Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: January/February 2020 by Holland & Knight

期刊

Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................3 DISCOVERY IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: THE EVER-EXPANDING SCOPE ............................4 国际仲裁中的证据揭露：不断扩大的范围...................................................................................................7 FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF REAL ESTATE: NEW RULES FROM CFIUS.............................................10 外国人拥有房地产：CFIUS 的新规定 .......................................................................................................17 A LEGAL AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS ..........................................23 关于规范膳食补充剂的法律及法规的概要介绍 .........................................................................................28 ADVANTAGEOUS STRUCTURE FOR CHINESE NATIONALS TO INVEST IN U.S. INCOME PRODUCING REAL ESTATE..................................................................................................................32 中国国民投资美国产生收入的房地产的有利结构 ......................................................................................35 ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ..................................................................................................................38 有关本期刊 ..............................................................................................................................................38 ABOUT THE AUTHORS..........................................................................................................................38 关于本期作者 ...........................................................................................................................................38

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。

Discovery in International Arbitration: The Ever-Expanding Scope By Marisa Marinelli, Michael J. Frevola and Adolfo E. Jimenez

HIGHLIGHTS  Two recent U.S. federal appellate court decisions addressing a U.S. statute often used to obtain discovery for use in international arbitration will have a significant impact on the conduct of cross-border dispute resolution.  In the first case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently allowed parties engaged in private international arbitration with a situs outside of the U.S. to obtain discovery in the U.S. In so doing, the court was called upon to interpret a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (a). Under § 1782 (a), a U.S. federal district court "in the district in which a person resides or is found" may order discovery "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal" upon application by "any interested person."  In a subsequent unrelated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that § 1782 (a)'s "resides or is found" language extends its reach to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process, leaving to the U.S. federal district court's discretion on a case-by-case basis whether such discovery might include discovery of materials located outside the U.S. ____________________________________________________________ Two recent U.S. federal appellate court decisions addressing a U.S. statute often used to obtain discovery for use in international arbitration will have a significant impact on the conduct of cross-border dispute resolution. In both cases, the court was called upon to interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (a). Under § 1782 (a), a U.S. federal district court "in the district in which a person resides or is found" may order discovery "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal" upon application by "any interested person." Departing from the holdings of other federal appellate courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the phrase "foreign or international tribunal" included private commercial arbitrations. In a subsequent – and unrelated decision – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that § 1782 (a)'s "resides or is found" language extends its reach to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process, and that there is no per se bar to the extraterritorial application of § 1782. In both cases, the appellate courts noted that whether or to what extent the requested discovery should be allowed was within the discretion of the district court.

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF § 1782 (A) Departing from the holdings of other federal courts of appeal, including the Second (New York, Connecticut, Vermont) and Fifth Circuits (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas), the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee) recently ruled that § 1782(a) permits discovery for use in private commercial arbitration. The underlying dispute in Abdul Latif Jameel Transp. Co. v. FedEx Corp., 939 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2019), involved claims arising under a General Service Provider agreement (GSP) between Abdul Latif Jameel Transportation Co.(ALJ) and FedEx International, under which ALJ agreed to be FedEx International's delivery-services partner in Saudi Arabia. Disputes under the GSP were to be arbitrated in Dubai under the rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (DIFC-LCIA). The parties also entered into a Domestic Service Agreement (DSA), under which FedEx International agreed to provide ALJ with certain support services, and disputes were to be arbitrated in Saudi Arabia, under the laws of that country. When FedEx International announced it would not be renewing the GSP and that ALJ would have to rebid for the work, ALJ commenced arbitration against FedEx International in Saudi Arabia before a panel constituted Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

under the laws of Saudi Arabia. A few weeks later, FedEx International commenced arbitration in Dubai under the rules of the DIFC-LCIA. The Saudi Arabia arbitration was dismissed, and ALJ appealed. Although FedEx Corp. was not a party to the GSP or DSA and was not named as a party in either arbitration, ALJ filed an application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, the district where FedEx Corp. is headquartered. Alleging that FedEx Corp. was significantly involved in luring ALJ into the contractual relationship with FedEx International and that FedEx Corp. (who, subsequent to the contracts with ALJ, acquired TNT Express, a competitor of ALJ in Saudi Arabia) misled ALJ into believing its future contractual relationship with FedEx was secure, ALJ sought document discovery as well as deposition testimony from a corporate representative of FedEx Corp. The district court denied ALJ's application, finding, inter alia, that the DIFC-LICA arbitration panel did not constitute a "foreign or international tribunal" within the meaning of § 1782(a). The Sixth Circuit reversed. In reversing the district court, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the DIFC-LICA arbitration panel – a panel sitting in a privately contracted-for arbitration – qualified as a "foreign or international tribunal." In reaching this conclusion, the court focused on the ordinary meaning of the word "tribunal." In particular, the court noted that there was no evidence that the phrases "foreign tribunal" or "international tribunal" are terms of art or that any specialized meaning was ascribed to the phrases. The court then looked to ordinary dictionary definitions, where it found support for a broad reading of the word "tribunal" to include private arbitration panels; the use of the word "tribunal" in legal writings, where it found support in court decisions that predated the statute for a broad interpretation of the word; and the use of the word "tribunal" in the statute itself, where it found that other uses of the word did not "dictate a more limited reading." In so doing, the Sixth Circuit held that the word "tribunal" included private, contracted-for arbitration and that the DIFC-LICA panel was a "foreign or international tribunal" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (a). The Sixth Circuit was not dissuaded by prior decisions of the Second and Fifth Circuits, which held that the word "tribunal" includes only "governmental or intergovernmental arbitral tribunals and conventional courts and other state-sponsored adjudicatory bodies." See Republic of Kasakhstan v. Biedermann Int'l, 168 F.3d 880, 882 (5th Cir. 1999); National Broadcasting Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir. 1999). Significantly, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with the Second and Fifth Circuit's reliance on legislative history and statements in congressional reports. It found that the congressional statements did not exclude privately constituted proceedings from the meaning of "tribunal," noting that in repealing the predecessor statute to § 1782 (a), Congress' intent was to expand § 1782 (a)'s applicability, and there was no indication that such expansion "stopped short of private arbitration." Finally, the Sixth Circuit was not persuaded by policy arguments, which included the argument that allowing § 1782 (a) to apply to private arbitration would afford foreign parties in arbitration abroad broader discovery than allowed in arbitration in the U.S. or that allowing such discovery would defeat the principal purpose of arbitration, namely saving parties time and money associated with court litigation. The Sixth Circuit noted that district courts have wide discretion in determining whether to order the discovery requested and the extent to which the discovery would be allowed.

EXTRATERRITORIAL DISCOVERY ALLOWED UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Shortly after the Sixth Circuit's decision in Abdul Latif, the Second Circuit addressed two issues concerning the "reach" of § 1782. In In Re: Application of Antonio del Valle Ruiz, 2019 WL 4924395 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2019), the Second Circuit held that there was no per se bar to the extraterritorial application of § 1782, and that the district court may exercise its discretion as to whether to allow such discovery. Further, the court examined the jurisdictional requirement that, to obtain discovery under § 1782, the person or entity to provide such discovery

must reside or be found in the district, and held that this requirement extended § 1782's reach "to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process." In del Valle Ruiz, a group of investors of a failing bank (Banco Popular Espanol, S.A., or BPE) brought legal challenges in Europe, including an international arbitration, to the government-forced sale of the bank. The del Valle Ruiz investors filed a § 1782 petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking discovery from Banco Santander (who had bid to acquire the bank) and its wholly owned subsidiaries, including a subsidiary (SIS) incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York City. Discovery from Santander, a Spanish banking company with its principal place of business in Madrid, Spain, was not permitted, as it was not "found" in the district. After analyzing the applicable law on general versus specific jurisdiction, and due process afforded a nonparty such as Santander, the court held that "where the discovery material sought proximately resulted from the respondent's forum contacts, that would be sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction for ordering discovery." In agreeing, for the most part, with the lower court's findings, the Second Circuit found that all but one of Santander's related contacts with New York all postdated the sale of the bank and therefore the required proximity was lacking. With respect to the one contact that was connected to the discovery being sought, the court also found proximity lacking, as the New York contact arose from Santander's failed bid to acquire the bank and not from the eventual government-forced sale. Since the petitioner's claims arose from the government sale, the Second Circuit upheld the district court's finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Santander. The investors in del Valle Ruiz also sought discovery from a Santander subsidiary, SIS, that had its principal place of business in New York but where the evidence sought was located abroad. Relying on a canon of statutory construction known as the "presumption against extraterritoriality," Santander (on behalf of SIS) argued that the district court erred by not apply a per se bar against discovery seeking information located abroad. Noting that the issue of whether § 1782 can be used to reach information stored overseas had not been addressed by the Second Circuit, the court looked to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the first circuit to find that § 1782 allows extraterritorial discovery. Reasoning that since § 1782 permitted discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and since the Federal Rules authorize extraterritorial discovery, § 1782 likewise must permit such discovery. Finding this reasoning persuasive, the Second Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that "a district court is not categorically barred from allowing discovery under § 1782 of evidence located abroad." Where the evidence is located is a factor, though, for the district court to consider when deciding whether to exercise its discretion to permit such discovery.

CONCLUSION Given the complexity of many cross-border disputes, the involvement of multinational companies that often are parties in these disputes, and the reality that information relevant and necessary to the dispute resolution process rarely will be located in one jurisdiction, the ability to seek evidence from a party in the U.S., even if that evidence is located outside of the U.S., using § 1782 is a significant tool available to parties. The willingness of courts to permit applications by parties engaged in private arbitration outside of the U.S. presents an advantage for the party seeking discovery from a U.S.-based entity. For all parties, it adds additional costs, embroils them in court proceedings, and will likely delay proceedings. It may also spawn tangential disputes, depending on where the extraterritorial evidence may be located and whether that forum (a non-U.S. forum) may also have a say in whether the evidence may be produced.

国际仲裁中的证据揭露：不断扩大的范围原文作者： Marisa Marinelli、 Michael J. Frevola 及 Adolfo E. Jimenez

重点摘要  美国联邦上诉法院最近作出两个涉及一项通常用来获取用于国际仲裁的证据揭露的美国法规的判决，而这将对跨境争端解决的进行产生重大的影响。  在第一个案件中，美国联邦第六巡回上诉法院最近允许在美国境外仲裁地进行的私人国际仲裁的当事人在美国进行证据揭露。在作出此判决，法院对联邦法规（美国法典第 28 章第 1782（a）条（28 U.S.C. §1782（a））进行了解释。根据第 1782（a）条， “在某人居住或被发现位于该地区”的美国联邦地方法院“于任何利害关系人”提出申请后，可命令进行“用于外国或国际法庭的争讼程序” 的证据揭露。  在其后的一项无关的判决中，美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院判决§1782（a）的“居住或被发现位于”的文字应被扩大延伸至符合正当程序的属人管辖权范围的界限，而使美国联邦地方法院可根据具体情况裁量决定此类证据揭露是否可能包括对位于美国境外的材料进行证据揭露。 ____________________________________________________________ 美国联邦上诉法院最近作出的两个涉及一项通常用来获得用于国际仲裁的证据揭露的美国法规的判决，而这将对跨境争端解决的进行产生重大的影响。在这两起案件中，法院被要求对《美国法典》第 28 章第 1782（a）条进行解释。根据第 1782（a）条， “在某人居住或被发现位于的地区”的美国联邦地方法院“于任何利害关系人 ”提出申请后，可命令进行“用于外国或国际法庭的争讼程序”的证据揭露。与其他联邦上诉法院所作出的判决不同，美国联邦第六巡回上诉法院认为“外国或国际法庭”一词应包括私人商业仲裁。美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院在其后的一项与此无关的判决中判定，§1782（a）的“居住或被发现位于”一词应被扩大延伸至符合正当程序的属人管辖权范围的界限，且其本身并不禁止第 1782 条的域外适用。在这两个案件中，上诉法院都指出，地方法院具有决定是否或在多大程度上允许所要求的证据揭露的裁量权。

私人商业仲裁属于第 1782（A）条的范围与其他联邦上诉法院，包括第二巡回上诉法院（纽约州、康涅狄格州、佛蒙特州）和第五巡回上诉法院（路易斯安那州、密西西比州、德克萨斯州）所作出的判决不同，第六巡回上诉法院（肯塔基州、密歇根州、俄亥俄州、田纳西州）最近作出判决判定 1782（a）条允许进行用于私人商业仲裁的揭露程序。Abdul Latif Jameel Transp. Co. v. FedEx Corp. （939 F.3d 710 ；第 6 巡回法庭，2019 年）涉及 Abdul Latif Jameel Transp. Co. （ALJ）和联邦快递国际之间的总服务提供商协议（GSP）所产生的索赔，根据该协议，ALJ 同意作为联邦快递国际在沙特阿拉伯的快递服务合作伙伴。而 GSP 下产生的争议将根据迪拜国际金融中心-伦敦国际仲裁法院（DIFC-LCIA ）的规则在迪拜进行仲裁。双方还签订了一个国内服务协议（DSA），而根据该国内服务协议，联邦快递国际同意向 ALJ 提供某些支持服务，且发生的争议将根据沙特阿拉伯法律在沙特阿拉伯进行仲裁。当联邦快递国际公司宣布不再续签 GSP 且 ALJ 将需对这项工作重新进行投标时，ALJ 在沙特阿拉伯向根据沙特阿拉伯法律组成的仲

裁庭对联邦快递国际公司提起了仲裁。几周后，联邦快递国际根据 DIFC-LCIA 的规则在迪拜开启另一个仲裁。在沙特阿拉伯提出的仲裁被驳回，而 ALJ 提出上诉。尽管联邦快递公司（FedEx Corp.）不是 GSP 或 DSA 的合约当事人，也没有在任何仲裁中被指定为当事人一方，但 ALJ 根据《美国法典》第 28 章第 1782 条向联邦快递公司总部所在地田纳西西区的美国地方法院提交了一份证据揭露申请。声称联邦快递公司重大地参与引诱 ALJ 与联邦快递国际公司建立合同关系、且误导 ALJ 相信其与联邦快递的未来合同关系是稳固的（联邦快递公司在 ALJ 与联邦快递国际公司签订合同后，收购了 ALJ 在沙特阿拉伯的竞争对手 TNT Express）。ALJ 要求对联邦快递公司的一名公司代表进行文件揭露及口头证据质问的证据揭露程序。地方法院拒绝了 ALJ 的申请，认定除了其他理由之外，DIFC-LICA 的仲裁庭不构成第 1782（ a）条意义上的“外国或国际法庭”。而联邦第六巡回上诉法院推翻了该决定。在推翻地方法院的判定时，第六巡回上诉法院决定 DIFC-LICA 中的仲裁庭（一在私人约定的仲裁的仲裁庭）符合“外国或国际法庭”的资格。在得出这一结论时，法院着重于“法庭”一词的一般含义。特别是，法院指出，没有证据表明“外国法庭”或“国际法庭”是特别术语，也没有证据表明这些词语具有任何专门含义。法院随后查阅了普通词典的定义，认为有必要对“仲裁庭”一词进行广泛的解读以将私人仲裁庭包括在内；就法律著作中使用“法庭”一词，法院发现在 1782（a）条制定之前的法院判决对“法庭”一词进行宽泛的解释；且就在 1782（a）条中使用“法庭”一词，发现该词的其他用法并没有“要求更为限制的解读”。在这样做时，第六巡回上诉法院判决决定“法庭”一词应包括私人合约约定的仲裁，且 DIFC-LICA 仲裁庭是《美国法典》第 28 章第 1782（a）条所指的“外国或国际法庭”。联邦第六巡回上诉法院没有被联邦第二巡回上诉法院和第五巡回上诉法院先前的判决所劝阻，第二和第五巡回上诉法院认为“法庭”一词只包括“政府或政府间仲裁庭、传统法院和其他国家赞助的仲裁机构”。请见 Republic of Kasakhstan v. Biedermann Int'l , 168 F.3d 880, 882 (5th Cir. 1999); National Broadcasting Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir. 1999)。值得注意的是，联邦第六巡回上诉法院不同意第二和第五巡回上诉法院对立法历史和国会报告中的声明的仰赖。它认为国会的声明并没有将私人组成的争讼程序排除在 “法庭”的含义之外，并指出，在将第 1782（a）条先前的法规废除时，国会的意图是扩大第 1782（a）条的适用范围，而且没有迹象显示这种扩大解释“不包括私人仲裁”。最后，第六巡回上诉法院没有被政策论述所说服，其中包括允许第 1782（a）条适用于私人仲裁会使外国当事人在国外仲裁中获得比在美国仲裁中更广泛的证据揭露权利、或允许这种证据揭露会挫败仲裁的主要目的（即节省当事人所花费与法院诉讼相关的时间和金钱的目的）的论述。第六巡回上诉法院注意到地方法院在决定是否命令进行所要求的证据揭露以及允许的证据揭露程度上有广泛的裁量权。

《美国法典》第 28 章第 1782 条允许的域外证据揭露在联邦第六巡回上诉法院对 Abdul Latif 一案作出判决后不久，第二巡回上诉法院就与第 1782 条所规定“适用的范围”有关的两个问题进行了审理。在 In Re: Application of Antonio del Valle Ruiz, 2019 WL 4924395 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)一案，联邦第二巡回上诉法院认为第 1782 条本身没有禁止第 1782 条的域外适用，且地方法院可以行使其是否允许此类证据揭露的自由裁量权。此外，法院还审查了管辖权要求，认为为根据第 1782 条进行证据揭露程序，提供此类证据揭露的个人或实体必须居住在或被发现位于该法院的管辖地区，并认为该要求将第 1782 条的适用范围扩大到“符合正当程序的属人管辖范围的界限”。在 del Valle Ruiz 一案，一家破产的银行（Banco Popular Espanol，S.a.，简称 BPE）的一群投资人在欧洲对政府强行出售该银行一事提出了法律挑战，包括提起一国际仲裁。del Valle Ruiz 的投资人向美国纽约南区联邦地 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

方法院提交了一份 1782 条的申请，要求对桑坦德银行（曾投标收购 BPE）及其全资子公司（包括一家在特拉华州注册成立、主要营业地位于纽约市的子公司）进行证据揭露程序。对桑坦德银行这家主要营业地位于西班牙马德里的西班牙银行公司进行证据揭露并没有获得许可，原因是其桑坦德银行并没有“被发现位于”该法院管辖地区。在分析了一般管辖权与特定管辖权的适用法律的区别，以及赋予诸如桑坦德这样的非当事人的正当程序的权利之后，法院认为，“如所寻求揭露的证据材料主要是因为被告于法院管辖地区的接触所产生，将足以达到为命令进行证据揭露所需的特别管辖权”。在同意下级法院大部分的决定的情形下，第二巡回上诉法院发现桑坦德银行与纽约的所有联系除了一项之外都发生于银行出售之前，因此缺少所需的相近的联系因素。而对该一个与寻求进行证据揭露有关的联系，因为该纽约的接触与桑坦德银行失败的银行收购有关而与最终的政府强制出售无关，法院也发现缺乏相近的联系因素。由于申请人是对政府的出售提出索赔请求，第二巡回法院支持地方法院所作出法院对桑坦德银行不具个人管辖权。 del Valle Ruiz 的投资人还向桑坦德的一家子公司 SIS 寻求进行证据揭露，SIS 的主要营业地在纽约，但所寻求揭露的证据位于国外。桑坦德银行（代表 SIS）依据一个被称为“推定不含境外管辖区”的法规解释原则，主张地方法院为适用本身就禁止对位于国外的信息的揭露的法规的决定就是错误的。注意到第二巡回上诉法院没有审理过是否可以利用第 1782 条来获取储存在海外的信息的问题，法院参考了第一个认为第 1782 条允许进行域外证据揭露的巡回法院的美国第十一巡回上诉法院的决定。该决定认为因为§1782 允许依据联邦民事诉讼法进行证据揭露，且因为联邦规定授权域外证据揭露的进行，1782 条同样应该允许此类证据揭露。第二巡回上诉法院认为这一推理具有说服力，于是加入第十一巡回上诉法院的行列，认为“根据 1782 条规定，地方法院不被明确禁止对位于境外的证据进行揭露程序”。但证据所在的地点是地方法院在决定是否行使自由裁量权以决定是否允许该等揭露时应考虑的一个因素。

结论鉴于许多跨国争端的复杂性、跨国公司通常参与这些争端、且与争端解决程序相关且必要的信息很少会只位于一个司法管辖区，如何使用第 1782 条以从位于美国的一方寻求证据的能力（即使证据位于美国境外）成为对当事人相当重要的工具。法院愿意允许在美国境外从事私人仲裁的当事方提出申请，这对向位于美国的实体寻求证据揭露的当事人方来说是一个优势。对所有当事人来说，这会增加额外的费用，使他们卷入法庭诉讼，而且可能会推迟争讼程序。根据域外证据可能位于何处、以及该法院（非美国法院）是否也有权决定是否可以出示证据，也可能引发一些不直接相关的争议。

Foreign Ownership of Real Estate: New Rules from CFIUS By Antonia I. Tzinova, Gordon Griffin and Caroline D. Bisk

HIGHLIGHTS  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) recently published proposed rules governing the foreign acquisition and ownership of real estate, with far-reaching consequences for both real estate purchasers and would-be landlords to the federal government.  Comments on the proposed regulations were due by Oct. 17, 2019, but it is expected that the proposed rule will likely be adopted as the final rule with minor alterations.  This Holland & Knight article addresses the recent changes introduced by Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) and the proposed CFIUS rules with respect to foreign acquisition of real estate, which will affect a large number of real estate transactions. ____________________________________________________________ The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) amended the rules governing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to provide the Committee with the authority to review minority foreign investments in certain U.S. businesses, as well as certain real estate transactions, departing from the traditional focus on foreign control over a U.S. business. FIRRMA also mandated that CFIUS issue new rules governing the scope of its review authority. On Sept. 17, 2019, CFIUS published proposed rules governing the foreign acquisition and ownership of real estate, with far-reaching consequences for both real estate purchasers and would-be landlords to the federal government. Comments on the proposed regulations were due by Oct. 17, 2019, and submitted on regulations.gov. CFIUS is considering holding a public teleconference to discuss these regulations; information about this teleconference may be found on the Treasury Department website. At a high level, the changes introduced by FIRRMA and the proposed rules are: 1) FIRRMA and the proposed rules expand CFIUS jurisdiction with respect to real estate, particularly undeveloped land, and allow CFIUS to make forecasts about future use of undeveloped land; 2) the proposed rules create a set of exceptions, including a new category of excepted real estate investors, favoring U.S. close allies with established investment risk reviews and compliance records; 3) a real estate covered transaction will not trigger a mandatory filing requirement; 4) parties may choose between a short-form declaration and a complete notice, each of which could result in CFIUS concluding all actions under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act; and 5) the CFIUS reform with respect to real estate transactions builds on a trend from the last few years of increased scrutiny in leasing office space from foreign owned or controlled lessors by CFIUS and the federal government. This Holland & Knight article addresses the recent changes to the laws governing foreign acquisition of real estate in several parts. Part I describes the current state of the law, with an analysis of the federal government's increased scrutiny of foreign acquisition of U.S. real estate in recent years; Part II analyzes the new rules governing CFIUS expanded jurisdiction over real estate transactions; and Part III discusses the new controls of foreign ownership of federally leased properties.

I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CFIUS INCREASED SCRUTINY OF REAL ESTATE Congress established CFIUS in 1975, with a mandate to review and – if necessary – block any "covered transactions" involving the acquisition of U.S. businesses that would result in foreign control and might pose a threat to U.S. national security. 50 U.S.C. §4565 et seq. Under the old standard, a "covered transaction" was any transaction that was proposed, pending or concluded by, or with, any foreign person, which could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person. Before the passage of FIRRMA, CFIUS had only limited authority to review real estate transactions. Covered transactions could include the purchase of real estate, but only when such real estate constituted a "U.S. business." For example, the sale of leased property that generates revenue could be determined to be a covered transaction, and indeed that was how CFIUS approached its early real estate oversight responsibilities. Purchases of undeveloped and unleased property were outside the scope of CFIUS jurisdiction. The first high-profile CFIUS investigation focusing on proximity to a sensitive government facility as opposed to the acquired business itself was the 2012 Ralls Corp. acquisition of a windfarm in Oregon located within a few miles of a U.S. Navy base where the Navy conducted drone tests. The parties did not file with CFIUS until after closing, and only at the direction of CFIUS. On Sept. 28, 2012, President Barack Obama issued an order requiring Ralls, a Chinese-owned entity, to divest itself of ownership of the windfarm within 90 days, and blocked the use of any wind turbines manufactured by Ralls at the sites in question. Furthermore, Ralls was instructed to hire an independent third party, approved by CFIUS, to remove any installations on the land under CFIUS supervision. In 2014, the Chinese-owned Anbag Insurance Group purchased the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. Learning from the Ralls decision, the parties submitted voluntarily to CFIUS review. Waldorf Astoria serves as the official residence of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and also serves as an unofficial meeting place for diplomats from around the world in town for UN business. In February 2015, CFIUS approved the acquisition. More recently, in 2017, COSCO Shipping Holdings Co., Ltd. (COSCO), a Chinese shipping company, filed with CFIUS, seeking approval for the acquisition of a controlling interest in Hong Kong-based ocean container shipping company Orient Overseas International Ltd. (OOIL). OOIL had a long-term concession for the operation of a container terminal in Long Beach, California. CFIUS ultimately approved the acquisition on the condition that ownership of the Long Beach terminal would be transferred to a trust whose principal trustee was a U.S. citizen for the purpose of selling to an approved third party. In all three cases, CFIUS adopted the standard of close proximity to a sensitive facility, either directly occupied by the U.S. government, or being part of a major port. This has become the basis for the expanded CFIUS jurisdiction introduced by FIRRMA.

II. FIRRMA AND THE CFIUS PROPOSED RULES AFFECTING REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS FIRRMA provided CFIUS with the authority to review real estate transactions – to include leases, sales, and concessions – assuming such transactions involve air or maritime ports or properties that are in "close proximity" to sensitive U.S. government facilities. The proposed rules implement the FIRRMA changes. 1 While these are only "proposed" rules, and CFIUS invited the public to comment, it is very likely that the proposed rule with minor, clarifying alterations will become the final version of the rule. The final rule will take effect no later than Feb. 13, 2020.

The proposed rules on real estate transactions follow in structure the existing CFIUS regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800. This section summarizes some of the most important changes introduced by FIRRMA and developed in the proposed rules. A. Covered Real Estate Transactions Prior to FIRRMA, CFIUS had jurisdiction to review foreign investments in U.S. real estate only in situations of acquisitions resulting in foreign control over a U.S. business. Under FIRRMA, CFIUS jurisdiction is expanded to include transactions involving the purchase or lease by, or a concession to, a foreign person of certain real estate in the United States, even in transactions in which there is no accompanying investment in a U.S. business. The proposed rule defines "Covered Real Estate Transactions" as any purchase or lease by, or concession to, a foreign person of covered real estate that 1) is, is located within, or will function as part of, an airport or maritime port; or 2) is located within certain proximity of specific military installations or other U.S. government sensitive facilities, and that affords the foreign person at least three of the following property rights, "whether or not shared concurrently" with another party: a. to physically access the real estate b. to exclude others from physical access to the real estate c. to improve or develop the real estate, or d. to attach fixed or immovable structures or objects on the real estate2,3 1. Airport or Maritime Port. The proposed rule defines "airport"4 in two ways a) in reference to annual data reported by the Federal Aviation Administration, as any "large hub airport," as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102,5 or any airport with annual aggregate all-cargo landed weight greater than 1.24 billion pounds; or b) any "joint use airport," as defined in 49 U.S.C. 471756 that has at least 1.0 percent of the passenger boardings. The proposed rule defines "maritime ports"7 as a) a strategic seaport within the National Port Readiness Network, as identified by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration; or b) top 25 tonnage, container, or dry bulk port according to the most recent annual report submitted to Congress by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 6314. While acquisitions of an airport or a maritime port would have been considered an investment in critical infrastructure under existing CFIUS regulations, FIRRMA and the proposed regulations expand the scope of reviewed transactions significantly to cover the acquisition of real estate located within the port, or that could function as part of or as a port. These changes allow CFIUS to speculate about the future use of undeveloped real estate. 2. Within Close Proximity of Military Installations and Other Sensitive Facilities. To assist the public in identifying the specific sites that meet the definition of "military installation," the names and locations of the military installations are listed in Appendix A to the proposed regulations and cover real estate located within: 1. close proximity (within 1 mile) of certain military installation or sensitive facility (App. A, parts 1 and 2) 2. the extended range (1 to 100 miles) of certain military installations (App. A, part 2) Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

3. any county or other geographic area identified in connection with certain military installations (App. A, part 3), or 4. any part of certain military installations located within 12 nautical miles seaward of the coastline of the United States (App. A, part 4) The terms "close proximity" and "extended range," which are introduced for the first time in the proposed regulation, apply to specific types of military installations as described in the regulations. Covered real estate transactions include those effected within "close proximity" of 1) naval surface, air and undersea warfare centers and research laboratories and major annexes thereof; as well as 2) Air Force bases administering active Air Force ballistic missile fields, will be deemed covered real estate transactions; and those effected within "extended range" of 1) Army combat training centers located in the continental United States; 2) major range and test facility base activities as defined in 10 U.S.C. 196; 3) military ranges as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(e)(1) that are owned by the U.S. Navy or U.S. Air Force, or 4) joint forces training centers that are located in any of the following states: Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Wisconsin, Mississippi, North Carolina or Florida. The identification of these categories of real estate is noteworthy, reflecting the increased attention paid by various U.S. government agencies, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the General Services Administration (GSA). B. Exceptions 1. Excepted Real Estate Transactions. Both FIRRMA and the proposed regulations8 provide that certain real estate transactions will be exempt from CFIUS jurisdiction. CFIUS has provided more clarity and detail with respect to exempt transactions, which include: a. transactions of an excepted real estate investor b. transactions that are otherwise covered by CFIUS jurisdiction to review a transaction under Part 800 c. with certain limitations, transactions that relate to real estate within urbanized areas or urban centers d. transactions that relate to a single housing unit, including fixtures and adjacent land as long as the land is incidental to the use of the real estate as a single housing unit e. the lease or concession of real estate, which according to the terms of the lease or concession, may be used only as a retail trade, accommodation, or food service sector establishment, as described in the North American Industry Classification System Manual Sector 44-45 and 72 f.

transactions that relate to commercial office space within a multiunit commercial office building, if such space would not exceed 10 percent of the total square footage of the total commercial space, and the foreign person does not represent more than 10 percent of the total number of tenants in the building, and

g. transactions that relate to land owned by American Indian or Alaska Native groups Note that just because a real estate transaction might be exempt because the real estate is located within an "urbanized area" or in an "urban cluster," it does not necessarily mean that the transaction would not be covered under CFIUS general jurisdiction to review acquisitions that would result in foreign control over a U.S. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

business. FIRRMA expanded CFIUS jurisdiction so that the exceptions only apply to qualifying transactions that were captured as a result of the expansion. In addition to the exceptions identified above, lending or other financing by a foreign person to another person for the purpose of the purchase, lease, or concession of covered real estate will not by itself constitute a covered real estate transaction.9 Similarly, convertible instruments would be subject to CFIUS review only upon the time of imminent conversion of such interest.10 2. Excepted Real Estate Investor. Of particular note is the carve-out with respect to "excepted real estate investors."11 Under the proposed rules, an excepted real estate investor is 

a foreign national who is a national of an excepted real estate foreign state and is not also a national of any foreign state that is not an excepted real estate foreign state,



a foreign government of an excepted real estate foreign state, or



a foreign entity12 organized under the laws of, and with its principal place of business in, an excepted real estate foreign state or the U.S., and each member or observer of its board of directors is a U.S. national, or a national of an excepted real estate foreign state and is not also a national of any other foreign state.

Special aggregation rules apply if there are more than one foreign entity party to the transaction. The exception would not apply if the foreign investor has provided false information to CFIUS, violated any mitigation agreement with CFIUS, violated U.S. export control laws, or committed a felony crime in the U.S. CFIUS will maintain a list of excepted real estate foreign states, which may be updated from time to time, beginning two years after the effective date of the final rule, and to be published in Federal Register.13 An important factor in determining if a foreign state qualifies to be added to the list will be whether the foreign state has established and is currently using a robust national security review process itself. C. Filing of a Declaration or Notice Parties to a covered real estate transaction may submit a voluntary declaration under the proposed rules. Unlike Part 800, which contains the proposed rules with regard to other types of "covered transactions," there will be no mandatory reporting requirement. Outside that requirement, the filing process for the two parts is largely the same. Parties may file a full notice, which is the most thorough application for CFIUS review and will provide the parties with a safe harbor following completion of CFIUS review. Alternatively, parties may file a declaration, which is a short filing generally not to exceed five pages. One potential benefit is that declarations do not require detailed personal information about the directors, officers and owners of the foreign investor, the gathering of which can often delay the filing process. CFIUS has 30 days to review a declaration and decide how it wants to proceed, which allows for the possibility of a shorter review. On the other hand, by filing a declaration as opposed to a complete notice, the parties take the risk that at the end of the 30-day review period, CFIUS might direct the parties to submit a full notice, which will start a new 45-day period of review, which might be followed by a 45-day investigation period. Additionally, CFIUS might decide that the transaction is covered under Part 800 of the CFIUS regulations, and require from the parties information other than that required for real estate covered transactions. According to the proposed rules, a transaction that may be subject to CFIUS review will not be subject under both Parts 800 and 802. A covered transaction under Part 800 that includes the purchase, lease, or concession of covered real estate is not a covered real estate transaction under Part 802. Therefore, if a transaction is subject to Part 800, the Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

parties must determine whether it is appropriate to notify CFIUS of a transaction under those regulations and not under Part 802, even if it includes real estate.

III. INCREASED SCRUTINY OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF FEDERALLY LEASED PROPERTIES In addition to increased CFIUS scrutiny of real estate transactions, the government has focused more attention on the risks associated with the foreign ownership of property leased to the federal government. The federal government currently leases much more commercial office space than it owns, and the GSA serves as the primary lessee for the government's various agencies, which are tenants in GSA leases. GAO issued a report in January 2017 that highlighted the risks associated with foreign ownership of real property. In "FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY: GSA Should Inform Tenant Agencies When Leasing High Security Space from Foreign Owners," GAO profiled the risks associated with foreign ownership of federally leased property. GAO concluded with a recommendation "that the Administrator of the [GSA] determine whether the beneficial owner of high-security space that GSA leases is a foreign entity and, if so, share that information with the tenant agencies so they can adequately assess and mitigate any security risks." GSA concurred with this recommendation. The GSA, as the government's largest lessee of commercial real estate, has since taken at least one concrete step in identifying foreign ownership. As part of GSA's procurement package for federal leases, it now includes a form entitled "Foreign Ownership and Financing Representation (Acquisitions of Leasehold Interests in Real Property)." This form requires would-be lessors to the government to disclose whether there are any foreign persons, foreign-owned entities or foreign governments in the ownership structure of the offeror or its lenders / financers. Other federal government contractors who are required to register in the System for Award Management (SAM) are required to disclose foreign ownership in a less contract-specific manner. Registration requires disclosure of a company's immediate owner and ultimate owner, thus providing the government with some visibility into the existence of foreign ownership. 48 C.F.R. §4.18.

IV. CONCLUSION AND TAKEAWAYS The proposed regulations are likely to have profound impacts on transactions involving U.S. real estate, and are likely to be finalized in a form that is largely similar to the proposed language. The changes to the scope of "covered transactions" has resulted in increased CFIUS jurisdiction. The "close proximity" definition issued by CFIUS will undoubtedly affect GSA-leased properties and other properties with national security-sensitive U.S. government agencies as tenants. As an addition to the already existing FAR and GSA policy requirements for communicating ownership to the government, expanded CFIUS jurisdiction over real estate transactions will generate additional risk analysis for foreign-affiliated purchasers of federally leased property. Holland and Knight will continue to monitor and report on these changes. For more information or questions regarding the impact of the proposed CFIUS rules, contact the authors. ____________________________________________________________ 1

Proposed new part 31 C.F.R. Part 802

Proposed 31 C.F.R. §802.212 and §802.233. Change in a foreign person's ownership rights that would affect any three of the above, or transactions structured to evade CFIUS jurisdiction are also covered transactions. 3 Proposed

31 C.F.R. §802.211

4 Proposed

31 C.F.R. §802.201

5 Any

"large hub airport" is defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102 as "a commercial service airport (as defined in section 47102) that has at least 1.0 percent of the passenger boardings." 6 The

term "joint use airport" as defined in Section 49 U.S.C. 47175 means an airport owned by the U.S. Department of Defense, at which both military and civilian aircraft make shared use of the airfield. 7

Proposed 31 C.F.R. §802.227

Proposed 31 C.F.R. §802.217

Proposed 31 C.F.R. §802.303

10 Proposed

31 C.F.R. §802.304

11 Proposed

31 C.F.R. §802.216

This rule covers all of the parent companies or individual shareholders that hold 5 percent or more voting power or other control over the foreign entity. 13

Proposed 31 C.F.R. §802.215

外国人拥有房地产：CFIUS 的新规定原文作者：Antonia I. Tzinova, Gordon Griffin 及 Caroline D. Bisk

重点摘要  美国外国投资委员会（CFIUS）最近公布了关于外国收购和拥有房地产的拟议规则，对房地产购买者和联邦政府的潜在房东都有深远的影响。  对拟议规则的评论应在 2019 年 10 月 17 日前提交，但预计拟议规则很可能会在些微修改后成为最终规则通过。  美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的这篇文章论述了 2018 年《外国投资风险审查更新法案》（FIRRMA）和 CFIUS 关于外国收购房地产的拟议规则所带来的最新变化，这些变化将影响大量的房地产交易。 ____________________________________________________________ 《2018 年外国投资风险审查更新法案》（FIRRMA）修订了管理美国外国投资委员会（CFIUS）的规则，授予 CFIUS 权利审查对某些美国企业的少数股权外国投资以及某些房地产的交易，而与传统专注于外国对美国企业的控制有所不同。FIRRMA 还授权 CFIUS 颁布规范其审查权限范围的新规则。2019 年 9 月 17 日，CFIUS 公布了对房地产购买者和联邦政府的潜在房东都将有深远的影响的关于外国收购和拥有房地产的拟议规则。对拟议规则的评议应在 2019 年 10 月 17 日前提交至 regulations.gov 这个网站。CFIUS 正在考虑召开一次公开电话会议来讨论这些规则；有关此电话会议的信息可在财政部网站上获得。从较高的层面来看，CFIUS 和拟议规则带来的变化是：1）FIRRMA 和拟议规则扩大了 CFIUS 对房地产（特别是未开发土地）的管辖权，并让 CFIUS 对未开发土地的未来使用作出臆测；2）拟议规则创造出一系列例外情况，包括一类新的除外房地产投资人、对与美国与已建立投资风险审查和合规记录的亲密盟友给予优惠待遇；3）受审查的房地产交易不会触发强制性备案要求；4）交易各方可以在简式申报和全面性的通知之间进行选择，而每一种选择都可能导致 CFIUS 根据《国防生产法》第 721 条作出其所有决定；以及 5）CFIUS 在房地产交易方面的改革建立在过去几年 CFIUS 和联邦政府对从外国拥有或控制的出租人租赁办公场所的审查不断增加的趋势之上。美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的这篇文章将从几个方面论述外国房地产收购法律最近的变化。第一部分介绍了当前的法律状况，分析了近年来联邦政府对外国收购美国房地产的审查力度加大；第二部分分析了 CFIUS 扩大房地产交易管辖权的新规定；而第三部分论述了对外国人拥有的联邦租赁的房地产的新的管控。

一、CFIUS 加强房地产审查的简史国会于 1975 年成立了 CFIUS，其任务是审查并在必要时阻止任何涉及收购美国企业而将导致外国控制、并可能对美国国家安全构成威胁的“受 CFIUS 管辖的交易”。请见《美国法典》第 50 章第 4565 条及以下。根据旧标准，“受 CFIUS 管辖的交易”是指任何外国人所拟进行、进行中或已完成的将造成美国企业受外国人控制的交易。

在 FIRRMA 通过之前，CFIUS 审查房地产交易的权限有限。“受 CFIUS 管辖的交易”可以包括购买房地产，但只有当此类房地产交易构成“美国企业”时才包括在内。例如，可产生收入的租赁房地产的销售可以确定为“受 CFIUS 管辖的交易”，而实际上，这正是 CFIUS 履行其早期房地产监管责任的方式。购买未开发和未批租的房地产之前不在 CFIUS 的管辖范围内。 CFIUS 的第一个备受关注的调查是着重临近敏感政府机构而不是被收购企业本身的 2012 年 Ralls Corp.收购位于美国海军基地几英里处的俄勒冈州的一个风电场所在地（而海军在该基地进行无人机测试）。交易双方直到交易结束后才向 CFIUS 提交文件，而且只在 CFIUS 的指示下提交。2012 年 9 月 28 日，美国奥巴马总统发布命令，要求中资拥有的拉尔斯（Ralls）在 90 天内出售对风电场的所有权，并禁止 Ralls 在争议地点制造的任何风力涡轮机的使用。此外，Ralls 被要求雇佣一个经 CFIUS 核证的独立的第三方于 CFIUS 的监督下拆除土地上的任何设施。 2014 年，中资安邦保险集团收购了纽约华尔道夫·阿斯托利亚酒店。从 Ralls 的得到了经验，交易各方自愿提交给 CFIUS 审查。华尔道夫·阿斯托利亚是美国驻联合国大使的官邸，也是世界各国外交官在城镇举行联合国商务非正式会晤的场所。2015 年 2 月，CFIUS 批准了这项收购。更近的是 2017 年，中远航运控股有限公司（中远）这一家中国航运公司，向 CFIUS 提交申请，寻求取得对香港的远洋集装箱运输公司东方海外国际有限公司（OOR）的控股权。OOIL 在加州长滩的一个集装箱码头的运营有一个长期的特许权。CFIUS 最终批准了这项收购，条件是长滩码头的所有权将转让给一家信托公司，该信托公司的主要受托人是一名美国公民，目的是出售给经批准的第三方。在所有三个案件中，CFIUS 采用了接近直接由美国政府占有的敏感设施或是主要港口的一部分的临近标准。这已经成为 FIRRMA 给 CFIUS 带来扩大其管辖权的基础。

二、FIRRMA 和 CFIUS 所提出的影响房地产交易的拟议规则 FIRRMA 为 CFIUS 提供了审查房地产交易的权力——包括租赁、销售和特许权——假设此类交易涉及航空或海运港口或与“临近”敏感的美国政府设施的财产。拟议的规则实施了 FIRRMA 的修改。注 1 虽然这些只是“拟议 ”规则，而且 CFIUS 邀请公众发表评论，但拟议规则很可能会在只有些微及澄清性修改的情况下成为该规则的最终版本。最终规则将于 2020 年 2 月 13 日生效。拟议的房地产交易规则遵循 31 C.F.R.第 800 部分中现有的 CFIUS 规则。本节总结了 FIRRMA 所引入并在拟议规则中进一步发展的一些最重要的更改。

A. 受 CFIUS 管辖的房地产交易在 FIRRMA 之前，CFIUS 只有在收购将导致外国对美国企业的控制的情况下才有权审查外国对美国房地产的投资。根据 FIRRMA，CFIUS 的管辖范围扩大到包括外国人士在美国购买或租赁某些房地产的交易，或对外国人士的特许权，甚至包括没有伴随投资美国企业的交易。拟议的规则将“受 CFIUS 管辖的的房地产交易”定义为任何外国人购买或租赁、或特许给外国人的以下几种受管辖的房地产：1）位于或将作为机场或海运港口的一部分的房地产；或 2）位于特定军事设施或其他美国政府敏感设施附近、且提供外国人至少享有下列三项财产权利的房地产，“不论该等权利是否与另一方同时享有”： Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

a. 实际进入房地产 b. 将其他人排除在房地产的实际使用范围之外 c. 改善或开发房地产，或 d. 在房地产上附着固定或不动的构筑物或物体

注 2、注 3

1. 机场或海港。拟议规则从两个方面对“机场”注 4 进行了定义 a）参考联邦航空管理局报告的年度数据，定义注为 49 U.S.C. 40102 5 中定义的任何“大型枢纽机场”，或所有货物年总重超过 12.4 亿磅的任何机场；或 b）注 49 U.S.C. 47175 6 中定义的任何即至少有 1.0%的乘客登机的“联合使用机场”。拟议规则将“海港”注 7 定义为 a）美国运输部海事管理局确定的国家港口准备网络内的战略海港；或 b）25 吨级集装箱，或根据美国运输部、运输统计局根据 49 U.S.C. 6314 向国会提交的最新年度报告的干散货港。虽然在现有的 CFIUS 法规下，机场或海上港口的收购将被视为对关键基础设施的投资，但 FIRRMA 和拟议规则重大地扩大了受审查交易的范围，以涵盖在港口内购置房地产、或者可以作为港口的一部分或作为港口的交易。这些改变使 CFIUS 有权臆测未开发房地产未来的用途。 2. 临近军事设施和其他敏感设施。为协助公众识别符合“军事设施”定义的特定地点，拟议规则附录 A 列出了军事设施的名称和位置，并涵盖下列范围内的房地产： 1. 靠近某军事设施或敏感设施（1 英里）。（附件 A 第 1 部分和第 2 部分） 2. 某些军事设施的延伸距离（1 至 100 英里）（附件 A 第 2 部分） 3. 标示为与某些军事设施相关的任何郡县或其他地理区域（附件 A 第 3 部分），或 4. 位于美国海岸线面海 12 海里范围内的某些军事设施的任何部分（附件 A 第 4 部分）拟议规则中首次提出的“临近”和“延伸范围”适用于拟议规则所述的特定类型军事设施。受管辖的房地产交易包括“临近”：1） “海上”、“空中”和“海底作战中心”和“研究实验室”及其主要附属设施；以及 2）管理主动空军弹道导弹领域的空军基地，及位于延伸范围的 1）美国大陆的陆军作战训练中心；2）在《美国法典》第 10 卷第 196 节中定义的主要靶场和试验设施基地活动；3）在《美国法典》第 10 卷第 101（e）（1）节中定义的由美国海军或空军拥有的军事靶场，或 4）位于下列任何州的联合部队训练中心：俄勒冈州、内华达州、爱达荷州、威斯康星州、密西西比州、北卡罗来纳州或佛罗里达州。这些房地产类别的标示值得注意，其反映出美国政府各机构，包括政府责任办公室（GAO）和总务管理局（ GSA）越来越重视。 B. 除外情况 1. 除外的房地产交易。FIRRMA 和拟议规则提供了更清晰和详细的信息，包括：

注8

都规定，某些房地产交易将不受 CFIUS 管辖。CFIUS 就豁免交易

a. 除外房地产投资人的交易 b. CFIUS 依第 800 部分有管辖权审查的交易 c. 在一定的限制下，与城市化地区或城市中心的房地产有关的交易 d. 与单个住房单元有关的交易，包括固定设施和相邻土地（只要该土地是附带于单个住房单元房地产的使用） e. 根据租约或特许条款，房地产的租约或特许权只能用作零售业、住宿业或食品服务业机构，如北美工业分类系统手册第 44-45 和 72 节所述 f. 与多单元商业办公楼内的商业办公空间有关的交易，前提是该空间不超过总商业空间总面积的 10% ，且外籍人士不超过该建筑内租户总数的 10% g. 与美洲印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民群体拥有的土地有关的交易请注意，仅仅因为房地产交易可能因其位于“城市化地区”或“城市群”而被豁免，并不一定意味着该交易不在 CFIUS 审查收购是否可能导致外国控制美国企业的一般管辖范围之内。FIRRMA 扩大了 CFIUS 的管辖范围，因此例外情况仅适用于因该权限扩展而符合受管辖条件的交易。除上述除外情况外，外国人为购买、租赁或特许经营所涵盖的房地产而向另一人提供贷款或其他融资，其本身并不构成受管辖的房地产交易。注 9 相似地，可转换的票据将将只在此类权益即将转换时接受到 CFIUS 的审查。注 10 2. 除外房地产投资人。特别值得注意的是，与“除外房地产投资人”有关的排除范围。注 11 根据拟议规则，除外房地产投资人为： 

是除外的外国的国民（但不同时是非除外的外国的国民），



除外的房地产外国的外国政府，或



一个根据除外房地产外国或美国的法律成立外国实体注 12，如其主要营业地位于除外房地产的外国或美国、其董事会的每一成员或观察员均为美国国民或除外房地产外国的国民、且不是任何其他外国的国民。

如果交易有多个外国实体参与方，则应用特殊的聚合规则。如果外国投资者向美 CFIUS 提供虚假信息、违反与 CFIUS 达成的任何缓解协议、违反美国出口管制法或在美国犯下重罪，则该除外情况不适用。 CFIUS 将保留一份除外的房地产外国名单，该名单从最终规则生效之日起两年后可能会不时更新，，并在《联邦公报》上公布。注 13 决定一个外国是否有资格被列入名单的一个重要因素将是该外国是否已经建立并正在使用一个强有力的国家安全审查程序本身。 C. 申报或通知的提交有关房地产交易的各方可根据拟议规则提交自愿声明。与第 800 部分不同的是，第 800 部分载有关于其他类型 “受 CFIUS 管辖的交易”的拟议规则，没有强制性报告要求。在这一要求之外，这两部分的备案程序基本相同

。各方可提交一份完整的通知，这是对 CFIUS 审查最彻底的申请，并将在 CFIUS 审查完成后为各方提供一个安全港。或者，当事人可以提交一份声明，声明一般不超过五页。一个潜在的好处是，申报不需要外国投资人的董事、高管和所有者的详细个人信息，而这些信息的收集往往会推迟申报过程。CFIUS 有 30 天的时间来审查一份声明，并决定如何进行，这样就可以缩短审查时间。另一方面，通过提交一份声明而不是一份全面性的通知，双方承担风险，在 30 天的审查期结束时，CFIUS 可能会指示双方提交一份全面性的通知，这将开始一个新的 45 天的审查期，随后可能会有一个 45 天的调查期。此外，CFIUS 可能会决定该交易受《CFIUS 条例》第 800 部分的管辖，并要求各方提供房地产交易以外的信息。根据拟议规则，可能需要接受 CFIUS 审查的交易将不受第 800 和 802 部分两者同时的约束。第 800 部分下受 CFIUS 管辖的交易，包括购买、租赁或特许适用房地产，依据 802 部分为不受 CFIUS 管辖的房地产交易。因此，如果交易受第 800 部分的约束，则双方必须确定是否应根据这些法规而非第 802 部分将交易通知 CFIUS，即使该交易包括房地产。

三、加强对外国拥有联邦租赁财产的审查除了加强 CFIUS 对房地产交易的审查外，政府还将更多的注意力放在外国拥有租赁给联邦政府的财产的风险上。联邦政府目前租用的商业办公空间比它拥有的要多得多，GSA 是政府各机构的主要承租人，这些机构是 GSA 租赁的承租人。 GAO 在 2017 年 1 月发布了一份报告，强调了外国拥有房地产的相关风险。在名称为“联邦房地产：GSA 在向外国业主租赁高度安全要求的空间时应通知租户机构”的文件中，GAO 介绍了外国拥有联邦租赁财产的相关风险。GAO 最后提出了一项建议：“GSA 的管理人应确定 GSA 租赁的高度安全要求的空间的受益所有人是否为外国实体，如果是，应与租户机构共享该信息，以便他们能够充分评估和减轻任何安全风险。”GSA 同意该建议。作为政府最大的商业房地产承租人，GSA 在确定外国所有权方面至少迈出了一个具体步骤。作为 GSA 联邦租赁采购包的一部分，它现在包括一份题为“外国所有权和融资代表（不动产租赁权益的收购）”的表格，该表格要求潜在的出租人向政府披露是否有任何外国人，要约人或其贷款人/出资人所有权结构中的外资实体或外国政府。要求在奖励管理系统（SAM）中注册的其他联邦政府承包商必须以不太特定于合同的方式披露外国所有权。注册需要披露公司的直接所有者和最终所有者，从而为政府提供对外国所有权存在的一些可见性。《联邦法规》第 48 章第 4.18 条。

四、总结与要点拟议规则可能对涉及美国房地产的交易产生深远影响，并可能以与拟议的文字内容大体相似的形式最终确定。 “受 CFIUS 管辖的交易”范围的变化导致了 CFIUS 管辖权的增加。CFIUS 发布的“临近”定义无疑会影响 GSA 租赁物业和其他国家安全敏感的美国政府机构的租户。作为对已经存在的 FAR 和 GSA 等向政府通知所有权的政策要求的补充， CFIUS 对房地产交易的扩大的管辖权将对联邦租赁财产的外国购买者造生额外的风险分析的需求。霍兰德和奈特将继续监测和报告这些变化。如需了解更多有关拟议的 CFIUS 规则影响的信息或问题，请联系作者。

附注 1

拟议的新第 31 编 C.F.R.第 802 编

提议的 31 C.F.R. §802.212 和 §802.233。外国人士所有权的变更将影响上述任何三项，或为逃避外国投资委员会管辖而进行的交易也包括在内。 2

拟议的《联邦法规》第 31 章第 802.211 条

拟议的《联邦法规》第 31 章第 802.201 条

《美国法典》第 49 卷第 40102 节将任何“大型枢纽机场”定义为“至少有 1.0%乘客登机的商业服务机场（定义见第 47102 节）” 5

《美国法典》第 49 卷第 47175 节中定义的“联合使用机场”是指美国国防部拥有的军用和民用飞机共同使用机场的机场。 6

拟议的《联邦法规》第 31 章第 802.227 条

拟议的《联邦法规》第 31 章第 802.217 条

拟议的《联邦法规》第 31 章第 802.303 条

拟议的《联邦法规》第 31 章第 802.304 条

拟议的《联邦法规》第 31 章第 802.216 条

这项规定适用于对外国实体拥有 5%或以上表决权或其他控制权的所有母公司或个人股东。

拟议的《联邦法规》第 31 章第 802.215 条

A Legal and Regulatory Overview of Dietary Supplements By Charles A. Weiss A previous edition of our China Practice Newsletter included an article addressing many of the regulatory and legal issues surrounding cosmetics (See Holland & Knight's China Practice Newsletter: May-June 2019). This article provides similar information with respect to dietary supplements.

WHAT IS A DIETARY SUPPLEMENT? Dietary supplements occupy a unique place in the regulatory scheme administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Many of them have the visual appearance of drugs, because they are usually in the form of tablets or capsules that are packaged in the kinds of bottles associated with over-the-counter pharmaceuticals. From a regulatory perspective, however, they are much closer to food than to drugs. The key to understanding the basics of dietary supplements is to appreciate that the two main points from a legal perspective are 1) what's in the bottle (the ingredients) and 2) what's on the bottle (the label). Integrity of the manufacturing process is also important, but this is more of a process issue mostly overseen by regulatory personnel (not by lawyers). As suggested by the word "supplement," a dietary supplement must not be represented as conventional food or as the sole item of a meal. For example, a nutrition bar would not qualify as a dietary supplement because it is a conventional food, and a meal-replacement beverage would not qualify as a dietary supplement because it is represented as the sole item of a meal. Accordingly, these items are each regulated as food, not as dietary supplements. The nutritionally active ingredient of a dietary supplement is called a "dietary ingredient" (discussed below). A supplement can have a single dietary ingredient, or a combination of them (as in the case of multivitamins). The law specifies what types of ingredients are permitted as dietary ingredients. It also specifies what types of dietary ingredients are prohibited.

WHAT ARE PERMITTED DIETARY INGREDIENTS? The statute governing dietary supplements defines "dietary ingredient" as a vitamin; mineral; herb or other botanical; amino acid; dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of these. Examples include conventional vitamins and minerals (vitamin C, vitamin E, folic acid, iron, magnesium, and zinc); food items often used in cooking such as garlic, green tea and turmeric; less common food items such as cranberry extract and fish oil; and extracts of purportedly medicinal plants such as ginkgo biloba, St. John's wort (hypericum perforatum) and saw palmetto (serenoa repens). Weight-loss supplements generally contain combinations of caffeine and botanicals. Sports nutrition supplements include protein powders, creatine and purported testosterone boosters. The dietary ingredient must also satisfy one of the following three conditions: 1. it was lawfully marketed as a dietary ingredient in the United States before October 15, 1994 2. it has been present in the food supply as an article used in food, and is used as a dietary ingredient in the same form (no chemical alteration), or Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

3. it has a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that when used as specified on the label, it reasonably will be expected to be safe; and the manufacturer has given the FDA at least 75 days prior notice before the product is sold As can be seen, the first category is a "grandfather" provision that permits the continued sale of dietary ingredients that were lawfully on the market before the current statute took effect, and the second permits the use as a dietary ingredient of something that is already used as a conventional food. However, it can be difficult to determine if a particular dietary ingredient is permitted under the grandfather provision, because there is no official list of dietary ingredients that were lawfully used in dietary supplements before October 15, 1994. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine if this was the case. If this cannot be done, and if the second condition (has been used as a conventional food) is not satisfied either, the manufacture should provide advance notice to the FDA to qualify it under the third category. The third category is the way in which a manufacturer can introduce new dietary ingredients, or use a dietary ingredient that cannot be shown to have been on the market in a supplement before October 15, 1994. As can be seen, there is no requirement for FDA approval of new dietary ingredients, just the manufacturer's submission to the FDA of its intent to begin sale. The submission must also include the basis on which the manufacturer has concluded that the dietary ingredient is safe. Although the requirements to introduce a new dietary ingredient are relatively lax, not every potential new ingredient will pass muster. As an example, the FDA took action in 2016 against manufacturers of dietary supplements for weight loss that contained the new dietary ingredient acacia rigidula (also known as vachellia rigidula, blackbrush acacia or chaparro prieto), which is a botanical for which there was no evidence of prior use and for which no advance submission had been made. It is unclear what position FDA would have taken if the manufacturers of these products had made an advance submission, but it appears that no such submission has been made as of the date that this article was prepared in Winter 2019. The advance submission can made electronically through a portal accessible via the FDA website, which also contains instructions on how to submit them.

WHAT ARE PROHIBITED DIETARY INGREDIENTS? Generally, a dietary supplement must not contain an ingredient that has been approved in the U.S. as a drug, or that has not yet been approved but is in clinical trials for possible future approval. An exception to this rule is if the ingredient had already been in use as a dietary supplement before it was approved as a drug. For example, fish oil was approved in 2004 as a drug (under the generic name of "ethyl esters of omega-3 fatty acids"), but had already been in use as in dietary supplements well before that, so it may continue as such. Another exception, which is rarely if ever used, is if the FDA makes an official determination that a drug product may also be used as a dietary supplement. Persons interested in approval of cannabidiol (CBD) as a dietary ingredient may pursue this approach, which would be necessary because it was not lawfully sold as a supplement before it was approved by the FDA as a drug. The statute governing dietary supplements also prohibits generally the sale of adulterated items. By definition, a dietary supplement is adulterated if it contains a dietary ingredient "that presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury under the conditions of use recommended or suggested in the labeling." As an example of the FDA's use of this provision to address safety issues, the FDA took action in 2018 against sellers of pure caffeine powder, which had a suggested serving size of 1/16 teaspoon or no more than 200 mg,

in part because consumers could not be expected to reliably measure such tiny amounts, and even modest overages in measurement could result in a toxic dose of caffeine.

WHAT ARE THE LABEL REQUIREMENTS? The statute and regulations control what must be on the label and what must not be on the label. A dietary supplement must be labeled with the phrase "dietary supplement." The label must also include 1) a statement of identity; 2) the net quantity of contents; 3) nutrition labeling (supplement facts) in a prescribed format; 4) a list of the ingredients; and 5) the name and address of the manufacturer, packer or distributor. There are specific standards for how to present this information, and additional rules for different categories of products. They are not difficult to comply with, but are very detailed and should be followed without deviation. The most common violation of the labeling rules appears to be including a claim which states (or suggests) that the dietary supplement is useful to treat or prevent a disease. As readers of our cosmetics article may recall, there is a similar issue for cosmetic labeling. In both cases, a label (or advertisement, including statements on a website) that makes a disease claim has the undesired effect of turning what would be a supplement or cosmetic into an item that is regulated as a drug. And because no supplement (or cosmetic) that is formulated, manufactured and labeled as such will ever be in compliance with the law governing drugs, the result is a violation of multiple sections of the law governing drugs. In the case of supplements, the line between permitted and prohibited claims blurs, because "disease" claims are prohibited but "structure/function" claims are permitted (with qualifications). For example, "relieves sadness" and "prevents rashes" are disease claims, while "supports a healthy mood" and "promotes skin health" are structure/function claims. Similarly, "helps prevent the common cold" is a disease claim, while "supports the immune system" is a structure/function claim. Many have questioned the wisdom of such distinctions, finding them nonsensical. At the threshold, a good way to avoid inadvertently turning one's supplement into a drug by making an impermissible disease claim is to avoid the use of any medical or clinical term, or the name of any disease or ailment (even a colloquial or layperson's term). For example, do not use words such as ache, allergy, arthritis, asthma, blister, cancer, depression, diabetes, diarrhea, eczema, fever, headache, heartburn, hypertension, indigestion, infection, itch, pain, rash or ulcer. Next, avoid words such as cure, prevent, reduce, treat or stop. The typical (permissible) structure/function claim uses the words "supports" and "healthy." Examples include "supports healthy joints" or "supports joint health," and "supports prostate health" or "supports a healthy immune system." Finally, when using a structure/function claim, the label must include the following disclaimer verbatim (in singular or plural, corresponding to the number of claims): "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease," or "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." A manufacturer that use a structure/function claim must have substantiation that the claim is truthful and not misleading, and must submit to the FDA a notification with the text of the claim not more than 30 days after it is first used in the market place. As indicated by the required disclaimer, the FDA's failure to object to these notifications does indicate that it has approved them. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Finally, as noted above, there are also formal rules governing many aspects of the labeling, such as how to name ingredients, how to present the supplement facts, and such.

WHAT ABOUT MANUFACTURING? Dietary supplements must be manufactured in accordance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) that are specified in regulations adopted by the FDA. A detailed review of them is beyond the scope of this article, and most involve process requirements that are usually handled by regulatory professionals (not by lawyers). One area that deserves mention, however, is the problem of overreliance on a supplier's certificate of analysis. For example, most manufacturers of dietary supplements obtain their raw materials from other companies. These materials include both the dietary ingredients and the inactive ingredients (excipients) such as binders, disintegrants, lubricants and other tableting aids. Ingredients are oftentimes sourced through brokers or other intermediaries, and not purchased directly from the actual manufacturer. In the case of dietary ingredients, the cGMPs do not permit the supplement manufacturer to rely solely on the certificate of analysis provided by the ingredient supplier to substantiate the ingredient's identity. Rather, the manufacturer must conduct "at least one appropriate test or examination" to verify the identity of dietary ingredients, unless a specific exemption has been sought and granted by the FDA. The cGMP regulations do not specify what tests must be conducted, and state that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine the appropriate test(s) or examination(s). However, they also provide that the tests and examinations "are appropriate, scientifically valid methods" that must include at least one of "(i) gross organoleptic analysis; (ii) macroscopic analysis; (iii) microscopic analysis; (iv) chemical analysis; or (v) other scientifically valid methods." Thus, the manufacturer must have in place some reliable, documented method to verify the identity of each dietary ingredient that will be included in its supplements.

IS CANNABIDIOL (CBD) A PERMITTED DIETARY INGREDIENT? In a word, "No." As of this writing (Winter 2019), cannabidiol (CBD) is not permitted in dietary supplements. The reason is the prohibition against using as dietary ingredients a substance that is approved in the U.S. as a drug, unless it was already being lawfully used as a supplement before approval as a drug (and before public knowledge of clinical studies being conducted in furtherance of an application for approval as a drug). Here, the issue is that cannabidiol was approved as a drug in the U.S. in September 2018; the brand name is Epidiolex. It was publicly known well before that date that the pharmaceutical company developing this product was conducting clinical studies of it to treat rare forms of childhood epilepsy. And even if cannabidiol had been marketed in the U.S. as a dietary supplement before the existence of these studies became publicly known, it would not have been lawfully marketed because until a change in the law that took effect in 2018, extracts of the cannabis plant (also called marijuana) were illegal drugs. Thus, even though cannabidiol would qualify as a dietary ingredient in the abstract (as a constituent or extract of a botanical), it is excluded because it has been approved by the FDA as a drug. As noted above, the FDA has authority to grant exceptions to this rule on a case-by-case basis. There is significant public and political pressure for the FDA to do this in the case of cannabidiol, which is perceived in the popular imagination as a remedy for everything from anxiety to diabetes to hypertension to Parkinson's disease. Paradoxically, this clamor for access to cannabidiol for purposes that are clearly for the treatment of diseases â&#x20AC;&#x201D; which is exactly the type of use that is not permitted for dietary supplements â&#x20AC;&#x201D; may weigh against the goal sought by these proponents of cannabidiol. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Notwithstanding the prohibition on use of cannabidiol in dietary supplements, dozens if not hundreds of CBD products are openly sold as dietary supplements in stores and online. The FDA has sent warning letters that primarily focus on drug claims for CBD products, i.e., claims that these products are useful for serious diseases. As of Winter 2019, the FDA has not pursued large-scale enforcement programs against companies selling CBD products without improper disease claims. The general lack of action does not mean that sales of these products as dietary supplements is legal — it is not — nor does it mean that no large-scale actions will be taken in the future. Additionally, companies attempting to import CBD products into the U.S. run the risk of having them refused admission and potentially destroyed by customs officials.

关于规范膳食补充剂的法律及法规的概要介绍原文作者: Charles A. Weiss 我们的 China Practice Newsletter 的先前一期包括了一篇谈到许多关于规范化妆品的法律及法规问题的文章（请见 China Practice Newsletter: May-June 2019）。而本期这篇文章将提供与膳食补充剂有关的类似议题的信息。

什么是膳食补充剂？膳食补充剂在美国食品和药物管理局（FDA）所管理的监管体系中占有独特的地位。其中许多在视觉感官上与药物相同，因为它们通常以片剂或胶囊的形式包装在与非处方药相关的各种瓶子中。然而，从监管的角度来看，它们更接近于食品而非药品。了解膳食补充剂的基本要素的关键是从法律角度理解两个要点：1）瓶子里的东西（成分）为何，和 2）瓶子上的东西（标签）为何。制造过程的严整性也很重要，但这更多是一个过程问题，主要由监管人员（而不是律师）监督。正如“补充剂”一词所令人想到的，膳食补充剂不得被表示为传统食品或作为一餐中的唯一食物。例如，营养棒不符合膳食补充剂的要求，因为它是一种传统食品，而膳食替代饮料不符合膳食补充剂的要求，因为它是一餐饭的唯一品项。因此，这些品项都是作为食品，而不是作为膳食补充剂。膳食补充剂的营养活性成分称为“膳食成分”（下文讨论）。一种补充剂可以有一种单一的膳食成分，也可以有多种膳食成分的组合（如多种维生素）。法律规定哪些成分可以作为膳食成分。它还规定了什么样的膳食成分是被禁止的。

什么是被允许的膳食成分？管理膳食补充剂的法规将“膳食成分”定义为维生素、矿物质、草药或其他植物性物质、氨基酸、供人类通过增加膳食总摄入量来补充膳食的膳食物质、或这些物质的浓缩物、代谢物、组分、提取物或组合。例如传统的维生素和矿物质（维生素 C、维生素 E、叶酸、铁、镁和锌）；经常用于烹饪的食物，如大蒜、绿茶和姜黄；较不常见的食物，如蔓越莓提取物和鱼油；以及据称是药用植物的提取物，如银杏叶，圣约翰麦汁（贯叶连翘）和锯棕榈（塞雷诺阿雷彭斯）。减肥补充剂通常含有咖啡因和植物性成分。运动营养补充剂包括蛋白质粉、肌酸和声称的睾丸激素增强剂。膳食成分还必须满足以下三个条件之一： 1. 1994 年 10 月 15 日前，它已作为一种膳食成分在美国合法销售 2. 在食品供应中已经作为使用于食品的物品，并且以相同形式作为膳食成分使用（无化学变化），或 3. 它有使用历史或其他安全证据，证明当按照标签上的规定使用时，可以合理地预期它是安全的、且制造商在产品销售前至少提前 75 天向 FDA 发出通知

可以看出，第一类是“祖父”条款，允许继续销售在现行法规生效前合法上市的膳食成分，第二类是允许将已经用在传统食品的某些膳食成分作为膳食成分使用。然而，很难确定某一特定的膳食成分是否符合祖父条款的规定，因为在 1994 年 10 月 15 日之前，没有合法用于膳食补充剂的膳食成分的官方清单。制造商有责任确定是否是这种情况。如果不能做到这一点，并且如果也不符合第二个条件（已被用作为传统食品），制造商应提前通知 FDA，使其符合第三类要求。第三类是制造商引入新的膳食成分的方式，或使用 1994 年 10 月 15 日之前无法证明已上市的膳食成分。可以看出，并不存在 FDA 需批准新的膳食成分的要求，而制造商只需向 FDA 提交了其开始销售的意向。提交的材料还必须包括制造商断定膳食成分安全的依据。尽管引入新的膳食成分的要求相对宽松，但并不是每一种潜在的新成分都能通过测试。例如，食品和药物管理局在 2016 年对含有新的膳食成分黑刺相思（又名牛痘、黑刺相思或查帕罗·普里托）的减肥膳食补充剂制造商采取了行动，这是一种植物药，没有证据表明以前使用过，也没有事先提交过。目前尚不清楚，如果这些产品的制造商提前提交了报告，FDA 会采取什么样的立场，但似乎截至 2019 年冬季编写本文之日，还没有提交此类报告。提前提交的通知可以通过 FDA 网站上的门户网站以电子方式提交，该网站还包含如何提交的说明。

什么是被禁止的膳食成分？一般来说，膳食补充剂不得含有在美国已被批准作为药物的成分，或尚未被批准但正在临床试验中以备将来批准的药物成分。这条规则的一个例外是，如果该成分在被批准为药物之前已经被用作膳食补充剂。例如，鱼油在 2004 年被批准为一种药物（以“Ω-3 脂肪酸乙酯”的通用名称命名），但在此之前，鱼油已经被用作膳食补充剂，因此可以继续使用。另一个很少使用到的例外是，如果美国食品和药物管理局作出一个正式的决定，决定药物产品也可以作为膳食补充剂。有意批准将大麻酚（CBD）作为膳食成分的人可能寻求这种方法的可行性，而这是必要的，因为在 FDA 批准大麻酚（CBD）作为药物之前，它不能合法被作为补充剂销售。管理膳食补充剂的法规也普遍禁止销售掺假品项。根据定义，如果膳食补充剂含有“在标签推荐或建议的使用条件下，存在重大或不合理的疾病或伤害风险”的膳食成分，则该补充剂是掺假的。作为 FDA 使用本条款解决安全问题的一个例子，FDA 在 2018 的行动中对纯咖啡因粉末的销售商采取了措施，纯咖啡因粉末的建议使用量为 1/16 茶匙或不超过 200 毫克，部分原因是消费者不能指望能可靠地测量如此微小的量，甚至在测量中适度的过量也会导致有毒剂量的咖啡因。

标签的要求为何呢？法规和法规管控标签上必须有什么和标签上不能有什么。膳食补充剂必须贴上“膳食补充剂”的标签。标签还必须包括 1）身份声明；2）净含量；3）规定格式的营养标签（补充剂事实）；4）成分列表；以及 5）制造商、包装商或经销商的名称和地址。对于如何呈现这些信息有特定的标准，对于不同类别的产品也有附加的规则。它们不难遵守，但非常详细，应无偏差地遵循。最常见的违反标签规则的行为似乎包括声明（或暗示）膳食补充剂对治疗或预防疾病有用的效用声明。正如我们化妆品文章的读者可能记得的那样，化妆品标签也有类似的问题。在这两种情况下，提出关于疾病的效用声明的 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

标签（或广告，包括网站上的效用声明）都会产生不希望见到的效果，即将补充剂或化妆品变成受药物管制的物品。而且，由于任何按规定配制、制造和贴上标签的补充剂（或化妆品）都不符合药品管理法，其结果是违反了药品管理法的多个章节。在补充剂的情况下，被允许的和受到禁止的效用声明之间的界限模糊，因为关于“疾病”的效用声明是禁止的，但关于“结构/功能”的效用声明是（在某些情况之下）被允许的。例如，“缓解悲伤”和“预防皮疹”是关于疾病的效用声明，而“支持健康情绪”和“促进皮肤健康”是关于结构/功能的效用声明。同样，“帮助预防普通感冒”是一种关于疾病的效用声明，而“支持免疫系统”是一种关于结构/功能的效用声明。许多人会质疑该区分的方法，认为其没有道理。在这一点上，通过提出不允许的关于疾病的声明来避免无意中将补充剂变成药物的一个好方法是避免使用任何医学或临床术语，或任何疾病或疾病的名称（甚至是口语或外行术语）。例如，不要使用诸如疼痛、过敏、关节炎、哮喘、水泡、癌症、抑郁症、糖尿病、腹泻、湿疹、发烧、头痛、胃灼热、高血压、消化不良、感染、瘙痒、疼痛、皮疹或溃疡等词。接下来，避免使用诸如“治愈”、“预防”、“减少”、“治疗”或“停止”之类的词。典型（允许的）关于结构/功能的声明使用“支持”和“健康”两个词。示例包括“支持健康关节”或“支持关节健康”和“支持前列腺健康”或“支持健康免疫系统”。最后，当使用关于结构/功能的声明时，标签必须逐字包含以下免责声明（单个或多个，应对应效用声明的数量）： “食品药品监督管理局没有对这一声明进行评估。本产品不用于诊断、治疗、治愈或预防任何疾病 “食品药品监督管理局没有对这些声明进行评估。本产品不用于诊断、治疗、治愈或预防任何疾病。 ” 使用关于结构/功能的声明的制造商必须有证据证明该声明是真实的，没有误导性，并且必须在不晚于声明文本首次在市场上使用的 30 天内向 FDA 提交一份附上声明文本的声明通知。正如所要求的免责声明所表明的那样， FDA 没有对这些通知提出异议，表明它已经批准了这些通知。最后，如上所述，也有正式的规则管理标签的许多方面，如如何命名成分，如何提出补充事实等。

对制造商的规定为何呢？膳食补充剂必须按照现行良好生产规范（cGMP）生产，该规范在 FDA 通过的法规中有明确规定。对它们的详细审查超出了本文的范围，大多数涉及通常由监管专业人员（而不是律师）处理的流程要求。然而，值得一提的一个方面是过度依赖供应商的分析证书问题。例如，大多数膳食补充剂的制造商从其他公司获得原材料。这些材料包括膳食成分和非活性成分（辅料），如粘合剂、崩解剂、润滑剂和其他助餐剂。原料通常是通过经纪人或其他中间商采购的，而不是直接从实际制造商处购买。对于膳食成分，cGMPs 不允许补充剂制造商仅依赖成分供应商提供的分析证书来证实成分的特性。相反，制造商必须进行“至少一次适当的测试或检查”以验证膳食成分的身份，除非食品和药物管理局已经寻求并批准了特定的豁免。cGMP 法规没有规定必须进行哪些试验，并规定制造商有责任确定适当的试验或检验。然而，它们还规定，试验和检查“是适当的、科学上有效的方法”，必须至少包括下列方法之一：（i）大体感官分析；（ii）

宏观分析；（iii）微观分析；（i v）化学分析；或（v）其他科学上有效的方法。”因此，制造商必须具备一些可靠的，记录在案的方法，以验证每种膳食成分的身份，将包括在其补充。

大麻酚（CBD）是允许的膳食成分吗？总而言之，截至本文撰写之日（2019 年冬季），大麻酚（CBD）不允许用于膳食补充剂。其原因是禁止将在美国被批准作为药物的物质用作膳食成分，除非该物质在批准作为药物之前已经被合法用作补充剂（并且在公众了解为促进批准作为药物的申请而进行的临床研究之前）。这里的问题是，大麻酚（CBD）于 2018 年 9 月在美国被批准为药物；其品名为 Epidiolex。在那之前，众所周知，开发这种产品的制药公司正在对其进行临床研究，以治疗罕见的儿童癫痫。而且，即使在这些研究公开存在之前，在美国已经作为膳食补充剂在上市，它也不能被合法在市场上销售，因为直到法律生效时，大麻工厂的提取物（也叫大麻）是非法药物。因此，尽管大麻酚在摘要中符合作为膳食成分的资格（作为植物成分或提取物），但它被排除在外，因为它已被 FDA 批准为药物。如上所述，FDA 有权逐案批准本规则的例外情况。在大麻酚的情况下，FDA 有很大的公共和政治压力，这在大众想象中被视为从焦虑到糖尿病到高血压到帕金森病的补救措施。自相矛盾的是，这种叫嚣是为了达到大麻酚的目的，这显然是用于治疗疾病，而这正是膳食补充剂不允许使用的类型，这可能与这些大麻酚支持者所追求的目标相悖。尽管禁止在膳食补充剂中使用大麻酚，但数十种甚至数百种大麻酚（CBD）产品在商店和网上公开作为膳食补充剂销售。FDA 已经发出警告信，主要关注大麻酚（CBD）产品的药物声明，即声称这些产品对严重疾病有用。截至 2019 年冬季，FDA 还没有寻求对销售没有不当声明这些产品可以用于严重疾病的大麻酚（CBD）产品采取大规模执法行动。普遍缺乏行动并不意味着这些产品作为膳食补充剂的销售是合法的，也不意味着将来不会采取大规模行动。此外，试图将大麻酚（CBD）产品进口到美国的公司面临着被海关官员拒绝入境并可能被销毁的风险。

Advantageous Structure for Chinese Nationals to Invest in U.S. Income Producing Real Estate By William M. Sharp Sr. and Alan Winston Granwell More and more Chinese investors from the mainland are investing in residential, commercial and industrial real estate throughout the United States, with a focus on the West Coast, particularly in the San Francisco and Los Angeles metro areas. Unless properly structured, these investments could result in significant U.S. tax exposure, ranging from excessive U.S. federal income taxation to imposition of the U.S. federal estate tax at a 40 percent rate. In view of the recent decrease of the U.S. federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, many foreign individuals investing in U.S. income-producing U.S. real estate are using a two-tier foreign corporate/U.S. corporate structure to minimize U.S. income taxation and avoid U.S. estate taxation. The benefit of this two-tier structure from the U.S. federal income tax perspective is as follows: Income Taxation: 1) rental income is reduced by expenses; 2) when the U.S. corporation sells the U.S. real estate, the gain will be subject to a 21 percent federal income tax (and state income tax, which in California is up to 8.84 percent); and 3) the U.S. corporation can transfer the after-sales cash proceeds to its non-U.S. parent in a tax-free liquidation. Takeaway: This structure results in only one level of U.S. income taxation on the investment. Estate Taxation: The two-tier structure can avoid imposition of the U.S. estate tax on the death of the ultimate non-U.S. individual foreign owner, provided that the structure is properly formed and maintained.

ASSUMPTIONS  Mr. X, a Chinese citizen and resident plans to purchase a $5 million condominium in San Francisco (Condo).  Mr. X retains a management company to lease the Condo to VIP business guests for short-term rentals of no more than two weeks per user (at a cost of $25,000 per week or $50,000 for two weeks).  Mr. X also plans to use the Condo for personal use when he visits the Bay Area for no more than two or three months per year.  Mr. X does not intend to become a U.S. citizen or tax resident in the future.

STRUCTURE SUMMARY  Mr. X would organize a wholly owned holding company under non-U.S. law, such as in the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands or another attractive jurisdiction (Parent Corporation).  The Parent Corporation would organize a wholly owned U.S. corporation (U.S. Corporation).

 All funds used to acquire the Condo would be furnished by the Parent Corporation to the U.S. Corporation.  The U.S. Corporation would acquire the Condo for cash.  The U.S. Corporation would enter into a management agreement with a management company for the commercial usage of the Condo.  Mr. X would enter into a written lease agreement with the U.S. Corporation for the part-time lease of the Condo. Under the lease agreement, Mr. X would pay the U.S. Corporation a commercial rent for his occupancy comparable to the rental rate that the U.S. Corporation would charge to unrelated persons to use the Condo. The lease arrangement between Mr. X and the U.S. Corporation is necessary to mitigate U.S. tax exposure that could arise if a related shareholder were to use the rental property rent free.

DEPICTION OF THE STRUCTURE

ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE Income Tax Consequences of U.S. Corporation Deriving Rental Income The U.S. Corporation will earn third-party rental income from leases arranged by the management company and from the lease agreement with Mr. X. By holding the Condo for commercial rental, the U.S. Corporation should be treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business and entitled to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses associated with the property, including, property taxes, condo association and maintenance fees, and insurance expenses. Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

The U.S. Corporation should also be eligible to claim depreciation deductions because the Condo will be nonresidential real property used in an income-producing activity. A consequence of the U.S. Corporation's eligibility to take deprecation and operating expenses is that these expenses should reduce the U.S. Corporation's taxable rental income. Although the depreciation deductions would reduce the U.S. Corporation's tax basis in the property, it also would reduce the U.S. Corporation's cost basis in the Condo, thereby increasing the gain to the U.S. Corporation upon the sale of the Condo. If the Condo were not to generate sufficient tax deductions to offset the rental income earned by the U.S. Corporation, the taxable income of the U.S. Corporation would be taxed at a combined federal and state rate of up to just less than 28 percent. Income Tax Consequences of U.S. Corporation Selling Condo The strategy is for the U.S. Corporation to sell the Condo. It would pay federal income tax at a 21 percent rate and state tax (up to 8.84 percent in California for an overall rate of just less than 28 percent). Once the U.S. Corporation sells the Condo and only has cash, it could liquidate tax-free into the Parent Corporation. U.S. Estate Tax Consequences By using a two-tier corporate structure wherein Mr. X owns the Parent Corporation and the Parent Corporation owns the U.S. Corporation, the Parent Corporation functions as a "blocker" corporation so as to avoid the imposition of the U.S. estate tax that would apply if Mr. X had owned the Condo directly, through a limited liability company (LLC) or U.S. corporation. In order for the blocker structure to be respected, it is essential that Mr. X correctly form and maintain the two-tier structure, comply with all non-U.S. and U.S. corporate formalities and requirements, and not treat the structure as his nominee. U.S. Tax Compliance Considerations The recommended structure will not create a U.S. income tax filing requirement for Mr. X nor will it require that Mr. X to obtain U.S. Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). The U.S. Corporation will be obligated to file annual federal and state income tax returns and also certain information returns. When the U.S. Corporation is liquidated tax-free into the Parent Corporation following | sale of the Condo, the distribution will be subject to information reporting in the United States. Mr. X will need to retain a U.S. licensed certified public accountant (CPA) with experience in dealing with international clients to handle all required U.S. tax and other compliance requirements.

CONCLUSION Chinese investors acquiring income-producing U.S. real estate should consider the planning suggestions described herein to minimize the potential U.S. federal income tax and avoid the U.S. federal estate tax. As with all investments, however, investors need to first consider the economics of a particular transactions before considering the U.S. tax effects.

中国国民投资美国产生收入的房地产的有利结构原文作者：William M. Sharp Sr. 及 Alan Winston Granwell 越来越多来自中国大陆的中国投资人在美国各地投资住宅、商业和工业房地产，而投资集中在美国西海岸，特别是旧金山和洛杉矶的都会地区。除非合适规划结构，这些投资可能导致重大的美国税收风险，包括高额的美国联邦所得税、及被课征税率为 40%的美国联邦遗产税。鉴于美国联邦企业所得税税率最近从 35%降至 21%，许多在美国的外国投资人在预期美国房地产投资将产生可观的租金或销售收入时，会选择采用双层公司结构来进行投资以减轻美国联邦所得税及避免美国联邦遗产税。从美国联邦所得税的角度来看，这种双层的结构的好处为：在所得税方面：1）租金收入被以费用扣除的方式减少；2）当美国公司出售房产时，其所得将被课征 21%的联邦所得税（及州的所得税。在加州，州所得税最高可达 8.84%）；及 3）美国公司可以将售后现金收入透过免税的清算移转给母公司。要点：这种结构只对投资产生一层美国所得税。在遗产税方面：如双层结构被适当地组成和维护，它可以避免最终外国个人所有人死亡时被课征美国遗产税。

假设  X 先生是一名中国公民和居民，计划在旧金山购买一套价值 500 万美元的公寓（“公寓”）。  聘请一家管理公司将该公寓出租给 VIP 商务客人，供每位用户进行为期不超过两周的短期租赁（费用为每周 25,000 美元或两周 50,000 美元）。  X 先生并计划在每年到访旧金山湾区的时间不超过两三个月时，并在到访期间将公寓用于个人用途。  X 先生不打算将来成为美国公民或税务居民。

结构概要  X 先生将根据非美国法律（例如在英属维京群岛、开曼群岛或其他有吸引力的司法管辖区）组建一家全资控股公司（“母公司”）  母公司将设立一家全资美国公司（“美国公司”）。  用于收购公寓的所有资金将由母公司提供给美国公司。  美国公司将用现金购买公寓。  美国公司将与管理公司签订一份将公寓作为商业用途的管理协议。

 X 先生将与美国公司签订其于部分时间租用公寓的书面租赁协议。根据租赁协议，X 先生将为他的租用向美国公司支付与美国公司如向无关人员使用公寓所收取的租金相当的商业合理租金。X 先生和美国公司之间的租赁协议是必要的，以减轻如果公司股东免费使用公寓将产生的税收风险。

结构图示

结构分析美国公司取得租金收入的所得税效果美国公司将从管理公司所安排的租赁及与 X 先生签订的租赁协议收到第三方的租金收入。通过持有公寓进行商业租赁，美国公司应被视为从事美国贸易或业务，并有权扣除与财产相关的一般和必要费用，包括财产税、公寓协会及维修费、保险费。因为公寓将是用于创收活动的非住宅不动产，美国公司也应该有资格申请折旧扣除。美国公司有资格承担折旧和运营费用的一个影响是这些费用的扣除将减少美国公司的应税租金收入；但折旧扣除额将降低美国公司在财产中的税基，从而增加了最终出售房产时美国公司的所得金额。如果公寓不能产生足够的税收减免来抵消美国公司赚取的租金收入，美国公司的应税收入将被课征两者合并将到 28%的联邦和州的所得税。美国公司出售公寓的所得税效果策略是美国公司出售公寓。它将以 21%的税率缴纳联邦所得税和州税（加州的税率可高达 8.84%，整体税率略低于 28%）。一旦美国公司出售公寓，并且只有现金，它就可以透过免税的清算向母公司进行分配。美国遗产税效果通过采用 X 先生拥有母公司、母公司拥有美国公司的双层公司结构，母公司作为“阻隔者”公司发挥作用，以避免如果 X 先生直接拥有、或透过有限责任公司（LLC）或美国的公司（US corporation）拥有公寓将被课征的 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

美国联邦遗产税。为了使该阻隔结构受到承认，重要的是 X 先生需正确地设立及维持该双层结构、遵守所有非美国和美国公司的形式规定及要求，且不是仅仅将该结构视为其代持人。美国税务合规考虑建议的结构不会对 X 先生产生美国所得税申报要求，也不会要求 X 先生获得美国个人纳税人识别号（ITIN）。美国公司有义务每年提交美国公司所得税申报表、州纳税申报表、以及其他特定信息申报表。当美国公司在销售公寓后透过免税清算归入母公司后，必须就该分配在美国进行信息申报。 X 先生需要聘请一名具有协助国际客户的经验的美国注册会计师（CPA）来处理所有必需的美国税务及其他合规要求。

结论中国投资人在美国购买会产生收入的美国房地产应考虑上述的规划建议以减低可能的美国联邦所得税及避免美国的联邦遗产税的课征。与其他投资一样，投资人需在考虑美国税务影响之前先考虑到某个特定投资的经济效益。

Caroline D. Bisk is a Washington, D.C., attorney who focuses her practice on a wide variety of international trade regulatory and transactional matters. She 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). Michael J. Frevola is a litigator focusing on the areas of admiralty and commercial litigation. He has tried cases, argued motions and briefed and argued appeals before federal and state courts. He has represented clients in federal mediations and maritime and commercial arbitrations, and has conducted shipboard and overseas investigations in support of maritime litigation and to perform owners' due diligence. In the admiralty and maritime field, Mr. Frevola focuses on charter party disputes, bunker quality and claim disputes, Rule B maritime attachments and Rule C arrests, lien priority and maritime bankruptcy disputes, vessel sales and purchase disputes, and collision litigation. Alan Winston Granwell is a tax attorney with more than 45 years of experience in the area of international taxation, resident in Holland & Knight's Washington, D.C., office. In his long and wide-ranging career, Mr. Granwell has had the opportunity and privilege to work in the public and private sector. His tax practice encompasses counseling both corporate and private clients. He represents multinational corporations on cross-border planning, transfer pricing, tax controversy and tax compliance. Gordon Griffin is a federal real estate attorney who represents building owners, real estate developers, real estate investment trusts (REITs) and asset managers nationwide in all aspects of General Services Administration (GSA) lease procurement and negotiation, lease administration and litigation of lease disputes. Mr. Griffin is a board member of the Federal Real Property Association and co-author of the 2016 Federal Government Real Estate Leasing guide published by LexisNexis.

Adolfo E. Jimenez is a Miami litigation attorney whose practice focuses on international disputes, and he leads the firm's International Arbitration and Litigation Team. He represents clients in a variety of industries, including media, energy, maritime, infrastructure, transportation, hospitality, mining, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and technology. In addition to his civil litigation practice, Mr. JimĂŠnez has extensive experience managing arbitrations in English and Spanish before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the China International Trade and Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and cases administered under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules. Marisa Marinelli is an arbitration advocate and trial attorney whose practice focuses on the litigation and arbitration of disputes arising in connection with international commercial contracts and transactions. She represents clients in all phases of the dispute resolution process (drafting and advising on dispute resolution provisions, analysis of claims, pre-dispute settlement negotiations and mediation, arbitration or litigation of claims, post-judgment recovery, and appeals), with a focus on disputes that involve the international sale of goods, particularly in the energy and raw materials sectors; transportation contracts; post-M&A representation and warranty disputes; insurance coverage disputes; and commercial disputes. She also has represented clients in matters concerning marine casualties; environmental claims; sovereign immunity issues; the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); and shipping-company workouts. William M. Sharp is an attorney in Holland & Knight's Tampa office with more than 35 years of experience representing clients in a wide variety of international tax planning and tax controversy cases. He provides international and domestic tax advice to numerous U.S.-based and foreign-based clients, including publicly traded and closely held entities. His tax practice also focuses on globally oriented high-net-worth clients, including U.S. and foreign-based family offices. Mr. Sharp has served as lead counsel with respect to U.S. Tax Court, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) appeals and examination cases. He also has served as lead counsel or co-counsel to well over 1,000 IRS voluntary disclosure cases. Antonia I. Tzinova is an attorney who 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. Charles Weiss is a partner in Holland & Knight's New York office and head of the New York Intellectual Property Group. He concentrates his practice on technology-driven litigation, counseling and transactions, primarily in the pharmaceutical, chemical and biotechnology areas. He also counsels clients on questions of patent validity and infringement, and provides a litigator's perspective on prosecution matters. Mr. Weiss litigates patent, trade secret, license and false advertising cases in diverse technical areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca Leon | Miami +1.305.789.7703 rebecca.leon@hklaw.com

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

Carrie S. Friesen-Meyers | San Francisco +1.415.743.6954 carrie.friesen-meyers@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

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

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

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

Adolfo Jimenez | Miami +1.305.789.7720 adolfo.jimenez@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