及建议。

About the Authors 关于本期作者 Linda Auerbach Allderdice is a litigation partner in the firm's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices and heads the firm's Labor, Employment and Benefits Practice Group in California. She is well versed in handling complex litigation in all aspects of labor and employment law, including wage and hour class action and Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) litigation, discrimination, harassment and whistleblower claims, as well as trade secret litigation. She advises clients on compliance with state and federal labor and employment laws, handles labor and employment due diligence as part of merger and acquisition (M&A) deal teams, conducts internal investigations concerning workplace compliance issues and harassment complaints, and represents companies in matters involving labor relations for management. Caroline D. Bisk is a Washington, D.C. attorney and a member of Holland & Knight's International Trade Group. Her practice includes a wide variety of international trade regulatory and transactional matters. Ms. Bisk has experience counseling domestic and foreign companies on issues relating to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions, Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) export controls, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) foreign investment, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and World Trade Organization (WTO). Deisy Castro is a Los Angeles labor and employment attorney who focuses her practice on counseling and representing employers in all aspects of labor and employment law. She is well versed in representing employers in wage and hour collective, class and multi-plaintiff actions nationwide, as well as discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination claims. Dariya V. Golubkova is a Washington, D.C., attorney and is a member of Holland & Knight's International Trade Group. Her practice comprises a broad range of international trade regulatory and transactional matters.

John H. Haney represents employers in a variety of matters involving wage and hour compliance, wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, harassment, unfair labor practices, leave and reasonable accommodation laws, workers' compensation, employee/independent contractor classification, exempt/nonexempt employee classification, trade secret misappropriation, government agency investigations, internal investigations, class actions, representative actions, and occupational safety and health regulations. Farid Hekmat is an Washington, D.C., attorney whose practice encompasses a broad range of international trade regulatory and transactional matters. He counsels both domestic and foreign companies on issues relating to Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions, Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) export controls, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) foreign investment, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and World Trade Organization (WTO). Thomas E. Hill is a partner in Holland & Knight's Los Angeles office, a highly accomplished national class action defense attorney, and a skilled trial and appellate lawyer. He has served as lead counsel for some of the largest employers in the country, and done so in more than 600 civil lawsuits filed in 25 states. He has also first-chaired more than 250 adversarial proceedings to decision, including jury, bench and administrative trials, and arbitrations. A primary focus of his practice is the defense of complex, high-stakes wage and hour litigation. He has served as lead counsel in more than 125 class, collective and representative actions and, in the process, helped shape California's wage and hour laws. Morgan J. Kleoppel is an attorney in Holland & Knight's Dallas office and a member of the firm's Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice. During law school, she interned at an advertising agency, where she gained exposure to trademark and copyright issues. She also served as a senior executive editor of the Baylor Law Review. Mary Goodrich Nix is an attorney and partner at Holland & Knight, where she manages complex commercial, employment and trade secret matters for publicly traded and privately held companies, including Fortune 500, middle market companies and startups in a variety of industries. She has extensive courtroom experience, including multiple jury trials, bench trials and injunction hearings. She has arbitrated numerous cases throughout Texas and in other parts of the country. She has also frequently worked with international organizations to oversee the pursuit or defense of domestic allegations. Ronald A. Oleynik, head of the International Trade Practice, is a partner practicing in Holland & Knight's Washington, D.C., office in the area of international trade regulation. His experience includes a broad range of industrial security, customs, export control, trade policy, and public and private and international trade matters. He has substantial experience in assisting clients in complying with U.S. trade embargoes and economic sanctions programs involving countries such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Syria. He works frequently with the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is responsible for implementing, administering and enforcing sanctions regulations that restrict business transactions involving designated countries and their nationals. Austin K. Stack is a business attorney who practices in the area of corporate services, with a particular emphasis on employee benefits and executive compensation. He counsels private, nonprofit and governmental employers on a variety of employee benefits issues, including qualified retirement plans, nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements, fringe benefits, as well as health and welfare plans arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Samuel J. Stone is a Los Angeles trial attorney who represents employers of all sizes in labor, employment, and complex civil and criminal government investigative matters before state and federal courts, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB), among others. Tina Tellado is a labor and employment attorney in Holland & Knight's Los Angeles and Philadelphia offices who focuses her practice on the representation of employers in all aspects of employment and labor law, with a particular emphasis on wage and hour, discrimination and harassment, and trade secret and non-compete issues. Her practice encompasses counseling clients on workforce issues and representing them when litigation arises. She regularly defends complex wage-and-hour litigation involving overtime, minimum wage, off-the-clock, classification of exempt or nonexempt overtime status, misclassification as an independent contractor or contingent worker, and meal and rest break claims. Antonia I. Tzinova practices in the areas of international trade, foreign direct investment and industrial security. She advises on defense and high-technology exports; U.S. trade embargoes and economic sanctions; and customs matters. She regularly represents clients before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and advises on measures to mitigate Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) in cross border mergers and acquisitions of U.S. government and defense contractors. She counsels foreign investors on structuring investments in the defense, high-tech and critical infrastructure sectors of the U.S. economy.

Contact Our China Practice Attorneys | 与我们的 China Practice 律师联系 Primary Contacts 主要联系人： Hongjun Zhang, Ph.D. 张红军博士 Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.5906 hongjun.zhang@hklaw.com

Mike Chiang 蒋尚仁律师 San Francisco +1.415.743.6968 mike.chiang@hklaw.com

Juan M. Alcala | Austin +1.512.954.6515 juan.alcala@hklaw.com

Adolfo Jimenez | Miami +1.305.789.7720 adolfo.jimenez@hklaw.com

Robert Ricketts | London +44.20.7071.9910 robert.ricketts@hklaw.com

Leonard A. Bernstein | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9521 leonard.bernstein@hklaw.com

Sophie Jin | Washington, D.C. +1.202.469.5179 sophie.jin@hklaw.com

Luis Rubio Barnetche | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8006 luis.rubio@hklaw.com

Christopher W. Boyett | Miami +1.305.789.7790 christopher.boyett.@hklaw.com

Roth Kehoe | Atlanta +1.404.817.8519 roth.kehoe@hklaw.com

Evan S. Seideman | Stamford +1.203.905.4518 evan.seideman@hklaw.com

Vito A. Costanzo | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2409 vito.costanzo@hklaw.com

Robert J. Labate | San Francisco +1.415.743.6991 robert.labate@hklaw.com

Jeffrey R. Seul | Boston +1.617.305.2121 jeff.seul@hklaw.com

Josias N. Dewey | Miami +1.305.789.7746 joe.dewey@hklaw.com

Alejandro Landa Thierry | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8002 alejandro.landa@hklaw.com

Vivian Thoreen | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2482 vivian.thoreen@hklaw.com

R. David Donoghue | Chicago +1.312.578.6553 david.donoghue@hklaw.com

Jeffrey W. Mittleman | Boston +1.617.854.1411 jeffrey.mittleman@hklaw.com

Shawn M. Turner | Denver +1.303.974.6645 shawn.turner@hklaw.com

Jonathan M. Epstein | Washington, D.C. +1.202.828.1870 jonathan.epstein@hklaw.com

Anita M. Mosner | Washington, D.C. +1.202.419.2604 anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Matthew P. Vafidis | San Francisco +1.415.743.6950 matthew.vafidis@hklaw.com

Leonard H. Gilbert | Tampa +1.813.227.6481 leonard.gilbert@hklaw.com

Ronald A. Oleynik | Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.7183 ron.oleynik@hklaw.com

Stacey H. Wang | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2480 stacey.wang@hklaw.com

Enrique Gomez-Pinzon | Bogotá +57.1.745.5800 enrique.gomezpinzon@hklaw.com

Douglas A. Praw | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2588 doug.praw@hklaw.com

Charles A. Weiss | New York +1.212.513.3551 charles.weiss@hklaw.com

Paul J. Jaskot | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9539 paul.jaskot@hklaw.com

John F. Pritchard | New York +1.212.513.3233 john.pritchard@hklaw.com

Jose V. Zapata | Bogotá +57.1.745.5940 jose.zapata@hklaw.com