Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: July - August 2023

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 ass ist multinational corporations and financial institutions, trade associations, private investors and other clients in their China-related activities. With approximately 2,000 professionals in 34 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, oil and energy, healthcare, real estate, environmental law, private equity, venture capital, financial services, taxation, intellectual property, private wealth services, data privac y 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 34 个办公室的 2000 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、石油及能源、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。

Nearshoring in Mexico: A Strategic Choice for the Expansion of Business Opportunities

By Gabriel Ruiz, Francisco Andres Gamez-Garza and Jaime Israel Moreno Treviño

In recent years, Mexico has emerged as a prominent destination for nearshoring, attracting international businesses seeking cost-effective and efficient solutions to enhance their operations. Nearshoring refers to the practice of outsourcing business functions or processes to a neighboring country, typically due to geographical proximity, shared time zones and similar cultural backgrounds. This article addresses some of the reasons behind Mexico's rise as a nearshoring hub and explores the legal considerations that businesses should be aware of when engaging in nearshoring activities in Mexico.

Some of the advantages of nearshoring in Mexico rely on cost efficiency, proximity and time zone alignment, cultural affinity and business orientation. Mexico offers competitive labor costs compared to other nearshoring destinations, making it an attractive option for businesses looking to reduce expenses while maintaining highquality outputs. While perhaps labor in Asian countries is more cost -efficient, the competitive values in Mexico are highly regarded in a way that equilibrate the expenses on logistics and risk assessment.

In terms of proximity and time zone alignment, Mexico's geographical proximity to the United States and Canada, combined with its shared time zones, facilitates streamlined communication, collaboration and reduced travel costs for businesses operating in North America. Moreover, the cultural similarities between Mexico and the rest of North American and South American countries foster smoother integration and understanding between business partners, enhancing efficiency and reducing potential communication barriers. Mexico has developed a well-known expertise in the manufacturing industry and, mainly, in the automotive sector.

Thinking about the legal considerations, it is crucial for businesses engaging in nearshoring to familiarize themselves with Mexico's legal and regulatory framework, including labor laws, intellectual property rights, tax regulations and data protection requirements. Consulting with local legal experts can ensure compliance and minimize potential risks.

Employers must understand Mexico's labor laws, including minimum wage, working hours, employee benefits, termination procedures, and occupational health and safety standards. Complying with these regul ations is vital to maintain a positive working environment and avoid potential legal disputes.

Protecting intellectual property (IP) rights is essential when outsourcing sensitive processes. Businesses should implement comprehensive IP protection measures, including nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) and robust contractual provisions to safeguard their proprietary information and trade secrets.

Nearshoring in Mexico may have tax implications for businesses, including corporate tax, value-added tax (VAT) and customs duties. It is advisable to consult with tax and international trade professionals to understand and optimize the tax implications of nearshoring activities.

Likewise, in an era of increasing data privacy concerns, businesses must comply with Mexico's data protection regulations, such as the Federal Law on Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (Ley Federal de Protección de Datos Personales en Posesión de Particulares ). Ensuring adequate data security measures and obtaining appropriate consent for data processing are crucial steps to mitigate legal and reputational risks.

With the exponential growth of business opportunities and the decisions of bringing the operations of enterprises to a closer destination to their customers, there are, of course, certain challenges that need to be identified, addressed and mitigated.

The Mexican institute for the Competitiveness (IMCO – Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad), in collaboration with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, published an analysis on some socioeconomic indicators related to the labor market, household and basic utility services, infrastructure and regulatory framework in order to determine which areas within Mexico are best suited to foster the investment opportunities for nearshoring, concluding that the regions of central and northern Mexico are better prepared for such purposes.1

Further, in order to assess the risks and design an adequate business strategy, there are some key considerations to take into account. Conducting comprehensive due diligence on potential nearshoring partners in Mexico is essential. Evaluating their track record, reputation, financial stability and compliance with legal requirements can help mitigate risks and ensure a successful partnership.

Also, well-drafted contracts are critical to establishing clear expectations, rights and obligations between the parties involved. Consulting legal experts to negotiate and prepare robust agreements can help safeguard the interests of both parties. It is advisable to include dispute resolution clauses in nearshoring agreements, outlining the preferred method of resolving conflicts, such as arbitration or mediation. Establishing a clear process for dispute resolution can save time and costs in case of any disagreements.

Nearshoring in Mexico is a reality, and the country's strategic location, cost advantages, cultural affinity and favorable business environment have positioned it as a preferred destination for international businesses. However, to ensure a successful nearshoring venture, businesses must navigate the legal landscape effectively, considering factors such as labor laws, intellectual property protection, tax regulations and data privacy. By understanding and addressing these legal considerations, businesses can maximize the benefits of nearshoring in Mexico while minimizing potential risks and paving the way for long-term success and growth.

NOTES

1 NEARSHORING: oportunidad que desafía a las entidades mexicanas.

墨西哥近岸外包：扩大商机的战略选择

原文作者：

Gabriel Ruiz 、Francisco Andres Gamez -Garza 及 Jaime Israel Moreno Treviño

近年来，墨西哥已成为近岸外包的重要目的地，吸引了寻求具有成本效益和高效解决方案以增强其运营的国际企 业。近岸外包是指将业务功能或流程外包给邻国的做法，通常是由于地理位置接近、共享时区和相似的文化背景 。本文探讨了墨西哥崛起为近岸外包中心的一些原因，并探讨了企业在墨西哥从事近岸外包活动时应注意的法律 注意事项。

墨西哥近岸外包的一些优势取决于成本效率、邻近性和时区一致性、文化亲和力和业务导向。与其他近岸外包目 的地相比，墨西哥的劳动力成本具有竞争力，这使其成为希望在保持高质量输出的同时降低开支的企业的一个有 吸引力的选择。虽然亚洲国家的劳动力可能更具成本效益，但从平衡物流和风险评估费用的角度墨西哥的竞争价 值受到高度认可。

就接近度和时区对齐而言，墨西哥与美国和加拿大的地理位置接近，加上共享时区，有助于简化通信、协作并降 低在北美运营的企业的差旅成本。此外，墨西哥与其他北美和南美国家之间的文化相似性促进了业务合作伙伴之 间更顺畅的融合和理解，提高了效率并减少了潜在的沟通障碍。墨西哥在制造业，尤其是汽车行业拥有众所周知 的专业知识。

考虑到法律方面的考虑，从事近岸外包的企业必须熟悉墨西哥的法律和监管框架，包括劳动法、知识产权、税收 法规和数据保护要求。咨询当地法律专家可以确保合规性并将潜在风险降至最低。

雇主必须了解墨西哥的劳动法，包括最低工资、工作时间、员工福利、终止程序以及职业健康和安全标准。遵守 这些规定对于维持积极的工作环境和避免潜在的法律纠纷至关重要。

外包敏感流程时，保护知识产权 (IP) 至关重要。企业应实施全面的知识产权保护措施，包括保密协议 ( NDA) 和强有力的合同条款，以保护其专有信息和商业秘密。

墨西哥的近岸外包可能会对企业产生税收影响，包括公司税、增值税 (VAT) 和关税。建议咨询税务和国际贸易 专业人士，以了解和优化近岸外包活动的税务影响。

同样，在数据隐私问题日益受到关注的时代，企业必须遵守墨西哥的数据保护法规，例如关于保护私人持有的个 人数据的联邦法 ( Ley Federal de Protección de Datos Personales en Posesión de Particulares ）。确保采取 适当的数据安全措施并获得数据处理的适当同意是减轻法律和声誉风险的关键步骤。

随着商业机会的指数级增长以及将企业的运营带到更接近客户的目的地的决策，当然需要识别、解决和缓解某些 挑战。

墨西哥竞争力研究所

(IMCO – Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad ) 与 Friedrich Naumann 基金会合作， 发表了一份关于与劳动力市场、家庭和基本公用事业服务、基础设施和监管框架相关的一些社会经济指标的分析 ，以确定墨西哥哪些地区最适合培育近岸外包的投资机会，结论是墨西哥中部和北部地区为此类目的做好了更好 的准备。1

此外，为了评估风险和设计适当的业务战略，有一些关键的考虑因素应该加以考虑。对墨西哥潜在的近岸外包合 作伙伴进行全面的尽职调查至关重要。评估他们的业绩记录、声誉、财务稳定性和对法律要求的遵守情况可以帮 助降低风险并确保成功的合作伙伴关系。

此外，精心起草的合同对于在相关各方之间建立明确的期望、权利和义务至关重要。咨询法律专家来谈判和准备 强有力的协议可以帮助维护双方的利益。建议在近岸外包协议中包含争议解决条款，概述解决冲突的首选方法， 例如仲裁或调解。建立清晰的争议解决流程可以在出现任何分歧时节省时间和成本。

墨西哥的近岸外包已发展为实际，墨西哥的战略位置、成本优势、文化亲和力和有利的商业环境使其成为国际企 业的首选目的地。然而，为确保近岸外包企业取得成功，企业必须有效应对法律环境，考虑劳动法、知识产权保 护、税收法规和数据隐私等因素。通过了解和解决这些法律问题，企业可以最大限度地利用墨西哥近岸外包的好 处，同时最大限度地降低潜在风险，并为长期成功和增长铺平道路。

附注

1 近岸外包: oportunidad que desafía a las entidades mexicanas

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That First Factor of Fair Use Test

Favors Photographer

"PURPOSE AND CHARACTER" FACTOR REQUIRES THE USE OF ANOTHER'S WORK TO BE SUFFICIENTLY DISTINCT FROM THE ORIGINAL

By Robert J. Labate, Tanisha Pinkins and Cynthia A. Gierhart

HIGHLIGHTS:

• In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith held that pop artist Andy Warhol's use of a photograph of late music legend Prince without photographer Lynn Goldsmith's permission did not constitut e fair use under the first factor of the fair use defense, relying largely on the fact that Warhol's use was not only for a similar purpose as the original, but was for a commercial purpose.

• Visual works of art that are not "distinct enough" (transformative) will weigh against the artist who attempts to transform an "original work." Holding, "[t]o preserve that right (the right to transform a work of art), the degree of transformation required to make 'transformative' use of an original must go beyond that required to qualify as a derivative."

• The Supreme Court decision relieves judges of the qualification to evaluate the aesthetic merits of a work of art, stating that fair use "is an objective inquiry into what a user does with an original work, not an inquiry into the subjective intent of the user, or into the meaning or impression that an art critic or judge draws from a work."

• The Supreme Court ruling reinforces the principle that fair us e will continue to be analyzed on a caseby-case basis. This opinion "does not mean that all of Warhol's derivative works, nor all uses of them, give rise to the same fair use analysis."

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith held that pop artist Andy Warhol's use of a photograph of late music legend and cultural icon Prince without photographer Lynn Goldsmith's permission did not constitute fair use under the first factor of the fair use defense, relying largely on the fact that Warhol's use was not only for a similar purpose as the original, but was for a commercial purpose.

While courts have struggled with fair use i.e., lawful use of another's copyrighted work the Warhol case reaffirmed some of the core purposes of the Copyright Act1 while clarifying others. This Holland & Knight alert explores how the Supreme Court's Warhol decision transforms the law of fair use and highlights its emphasis on the importance of analyzing the "purpose" and "character" of copyrighted works that are in dispute.

WHY THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT

The Warhol v. Goldsmith case is the first Supreme Court case in decades to tackle fair use. Fair use is a notoriously difficult analysis requiring a balancing of four factors that is highly dependent on the facts of each case. Therefore, any guidance on how to conduct a fair use analysis from the Supreme Court is closely

watched. What the justices have decided could redefine fair use for major works of arts and social media posts, including addressing a major concern among music labels as copyrighted vocals from artists are being used wit hout authorization to train artificial intelligence systems to incorporate artists' vocals into songs that they never recorded.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

In 1984, Goldsmith granted Vanity Fair a "one-time use" license of her photograph of Prince for use as an artwork reference to accompany a Vanity Fair article about Prince. Unbeknownst to Goldsmith, the artist creating that work was the famous Warhol. Goldsmith also did not know that Warhol us ed her photograph to create 16 silkscreen portraits of Prince (not just the one licensed use), which came to be known as the Prince Series. After Prince died in 2016, Condé Nast the magazine conglomerate that owns Vanity Fair licensed from the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) the use of one of Warhol's Prince silkscreen portraits, "Orange Prince," on the cover of its commemorative edition magazine about Prince's life. Unlike the first time that Vanity Fair used the image, it did not obtain a license from Goldsmith nor include an attribution to her. Goldsmith became aware of the Prince Series only after the release of the 2016 Condé Nast publication and notified the foundation of her belief that it had infringed her copyright. In turn, AWF brought an action against Goldsmith seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement or, in the alternative, fair use, and Goldsmith counterclaimed for copyright infringement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Southern District of New York

In 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to AWF under its assertion of fair use and dismissed Goldsmith's claims with prejudice. With respect to transformative use under the first factor, the District Court held that Warhol's portrayal of Prince was for a different purpose or character from the photographer's, because the photographer portrayed him as an uncomfortable and "vulnerable human being," whereas Warhol depicted Prince as an "iconic, larger-than-life figure."

The Second Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that all four fair use factors favored Goldsmith. Simply put, the Second Circuit ruled that the Orange Prince portrait is essentially a copy of Goldsmith's photograph and artists have rights to derivatives of their work. Furthermore, the Second Circuit determined that the photograph was not distinct enough and faulted the District Court for playing art critic by evaluating the aesthetic meaning of the art work in what the Second Circuit considered light alterations to Goldsmith's original photograph.

Following the Second Circuit's ruling, AWF appealed to the Supreme Court for certiorari to resolve whether an artist's use of a photograph of a singer as the basis for a series of artwork was protected as fair use under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. § 107.

COPYRIGHT LAW AND FAIR USE

There are two ways to use someone else's copyrighted works: 1) the use is licensed (used with permission) from the copyright holder, or 2) even without permiss ion the use constitutes "fair use." There are four factors for determining fair use. No single factor is determinative; rather, they should be balanced and weighed against each other.

1. Purpose and character of the use, including:

a. whether the use is for a commercial versus educational or nonprofit purpose, and

b. whether the use is "transformative," that is, the user is commenting or reporting on the work, or the user creates a parody of the work, or the use is otherwise for a different character or purpose than the original work

2. Nature of the copyrighted work

a. creative (more protection) vs. factual

b. published vs. unpublished (more protection)

3. Amount and substantiality of the work used

4. The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

FIRST FACTOR ANALYSIS UNDER FAIR USE DOCTRINE

This appeal created a fundamental question for the court to determine whether the first factor of the fair use test weighed in Goldsmith's favor.2 The first factor of the fair use doctrine directs a court to examine "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." 17 U.S.C. § 107(1). Over time, the analysis of the first factor has largely turned into the following question: Is the new work transformative? That is, does the new work transform the prior work into something with an entirely different new meaning or message or, in the alternative, how much free reign will an artist have to take or use the work of others in pursuit of their own.

2 LIVE CREW CASE: LANDMARK DECISION

In a historic copyright opinion3 involving the hip-hop group 2 Live Crew and its parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman," the Supreme Court ruled that "the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use."4

In the 2 Live Crew case, the Court indicated that transformative use adds "new expression," "meaning" or "message" that's not found in the original work which brings us back to Warhol's Orange Prince portrait. Goldsmith claimed that she was trying to bring out Prince's humanity and vulnerability the specificness of Prince as an individual. Alternatively, Warhol is known for turning the real into the mythical or iconic.

DID WARHOL TRANSFORM GOLDSMITH'S PHOTOGRAPH INTO A WORK WITH AN ENTIRELY NEW MEANING AND MESSAGE?

The Supreme Court held that Warhol's use of the photograph was not fair use, affirming the Second Circuit's decision. More specifically, the Court found Goldsmith's photograph and Warhol's Orange Prince portrait to have substantially the same commercial purpose because both were licensed for use in a magazine and that Warhol's Orange Prince photo was not distinct enough to be protected under fair use.

In so holding, the Court noted the natural correlation between the first and fourth factors. 5 Determining whether a use has a similar purpose as the original use is naturally going to evoke the same question as the fourth factor, which is whether the use will divert revenue away from the original copyright holder to the person using the work. And that is what happened here: Goldsmith originally licensed her photograph to Vanity Fair for $400

in 1984 (and she was given attribution in the 1984 magazine), and then AWF licensed Orange Prince to the same magazine in 2016 for $10,000 with Goldsmith receiving no revenue or attribution for the 2016 license 6

The Supreme Court also focused on the fact that Warhol's use of the photograph was not only for a similar purpose, but was for a commercial purpose (i.e., the $10,000 licensing payment). As the Court noted, "although a use's transformativeness may outweigh its commercial character, here, both elements point in the same direction."7 The commercial nature of this particular use seemed to play a large role in the Court's conclusion, and the Court noted repeatedly that its finding was specific to the facts at issue in this case, and this particular use of the work.

TIPS TO AVOID COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

• Do not copy anything off the internet. It is not free to use simply because it is publicly available.

• Remember, no single fair use factor is determinative of whether you can use the work. There is no bright line rule that allows a person to use three seconds of a sound or film clip. There is no bright line rule that allows a person to use any work so long as it's not for a commercial purpose. Each of those are factors that weigh in favor of fair use, but alone they are not determinative. One must always balance all of the considerations and should have nearly all four factors in their favor before considering the use as a "fair use."

• Seeking permission or getting a license is always the surest way to reduce the risk of a potential infringement claim, especially if the use is commercial in nature.

NOTES

1 Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith , No. 21-869 (U.S. May 18, 2023).

2 Andy Warhol Foundation sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court only on the first fair use factor; therefore, the Supreme Court considered only the first factor.

3 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

4 See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579.

5 See Goldsmith , 598 No. 21-869 at 24 n.12.

6 See Goldsmith , 598 No. 21-869 at 24.

7 Id. at 25.

美国最高法院判定合理使用测试的第一个因素对摄影师有利 “目的和特征”因素要求对他人作品的使用需与原作有足够的区别

原文作者：Robert J. Labate 、 Tanisha Pinkins 及 Cynthia A. Gierhart

重点摘要

• 美国最高法院在安迪沃霍尔视觉艺术基金会诉戈德史密斯案（Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith）中以 7-2 的裁决判定流行艺术家沃霍尔 （Andy Warhol） 在未经摄影师戈德史 密斯（Lynn Goldsmith）许可的情况下使用已故音乐传奇人物王子（Prince） 的照片不构成合理使用抗 辩的第一个因素下的合理使用，而该判定在很大程度上是基于沃霍尔的使用不仅是出于与原作相似的目 的，而且是出于商业目的。

• 没有“足够区别”（有转换性）的视觉艺术作品将不利于试图转换“原创作品”的艺术家。最高法院认为，“为 了保留该权利（转换艺术品的权利），对原件进行‘转换’使用所需的转换程度必须超过作为衍生品所需的 程度。”

• 最高法院的判决使得法官不再需要具备评估艺术作品审美价值的资格，判决称合理使用“是对使用人对原 创作品做了什么的客观探寻，而不是对使用人主观意图的探寻、或对艺术评论家或法官从作品中得出的 意义或印象的探寻。 ”

• 最高法院的判决强化了合理使用将继续被逐案分析的原则。这一意见“并不意味着沃霍尔的所有衍生作品

，或对它们的所有使用，都会引起相同的合理使用分析。”

美国最高法院在安迪沃霍尔视觉艺术基金会诉戈德史密斯案中以 7-2 的裁决裁定，流行艺术家沃霍尔在未经摄影 师戈德史密斯许可的情况下使用已故音乐传奇和文化偶像王子的照片不构成合理使用抗辩的第一个因素下的合理 使用，而该判定在很大程度上是基于沃霍尔的使用不仅是出于与原作相似的目的，而且是出于商业目的。

虽然法院一直在努力解决合理使用（即合法使用他人受著作权保护的作品）的问题 沃霍尔案重申了著作权 法的一些核心目的 1、同时澄清了其他目的。本 Holland & Knight 提示文章探讨了最高法院对沃霍尔的判决如何 改变合理使用的法律，并凸显出对有争议的受著作权保护作品的“目的”和“特征”的分析的重要性。

为什么这个案例很重要

沃霍尔诉戈德史密斯案是最高法院几十年来第一个涉及合理使用的案件。合理使用是一项众所周知的困难分析， 需要平衡四个因素，这在很大程度上取决于每个案例的事实。因此，最高法院关于如何进行合理使用分析的任何 指导意见都受到了密切关注。大法官们的决定可能会重新界定重要要艺术作品和社交媒体帖子的合理使用，包括 解决音乐标签中的一个主要问题，即未经授权使用艺术家的受著作权保护的声音来训练人工智能系统而将艺术家 的声音纳入他们从未录制过的歌曲的问题。

我们是怎么走到这步的？

1984 年，戈德史密斯授予 Vanity Fair 杂志“一次性使用”许可，允许她将王子的照片用作艺术参考，以搭配 Vanity Fair 关于王子的文章。戈德史密斯不知道创作该作品的艺术家是著名的沃霍尔。戈德史密斯也不知道沃霍 尔用她的照片创作了 16 幅王子的丝网印刷肖像（而不只是一次授权使用），而这后来被称为王子系列。王子于 2016 年去世后，拥有 Vanity Fair 的杂志集团康泰纳仕集团（Condé Nast）从安迪沃霍尔基金会 (AWF) 获得许 可，在其纪念王子的一生的该期杂志的封面上使用沃霍尔的王子丝网印刷肖像之一“橙色王子”。与 Vanity Fair 第 一次使用该图像不同，它没有获得戈德史密斯的许可，也没有提到她。 戈德史密斯在 2016 年康泰纳仕集团出版 物发布后才意识到王子系列，并通知基金会她认为它侵犯了她的著作权。反过来，安迪沃霍尔基金会对戈德史密 斯提起诉讼，寻求宣告不侵权的宣告性判决，或者换句话说，是属合理使用，而戈德史密斯以侵犯著作权为由提 出反诉。

程序历史

纽约南区

2019 年，美国纽约南区地方法院根据其合理使用主张对安迪沃霍尔基金会作出简易判决，并在实体影响戈德史 密斯的权益的情形下驳回了其诉讼请求。关于第一个因素下的转换使用，地方法院认为沃霍尔对王子的描绘与摄 影师的目的或性格不同，因为摄影师将他描绘成一个不自在和“脆弱的人”，而沃霍尔将王子描绘成一个“

标志性的 、具有传奇色彩的人物” 。

第二巡回法院

美国第二巡回上诉法院推翻并发回重审，认为所有四个合理使用因的素都对戈德史密斯有利。简而言之，第二巡 回法院裁定，橙色王子的肖像本质上是戈德史密斯照片的复制品，而艺术家有权使用其作品的衍生品。此外，第 二巡回法院裁定照片没有足够的区别，并指责地方法院通过评估艺术作品的美学意义来扮演艺术评论家的角色， 第二巡回法院认为对戈德史密斯的原始照片进行了轻微改动。

在第二巡回法院做出判决后，安迪沃霍尔基金会向最高法院提出上诉，请求最高法院审理本案以解决艺术家使用 歌手的照片作为创造一系列艺术作品的基础是否受到《著作权法》第 107 条(17 USC § 107)的合理使用保护的问 题。

著作权法和合理使用

有两种方法可以使用他人的著作权作品：1) 使用已获得著作权所有者的许可（经许可使用），或 2) 即使未经许 可，使用也构成“合理使用”。确定合理使用有四个因素。没有任何一个因素是决定性的；相反，它们应该相互平 衡和权衡。

1. 使用目的和特征，包括：

a. 用途是用于商业还是教育或非营利目的，以及

b. 使用是否具有“转换性”，即使用人是在评论或报告作品，还是使用人对作品进行了模仿，或者使用是否与 原始作品具有不同的特征或目的

2. 著作权作品的性质

a. 创意性的（更多保护）还是事实性的

b. 已发布的还是未发布的（更多保护）

3. 所用作品的数量和实质性

4. 使用对受著作权保护作品的潜在市场或价值的影响 合理使用原则下的第一因素分析

该上诉为法院确定合理使用测试的第一个因素是否对戈德史密斯有利产生了一个基本问题。 2 合理使用原则的第 一个因素指示法院审查“使用的目的和特征，包括此类使用是否具有商业性质或是否用于非营利教育目的。” 17 USC § 107(1)。随着时间的推移，对第一个因素的分析很大程度上变成了以下问题：新作品是否具有转换性？ 也就是说，新作品是否将先前的作品转化为具有完全不同的新意义或信息的东西，或者换句话说，艺术家必须在 多大程度上自由支配或使用他人的作品来追求自己的作品。

2 LIVE CREW 案例：指标性案例

在涉及嘻哈乐队 2 Live Crew 及其模仿 Roy Orbison 的“哦，漂亮女人”的历史性著作权意见中，3 最高法院判定 “ 新作品越具有转换性，其他因素的重要性就越小，就像商业主义一样，这可能不利于合理使用的做出。” 4

在 2 Live Crew 案中，最高法院指出，转换性使用增加了原作中没有的“新表达” 、 “意义”或“信息” 这让我们回 到了沃霍尔的橙色王子肖像。

戈德史密斯声称她试图展现王子的人性和脆弱性 王子作为个体的特殊性。另外，沃霍尔以将真实变成神话或 标志性而闻名。

沃霍尔是否将戈德史密斯的照片转换为具有全新意义和信息的作品？

最高法院认为沃霍尔对照片的使用不属于合理使用，维持了第二巡回法院的决定。更具体地说，最高法院认定戈 德史密斯的照片和沃霍尔的橙色王子肖像具有基本相同的商业目的，因为两者都获得了在杂志上使用的许可，而 且沃霍尔的橙色王子照片没有足够的区别，无法在合理使用下受到保护。

在作出该判定时，最高法院注意到第一和第四因素之间的自然相关性。 5 确定使用是否具有与原始使用相似的目 的自然会引起与第四个因素相同的问题，即使用是否会将收入从原始著作权所有者转移到使用作品的人。这就是 这里发生的事情：戈德史密斯最初在 1984 年以 400 美元的价格将她的照片授权给 Vanity Fair（并且在 1984 年 的杂志上注明了她的为照片的来源），然后安迪沃霍尔基金会在 2016 年以 10,000 美元的价格将橙色王子授权 给同一本杂志 – 而戈德史密斯没有收到2016 年许可的收入或来源归属。 6

最高法院还关注了这样一个事实，即沃霍尔对照片的使用不仅出于类似目的，而且还出于商业目的（即 10,000 美元的许可费）。正如最高法院指出的那样，“虽然使用的转换性可能超过其商业特征，但在这里，这两个要素

都指向同一个方向。” 7 这种特定使用的商业性质似乎在最高法院的结论中发挥了重要作用，最高法院一再指出 ，它的判决是针对本案中有争议的事实以及作品的这种特定使用的。

避免侵犯著作权的提示技巧

• 不要从互联网上复制任何东西。它不能仅仅因为它是公开的就可以免费使用。

• 请记住，没有任何单一的合理使用因素可以决定您是否可以使用该作品。没有明显的规则允许一个人使 用三秒钟的声音或电影剪辑。没有明显规则允许一个人在只要不是商业目下使用任何作品。其中每一个 都是有利于合理使用的因素，但它们本身并不是决定性的。在将使用视为“合理使用”之前，必须始终平衡 所有考虑因素，并且几乎所有四个因素都对他们有利。

• 寻求许可或获得许可始终是降低潜在侵权索赔风险的最可靠方法，尤其是在商业用途的情况下。 有关最高法院判决或合理使用因素的更多信息，请联系作者。

附注

1 安迪沃霍尔基金会诉戈德史密斯，第 21-869 号（美国，2023 年 5 月 18 日）。

2 安迪沃霍尔基金会仅就第一个合理使用因素向美国最高法院寻求审理；因此，最高法院只考虑了第一个因素。

3 Campbell 诉Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292)，510 US 569 (1994)。

4 参见 Campbell, 510 US ，第 579 页。

5 参见戈德史密斯, 598 No. 21-869 第 24 页 n.12 处 。

6 参见戈德史密斯，598，No. 21-869 ，第 24 页。

7 同上。第 25 页。

Antitrust Considerations for Healthcare Joint Ventures

By Brian R. Browder, Bill Katz and Alexander M. Dudley

HIGHLIGHTS

• Within the current antitrust enforcement climate, healthcare providers are trying to achieve the procompetitive benefits of traditional mergers or other combinations, all while managing the antitrust risks associated with more aggressive government enforcement.

• To help manage these risks and achieve various benefits for patients, many healthcare providers are pursing joint ventures through which resources and experience may be combined or shared, whether through service-line expansion or other combinations.

• This Holland & Knight alert addresses some of these considerations and discusses strategies to mitigate potential antitrust risks arising from joint ventures.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been active in challenging hospital combinations. In June 2022, the FTC filed complaints to block two hospital transactions. Within weeks of the FTC's actions, both transactions were abandoned. Two hospital systems are currently in litigation with the FTC as to whether their transaction was exempt from Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filing and FTC review, pursuant to a state-issued Certificate of Public Advantage.

Within the current enforcement climate, healthcare providers are trying to achieve the procompetitive benefits of traditional mergers or other combinations, all while managing the antitrust risks associated with more aggressive government enforcement. To help manage these risks and achieve various benefits for patients, many healthcare providers are pursing joint ventures through which resources and experience may be combined or shared, whether through service-line expansion or other combinations.

Although healthcare joint ventures frequently involve competitors working together to achieve a common goal, they can ultimately provide numerous benefits to patients – including lower costs, ex panded services in existing markets, new services in new markets and the delivery of higher-quality healthcare to patients. Importantly, absent a joint venture, these procompetitive benefits often would not even be possible to achieve. Nonetheless, joint ventures implicate a number of antitrust considerations such as information exchanges, market carveouts, noncompete provisions and interlocking directorates. This Holland & Knight alert addresses some of these considerations and discusses strategies to mitigate potential antitrust risks arising from joint ventures.

MITIGATING POTENTIAL ANTITRUST RISKS

In evaluating potential antitrust concerns, joint ventures should first understand how the Sherman Act and the FTC Act may impact them and their owners. For example, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade pursuant to either the per se rule or the rule of reason. Unless the joint venture engages in per se illegal activities such as price-fixing, market allocation or group boycotts, the joint venture's antitrust impact will likely be analyzed using the rule of reason, in which the joint venture's procompetitive benefits are weighed against any anticompetitive effects. The joint venture's conduct typically does not violate the rule of reason unless the anticompetitive effects outweigh the joint venture's procompetitive benefits. Joint ventures should also be cognizant of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,

which prohibits monopolies and attempts to monopolize. Although size alone will not necessarily violate Section 2, additional conduct that harms competition could create antitrust risk under Section 2. Lastly, Section 5 of the FTC Act broadly prohibits unfair methods of competition. Although Section 5 had historically been interpreted similar to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, that is no longer the FTC's current approach, and there is a fair amount of uncertainty about how the FTC will apply Section 5 in the future.

With this legal framework in mind, joint ventures should be aware of certain antitrust pitfalls, so they can avoid or minimize the risks associated with them.

THE EXCHANGE OF COMPETITIVELY SENSITIVE INFORMATION

A joint venture's collaborative nature requires the owners to exchange various types of information, which runs the risk that competitively sensitive information is shared. For example, if two hospitals wish to form a joint venture to create a new facility – whether a specialty hospital, ambulatory surgery center or otherwise – each will conduct a "due diligence" investigation to ensure that it has the facts necessary to make an informed business decision about whether to proceed with the joint venture. As part of that process, the hospitals may exchange information about a variety of issues, including the pay scale for the joint venture's employees. Although there are valid business reasons for exchanging information in connection with a joint venture, government enforcers may argue that the exchange of competitively sensitive information such as salaries or even benefits is anticompetitive. An antitrust challenge to this information exchange should be analyzed under the rule of reason to determine whether the procompetitive benefits – such as expanding into a new market, enhanced services and cost reductions for patients – outweigh anticompetitive outcomes such as potentially increased control by the hospitals of the relevant market.

Before Feb. 3, 2023 – when the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) withdrew them –the joint venture and its owners could also rely on the Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care (Aug. 1, 1996). These policy statements provided guidance for analyzing provider collaborations, joint ventures and similar arrangements that potentially implicate antitrust concerns. With respect to information exchanges, the policy statements established a safety zone pursuant to which an information exchange would not be challenged by the DOJ or FTC:

• the exchange was managed by a third party such as an accounting or consulting firm

• the information was more than three months old

• at least five participants provided the data underlying each statistic shared, no single participant's data contributed more than a quarter of the amount of any statistic shared, and the shared statistics were sufficiently aggregated in a manner where no participant could discern the data of any other participant

The conditions to qualify for an antitrust safety zone were intended to ensure that an exchange of competitively sensitive information – such as prices, costs, wages and salaries – was not used by competing providers for collusive purposes resulting in potential or actual anticompetitive effects. With the DOJ's withdrawal of the policy statements, however, joint ventures are currently navigating uncharted waters on whether adherence to the safety zones protects against antitrust liability. Joint ventures should be mindful of the types of information exchanged and the manner in which the information is exchanged to ensure that only information that is reasonably necessary to effectuate the venture is shared with the appropriate persons. That will help ensure that the rule of reason applies to the joint venture's conduct. The joint venture's owners should thus have legitimate, procompetitive justifications for any exchange of competitively sensitive information, and the exchange should be done in an appropriate manner involving the correct personnel.

GEOGRAPHIC EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS IN JOINT VENTURE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS

Unlike other antitrust markets that may be broader in geographic scope, the relevant geographic market for the healthcare industry is often relatively local, based on the distance patients travel to receive care. Thus, competitors in a healthcare joint venture should carefully consider the venture's effect on carving out geographic markets. For example, should the joint venture's owners be allowed to provide services that would otherwise compete with the joint venture? Assume that the joint venture's purpose is to provide imaging services within a certain area. Should the joint venture's owners be allowed to provide those same services within the same area? Exclusivity provisions that potentially limit patients' healthcare options typically require closer scrutiny to avoid anticompetitive consequences.

NONCOMPETE PROVISIONS IN JOINT VENTURE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS

Joint ventures should carefully consider and tailor any noncompete provisions in their governing documents. Joint ventures are often contractually prohibited from competing against their owners, which may extend to prohibitions on joint venture employees working for any joint venture owner. In the healthcare industry, noncompete or nonsolicitation provisions may have unintended consequences such as impeding patient care, increasing healthcare costs and/or suppressing wages. In drafting any noncompete or nonsolicitation provision, the joint venture should ensure that it is no broader than the scope of the joint venture's business, which must be clearly defined in the governing documents. Further, the entities and persons bound by the noncompete or nonsolicitation provisions must be clearly defined and reasonably limited. Given the ever-expanding array of multi-entity structures, binding a joint venture owner's affiliated entities to a noncompete or nonsolicitation provision because of overbroad drafting may result in unintended antitrust risk.

Further, given the FTC's recent announcement of a proposed rule that would effectively ban noncompetes and similar arrangements, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about the continuing validity and use of noncompetes. The DOJ has also been actively pursuing criminal convictions for "no poach" agreements – in which competitors agree not to hire one another's employees – although it has thus far secured only one guilty plea from a healthcare staffing company that admitted to violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See VDA Plea Agreement , United States v. Hee, No. 2:21-cr-00098 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2022). Regardless of the outcome of the FTC's rulemaking process and the DOJ's ongoing efforts to prosecute "no poach" agreements criminally, joint ventures should be careful in how they draft and enforce any noncompete or nonsolicitation provision.

INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES

Section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act prohibits any person from simultaneously serving as an officer or director of two competing companies. Violations of Section 8 are per se antitrust violations, meaning that liability attaches irrespective of a lack of competitive injury. In the joint venture context, officers and directors are sometimes shared between the joint venture and its owners. For example, the co-mingling of officers and directors between a "platform" investment by a private equity company and its joint venture holdings is not uncommon. Although this may appear reasonable on its face, it can nevertheless create antitrust concerns given the DOJ's recent emphasis on Section 8 enforcement. As a best practice, joint ventures should avoid sharing any officers and directors with their owners, even if sharing would have a legitimate, procompetitive basis.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Healthcare joint ventures provide substantial benefits to patients and the marketplace through consistent innovation and purposeful integration. Although every venture should be analyzed independently for antitrust concerns based on the specific surrounding facts and circumstances, certain takeaways apply universally.

1. In forming a joint venture, the owners should ensure that information is shared in an appropriate manner and that the joint venture's formation documents are specific and narrowly drafted to describe the venture's key activities and functions. Additionally, exclusivity and noncompete/nonsolicitation provisions should be thoughtfully crafted to avoid creating any unnecessary antitrust risk.

2. Antitrust risk is also lower if the joint venture owners are financially or clinically integrated in a manner that will likely produce quality improvements, meaningful cost savings or other identifiable efficiencies. This helps prevent the joint venture from being used to achieve anticompetitive goals.

3. Finally, the joint venture's core functions should, on balance, provide more procompetitive benefits than anticompetitive harms to patients and the marketplace.

Attorneys on Holland & Knight's Healthcare Antitrust Team and Healthcare & Life Sciences Team stand ready to assist clients as they develop and operate joint ventures and seek to minimize their antitrust risks in the current heightened-enforcement environment. If you have any questions, please contact the authors.

原文作者：Brian R. Browder 、 Bill Katz 及 Alexander M. Dudley

重点摘要

• 在当前的反垄断执法环境下，医疗保健提供商正在努力实现传统合并或其他结合可带来的竞争优势，同 时管理伴随更积极强硬的政府执法而至的相关反垄断风险。

• 为了帮助管理这些风险并为患者带来各种好处，许多医疗保健提供商正在寻求设立合资企业，以通过这 些合资企业的设立可以进行资源和经验的合并或共享，无论是通过服务线的扩展还是其他的结合。

• 本 Holland & Knight 提示文章谈到其中的一些注意事项，并讨论了如何降低设立合资企业可产生的潜在 反垄断风险的策略。

联邦贸易委员会 (FTC)

一直在积极挑战医院合并项目。 2022 年 6 月，联邦贸易委员会提出申诉，要求阻止两笔 医院交易。在联邦贸易委员会采取行动的几周内，这两笔交易都被放弃了。根据州颁发的公共利益证书，两家医 院系统目前正在就其交易是否免受 Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) 备案和联邦贸易委员会审查一事向联邦贸易委员会 提起诉讼。

在当前的执法环境下，医疗保健提供商正在努力实现传统合并或其他结合可带来的竞争优势，同时管理伴随更积 极强硬的政府执法而至的相关反垄断风险。为了帮助管理这些风险并为患者带来各种好处，许多医疗保健提供商 正在寻求设立合资企业，以通过这些合资企业的设立可以进行资源和经验的合并或共享，无论是通过服务线的扩 展还是其他的结合。

尽管医疗保健合资企业经常让竞争对手为实现共同目标而一起工作，而最终可以为患者带来诸多好处 包括降 低成本、扩大现有市场的服务、在新市场提供新的服务、以及为患者提供更高质量的医疗保健服务。重要的是， 如果没有合资企业的设立，这些有利于竞争的好处往往甚至不可能实现。尽管如此，合资企业的设立牵涉到一些 反垄断方面的考虑，例如信息交换、市场分拆、非竞争条款和相互连结的董事会。 本 Holland & Knight 提示文 章谈到解决了其中的一些注意事项，并讨论了如何降低设立合资企业可产生的潜在反垄断风险的策略。

降低潜在的反垄断风险

在评估潜在的反垄断顾虑时，合资企业应首先了解《谢尔曼法案》和《联邦贸易委员会法案》对他们及其所有人 可能产生的影响。例如，《谢尔曼法案》第 1 条禁止根据本身就违法或根据合理规则应被视为违法的原则的不 合理限制贸易的合同、结合和串通。而除非合资企业从事本身就违法的如价格操纵、市场分配或集体抵制等活动 ，否则将可能使用合理规则来分析合资企业的反垄断影响，在该情况下就将合资企业的促进竞争利益与任何反竞 争影响进行权衡。合资企业的行为通常不会违反合理规则，除非反竞争影响超过合资企业的促进竞争的利益。合 资企业还应了解《谢尔曼法案》第 2 条，而该条禁止垄断和企图垄断行为。尽管合资规模本身不一定违反第 2 条，但损害竞争的其他行为可能会根据第 2 条产生反垄断风险。最后，《联邦贸易委员会法》第 5 条广泛禁止 不公平的竞争方法。尽管第 5 条在历史上被解释为类似于《谢尔曼法案》第 1 条，但这不再是联邦贸易委员会 目前的做法，而且联邦贸易委员会未来将如何应适用第 5 条存在相当大的不确定性。

设立医疗保健合资企业的反垄断注意事项

考虑到这一法律框架，合资企业应该意识到某些反垄断陷阱，这样他们就可以避免或尽量减少与之相关的风险。

竞争性敏感信息的交换

合资企业的协作性质要求各所有人交换各种类型的信息，这会带来竞争性敏感信息被共享的风险。例如，如果两 家医院希望组建一家合资企业来创建一个新设施 无论是专科医院、门诊手术中心还是其他 每家医院都将 进行“尽职调查”，以确保其拥有必要的事实来做出是否继续进行合资的知情的商业决定。作为该过程的一部分， 医院可能会就各种问题交换信息，包括合资企业员工的薪酬等级。尽管交换与合资企业有关的信息有正当的商业 理由，但政府执法者可能会主张说交换竞争性敏感信息（例如工资甚至福利）是反竞争的。应根据合理规则来分 析对这种信息交换的反竞争挑战，以确定促进竞争的好处（例如扩展到新市场、增强服务和降低患者成本）是否 超过反竞争的后果，例如可能增加医院对相关市场的控制。

在 2023 年 2 月 3 日之前 即当美国司法部 (DOJ) 反垄断司撤回 合资企业及其所有者还可以依赖医疗保 健领域的反垄断执法政策声明（1996 年 8 月 1 日）之前，这些政策声明为分析可能涉及反垄断问题的供应商合 作、合资企业和类似安排提供了指导。关于信息交换，政策声明建立了一个安全区，据此所作的下列信息交换不 会受到司法部或联邦贸易委员会的质疑：

• 交易所由第三方管理，例如会计或咨询事务所

• 该信息已超过三个月

• 至少有五个参与者提供了每个共享统计数据的基础数据、没有一个参与者的数据贡献超过任何共享统计 数据的四分之一、并且共享统计数据以任何参与者都无法辨别任何其他参与者数据的方式充分汇总 获得反垄断安全区资格的条件旨在确保竞争性敏感信息（例如价格、成本、工资和薪金）的交换不被竞争供应商 用于串通目的，从而导致潜在或实际的反竞争影响。然而，随着司法部撤回政策声明，合资企业目前正在探索遵 守安全区是否可以避免反垄断责任的未知领域。合资企业应注意交换信息的类型和交换信息的方式，以确保只与 适当的人共享实现合资企业合理必要的信息。这将有助于确保合理规则适用于合资企业的行为。因此，合资企业 的所有人应该有合法的、有利于竞争的理由来交换任何竞争性敏感信息，并且交换应该以适当的方式进行、并由 正确的人员参与。

与地理范围可能更广的其他反垄断市场不同，医疗保健行业的相关地理市场通常相对本地化，而这取决于患者接 受治疗的距离。因此，医疗保健合资企业的竞争对手应仔细考虑合资企业对开拓地域市场的影响。例如，是否应 允许合资企业的所有人提供将会与合资企业竞争的服务？假设合资企业的目的是在一定区域内提供影像服务。是 否应允许合资企业的所人在同一地区提供相同的服务？可能限制患者医疗保健选择的排他性条款通常需要更严格 的审查以避免反竞争后果。

合资管理文件中的非竞争条款

合资企业应仔细考虑并调整其管理文件中的任何不竞争条款。这些合同条款通常禁止合资企业与其所有人竞争， 这可能扩展到禁止合资企业员工为任何合资企业所有人工作。在医疗保健行业，不竞争或不招揽条款可能会产生 意想不到的后果，例如阻碍患者护理、增加医疗保健成本和/或抑制工资。在起草任何不竞争或不招揽条款时， 合资企业应确保其范围不超过合资企业的业务范围，这必须在管理文件中明确界定。此外，受不竞争或不招揽条

合资管理文件中的地域排他性条款

款约束的实体和个人必须被明确界定并合理限制。鉴于多实体结构的范围不断扩大，过于宽泛的起草而将合资企 业所有人的关联实体约束到不竞争或不招揽条款可能会导致意想不到的反垄断风险。

此外，鉴于联邦贸易委员会最近宣布了一项有效禁止竞业禁止和类似安排的拟议规则，竞业禁止的持续有效性和 使用存在相当大的不确定性。 司法部还一直寻求对 “不挖角”的协议的刑事定罪 在该等协议中，竞争对手同 意不雇用彼此的员工 尽管迄今为止，它只从一家医疗人员安排公司那里获得对承认违反《谢尔曼法案》第 1 条规定的认罪请求。请参阅VDA 认罪协议 , 美国诉Hee，编号2:21- cr -00098（内华达区、 2022 年10 月 27 日）。无论联邦贸易委员会规则制定过程的结果如何，以及司法部对“不挖角”协议进行刑事起诉的持续努力，合 资企业在起草和执行任何不竞争或不招揽条款时都应谨慎。

相互连结的董事会

《克莱顿反托拉斯法案》第 8 条禁止任何人同时担任两家竞争公司的高级职员或董事。违反第 8 条本身就是违 反反托拉斯法，这意味着无论是否存在竞争损害，责任都会产生。在合资企业中，高级职员和董事有时由合资企 业及其所有人共享。例如，私募股权公司的“平台”投资及其合资企业控股之间的管理人员和董事混合并不少见。 尽管从表面上看这似乎是合理的，但鉴于司法部最近强调第 8 条的执法，它仍然会引起反垄断担忧。作为最佳 实践，合资企业应避免与其所有人共享任何管理人员和董事，即使共享具有合法的、有利于竞争的基础。

关键要点

医疗保健合资企业通过持续创新和有目的的整合为患者和市场带来巨大利益。尽管应根据具体的周遭事实和情况 独立分析每家企业的反垄断问题，但某些要点是普遍适用的。

1. 在组建合资企业时，所有人应确保以适当的方式共享信息，并确保合资企业的组建文件具体而简洁地起 草以描述合资企业的主要活动和职能。此外，排他性和非竞争/ 非招揽条款应经过深思熟虑，以避免产生 任何不必要的反垄断风险。

2. 如果合资企业所有人在财务上或临床上的整合方式可能会产生质量改进、有意义的成本节约或其他可识 别的效率，则反垄断风险也会降低。这有助于防止合资企业被用来实现反竞争目标。

3. 最后，合资企业的核心职能总的来说应该为患者和市场提供更多的促进竞争的好处，而不是反竞争的危 害。

Holland & Knight's 医疗保健反垄断团队和医疗保健与生命科学团队随时准备协助客户发展和运营合资企业，并 寻求在当前执法力度加大的环境中将反垄断风险降至最低。如有任何疑问，请联系作者。

CFIUS Looks to Expand Jurisdiction Over Deals Near Sensitive Military Facilities

By Robert A. Friedman, Antonia I. Tzinova, Marina Veljanovska O'Brien and Sarah Kaitlin Hubner

HIGHLIGHTS

• The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department), which chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), published a Proposed Rule on May 5, 2023, in the Federal Register.

• The Proposed Rule would expand the list of sensitive military installations subject to review under CFIUS' authority, applicable to certain real estate transactions involving foreign investors or acquirers.

• Interested parties needed to submit written comments on the Proposed Rule to the Treasury Department by June 5, 2023.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department), which chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), published a Proposed Rule on May 5, 2023, in the Federal Register The Proposed Rule would expand the list of sensitive military installations subject to review under CFIUS' authority, applicable to certain real estate transactions involving foreign investors or acquirers. Interested parties needed to submit written comments on the Proposed Rule to the Treasury Department by June 5, 2023.

CFIUS JURISDICTION OVER REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

Under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA), CFIUS has jurisdiction to review acquisitions by foreign investors of certain property rights in real estate within proximity to specified airports, maritime ports and military installations listed in Appendix A to 31 C.F.R. Part 802. Specifically, CFIUS has the authority to review real estate transactions involving foreign investors or acquirers within a 1-mile radius of installations listed in Part 1 of Appendix A or within a 100-mile radius of installations listed in Part 2 of Appendix A.

Currently, the regulations identify 211 sensitive U.S. military installations across the United States. The Proposed Rule would add eight new military installations to Appendix A, including seven U.S. Air Force bases principally involved in the ongoing development of the B -21 Raider stealth bomber aircraft, as well as the Iowa National Guard Joint Force Headquarters, all of which would be added to Part 2 and thus be subject to the expanded 100-mile geographic range. Importantly, the Proposed Rule, if adopted, would not change the filing requirements associated with real estate transactions, which would remain voluntary under CFIUS' real estate regulations (Part 802).

The eight additions to Appendix A include:

• Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California

• Dyess Air Force Base, Abilene, Texas

• Ellsworth Air Force Base, Box Elder, South Dakota

• Grand Forks Air Force Base, Grand Forks, North Dakota

• Iowa National Guard Joint Force Headquarters, Des Moines, Iowa

• Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas

• Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Texas

• Luke Air Force Base, Glendale, Arizona

GROWING SCRUTINY: STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GET INVOLVED AS WELL

Over the past year, s everal high-profile U.S. real estate transactions have attracted scrutiny from a range of stakeholders, including the Biden Administration, Congress and state and local government officials. Growing concerns over the national security implications of Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural land have brought a renewed focus to foreign investment in real estate, especially if it involves food security or close proximity to military or other sensitive government installations.

Most notably, the Proposed Rule includes Grand Forks Air Force Base on its list of additions to Appendix A. As analyzed in an article by Holland & Knight attorneys , in recent months, Grand Forks Air Force Base has been the subject of extensive media coverage after lawmakers at the federal, state and local levels expressed concerns over the purchase of a 370-acre greenfield site in Grand Forks – less than 15 miles from the base –by Chinese food manufacturer Fufeng Group to build a wet corn milling facility. Fufeng filed with CFIUS, and in December 2022, CFIUS notified Fufeng that the transaction was not an acquisition of U.S. business and therefore not subject to CFIUS jurisdiction under Part 800. CFIUS did not mention its authority under Part 802, which deals with real estate, but since the base was not listed in Appendix A to Part 802, CFIUS would not have had jurisdiction to block the investment as a covered real estate transaction either. Fufeng's efforts to move forward with the project were ultimately halted by the City of Grand Forks after the U.S. Air Force communicated its "unambiguous" view that the project posed a significant threat to national security. Despite the decision by local authorities, Fufeng's acquisition sparked debate by lawmakers and industry over the apparent gap in CFIUS jurisdiction.

The Proposed Rule would expand the list of designated facilities subject to CFI US jurisdiction. Whether an investment transaction is a pure real estate transaction or the acquisition of an existing U.S. business, which has certain property rights that fall within the purview of CFIUS jurisdiction, CFIUS considers whether the investment will result in the acquisition of rights to real estate in close proximity to sensitive U.S. government sites. The Proposed Rule, following shortly after the Fufeng transaction development, indicates that the list of designated facilities is dynamically reviewed and will change based on perceived risk locations and vulnerabilities.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The list of sensitive military installations had not been updated since the implementation of FIRRMA, so the addition of new sites to the specified list is not surprising. The timing and nature of the Proposed Rule demonstrates two important trends. First, the fact that the new military installations – including Grand Forks –were added on the heels of intense public scrutiny is another example of how CFIUS is responsive to political pressure. Second, the Proposed Rule is evidence that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is engaged in

a continuous evaluation of potential vulnerabilities presented by military installations – including those related to proximity and intelligence collection – and, as appropriate, will urge updates to the CFIUS regulations to reflect this evolving threat.

Foreign investments involving real estate or assets located in close proximity to military bases or other sensitive government installations should evaluate the effect on national security and CFIUS' interest in the transaction. Moreover, even if the real estate or assets are not in close proximity to sites that are expressly listed in Appendix A to 31 C.F.R. Part 802, but are nonetheless in close proximity to other military bases or other sensitive government installations or involve foreign investors or f oreign acquirers that may present national security threats, parties to the proposed transaction should analyze whether any state or local laws may impact risk assessment and factor in how public or political pressure may alter the legal or regulatory landscape. In the Fufeng case, the investment was stalled by the refusal of the city council to proceed with issuing various permits.

If you have any questions about this alert, are interested in submitting written comments or seek assistance formulating a CFIUS strategy, please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's CFIUS and Industrial Security Team. The team's attorneys have the knowledge and experience to conduct the necessary due diligence – including geographic proximity analyses – to identify covered real estate transactions, to prepare the necessary CFIUS risk assessments to equip business leaders wit h tools to evaluate regulatory risk and to help navigate the evolving national security landscape.

CFIUS 计划扩大对临近敏感军事设施的交易的管辖权

原文作者：Robert A. Friedman 、 Antonia I. Tzinova 、 Marina Veljanovska O'Brien 及 Sarah Kaitlin Hubner

重点摘要

• 作为 CFIUS 主席的美国财政部 (财政部)于 2023 年 5 月 5 日在联邦公报上发布了一项拟议规则。

• 拟议规则将扩大受 CFIUS 授权审查的敏感军事设施清单，适用于涉及外国投资者或收购方的某些房地产 交易。

• 有兴趣的各方需要在 2023 年 6 月 5 日之前向财政部提交对拟议规则的书面评论。

作为 CFIUS 主席的美国财政部 (财政部)于 2023 年 5 月 5 日在联邦公报上发布了一项拟议规则。拟议规则将扩 大受 CFIUS 授权审查的敏感军事设施清单，适用于涉及外国投资者或收购方的某些房地产交易。有兴趣的各方 需要在 2023 年 6 月 5 日之前向财政部提交对拟议规则的书面评论。

CFIUS 对房地产交易的管辖权

根据《外国投资风险审查现代化法案》( FIRRMA )， CFIUS 有权审查外国投资者收购 31 CFR 第 802 部分附录 A 中列出的特定机场、海港和军事设施附近房地产的某些产权的交易。具体而言, CFIUS 有权审查附录 A 第 1 部 分所列设施 1 英里半径内或附录 A 第 2 部分所列设施 100 英里半径内涉及外国投资者或收购方的房地产交易。 目前，这些规定确定了全美 211 个美国敏感军事设施。拟议规则将在附录 A 中增加八个新的军事设施，包括主 要参与 B-21 Raider 隐形轰炸机的持续开发的七个美国空军基地、以及爱荷华州国民警卫队联合部队总部，所有 这些都将被添加到第 2 部分，因此受扩大的 100 英里地理范围的约束。重要的是，拟议规则如果获得通过，将 不会改变与房地产交易相关的备案要求，根据 CFIUS 的房地产规则（第 802 部分），这些要求仍然是自愿的。

附录 A 的八个新增内容包括：

• 第 42 空军基地 （加利福尼亚州帕姆代尔）

• 戴斯空军基地 （德克萨斯州阿比林）

• 埃尔斯沃思空军基地（南达科他州博克斯埃尔德）

• 大福克斯空军基地（北达科他州大福克斯）

• 爱荷华州国民警卫队联合部队总部（爱荷华州得梅因）

• 克兰空军基地（德克萨斯州圣安东尼奥拉）

• 劳克林空军基地（德克萨斯州德尔里奥的）

• 卢克空军基地（亚利桑那州格伦代尔）

日益严格的审查：州和地方政府也参与其中

在过去的一年里，几笔备受瞩目的美国房地产交易引起了一系列利益相关方的关注，包括拜登政府、国会以及州 和地方政府官员。对中国购买美国农业用地对国家安全影响的担忧日益增加，使外国投资房地产重新被关注，尤 其是涉及食品安全或靠近军事或其他敏感政府设施的情况。

最值得注意的是，拟议规则将大福克斯空军基地列入附录 A 的补充清单。正如 Holland & Knight 律师在一篇文 章中所分析的那样，最近几个月，在联邦、州和地方各级立法者对中国食品制造商阜丰集团在大福克斯购买 370 英亩的绿地 距离基地不到 15 英里 以建造湿法玉米加工设施表示担忧，使得大福克斯空军基地一直是媒 体广泛报道的主题。阜丰向 CFIUS 提出了备案，而 2022 年 12 月， CFIUS 通知阜丰该交易并非收购美国企业 ，因此不受 CFIUS 第 800 部分的管辖。CFIUS 没有提及其在第 802 部分下的权限，该部分涉及房地产、但由 于该基地未列入第 802 部分的附录 A ，因此 CFIUS 也没有管辖权将该投资视为受保护的房地产交易而加以阻止 。在美国空军传达了其“明确”的观点，即该项目对国家安全构成重大威胁后，阜丰推进该项目的努力最终被大福 克斯市叫停。尽管地方当局做出了决定，但阜丰的收购引发了立法者和行业对 CFIUS 管辖权明显差距的争论。

拟议规则将扩大 CFIUS 管辖的指定设施清单。无论投资交易是纯粹的房地产交易还是收购现有的美国企业，如 其拥有属于 CFIUS 管辖范围内的某些产权， CFIUS 都会考虑该投资是否会导致对靠近敏感美国政府地点的房地 产权利的收购。阜丰交易发展后不久的拟议规则表明，指定设施的清单是动态审查的，并将根据感知到的风险位 置和漏洞进行更改。

关键要点

FIRRMA 实施以来，敏感军事设施清单一直未更新，因此在指定清单中增加新地点也就不足为奇了。拟议规则的 时机和性质表明了两个重要趋势。首先，新的军事设施

Grand Forks） 是在公众密切关 注之后增加的，这是 CFIUS 如何应对政治压力的另一个例子。其次，拟议规则证明美国国防部 (DOD) 正在对军 事设施存在的潜在漏洞进行持续评估 包括那些与邻近和情报收集相关的漏洞 并将酌情敦促 CFIUS 更新 反映这种不断变化的威胁的法规。

涉及靠近军事基地或其他敏感政府设施的房地产或资产的外国投资应评估对国家安全的影响以及 CFIUS 在交易 中的利益。此外，即使房地产或资产不靠近 31 CFR 第 802 部分附录 A 中明确列出的地点，但仍然靠近其他军 事基地或其他敏感的政府设施或涉及外国投资者或外国投资者对于可能对国家安全构成威胁的收购方，拟议交易 的各方应分析是否有任何州或地方法律可能影响风险评估，并考虑公众或政治压力如何改变法律或监管环境。在 阜丰案例中，投资因市议会拒绝继续发放各种许可证而停滞。

如果您对此提示文章有任何疑问，有兴趣提交书面意见或寻求帮助制定 CFIUS 策略，请联系作者或 Holland & Knight 的 CFIUS 和工业安全团队的其他成员。该团队的律师拥有进行必要的尽职调查（包括地理邻近性分析） 的知识和经验，以识别涵盖的房地产交易，准备必要的 CFIUS 风险评估，为企业领导者提供评估监管风险的工 具，并帮助在不断发展的变化国家安全领域上前进。

包括大福克斯（

California Seeks to Fill Empty Offices

OFFICE-TO-RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS FACE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

By Chelsea Maclean and Genna Yarkin

HIGHLIGHTS

• With the growth of remote work and increasing office vacancy rates at the confluence of a deepening housing crisis, it is impossible to miss the potential opportunities of office-to-residential conversions across California.

• Many cities are looking to support conversions to help revitalize their downtown areas, increase property values and inc rease tax revenues. Some cities already have adaptive reuse ordinances in place, and others are looking to expand their programs or adopt new ordinances to streamline processing and potentially reduce impact fees. It is an important time to track and advocate for useful processes.

• There is a range of state legislation that may help facilitate conversions. Current laws include Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which reduces parking for properties close to transit, as well as the Mills Act, which provides property tax abatement for historic building restoration and maintenance. State funding for conversions has also become a clear priority. Further relief could come from this year's AB 1532 that would provide for by -right processing along with a California Environment al Quality Act (CEQA) exemption and AB 529 that would require revisions to state adaptive reuse building codes to better facilitate conversion projects.

• While there are many known and unknown challenges with conversion projects, it certainly feels as if the state is at an inflection point and that those able to unlock the potential of conversion projects could be significant changemakers.

With the growth of remote work and increasing office vacancy rates at the confluence of a deepening housing crisis, it is impossible to miss the potential opportunities of office-to-residential conversions across California, particularly in dense urban areas. In concept, these conversions present hopeful statistics. A recent San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)/ Urban Land Institute (ULI) report estimated that if 40 percent of the currently unleased office space in San Francisco (all of which were deemed to be good candidates using a variety of factors) could be physically converted to housing, 11,235 multifamily residential units could be created.1 If only the vacant Class B and Class C buildings were converted, approximately 4,200 units could be accommodated downtown. 2 If even a fraction of these conversions came to fruition locally and if mirrored throughout the state, it would an incredible success.

From a policy perspective, many cities are looking to support conversions to help revitalize their downtown areas, increase property values and boost tax revenues. Moreover, reusing vacant buildings is seen as a smart climate strategy by reducing materials for construction and upgrading buildings to make them more energyefficient and climate-resilient.

CHALLENGES

At the same time, many professionals are identifying and reporting on the physical challenges of conversions. They have identified the challenges of large floorplates and the need for mechanical, electrical and plumbing system replacements, as well as the necessity of creative solutions to rework interior cores and reenvision exterior improvements. These are just a few of the major (and expensive) improvements needed to make an office building suitable for residential use. 3

In the suburban context, another challenge for commercial office "campuses" can be private land use restrictions such as covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that can serve as a further limiting factor by prohibiting residential uses and providing for private rights of enforcement by associations or neighboring landowners.

LOCAL AGENCY PERMITTING AND CEQA COMPLIANCE

To facilitate conversion, some cities already have adaptive reuse ordinances such as the Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance that was adopted in 1999.4 The Los Angeles ordinance provides streamlining for and incentivizes the conversion of the downtown's historically significant, vacant and underutilized buildings to create housing and hotels, and has been widely credited for the downtown's rapid growth in the last two decades. In part because of the effectiveness of the ordinance, the downtown grew from 18,000 residents in 11,626 residential units in 1999 to an estimated 79,525 residents in more than 46,000 units in 2019.5 Recently, there have been calls to expand the applicability outside of the downtown and its immediately neighboring communities,6 including by potentially expanding the scope of conversion to include light-industrial zones and further relaxing development standards and streamlining approval to incentivize additional conversions.7

Other cities are proposing new legislation that may serve as the prototype for city ordinances elsewhere. In San Francisco, the proposed Commercial Residential Adaptive Reuse Program introduced by Mayor London Breed and Supervisor Aaron Peskin would direct city officials to develop modified building code standards to facilitate conversions.8 It would also modify the zoning code to expand permitted uses in relevant downtown zoning districts and would exempt qualifying projects from impact fees (except for any in-lieu fees proposed to satisfy inclusionary affordable housing requirements).9 San Francisco's ordinance would also allow the expansion of the existing building envelope by 20 percent or one additional vertical story. 10

It should be noted that even in the absence of state or local legislation specifically tailored to conversions, it can still be possible to seek a change in use pursuant to existing zoning and building codes. The most favorable ordinances permit residential uses, provide credits for existing uses when considering impact fees, allow "grandfathering" of parking based on the existing use and provide flexibility on other requirements such as open space. In terms of environmental review for a conversion under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), buildings that are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop may utilize the less than significant presumption for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and will have an advantage. Where the traffic trips generated by a residential use are less than the trips generated by the prior use, analysis of other impact areas (e.g., air quality and noise) will be streamlined as well. Where a residential project will have greater impacts than a prior office use, additional environmental analysis may be needed. That is to say, site-specific analysis is needed to evaluate the opportunities and pitfalls for conversion projects to determine permitting and environmental review.

STATE LEGISLATION

There are also statewide legislative efforts underway to facilitate conversions. First, Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (introduced by Assemblymember Laura Friedman) was adopted in 2022, not necessarily for the purpose of conversions but which could have a beneficial impact. It limits an agency's ability to impose parking on projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Notably, it applies not just to residential projects but to office and mixed-use projects as well. There is some debate about whether this law applies to existing buildings, but there is a strong argument that it does, as there is significant construction work required to undertake conversions, making them development projects to which AB 2097 should apply. This specific law, alongside the general trend of local agencies reducing parking requirements, can help with the economic feasibility of conversion projects, especially in urban and infill areas well-served by transit, where the creation of parking typically represents a significant project expense.

New legislation proposed this year by Assemblymember Matt Haney, AB 1532 (known as the Office to Conversion Act) aims to impose mandates on local agencies that would streamline the processing of conversion projects. In particular, AB 1532 (in its current version) would:

• make a qualifying office conversion project a use-by-right in any zoning district

• exempt an office conversion project from environmental review under CEQA

• exempt a project from impact fees not directly related to office conversions and allow fees to be paid over 10 years

• exempt projects from new parking and open space requirements

• require that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) establish a program to fund conversion projects

• specifically apply to charter cities

In order to be eligible, conversion projects must include 10 percent low-income units and must use a "skilled and trained workforce" to perform the conversion. As with other laws that require the payment of prevailing wages, this obligation will likely limit the application of the law (if adopted) as cost prohibitive in some locations.

Another new bill, AB 529 (proposed by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel), would require the California Building Standards Commission to work with HCD to revise existing state adaptive reuse codes t o better facilitate office to residential conversion projects. It would also add expanding adaptive reuse programs to the list of actions for which a local jurisdiction can be deemed to advance "prohousing local policies," which earns it additional points in applying for grant money to support housing and infrastructure programs.

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

The SPUR/ULI report estimated a cost of $472,000 to $633,000 per unit for conversions, including labor and materials.11 That estimate did not include seismic upgrades. The report surmised that conversion projects are not currently economically feasible in most locations, although that could change if office building values decrease significantly, as is commonly projected.

State legislators have recognized this reality and are prioritizing funding. Last year, $400 million in adaptive reuse funds went into HCD's Infill Infrastructure Grant Catalytic Qualifying Infill Area Program, 12 and as of

earlier this month, roughly 55 applications had been filed that would account for $105 million of that available funding.13 California Gov. Gavin Newsom has included an additional $400 million in this year's budget proposal.14 Another tool is use of the Mills Act to obtain property tax abatement in exchange for restoration and maintenance of historic buildings.

CONCLUSION

While there are many known and unknown challenges with conversion projec ts, it certainly feels as if the state is at an inflection point and that those able to unlock the potential of conversion projects could be significant changemakers.

Holland & Knight attorneys have been working on adaptive reuse projects for decades and have broad experience and knowledge to assist in the evaluation and implementation of conversion projects. To highlight a few capabilities:

• Land use attorneys can conduct zoning analysis to determine local permitting and environmental review, as well as help harness available state programming.

• Construction attorneys can help evaluate buildings to determine physical feasibility.

• Transactional attorneys can negotiate and secure approvals under existing CC&Rs and other private restrictions, as well as structure agreements for the disposition of conversion projects.

Please see Holland & Knight's West Coast Real Estate, Land Use, Environment and Energy Group Fast Facts for more information, and contact the authors or another member of the West Coast Land Use and Environment Team to discuss additional opportunities.

NOTES

1 See Office-to-Residential Conversion in San Francisco's Changing Real Estate Market, March 28, 2023.

2 Id.

3 See So You Want to Turn an Office Building Into a Home?, March 11, 2023.

4 See Adaptive Reuse Ordinance: 20 Years of Preservation in Downtown Los Angeles.

5 Id.

6 See L.A. City Councilmember Proposes Expansion of Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, Dec. 17, 2020.

7 See New Report Makes the Case for Expanding Adaptive Reuse Citywide, April 16, 2021; also see Recommendations to Improve & Advance Adaptive Reuse Citywide, March 7, 2023.

8 See Repurposing San Francisco Office Buildings for New Housing, May 2, 2023.

9 Id.

10 Id.

加州寻求填补空置的办公室

办公楼改成住宅所面临多重机遇和挑战

原文作者: Chelsea Maclean 及 Genna Yarkin

重点摘要

• 随着远距工作的增长和办公室空置率的增加以及不断加深的住房危机的交汇，将不可能错过整个加州办 公室转换成住宅的潜在机会。

• 许多城市都在寻求支持转换，以帮助振兴市区、增加财产价值和增加税收。一些城市已经制定了适应性 再利用条例，而其他城市正在寻求扩大其计划或采用新条例来简化处理并可能降低影响费用。现在是跟 踪和倡导有用流程的重要时刻。

• 有一系列州立法可能有助于促进转换。现行法律包括众议院第 2097 号法案 (AB 2097)（该法案减少了公

共交通附近物业的停车位）、以及米尔斯法案 （Mills Act）（该法案为历史建筑的修复和维护提供了财 产税减免）。州为转换提供资金也已成为一个明确的优先事项。进一步的协助将来自今年的众议院第 1532 号法案（AB 1532 ）（该法案将提供其他权利的处理）、加州环境质量法案 (CEQA)所提供的豁免

、以及众议院第 529 号法案 （AB 529）（该法案将对州的适应性再利用建筑规范加以修订以更好地促进 转换项目）。

• 尽管转换项目存在许多已知和未知的挑战，但肯定感觉加州正处于拐点，那些能够释放转换项目潜力的 人可能是重要的改变者。

随着远距工作的增长和办公室空置率的增加以及不断加深的住房危机的交汇，不可能错过整个加州办公室转换成 住宅的潜在机会，特别是在密集的城市地区。在概念上，这些转换提供了有希望的统计数据。旧金山湾区规划和 城市研究协会 (SPUR)/城市土地研究所 (ULI) 最近的一份报告估计，如果旧金山目前未出租的办公空间中有 40% （所有这些都被认为是使用各种因素）可以实际转化为住房，可以创建 11,235 个多户住宅单元。 1 如果只改造

空置的 B 级和 C 级建筑，市中心大约可以容纳 4,200 个单元。 2 如果这些转变中的一小部分在当地取得成果， 并且在整个州得到反映，那将是一个令人难以置信的成功。

从政策的角度来看，许多城市都在寻求支持改造，以帮助振兴市区、提高房地产价值和增加税收。此外，再利用 空置建筑被视为一种智能气候战略，它可以减少建筑材料和升级建筑，使其更加节能和适应气候变化。

挑战

与此同时，许多专业人士正在识别和报告转换过程中的身体挑战。他们已经确定了大型地板的挑战和更换机械、 电气和管道系统的需求，以及创造性解决方案对内部核心返工和重新设想外部改进的必要性。这些只是使办公楼 适合住宅使用所需的一些主要（且昂贵）改进。3

在郊区，商业办公“校园”面临的另一个挑战可能是私人土地使用限制，例如承诺、条件和限制 ( CC&Rs )，这些 限制可以通过禁止住宅用途和规定协会的私人执法权来作为进一步的限制因素或邻近的土地所有人。

当地机构许可和 CEQA 合规性

为促进改造，一些城市已经制定了适应性再利用条例，例如 1999 年通过的洛杉矶适应性再利用条例。4 洛杉矶 条例简化并激励市中心具有历史意义、空置和未充分利用的建筑物的改造，以建造住房和酒店，并因过去二十年 市中心的快速发展而广受赞誉。部分由于该条例的有效性，市中心从 1999 年的 11,626 个住宅单元中的 18,000 名居民增加到 2019 年的 46,000 多个单元中的估计 79,525 名居民。5 最近，有人呼吁将适用范围扩大到市中心 以外及其紧邻社区， 6 包括通过可能扩大转换范围以包括轻工业区和进一步放宽开发标准和简化审批以激励更多 转换。 7

其他城市正在提议新的立法，可以作为其他城市条例的原型。在旧金山，由市长 London Breed 和主管 Aaron Peskin 提出的拟议商业住宅适应性再利用计划将指示市政府官员制定修改后的建筑规范标准以促进转换。 8 它还 将修改分区代码以扩大相关市中心分区的允许用途，并将免除符合条件的项目的影响费（为满足包容性经济适用 房要求而提议的任何替代费用除外）。9 旧金山的法令还允许将现有建筑围护结构扩大 20% 或增加一层垂直楼层

应该注意的是，即使没有专门针对改建的州或地方立法，仍然可以根据现有的分区和建筑规范寻求改变用途。最 有利的条例允许住宅用途，在考虑影响费用时为现有用途提供信贷，“就地合法”允许根据现有用途停车，并在开 放空间等其他要求上提供灵活性。在根据加州环境质量法案 (CEQA) 对转换进行的环境审查方面，位于主要交通 站点半英里范围内的建筑物可以使用车辆行驶里程 ( VMT )的不太重要的推定，并且将有一个优势。如果住宅用 途产生的交通出行次数少于先前用途产生的出行次数，则也将简化对其他影响领域（例如空气质量和噪音）的分 析。如果住宅项目比以前的办公室用途产生更大的影响，则可能需要进行额外的环境分析。也就是说，需要针对 特定地点的分析来评估转换项目的机会和陷阱，以确定许可和环境审查。

州的立法

全州范围内的立法工作也在进行中，以促进转换。首先，众议院 2097 号法案 (AB 2097)（由众议员 Laura Friedman 提出）于 2022 年获得通过，不一定是为了转变，但可能会产生有益的影响。它限制了机构在主要交 通站点半英里范围内对项目实施停车的能力。值得注意的是，它不仅适用于住宅项目，也适用于办公和混合用途 项目。关于这项法律是否适用于现有建筑存在一些争论，但有一个强有力的论据认为它适用，因为进行改造需要 大量的建设工作，使它们成为 AB 2097 应适用的开发项目。这条具体的法律，连同当地机构减少停车要求的总 体趋势，可以帮助提高转换项目的经济可行性，尤其是在公交服务良好的城市和填充区，在这些区域，创建停车 位通常是一项重要的项目费用。

众议员 Matt Haney 今年提出的新立法众议院 1532 号法案(AB 1532)（称为办公室转换法案）旨在对地方机构施 加授权，以简化转换项目的处理。特别是，AB 1532（在其当前版本中）将：

• 使符合条件的办公室改建项目成为任何分区中的按权利使用

• 根据 CEQA 豁免办公室改造项目的环境审查

• 免除与办公室改造无直接关系的项目影响费，并允许在 10 年内支付费用

• 免除项目的新停车和开放空间要求

• 特别适用于特许城市

为了符合资格，转换项目必须包括 10% 的低收入单位，并且必须使用“熟练和训练有素的劳动力”来执行转换。

与其他要求支付现行工资的法律一样，这项义务可能会限制法律（如果采用）的适用，因为在某些地方成本过高 。

另一项新法案众议院

529 号法案(AB 529)（由议员 Jesse Gabriel 提议）将要求加州建筑标准委员会与加州住房 和社区发展部合作修改现有的州适应性再利用代码，以更好地促进办公室到住宅的转换项目。它还将扩大适应性 再利用计划添加到行动清单中，地方司法管辖区可被视为推进“支持地方政策”，这在申请赠款以支持住房和基础 设施计划时为其赢得额外积分。

财务可行性

SPUR/ULI 报告估计每单位转换成本为 472,000 美元至 633,000 美元，包括人工和材料。 11 该估计不包括抗震 升级。该报告推测，转换项目目前在大多数地方在经济上不可行，尽管如果办公楼价值像通常预测的那样大幅下 降，这种情况可能会改变。

州立法者已经认识到这一现实，并正在优先提供资金。去年，4 亿美元的适应性再利用资金进入了加州住房和社 区发展部的《填充基础设施拨款催化合格填充区域计划》， 12 截至本月早些时候，已经提交了大约 55 份申请，

占可用资金的 1.05 亿美元。 13 加州州长 Gavin Newsom 在今年的预算提案中增加了 4 亿美元。 14 另一个工具 是使用《米尔斯法案》获得财产税减免，以换取历史建筑的修复和维护。

结论

虽然转换项目存在许多已知和未知的挑战，但肯定感觉加州正处于拐点，那些能够释放转换项目潜力的人可能是 重要的改变者。

Holland & Knight 的律师几十年来一直致力于适应性再利用项目，并拥有丰富的经验和知识来协助评估和实施转 换项目。突出一些功能：

• 土地使用律师可以进行分区分析以确定当地的许可和环境审查，并帮助利用可用的州规划。

• 建筑律师可以帮助评估建筑物以确定物理可行性。

• CC&R 和其他私人限制以及用于处置转换项目的结构协议进行谈判并获得批准。

请参阅 Holland & Knight's 的西岸房地产、土地利用、环境和能源小组速览了解更多信息，并联系作者或西岸土 地利用和环境团队的其他成员讨论更多机会。

1 请参阅 2023 年 3 月 28 日旧金山不断变化的房地产市场中的办公室到住宅的转换。

• 要求加州住房和社区发展部 (HCD) 制定一项计划来资助转换项目

2 同上。

3 请参阅 您想将办公楼改造成家吗？, 2023 年 3 月 11 日。

4 参参阅 适应性再利用条例：洛杉矶市中心 20 年的保护工作。

5 同上。

6 请参阅 洛杉矶市议会成员提议扩大适应性再利用条例，2020 年 12 月 17 日。

7 请参阅 新报告，说明在全市范围内扩大自适应再利用，2021 年 4 月 16 日；另请参阅 2023 年 3 月 7 日在全市范围内改 进和推进适应性再利用的建议。

8 请参阅 将旧金山办公楼重新用于新住房，2023 年 5 月 2 日。

9 同上。

10 同上。

11 请参阅 旧金山不断变化的房地产市场中的办公室到住宅的转换，2023 年 3 月 28 日。

12 请参阅 加州 4 亿美元的办公室到住房转换基金吸引投资者申请人，2023 年 3 月 7 日。

13 请参阅加 州 4 亿美元的办公室到住房转换基金吸引投资者申请人，2023 年 3 月 7 日。

14 请参阅 旨在将加州的办公室改造成住房的新法案，2023 年 3 月 6 日。

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

Brian R. Browder has served as lead counsel in complex healthcare mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures and private equity investments with an aggregate value of more than $4 billion. His experience ranges from the acquisition or sale of individual hospitals and healthcare facilities to physician practice acquisitions and virtually everything in between, including high-profile transformative hospital transactions. He is particularly focused on assisting private equity firms with platform and bolt-on acquisitions of physician practices and regularly serves as counsel on distressed healthcare transactions.

Alexander M. Dudley focuses his practice on assisting clients in the investigation and litigation of complex fraud schemes and commercial litigation. He represents clients in nationwide matters in state and federal court, and has experience in all aspects of the litigation process, including electronic discovery and electronicallystored information (ESI), class actions and trial preparation.

Robert A. Friedman helps clients address a range of complex legal, regulatory and policy issues that involve international trade and investment, government regulation of cross -border transactions and compliance with U.S. laws based on foreign policy and national security. He advises businesses, entrepreneurs, investors and trade associations on matters related to economic sanctions, export controls, foreign direct investment, supply chain security, customs laws, data privacy and cybersecurity, market access, anti-corruption and national security regulations.

Francisco Andres Gamez -Garza has more than 18 years of experience advising clients in corporate, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), general financing, joint ventures, due diligence, business structuring, divestitures, sales, spinoffs, dissolution, company liquidation and real estate transactions. He has also helped to set up and oversee operations in Mexico for local and multinational clients.

Cynthia A. Gierhart focuses her practice on media, trademark, copyright and entertainment law. She has represented clients in litigation involving right of publicity, defamation, trademark, copyright, trade secrets and access to judicial records. She has also negotiated book, film and podcast agreements.

Bill Katz focuses his practice on complex business litigation and arbitration matters, with an emphasis on energy, antitrust, securities, healthcare and corporate governance issues. He represents clients before federal and state trial and appellate courts, arbitration panels and administrative agencies. He also has experience in internal investigations, representation of audit committees and the design and implementation of compliance and training programs.

Robert J. Labate is co-chair of the firm's national Entertainment Law practice. He assists major media companies, performers and production companies with copyright, licensing, financing, content acquisition, production, digital distribution and music issues. He also advises media and entertainment clients regarding advertising, sponsorship and talent agreements as well as use of social media and websites.

Chelsea Maclean counsels clients on all aspects of land use development. She conducts due diligence for the acquisition, disposition and leasing of property. She regularly advises institutional investors, lenders, developers, landowners, lessees and lessors, and governmental entities with regard to land use restrictions and agreements, as well as entitlement processing and permitting requirements. With extensive experience developing plans that minimize legal, political and business risks for her clients, she drafts and negotiates transactional agreements to effectuate coordinated strategies. She prepares development agreements, assignment and assumption agreements, affordable housing agreements, easement agreements, improvement agreements, service agreements and maintenance agreements, in addition to providing land use assistance on purchase and sale agreements, leases and other real estate agreements.

Jaime Israel Moreno Treviño focuses his practice on a variety of corporate and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions. He has advised national and foreign clients in corporate matters, M&A, general financing, joint ventures, due diligence, business structuring, divestitures, sales, spinoffs, dissolution, company liquidation and real estate transactions.

Marina Veljanovska O'Brien practice focuses on regulatory compliance, with an emphasis on aviation and international trade law. She advises airlines, airports, aviation servic e providers and pilots on compliance with applicable state, federal, foreign and international transportation, and trade-related laws and regulations. These include economic licensing, consumer protection, airport sponsors' obligations, airport privatizat ion issues, transportation safety standards, antitrust and competition compliance, and risk assessment.

Tanisha Pinkins focuses her practice on representing U.S.-based private equity firms and U.S.-based global corporations in connection with mergers and acquisitions (M&A), special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) transactions and general corporate matters. Additionally, Ms. Pinkins counsels Grammy Award-winning artists and music producers, television and film producers, and National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Football League (NFL) athletes with general corporate structuring, licensing, implementation, governance and protection of intellectual property, and in the negotiation, drafting and review of contracts.

Gabriel Ruiz advises domestic and international corporations on complex corporate, energy, real estate, cross-border and financing matters, including the corporate and operational design for the development of oil, gas and energy projects. He also represents national and multinational companies before governmental bodies and regulatory agencies in Mexico. He provides legal advice related to energy, industrial and real estate projects, including company planning and formation, specialized contracts, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), joint ventures, due diligence, business structuring, divestitures, sales, spinoffs, dissolution, company liquidation, real estate transactions, financial operations and international tax planning.

Antonia I. Tzinova 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 crossborder mergers and acquisitions (M&A) 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. She has also advised on measures to mitigate FOCI in portfolio investments by private equity firms in government contractors performing on classified contracts, as well as advising dozens of clients on whether and how to approach the CFIUS review issue. She additionally counsels clients on defense and hightechnology exports, U.S. trade embargoes and economic sanctions, and customs matters.

Genna Yarkin focuses on environmental law, land use, and real estate. Her experience includes due diligence, permitting and entitlements, and litigation for project proponents and agencies, including under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She has experience throughout California with residential, commercial, mixed-use and industrial projects. She has a keen interest in housing law and is experienced in harnessing California law to benefit communities in need of housing, including the State Density Bonus Law, Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330) and California Senate Bill 35.

Sarah Kaitlin Hubner is a paralegal in the Corporate – Trade Regulation practic e in Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enrique Gomez-Pinzon | Bogotá +57.601.745.5800 enrique.gomezpinzon@hklaw.com

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

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

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

Mike Chiang 蒋尚仁律 师 New York | +1.212.513.3415 San Francisco | +1.415.743.6968 mike.chiang@hklaw.com

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

Francisco J. Sanchez | Tampa +1.813.227.6559 francisco.sanchez@hklaw.com

Robert J. Labate | San Francisco +1.415.743.6991

robert.labate@hklaw.com

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

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

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

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

Douglas A. Praw | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2588

doug.praw@hklaw.com

John F. Pritchard | New York +1.212.513.3233

john.pritchard@hklaw.com

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

Office Locations 办公室地点

Evan S. Seideman | Stamford +1.203.905.4518

evan.seideman@hklaw.com

Jeffrey R. Seul | Boston +1.617.305.2121

jeff.seul@hklaw.com

Vivian Thoreen | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2482

vivian.thoreen@hklaw.com

Shawn M. Turner | Denver +1.303.974.6645

shawn.turner@hklaw.com

Matthew P. Vafidis | San Francisco +1.415.743.6950

matthew.vafidis@hklaw.com

Stacey H. Wang | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2480

stacey.wang@hklaw.com

Charles A. Weiss | New York +1.212.513.3551

charles.weiss@hklaw.com

Jose V. Zapata | Bogotá +57.601.745.5940

jose.zapata@hklaw.com