Daimler then Aabar Become Tesla Minority Investors: A FINSA Case Study
The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) and its regulations are intended to strike a balance between the opportunities and threats associated with inbound investment into the United States. The regulatory structure for addressing the conflicts often created by inbound investments is review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and its approval or disapproval of acquisitions and investments that might harm genuine U.S. interests.
For example, if a foreign nation with intent inimical to the United States were to acquire a high-tech business whose products were, or had the potential to be, essential for the critical functioning of large portions of the U.S. economy, the regulators would scrutinize the risks arising from the transaction. If necessary, the regulators would impose conditions to mitigate those risks or perhaps even block the transaction. Because it is based on national security grounds rather than economic security grounds, the system is designed to be less susceptible to undue political influence.
A reasonably designed system would also designate a class of transactions between a foreign buyer and a U.S. target that need not be scrutinized. One reason for doing so would be that certain transactions as a class present low risks to U.S. national security. Therefore the costs of review far outweigh possible benefits. Similarly, the efficient and timely functioning of the regulator may require that fewer than all transactions be reviewed. In defining the class of transactions that is except from the system, legislators often use quantitative, rather than principle-based, measures. So, for example, review by CFIUS does not reach investments of less than 10% of outstanding voting stock of a U.S. business if the investment is passively held. The exemptive rule applies both to an initial investment in a U.S. business and to subsequent transfers that the investor may make to foreign persons. The rule applies to transfers made by the transferee and by any subsequent transferee as well.
The exemption, however reasonable, can lead to questionable results. For example, after a recent transaction Aabar Investment PJSC of Abu Dhabi has now come to own approximately 4% of Tesla Motors Inc. of San Carlos, California. Tesla is perhaps the most advanced developer of commercial all-electric cars in the United States. Aabar is an investment company whose largest stakeholder is the International Petroleum Investment Company, which in turn is wholly-owned by the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. Aabar’s shares also trade on the Abu Dhabu Securities Exchange. Aabar acquired its interest in Tesla from Daimler, AG, based in Stuttgart, Germany. Daimler had acquired an interest of slightly less than 10% in March of this year in exchange for an infusion of $50 million into Tesla. Aabar holds 9.1% of Daimler, making it Daimler’s largest shareholder. According to the blog earth2tech, Daimler never intended to keep the full investment for long. Daimler and Tesla apparently tried to make the original investment jointly, but terms could not be fully worked out between them in March.
There is no indication that either Daimler’s original investment or its resale to Aabar underwent CFIUS scrutiny, even though Aabar is a government-controlled entity. Both seem to have relied on the exemption for acquisitions of less than 10% of shares.
Now to engage in a law school-styled hypothetical. What if the participants were other than Daimler or Aabar? Suppose the shares wound up in the hands of a nefarious investor who intended to use its position to retard Tesla’s technology or to put it in the hands of an ill-willed competitor. As noted above, reasonable standards for exemption may be necessary to prevent bureaucratic overreach. Reasonable standards can, however, morph into a pathway for circumvention.
Tesla has presumably protected its own interests. It may have retained the ability to approve or limit transfers and subsequent transfers of its shares. It may have restricted by contract its obligation to share its technology with stockholders. It may have imposed legal limitations on the ability for any investor who has access to its technology to use or transfer it. These protections are normal and sound, as long that the company has the bargaining power to obtain them while negotiating the deal with its prospective investors.
As a final note, there must be something about the name Tesla that attracts the possibility of bad acts. Nikola Tesla was a Serb-American physicist and electrical engineer, inventor of the radio and the electric motor and generator. He is regarded as one of the major forces in the development of commercial electricity. Although famous in his day, Tesla became embroiled in disputes with Marconi others about his intellectual property. No doubt the responsible executives at Tesla Motors are aware of the burden of history.
