ralls corporation v. committee on foreign … · covered transaction sua sponte. ... to determine...
TRANSCRIPT
RALLS CORPORATION v. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES etal, Docket No. 1:12-cv-01513 (D.D.C. Sept 12, 2012), Court Docket
Printed By: Jennifer Stephens on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 10:48 AM
Related Search Criteria
Date 08/19/2012- 09/18/2012
Type Search (Docket)
Sources U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Dockets
Facets Parties: ralls
Multiple DocumentsPart Description1 22 pages2 Exhibit A3 Exhibit B4 Summons5 Summons6 Civil Cover Sheet
© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1
Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6MCRLKN82?documentName=1.xml
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________________ ) RALLS CORPORATION, ) 318 Cooper Circle ) Peachtree City, GA 30269 ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN ) INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, ) 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. ) Washington, D.C. 20220 ) Case No. _______________ ) and ) ) TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, ) in his official capacity as ) Secretary of the Treasury and ) Chairperson of the Committee on ) Foreign Investment in the United States, ) 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. ) Washington, D.C. 20220 ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff, Ralls Corporation, by and through its undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil action challenging the issuance of an order by the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) as violating the Administrative Procedure
Act and the United States Constitution. CFIUS is an interagency committee established under
Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170
(“Section 721”). Its purpose is to review transactions that could result in the control of a U.S.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 22
2
business by a foreign person in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national
security of the United States.
2. CFIUS’s powers under Section 721 and related executive orders and regulations
are limited. It may only review certain “covered transactions” that could result in foreign control
of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States. It may not bar a covered
transaction from taking place. And, like all agencies, it may not arbitrarily or capriciously render
determinations absent any evidence or explanation or by unexpectedly and inexplicably
abandoning a prior position or policy, and it may not engage in the unconstitutional deprivation
of property absent due process.
3. CFIUS violated the foregoing principles and well-established law when it issued
an order subjecting plaintiff Ralls Corporation to draconian obligations in connection with
Ralls’s acquisition of four small Oregon companies whose assets consisted solely of windfarm
development rights, including land rights to construct the windfarms, power purchase
agreements, and necessary government permits. Without identifying any evidence or providing
any explanation, CFIUS concluded that the acquisition was a “covered transaction” subject to its
authority and that “there are national security risks to the United States that arise as a result of”
the acquisition. Moreover, rather than propose measures that would have mitigated the
purported (yet unidentified) national security risks, CFIUS—again without any evidence or
explanation—instead required Ralls immediately to cease all construction and operations and
remove all items from the relevant properties; prohibited Ralls from having any access to the
properties; and forbade Ralls from selling the properties until all items had been removed,
CFIUS was notified of the buyer, and CFIUS did not object to the buyer. CFIUS asserted that
these obligations were enforceable via injunctive relief, civil penalties, and criminal penalties.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 2 of 22
3
4. Ralls brings this action to obtain a declaration that CFIUS’s conduct was unlawful
and unauthorized and to enjoin enforcement of its order.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e).
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Ralls Corporation (“Ralls”) is a Delaware corporation that is privately
owned by two Chinese nationals, Messrs. Dawei Duan and Jialiang Wu. Mr. Duan is the CFO of
the Sany Group (“Sany”), a Chinese global manufacturing company. Mr. Wu is a Vice President
of Sany and also the General Manager of Sany Electric Company, Ltd. (“Sany Electric”), a
wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary of Sany.
8. Defendant CFIUS is a “multi agency committee” established pursuant to
Executive Order No. 11858 (May 7, 1975) in order to “carry out” Section 721. 50 U.S.C. app.
§ 2170(k)(1).
9. Defendant Timothy F. Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, is the Chairperson
of CFIUS. Section 721 provides that the Secretary of the Treasury “shall serve as the
chairperson” of CFIUS. Id. § 2170(k)(3). Mr. Geithner is sued in his official capacity.
FACTS
I. THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
10. CFIUS is an interagency committee that reviews transactions that could result in
the control of a U.S. business by a foreign person in order to determine the effect of such
transactions on the national security of the United States.
11. CFIUS’s authority derives from Section 721, see 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(k), and
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 3 of 22
4
Executive Order 11858 (May 7, 1975), as amended by Executive Order 13456 (Jan. 23, 2008).
12. The Secretary of the Treasury serves as Chairperson of CFIUS and is also a
member. The other members of CFIUS are the heads of the following eight departments and
offices: Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Commerce,
Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Energy, Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, and Office of Science and Technology Policy.
13. The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting
members of CFIUS.
14. Additionally, the following five offices observe and sometimes participate in
CFIUS’s activities: Office of Management and Budget, Council of Economic Advisors, National
Security Council, National Economic Council, and Homeland Security Council.
15. Section 721 authorizes CFIUS to “review” and “investigat[e]” a “covered
transaction” to determine its effects on national security. 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(b)(1)(A)(i),
(2)(A).
16. Section 721 defines “covered transaction” 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.” Id. § 2170(a)(3).
17. The CFIUS process begins when parties to a proposed or pending covered
transaction jointly file a voluntary notice with CFIUS or when CFIUS decides to review a
covered transaction sua sponte.
18. If the parties file a voluntary notice, the voluntary notice must include the
information required by 31 C.F.R. § 800.402, including “a summary setting forth the essentials
of the transaction” and information about the parties involved. The notice must also include
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 4 of 22
5
detailed information about foreign persons and foreign governments involved in the transaction.
19. Upon receiving the voluntary notice, CFIUS “shall review the covered transaction
to determine the effects of the transaction on the national security of the United States.” 50
U.S.C. app. § 2170(b)(1)(A)(i). In so doing, CFIUS “shall consider” eleven factors specified in
subsection (f) of Section 721. Id. § 2170(b)(1)(A)(ii), (f).
20. CFIUS’s review “shall be completed before the end of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of the acceptance of” the voluntary notice. Id. § 2170(b)(1)(E).
21. CFIUS may request additional information from the parties during the 30-day
review period, and the parties must provide the requested information within three business days.
22. In addition to reviewing covered transactions, CFIUS “shall,” under certain
circumstances, also “conduct an investigation of the effects of a covered transaction on the
national security of the United States.” Id. § 2170(b)(2)(A). The circumstances triggering an
investigation are defined in Section 721 and 31 C.F.R. § 800.503. Any such investigation must
be completed within 45 days of its commencement. 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(b)(2)(C).
23. CFIUS may “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).
24. Section 721 also provides that the President “may 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.” Id. § 2170(d)(1). The President
“shall announce the decision on whether or not to take action … not later than 15 days after the
date on which an investigation … is completed.” Id. § 2170(d)(2). The President may take such
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 5 of 22
6
action only if, among other things, he finds that existing provisions of law, other than Section
721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, do not, in his judgment, provide
adequate and appropriate authority for the President to protect the national security.
25. Executive Order 11858 (as amended by Executive Order 13456) also provides
that CFIUS “shall send a report to the President requesting the President’s decision with respect
to a review or investigation of a transaction” in the following three circumstances: (i) CFIUS
“recommends that the President suspend or prohibit the transaction”; (ii) CFIUS “is unable to
reach a decision on whether to recommend that the President suspend or prohibit the
transaction”; or (iii) CFIUS “requests that the President make a determination with regard to the
transaction.”
26. 31 C.F.R. § 800.506 provides that “upon completion or termination of any
investigation,” CFIUS “shall send a report to the President requesting the President’s decision”
under the same three circumstances as Executive Order 11858.
II. THE TERNA-RALLS TRANSACTION
27. Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation (“Terna”) is a Delaware corporation
formed in December 2010 to acquire and act as a holding company for wind energy projects in
the United States. Terna is a subsidiary of Terna Energy SA, a publicly traded renewable energy
company listed on the Athens Stock Exchange.
28. Prior to March 2012, Terna held the membership interests in four Oregon
windfarm projects, all Oregon limited liability companies: Pine City Windfarm, LLC; Mule
Hollow Windfarm, LLC; High Plateau Windfarm, LLC; and Lower Ridge Windfarm, LLC
(collectively, the “Project Companies”). The Project Companies were originally formed in 2009
by Oregon Windfarms, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company owned by U.S. citizens.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 6 of 22
7
29. The Project Companies’ assets consisted solely of the land rights to construct the
windfarms, power purchase agreements, transmission interconnection agreements and ancillary
agreements with other companies, agreements for the management and use of shared
interconnection facilities with the owners of nearby windfarms, and the government permits
necessary to construct a commercial windfarm.
30. In March 2012, Terna sold its membership interests in the Project Companies to
Intelligent Wind Energy, LLC (“IWE”), a Delaware limited liability company that was owned by
U.S. Innovative Renewable Energy, LLC (“USIRE”), a Delaware limited liability company
owned by a U.S. citizen. USIRE then sold IWE to Ralls.
31. Ralls’s primary business purpose to date has been to try and identify U.S. market
opportunities and help develop wind energy projects for which Sany Electric’s wind turbine
generators can be used.
32. Once constructed, Ralls’s windfarms will consist of four separate 10 megawatt
(“MW”) windfarms with a total of twenty 2.0 MW wind turbine generators (five turbines per
windfarm), plus related systems to allow for power production and interconnection to the
PacifiCorp transmission grid in the western United States under long-term contracts with
PacifiCorp.
33. The Project Companies will not control or have access to PacifiCorp’s
transmission grid.
34. PacifiCorp itself owns thousands of MWs of wind energy generating facilities,
and nearly 10,600 MW of total generating assets. Once constructed, Ralls’s 40 MW of wind-
generated power will comprise approximately 0.37% of PacifiCorp’s total generating capacity,
and approximately 2.3% of its wind energy generating capacity.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 7 of 22
8
35. In 2010 and 2011—prior to Ralls’s acquisition of the Project Companies—the
Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) issued “Determinations of No Hazard” for each of the
twenty planned turbines at the locations where the Project Companies’ windfarms were to be
sited. An FAA “Determination of No Hazard” is tantamount to FAA approval.
36. The FAA’s review process included review by the Department of Defense. The
purpose of the Department of Defense review is to “prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse
impacts on military operations, readiness and testing.” Mission Statement of the DOD Siting
Clearinghouse, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and Environment.
37. Shortly after Ralls acquired the Project Companies, the United States Navy
expressed concerns with regard to the location of one of the four windfarm projects, the “Lower
Ridge Windfarm.”
38. The Navy advocated moving the Lower Ridge Windfarm to “reduce airspace
conflicts between the Lower Ridge wind turbines and low-level military aircraft training.”
39. Although the Navy indicated that it had no authority to require such a move, Ralls
agreed, at significant expense and effort, to move the Lower Ridge Windfarm to a new location.
40. Moving the Lower Ridge Windfarm to its new location required Ralls to obtain
additional approvals from the Oregon Public Utility Commission. The Navy wrote to the
Oregon Public Utility Commission on Ralls’s behalf, emphasizing its concern that the placement
of the wind turbines at either location “may have negative security implications” but
recommending that the requested approvals issue. In the same letter, the Navy added that it
“appreciat[ed]” Ralls’s “cooperation and consideration” in agreeing to move the Lower Ridge
Windfarm, particularly given Ralls’s “time constraints” in completing the windfarms.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 8 of 22
9
III. CFIUS’S PROHIBITION OF THE TERNA-RALLS TRANSACTION
41. On June 28, 2012, Ralls and Terna submitted a voluntary notice to CFIUS
informing CFIUS of Ralls’s recent acquisition of the Project Companies. Ralls included all of
the information required by 31 C.F.R. § 800.402(c), including facts set forth above.
42. In the weeks that followed submission of the voluntary notice, CFIUS asked Ralls
and Terna a number of follow-up questions, as to all of which Ralls and Terna timely provided
responses.
43. On July 25, 2012, CFIUS issued an Order Establishing Interim Mitigation
Measures regarding the Terna-Ralls transaction on July 25, 2012 (“Order”). See Ex. A.
44. The Order stated that CFIUS had determined that the Terna-Ralls transaction was
a “covered transaction” and that “there are national security risks to the United States that arise
as a result of the Transaction.” Id. at 1.
45. The Order stated that, as a result of the CFIUS determination, the “Companies,”
which the Order defined as Ralls and the Project Companies:
“Shall immediately cease all Construction and Operations, and shall not undertake
any further Construction and Operations, at the Properties” (defined as any of the
sites on which the Project Companies proposed to construct windfarms);
“Shall remove all stockpiled or stored items from the Properties no later than July
30, 2012, and shall not deposit, stockpile, or store any new items at the
Properties”; and
“Shall immediately cease all access, and shall not have any access, to the
Properties.” Id.
46. The Order added that “[n]otwithstanding the foregoing, U.S. citizens contracted
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 9 of 22
10
by the Companies and approved by CFIUS may access the site until July 30, 2012, solely for the
purposes of removing any items from the Properties in compliance with” the Order. Id. at 1-2.
47. As authority for its action, CFIUS cited “Section 721, and Executive Order 11858
of May 7, 1975, as amended by Executive Order 13456, 73 Fed. Reg. 4677 (Jan. 23, 2008).” Id.
at 1. CFIUS cited no other authority for its action.
48. The Order provided that it “is enforceable, through injunctive relief, criminal or
civil penalty, or otherwise, pursuant to section 721, the Executive Order, the CFIUS regulations,
18 U.S.C. § 1001, or any other applicable law.” Id. at 2.
49. On July 26, 2012, in a good-faith effort to address CFIUS’s concerns, Ralls
informed CFIUS that it was considering selling the Project Companies, with several American
buyers having expressed interest. Ralls believed that a sale of the Project Companies would
address CFIUS’s concerns in issuing the Order, and it requested CFIUS’s guidance on the
matter.
50. In response to Ralls’s good-faith effort, on August 2, 2012, CFIUS issued an
Amended Order Establishing Interim Mitigation Measures (“Amended Order”). See Ex. B.
51. The Amended Order expanded the definition of “Companies” to include the
Project Companies, Ralls and its subsidiaries, and the Sany Group (including Sany Electric and
Sany Heavy Industries). Id. at 1.
52. The Amended Order also added more prohibitions to the previous Order, stating
that in addition to the prior prohibitions, the Companies:
“[S]hall not deposit, stockpile, or store any new items at the Properties, any lay
down site identified by the Companies in any information or communication
submitted to CFIUS, or at any location that is closer to the R-5701 Restricted
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 10 of 22
11
Airspace than the lay down site that is farthest from the R-5701 Restricted
Airspace”;
“Shall not sell or otherwise transfer or propose, or otherwise facilitate the sale or
transfer to any third party for use or installation at the Properties of any items
made or otherwise produced by the Sany Group”; and
“Shall not complete a sale or transfer of the Project Companies or their assets to
any third party until:
o All items deposited, installed, or affixed (including concrete
foundations) on the Properties subsequent to the acquisition by Ralls
of the Project Companies have been removed from the Properties;
o the Companies notify CFIUS of the intended recipient or buyer;
o the Companies have not received an objection from CFIUS within 10
business days of notification.” Id. at 2.
53. As with the previous Order, the Amended Order cited as authority for its
directives “Section 721, and Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended by Executive
Order 13456, 73 Fed. Reg. 4677 (Jan. 23, 2008).” Id. at 1. As before, the Amended Order cited
no other authority for its directives.
54. Also as with the previous Order, the Amended Order provided that it “is
enforceable, through injunctive relief, criminal or civil penalty, or otherwise, pursuant to section
721, the Executive Order, the CFIUS regulations, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or any other applicable
law.” Id. at 3.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 11 of 22
12
COUNT I (Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act—Exceeding Statutory Authority by Prohibiting Transaction and Regulating Foreign Trade)
55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all of
the preceding paragraphs.
56. The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that, in a case of actual controversy
within its jurisdiction, a United States court may declare the rights and other legal relations of
any interested party seeking such declaration. 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
57. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) provides that “[a] person suffering
legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action
within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702.
58. The APA also provides that “final agency action for which there is no other
adequate remedy in a court” is “subject to judicial review.” Id. § 704.
59. The APA further provides that a reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set
aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” found to be, inter alia, “(A) arbitrary and
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to
constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction,
authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; [or] (D) without observance of procedure
required by law.” Id. § 706(2).
60. CFIUS constitutes an “agency” whose final actions are reviewable under the
APA.
61. The Amended Order constitutes “final agency action” that is subject to judicial
review. CFIUS has consummated its decisionmaking process by determining that the Terna-
Ralls transaction is a “covered transaction,” that there are national security risks to the United
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 12 of 22
13
States that arise as a result of the transaction, and that severe, prohibitive, and immediate
restrictions are necessary to prevent these purported national security risks. Furthermore, the
Amended Order determines Ralls’s rights and obligations, and legal consequences flow from the
Amended Order: it expressly provides for its enforcement in court, and violating its terms could
expose Ralls to significant penalties. Accordingly, this case is ripe for judicial review.
62. Ralls is suffering legal wrong as a result of the Amended Order because CFIUS
lacks statutory authority to prohibit the Terna-Ralls transaction, versus proposing measures that
mitigate any national security risks.
63. CFIUS’s powers under Section 721 are limited; it may only “negotiate, enter into
or impose, and enforce” an agreement or condition “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).
64. By ordering Ralls immediately to cease all construction at the project sites,
remove all equipment from the sites, and cease all access to the sites (including communications
with persons at the sites), CFIUS has not merely mitigated any national security risks associated
with the transaction; its actions are tantamount to prohibiting the transaction entirely, a power
CFIUS does not possess under statute or regulation.
65. Section 721 purports to provide only the President with the extraordinary
authority to suspend or prohibit a transaction, not CFIUS. By issuing the Amended Order,
CFIUS has improperly arrogated this extraordinary power to itself.
66. CFIUS has also exceeded its statutory authority by purporting to restrict
transactions that are not within its purview. Section 1(d) of the Amended Order bars Ralls from
“sell[ing] or otherwise transfer[ring] … to any third party for use or installation at” the
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 13 of 22
14
windfarms “any items made or otherwise produced by the Sany Group.” Ex. B, at 2 (emphases
added). But Section 721 limits CFIUS’s oversight to transactions “by or with any foreign person
which could result in foreign control of any person.” 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(a)(3) (emphases
added). Because future transactions in which Ralls sells or transfers “items made or otherwise
produced by the Sany Group” would not “result in foreign control of any person,” CFIUS lacks
the authority to impose restrictions on (much less outright bar) such transactions.
67. Similarly, Section 1(e) of the Amended Order bars Ralls from “complet[ing] a
sale or transfer of the Project Companies or their assets to any third party” absent CFIUS
approval. Ex. B, at 2 (emphasis added). But CFIUS lacks the authority to impose restrictions on
Ralls regarding the future sale or transfer of the Project Companies or their assets “to any third
party,” even if it were an American party. CFIUS’s jurisdiction extends only to transactions
“which could result in foreign control.”
68. CFIUS’s limited authority to review transactions resulting in foreign ownership
does not give it the power to regulate foreign trade. Because the obligations in sections 1(d) and
1(f) of the Amended Order do so, CFIUS has exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the
Amended Order, in violation of the APA.
69. To the extent CFIUS may seek further action by the President regarding this
transaction, that action would not prevent judicial review of the Amended Order. Among other
things, any such Presidential action would render CFIUS’s action capable of repetition, yet
evading review, permitting judicial review of the Amended Order.
70. The physical and regulatory takings of Ralls’s property interests constitute
unconstitutional takings in violation of the U.S. Constitution and deprive Ralls of its property
interests absent due process, or at a minimum raise grave doubts about the constitutionality of the
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 14 of 22
15
government action, though this constitutional question is avoided by a judicial determination that
CFIUS violated the APA in issuing the Amended Order.
71. Likewise, just as federal courts will construe statutes where possible to avoid
serious doubt of their constitutionality, so too CFIUS has an obligation to exercise its powers in a
way that does not raise serious constitutional concerns. CFIUS’s actions in violation of its
statutory authority result in a constitutionally problematic prohibition that is avoided by finding
CFIUS’s conduct in violation of the APA.
COUNT II (Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act—Arbitrary
and Capricious Agency Action)
72. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all of
the preceding paragraphs.
73. Ralls is suffering legal wrong as a result of the Amended Order because the
Amended Order arbitrarily and capriciously offers literally no evidence or explanation for its
determination that the Terna-Ralls transaction is a “covered transaction,” its determination that
national security risks to the United States arise as a result of the transaction, its determination to
impose prohibitive restrictions on the Terna-Ralls transaction tantamount to barring it outright,
or its determination to impose categorical restrictions when less burdensome alternatives are
available under existing provisions of law that adequately and appropriately protect national
security.
74. The Amended Order instead simply recites, in a conclusory manner, that Ralls’s
acquisition of the Project Companies “constitutes a ‘covered transaction’ for purposes of Section
721,” and that “there are national security risks to the United States that arise as a result of the
Transaction,” and imposes a list of draconian obligations.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 15 of 22
16
75. This failure to provide any explanation or evidence for CFIUS’s conclusions is a
violation of the APA’s requirement of reasoned decisionmaking, particularly given the lengthy
and detailed list of factors that CFIUS must consider when determining whether a transaction
could harm national security. See 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(b)(1)(A)(ii), (f).
76. The Amended Order also provides no explanation why CFIUS ignored readily
available, adequate, and appropriate alternative measures short of outright prohibiting the
transaction, including mitigation measures and invocation of 10 U.S.C. § 2663(d), which
provides the Secretary of the Navy with authority to acquire interests in land, such as the
interests in the properties on which the Project would be located, when the need is urgent, the
acquisition is needed in the interest of national defense, and the acquisition is required to
maintain the operational integrity of a military installation.
77. The Amended Order also constitutes arbitrary and capricious action because it
prohibitively restricts Ralls’s acquisition of the Project Companies after the federal government
previously assented to the transaction. Prior to Ralls’s acquisition, the FAA provided
“Determinations of No Hazard” (which included Department of Defense review), and shortly
after Ralls’s acquisition, the Navy objected to the location of one windfarm but assented after
Ralls relocated it at its own cost. The Amended Order rescinds the Navy’s prior assent and
invalidates the FAA’s prior approval, without offering any explanation for this sudden shift in
course.
78. The Amended Order is further arbitrary and capricious in prohibiting Ralls’s
future sales of Sany Group items that would be used at the properties (Section 1(d)) and in
prohibiting Ralls’s future sales of the Project Companies or their assets to any third party absent
CFIUS approval (Section 1(e)). These restrictions and remedies are entirely unrelated to
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 16 of 22
17
CFIUS’s limited power to review covered transactions and mitigate purported national security
risks.
79. As a result of this and all other legal wrongs wrought by the Amended Order,
Ralls has incurred significant injury. Ralls is immediately prohibited from undertaking any
further construction or operations on its property, it must immediately remove all of its
belongings from the property, it may not use the property for storage, it is prohibited from
accessing the property, it is prohibited from selling or transferring the primary goods to be used
in erecting the windfarms, and it is not permitted to sell or transfer the other assets of the Project
Companies to any third party until all items are removed (including the concrete foundations that
it has expended funds to install), the companies notify CFIUS, and CFIUS does not object.
Accordingly, the Amended Order has, inter alia, eviscerated Ralls’s property rights to construct
the windfarms, its power purchase agreements, its transmission interconnection agreements and
ancillary agreements with PacifiCorp, its agreements for the managements and use of shared
interconnection facilities with the owners of nearby windfarms, and its government permits
necessary to operate the windfarms.
80. The Amended Order also imminently threatens the loss of approximately $25
million in federal renewable energy investment tax incentives to Ralls and its subsidiaries. Ralls
may only obtain these incentives if the windfarms are completed and placed in service by
December 31, 2012. So long as the Amended Order remains in place, Ralls cannot place the
windfarms in service by December 31, 2012.
81. To the extent CFIUS may seek further action by the President regarding this
transaction, that action would not prevent judicial review of the Amended Order. Among other
things, any such Presidential action would render CFIUS’s action capable of repetition, yet
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 17 of 22
18
evading review, permitting judicial review of the Amended Order.
82. The physical and regulatory takings of Ralls’s property interests constitute
unconstitutional takings in violation of the U.S. Constitution and deprive Ralls of its property
interests absent due process, or at a minimum raise grave doubts about the constitutionality of the
government action, though this constitutional question is avoided by a judicial determination that
CFIUS violated the APA in issuing the Amended Order.
83. Likewise, just as federal courts will construe statutes where possible to avoid
serious doubt of their constitutionality, so too CFIUS has an obligation to exercise its powers in a
way that does not raise serious constitutional concerns. It is arbitrary and capricious for CFIUS
to fail to consider adequate and available alternatives, including recourse to provisions of
existing law, that would accommodate the government’s security concerns without raising
problems under the Constitution, and for CFIUS to give no explanation or provide any factual
support for its decision to reject these alternatives in favor of a constitutionally problematic
prohibition.
COUNT III (Unconstitutional Deprivation of Property Without Due Process)
84. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all of
the preceding paragraphs.
85. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “[n]o person
shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const.
amend. V.
86. Ralls has numerous valid property interests and property rights tied up in the
windfarm projects that are subject to the Amended Order, including land rights to construct the
windfarms, power purchase agreements, transmission interconnection agreements and ancillary
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 18 of 22
19
agreements with PacifiCorp, agreements for the managements and use of shared interconnection
facilities with the owners of nearby windfarms, government permits necessary to operate the
windfarms, and some $25 million in federal revenue from renewable energy investment tax
credits.
87. CFIUS’s issuance of the Amended Order, and the intrusiveness and severity of
the Amended Order, effect numerous deprivations of Ralls’s property. Ralls is prohibited from
undertaking any further construction or operations on its property, it must remove all of its
belongings from the property, it may not use the property for storage, it is prohibited from
accessing the property, it is prohibited from selling or transferring the primary goods to be used
in erecting the windfarms, and it is not permitted to sell or transfer the other assets of the Project
Companies to any third party until all items are removed, the companies notify CFIUS, and
CFIUS does not object.
88. The Amended Order effectively extinguishes Ralls’s property rights. Ralls cannot
use its property for the purpose for which it was acquired; in fact, it cannot use its property for
any purpose whatsoever, nor may it benefit from the various rights it has acquired or from the
renewable energy investment tax credits.
89. The economic impact of the Amended Order on Ralls is severe. The Amended
Order has eliminated all or nearly all of Ralls’s value in the Project Companies.
90. Ralls had significant reasonable investment-backed expectations with respect to
the Project Companies. Ralls reasonably relied on the regulatory scheme in place at the time of
its investment decisions because in 2010 and 2011, before Ralls acquired the property in
question, the FAA issued “Determinations of No Hazard,” which approvals included review by
the Department of Defense. For the same reason, Ralls had no reasonable basis for foreseeing
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 19 of 22
20
that CFIUS would prohibit the transaction, particularly after the Navy facilitated further
approvals for placement of Ralls’s windfarms.
91. The character of CFIUS’s action does not justify its conduct. CFIUS had a
number of less invasive measures it could have implemented to mitigate whatever national
security risks it thought to exist (which the Amended Order does not articulate), not least that the
Navy could have purchased Ralls’s interest in the land rights owned by the Project Companies
under 10 U.S.C. § 2663(d).
92. Prior to issuance of the Order and Amended Order, CFIUS did not disclose to
Ralls any of the evidence it had obtained during its review, nor did it offer Ralls any opportunity
to respond to that evidence. At no point did Ralls have any occasion to view or rebut any record
or portion thereof that CFIUS compiled in reaching its determination, nor was it given
meaningful notice or hearing prior to CFIUS’s determination.
93. The Order and Amended Order themselves do not identify any of the evidence
upon which CFIUS relied in reaching its determination, nor do they provide any explanation for
CFIUS’s determination.
94. As a result, CFIUS’s issuance of the Order and Amended Order deprived Ralls of
its property absent due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
95. CFIUS’s rote invocation of “national security risks” does not alleviate the absence
of due process. Well-established law provides that even where national security concerns are at
play, a party subject to administrative action is still entitled to due process. See, e.g., People’s
Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 613 F.3d 220 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Nat’s Council of
Resistance of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 251 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 20 of 22
21
96. To the extent CFIUS may seek further action by the President regarding this
transaction, that action would not prevent judicial review of the Amended Order. Among other
things, any such Presidential action would render CFIUS’s action capable of repetition, yet
evading review, permitting judicial review of the Amended Order.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief:
1. an order and judgment declaring that CFIUS violated the APA in issuing the
Amended Order, and enjoining enforcement of the Amended Order;
2. an order and judgment declaring that CFIUS lacks the authority to issue an order
prohibiting the Terna-Ralls transaction or regulating future transactions not resulting in foreign
control of a person, and enjoining CFIUS from attempting to do so;
3. an order and judgment declaring arbitrary and capricious CFIUS’s determinations
that the Terna-Ralls transaction is a “covered transaction,” that it presents “national security risks
to the United States,” that the Terna-Ralls transaction should be subject to numerous draconian
obligations set forth in the Amended Order, and that no less burdensome measure should be
considered or imposed; and enjoining enforcement of the Amended Order;
4. an order and judgment declaring that the Amended Order deprives Ralls of its
property without due process, and enjoining enforcement of the Amended Order;
5. an order and judgment enjoining CFIUS from taking any action that would
frustrate or eliminate the jurisdiction of this Court;
6. costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to any applicable statute or authority; and
7. any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 21 of 22
22
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul D. Clement . Paul D. Clement (D.C. Bar No. 433215) Viet D. Dinh (D.C. Bar No. 456608) H. Christopher Bartolomucci (D.C. Bar No. 453423) George W. Hicks, Jr. (D.C. Bar No. 499223) Brian J. Field (D.C. Bar No. 985577) BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 470 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 234-0090 Steven S. Honigman (D.C. Bar No. 201020) 500 East 77th Street New York, New York 10162 (202) 549-4917
Counsel for Plaintiff Ralls Corporation
Dated: September 12, 2012
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 22 of 22
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the
__________ District of __________
))))))))))))
Plaintiff(s)
v. Civil Action No.
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if youare the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1-3 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1-3 Filed 09/12/12 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the
__________ District of __________
))))))))))))
Plaintiff(s)
v. Civil Action No.
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if youare the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1-4 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1-4 Filed 09/12/12 Page 2 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44 (Rev. 5/12 DC)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS (b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF _____________________
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
DEFENDANTS
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT _____________________ (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)
ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
o 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff
o 2 U.S. Government Defendant
o 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)
o 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in item III)
Citizen of this State
Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country
PTF
o 1
o 2
o 3
DFT
o 1
o 2
o 3
Incorporated or Principal Place of Business in This State Incorporated and Principal Place of Business in Another State Foreign Nation
PTF
o 4
o 5
o 6
DFT
o 4
o 5
o 6
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)
o A. Antitrust 410 Antirust
o B. Personal Injury/ Malpractice 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Medical Malpractice 365 Product Liability 367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Product Liability
o C. Administrative Agency Review 151 Medicare Act
Social Security
861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g))
Other Statutes 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 890 Other Statutory Actions (If Administrative Agency is Involved)
o D. Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction
Any nature of suit from any category may be selected for this category of case assignment. *(If Antitrust, then A governs)*
o E. General Civil (Other) OR o F. Pro Se General Civil Real Property
210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property
Personal Property
370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability
Bankruptcy 422 Appeal 27 USC 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Prisoner Petitions 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Conditions 560 Civil Detainee – Conditions of Confinement
Property Rights 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark
Federal Tax Suits 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or defendant) 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609
Forfeiture/Penalty 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other
Other Statutes 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 430 Banks & Banking 450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc. 460 Deportation
462 Naturalization Application 465 Other Immigration Actions 470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organization
480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Satellite TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes 890 Other Statutory Actions (if not administrative agency review or Privacy Act)
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1-5 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 2
o G. Habeas Corpus/ 2255 530 Habeas Corpus – General 510 Motion/Vacate Sentence 463 Habeas Corpus – Alien Detainee
o H. Employment Discrimination 442 Civil Rights – Employment (criteria: race, gender/sex, national origin, discrimination, disability, age, religion, retaliation)
*(If pro se, select this deck)*
o I. FOIA/Privacy Act 895 Freedom of Information Act 890 Other Statutory Actions (if Privacy Act)
*(If pro se, select this deck)*
o J. Student Loan
152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loan (excluding veterans)
o K. Labor/ERISA (non-employment) 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 740 Labor Railway Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act
o L. Other Civil Rights (non-employment) 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights Act) 443 Housing/Accommodations 440 Other Civil Rights 445 Americans w/Disabilities – Employment 446 Americans w/Disabilities – Other 448 Education
o M. Contract 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholder’s Suits 190 Other Contracts 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise
o N. Three-Judge Court 441 Civil Rights – Voting (if Voting Rights Act)
V. ORIGIN
o 1 Original Proceeding
o 2 Remand from State Court
o 3 Remanded from Appellate Court
o 4 Reinstated or Reopened
o 5 Transferred from another district (specify)
o 6 Multi-district Litigation
o 7 Appeal to District Judge from Mag. Judge
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
DEMAND $ JURY DEMAND:
Check YES only if demanded in complaint YES NO
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY
(See instruction)
YES
NO
If yes, please complete related case form
DATE: _________________________
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44
Authority for Civil Cover Sheet
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.
I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident
of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction under Section II.
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding nature of suit found under the category of the case.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk’s Office. Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should endure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.
Case 1:12-cv-01513 Document 1-5 Filed 09/12/12 Page 2 of 2
RALLS CORPORATION v. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THEUNITED STATES et al, Docket No. 1:12-cv-01513 (D.D.C. Sept 12, 2012), Court Docket
© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1
Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6MCRLKN82?documentName=1.xml
General Information
Case Name RALLS CORPORATION v. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGNINVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES et al
Docket Number 1:12-cv-01513
Court United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Nature of Suit Statutes: Other Statutory Actions