Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S.
| Decision Date | 26 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 12–1513 (ABJ). |
| Citation | 926 F.Supp.2d 71 |
| Parties | RALLS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Brian J. Field, Howard Christopher Bartolomucci, Paul Clement, Viet D. Dinh, George W. Hicks, Jr., Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Tingkang Xia, Morris, Manning & Martin, L.L.P., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.
Joel L. McElvain, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case concerns the availability of judicial review over certain actions taken by the President of the United States in the interest of protecting the national security. Plaintiff Ralls Corporation (“Ralls”) is a Delaware corporation owned by two Chinese nationals who are principals of a Chinese manufacturing concern. It entered into a transaction involving the acquisition of several windfarm projects located in the vicinity of a U.S. Naval installation in Oregon, where Ralls planned to install the Chinese company's turbines. Ralls challenges a September 2012 order issued by President Barack Obama under section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170 (2012) (“section 721”), prohibiting the transaction.
In his order, the President found that Ralls and its owners, through their exercise of control over the four American-owned companies, might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States. Based on that finding, the President found the transaction to be prohibited, ordered Ralls to divest, and imposed other conditions on the disposition of the projects and the turbines.
Ralls then brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and defendants moved to dismiss. Defendants question the Court's jurisdiction to hear any aspect of the dispute, and they point to the broad finality provision contained in section 721. It is their motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds that is before the Court at this juncture.
The statute is not the least bit ambiguous about the role of the courts: “The actions of the President ... and the findings of the President ... shall not be subject to judicial review.” 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(e). Nonetheless, Ralls asks the Court to find that the President exceeded his statutory authority in imposing the conditions in the order, and that he acted in violation of the Constitution by treating these foreign owners of wind farms differently than foreign owners of other wind farms. This artful legal packaging cannot alter the fact that what plaintiff is urging the Court to do is assess the President's findings on the merits, and that it cannot do. Since the finality provision bars review of the ultra vires and equal protection challenges to the President's order, the Court will dismiss those claims for lack of jurisdiction. But plaintiff has also brought a due process claim that raises purely legal questions about the process that was followed in implementing the statute, and that claim will stand. The Court notes that it is not ruling that the due process claim has merit—simply that it is bound to go on to decide the claim on its merits. The Court will reach that question after further briefing by the parties.
Ralls also seeks review of an August 2012 order issued by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which imposed certain interim mitigating measures pending the President's review of the transaction. That order expired by its own terms and was expressly revoked by the President's order, and therefore, the Court will dismiss those claims as moot.
Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, also known as the “Exon–Florio Amendment,” established the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). Section 721 gives CFIUS and the President the authority to take action in connection with a “covered transaction,” which is defined as “any merger, acquisition, or takeover ... by or with any foreign person which could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States.” 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(a)(3).
CFIUS is a committee comprised of the Secretaries of Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, Energy, and Labor; the Attorney General of the United States; the Director of National Intelligence; and the heads of any other executive department, agency, or office the President determines to be appropriate; or their designees. 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(k)(2).1 CFIUS review of a covered transaction can be initiated in two ways. First, any party or parties to the transaction may initiate a review by submitting a written notice to the Chairperson of the Committee. Id. § 2170(b)(1)(C)(i). Alternatively, the President or CFIUS itself may initiate a review. Id. § 2170(b)(1)(D). Once review has been initiated, the statute grants the Committee thirty days to review the transaction to determine its effects on the national security of the United States. Id. §§ 2170(b)(1)(A), (E). If the review results in a determination that the transaction threatens to impair the national security of the United States and that the threat has not yet been mitigated, the Committee must conduct an investigation of the effects of the transaction on national security and “take any necessary actions in connection with the transaction” to protect national security. Id. § 2170(b)(2)(A)-(B). The statute expressly grants CFIUS the authority to “negotiate, enter into or impose, and enforce any agreement or condition with any party to the covered transaction in order to mitigate any threat to the national security of the United States that arises as a result of the covered transaction.” Id. § 2170( l )(1)(A). The investigation must be completed within 45 days. Id. § 2170(b)(2)(C).2
After CFIUS completes its investigation, it is required to submit a report to Congress on the results of the investigation or submit the matter to the President for decision. 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(b)(3)(B). Section 721 grants the President the authority to “take such action for such time as the President considers appropriate to suspend or prohibit any covered transaction that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,” so long as he finds that: (1) there is credible evidence that leads him to believe the foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security; and (2) other provisions of the law do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to enable him to protect the national security. Id. § 2170(d)(1), (4). The President is required to announce his decision no later than fifteen days after the CFIUS investigation is completed. Id. § 2170(d)(2). The statute also provides a list of factors that the president “may, taking into account the requirements of national security, consider.” Id. § 2170(f). These factors include consideration of the characteristics of the particular countries associated with the transaction.
Importantly, the statute contains a finality provision which states: “The actions of the President under paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of this section and the findings of the President under paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of this section shall not be subject to judicial review.” Id. § 2170(e).
Ralls is owned by two Chinese Nationals, Dawei Duan and Jialiang Wu, who are also the CFO and a Vice President of the Sany Group (“Sany”), a Chinese manufacturing company. Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 20] ¶ 14. According to the amended complaint, Ralls's mission is to identify opportunities for the construction of windfarms in the United States that will use Sany turbines in order to demonstrate their quality and reliability to the United States wind industry. Id. ¶ 5.
In March 2012, Ralls purchased four American-owned, limited liability companies: Pine City Windfarm, LLC; Mule Hollow Windfarm, LLC; High Plateau Windfarm, LLC; and Lower Ridge Windfarm, LLC. Id. ¶¶ 35–36, 59–60. Each of the four companies was associated with the development of a particular five-turbine windfarm project in north-central Oregon, and each held a bundle of assets related to the development of its project. Id. ¶¶ 36–37, 61. Collectively, the projects are known as the “Butter Creek projects.”
The four companies were originally created by Oregon Windfarms, an Oregon limited liability company owned by United States citizens. Id. ¶ 35. In December 2010, Oregon Windfarms sold its interests to Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation (“Terna”), a Delaware corporation owned by a publicly traded Greek company. Id. ¶ 59. In March 2012, Terna sold its membership interests to Intelligent Wind Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that was owned by U.S. Innovative Renewable Energy, LLC (“USIRE”), a Delaware limited liability company owned by a United States Citizen. Id. ¶ 60. USIRE then sold Intelligent Wind Energy, LLC to Ralls. Id.
The sites of the four Butter Creek projects overlap with a United States Navy restricted airspace and bombing zone that is used by military aircraft based out of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40–41. The proposed Butter Creek project sites are all located in or near the eastern region of the restricted airspace. Id. ¶ 53. Three of the windfarm project sites are located within seven miles of the restricted airspace. Id. ¶ 42. The fourth, Lower Ridge, is located within the restricted airspace. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. Shortly after Ralls acquired the Butter Creek project companies, the United States Navy expressed concerns regarding the location of the Lower Ridge windfarm, id. ¶ 62, and Ralls agreed to move it to a new location, still within the eastern region of the restricted airspace. Id. ¶ 64; Ex. 1 to Am. Compl.
The amended complaint alleges that Oregon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ralls Corp. v. Comm. On Foreign Inv. in the United States
... ... at 94–95, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (quoting Mansfield, C & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884)) (brackets omitted). The Appellees argue, first, that section 721 expressly deprives us of jurisdiction of the due process claim and, second, that the claim is non-justiciable. Rejecting the Appellees' two jurisdictional challenges, we then treat the merits. A. Statutory Bar to Judicial Review As noted, the DPA provides that [t]he actions of the ... ...
-
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Trump
... ... ; see also U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'r v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S ... review of the President's actions); Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in the U.S. , 926 ... ...
-
Ralls Corp. v. Comm. On Foreign Inv. in the United States
... ... PMOI I, 182 F.3d at 18–19. To address that claim, the court went to some length to describe the unique nature of the governing statute. See id. at 19 (“The statute before us is unique, procedurally and substantively.”). It explained that the statute requires the Secretary of State to make three findings based on a public “administrative record” before he or she designates an entity as an FTO, but that the third finding—that the activity of the organization ... ...
- Westberg v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
-
Federal Court Affirms Broad, Largely Unreviewable Presidential Powers To Force Divestment Of Foreign Investments In U.S. Businesses
...and the governmental interest might be mere physical proximity to military installations or other sensitive installations. Footnotes 1.926 F. Supp. 2d 71(D.D.C. 2013) (Ralls No. 12-1513 (ABJ), 2013 WL 5583847 (D.D.C. Oct. 10, 2013) (Ralls II). Ralls I at 86. 4.50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(e). Id. ......
-
DC Circuit Finds Buyers In Transactions Under Exon-Florio Review Are Entitled To Due Process Protections
...Presidential Powers to Force Divestment of Foreign Investments in U.S. Businesses. Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in the U.S., 926 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in the U.S., No. 1513 (ABJ), 2013 WL 5565499 at *7 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2013, as amended Oct. 10, 2......
-
Australia's Experience With Foreign Direct Investment by State Controlled Entities: a Move Towards Xenophobia or Greater Openness?
...m-project-c. 171. Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in the United States, 926 F. Supp. 2d 71, 91 (D.D.C. 2013). 172. Id. at 95. 173. Jackson, supra note 149, at 10. 174. See Greg Golding, Western Regulation of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment: Sany slapped by CFIUS, Univ. New South Wale......
-
CHAPTER 3 REGULATORY ROULETTE: PREPARING FOR POTENTIAL FILINGS UNDER HSR AND CFIUS
...v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, 758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, 926 F.Supp2d 71 (D.D.C. 2013). See also Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS: A New Look at Foreign Direct Investment to the US, 54 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 30......
-
Cross Border Chinese Real Estate Joint Ventures and Reverse Mergers
...40; Jackson, supra note 35, at 4.48. Jackson, supra note 35, at 4.49. See Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in the United States, 926 F. Supp. 2d 71, 88 ("So plaintiff's entire ultra vires claim is premised upon the notion that the only thing the statute permits the President to do is to......