Motivated by a rapidly evolving geopolitical climate, governments around the globe have increasingly scrutinized and intervened in transactions under foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regimes in recent years. Rising protectionism, concerns over cybersecurity threats, Covid-19 and the desire to protect critical domestic industries have driven the expansion of FDI regimes beyond purely national security or defense specific industries.

More than 100 jurisdictions now apply FDI screening in some form. The notification triggers and review processes vary significantly between these regimes, and their proliferation has significantly increased complexity for investors planning cross-border investments.

The New Frontier: Outbound Investment Screening

Having spent the last few years building and/or refining inward investment screening, governments are now turning to outbound investment screening, amidst concerns about economic dependence and technology leakage. Governments are increasingly concerned about offshoring of critical capabilities, which can facilitate the development of sensitive technologies in potentially hostile states and lead to over reliance on third countries, creating economic dependencies that can be exploited for geopolitical purposes.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC), Japan, South Korea and Taiwan already have outbound investment screening for domestic entities, primarily in sectors considered critical to national security and technological competitiveness. The US and Europe are now catching up, with US screening for outbound investments into certain sectors in “Countries of Concern” applicable from January 2025, and the EU launching an outbound investment monitoring exercise in similar categories of critical technology. While the EU and UK have not implemented formal outbound investment screening, each has signaled its concerns.

US: Outbound Investment Program (Executive Order 14105)

Regulatory expansions to maintain US technological leadership have included rules to monitor and restrict outbound investment – so-called “reverse CFIUS.” On August 9, 2023, President Biden issued Executive Order 14105 – “Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern.” On October 28, 2024, the US Department of the Treasury issued final regulations implementing Executive Order 14105, which address investments by US persons in certain identified technologies in “Countries of Concern”, including PRC and the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau.

The regulations, which became effective January 2, 2025, prohibit certain transactions by US persons implicating highly strategic technologies, and create a post-closing notification requirement for certain other transactions. Under the regulations, the obligations on US persons will apply if such person has actual or constructive knowledge of relevant facts or circumstances relating to a transaction. A US person has such knowledge under the regulations if it possesses actual knowledge that a fact or circumstance exists or is substantially certain to occur; an awareness of a high probability of the existence or future occurrence of a fact or circumstance, or could have possessed such awareness through a reasonable and diligent inquiry.

The categories of covered transactions include the acquisition of an equity interest or a contingent equity interest, certain debt financing that grants certain rights to the lender, the conversion of a contingent equity interest, certain “greenfield” investments (building a new facility) or other corporate expansions, the entry into a joint venture, and certain investments as a limited partner or equivalent (LP) in a non-US person pooled investment fund. Excepted transactions include investments in publicly traded securities, certain LP investments with a threshold of $2,000,000, derivatives, buyouts of country of concern ownership, intracompany transactions, certain pre-final rule binding commitments, certain syndicated debt financings, and equity-based compensation.

The regulations apply to the conduct of US persons only and defines a US person as “any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, including any foreign branch of any such entity, or any person in the United States.” Under the America First Investment Policy issued in February 2025, the US administration is considering new or expanded restrictions on US outbound investment in the PRC in sectors such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum, biotechnology, hypersonics, aerospace, advanced manufacturing, directed energy, and other areas implicated by the PRC’s national Military-Civil Fusion strategy.

EU: Market Monitoring to Inform Future Policy on Outbound Investment Screening

On January 15, 2025, the European Commission published a Recommendation on reviewing outbound investments in technology areas critical for the economic security of the Union. The Recommendation asks EU Member States to review investments made between January 2021 and June 2026 by EU-based investors into third countries in three critical technologies for economic security: semiconductors, artificial intelligence and quantum technologies.

The EU Recommendation applies to acquisitions, mergers, “greenfield” investments, joint ventures, venture capital investments and the transfer of certain tangible and intangible assets, including IP or know-how. Non-controlling investments limited to seeking a return on invested capital are excluded. Member States are requested to gather information through mandatory or voluntary notification processes, and to perform a risk assessment of covered transactions with the European Commission.

The EU Recommendation covers the same three technologies as the US outbound regulations, although some of the definitions are narrower. The US outbound regulations also apply to non-controlling investments, although in other respects the EU Recommendation is wider because it covers all third countries as well as IP licensing.

This will be a significant information gathering exercise for transaction parties, Member States and the European Commission, with Member State progress reports due in July 2025 and final reports in July 2026. The review will inform a decision on whether further action is needed to regulate outbound investment at EU and/or national level.

In the meantime, Member States are continuing to expand FDI screening regimes for inward investment, with Ireland’s the latest to come into force in January, and Greece publishing its proposed screening framework in April. On May 8, 2025, the European Parliament endorsed revised rules for screening foreign investments into and within the EU. Under the proposed new rules, certain sectors such as critical raw materials and transport infrastructure will be subject to mandatory FDI screening by Member States. National procedures will be harmonized, and the Commission will have the power to intervene. Member States are now negotiating the text of the legislation, currently aiming to reach agreement in June.

UK: Position on Outbound Investment

In May 2024, the UK government published updated guidance on the National Security and Investment Act (NSIA), emphasizing that it can apply to “outward direct investment” from the UK. The NSIA may apply to the acquisition of an entity or asset outside the UK if the entity carries on activities in the UK or supplies goods or services to the UK, or the asset is used for these purposes.

This is not a change. It has been the position since the NSIA came into force in January 2022. However, it is noteworthy that the UK government chose to underline these powers and provide examples of when the NSIA would apply to acquisitions of a non-UK entity or asset.

The UK government has indicated that it is considering more substantive rules on outward investment screening, to complement the existing tools of export controls and inbound investment screening.

Strategies For Asset Managers to Mitigate Risks to Deal Certainty, Timelines and Costs

  1. Conduct outbound investment reviews early in the deal process to assess exposure to “countries of concern” (e.g., China, Hong Kong, Macau).
  2. Screen for sector sensitivity — artificial intelligence, quantum technology and semiconductors.
  3. Include side-letter language addressing outbound investment screening compliance.
  4. Diligence efforts should conform to the knowledge standard in the US outbound regulations and include:
    • inquiries to the relevant counterparty (e.g. the prospective portfolio company, fund manager or seller).
    • contractual representations or warranties that the target portfolio company does not engage in the in-scope technologies; or that the target fund is not a covered foreign person.
    • consideration of relevant public and non-public information, including the use of available public and commercial databases to verify information provided by the counterparty.
  5. Monitor the evolving regulatory landscape and be prepared to adjust investment strategies and structures accordingly. Understanding the underlying policy drivers will enable investors to navigate regimes more effectively and reduce execution risk.
  6. And finally…reconsider your government relations strategy: governments are trying to strike a balance between protecting national interests and encouraging investment, so they are continually seeking feedback and there are many opportunities to shape the policy debate.

Read more of our Top Ten Regulatory and Litigation Risks for Private Funds in 2025.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Margaret A. Dale Margaret A. Dale

Margaret Dale is a seasoned trial lawyer and first-chair litigator handling complex business disputes across a wide variety of industries and sectors, including consumer products, media and entertainment, financial services, telecommunications and technology, and higher education. A former vice-chair of the Litigation Department…

Margaret Dale is a seasoned trial lawyer and first-chair litigator handling complex business disputes across a wide variety of industries and sectors, including consumer products, media and entertainment, financial services, telecommunications and technology, and higher education. A former vice-chair of the Litigation Department, she has been recognized since 2017 in Benchmark Litigation’s Top 250 Women in Litigation.

Margaret’s practice covers the spectrum of complex commercial disputes, including matters involving contracts, bankruptcy and insolvency, securities, corporate governance, asset management, M&A, intellectual property, and privacy and data security.

Margaret regularly counsels clients before litigation commences to assess risk, develop strategies to minimize or avoid disputes, and resolve matters outside of the courtroom.

Margaret is a frequent writer, including authoring the chapter titled “Privileges” in the treatise Commercial Litigation in New York State Courts (Haig, 5th ed.), the chapter titled “Data Breach Litigation” in PLI’s Proskauer on Privacy, and the chapter titled “Perfecting the Appeal” in PLI’s Principles of Appellate Litigation. She also serves as the lead editor of Proskauer’s blog on commercial litigation, Minding Your Business Litigation. For over 10 years, Margaret co-authored a regular column on corporate and securities law in the New York Law Journal.

Margaret maintains an active pro bono practice advocating on issues relating to reproductive rights, women, children, and veterans. She serves on the Board of Directors of CFR (Center for Family Representation), VLA (Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts), and the City Bar Fund.

Photo of Michael R. Hackett Michael R. Hackett

Mike Hackett is a partner in the Litigation Department and Co-Head of the Asset Management Litigation practice. An experienced litigator and trial lawyer, Mike’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on asset management, financial services, M&A, shareholder, and life…

Mike Hackett is a partner in the Litigation Department and Co-Head of the Asset Management Litigation practice. An experienced litigator and trial lawyer, Mike’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on asset management, financial services, M&A, shareholder, and life sciences disputes.

A significant portion of Mike’s practice concerns disputes and regulation involving private funds, including private equity, venture capital, hedge, real estate and private credit funds, as well as their sponsors, partners, investors, portfolio companies, and officers and directors. Mike’s experience representing private fund clients runs the gamut, from control contests within advisers, to disputes between limited partners and general partners, to representation of investment advisers in connection with regulatory examinations, investigations and enforcement matters. Mike routinely represents funds, fund sponsors, portfolio companies, and their officers and directors, including in significant post-closing M&A disputes.

Mike also litigates high-stakes commercial disputes in the life sciences and financial services areas, including for established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, emerging and innovative start-ups, asset managers, and other private capital investors, in areas such as M&A, breach of contract, indemnification, fraud, contested earnouts and royalties, securities and capital markets, and corporate governance.

Mike has been recognized by Chambers USA and was named a “Rising Star” by Massachusetts Super Lawyers.

Photo of John R. Ingrassia John R. Ingrassia

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating…

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating to competition and antitrust, CFIUS or foreign investment issues.

For more than 25 years, John has counselled businesses facing the most challenging antitrust issues and helped them stay out of the crosshairs — whether its distribution, pricing, channel management, mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, or price gouging compliance.

John’s practice focuses on the analysis and resolution of CFIUS and antitrust issues related to mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, and the analysis and assessment of pre-merger CFIUS and HSR notification requirements. He advises clients on issues related to CFIUS national security reviews, and on CFIUS submissions when non-U.S. buyers seek to acquire U.S. businesses that have national security sensitivities.  He also regularly advises clients on international antitrust issues arising in proposed acquisitions and joint ventures, including reportability under the EC Merger Regulation and numerous other foreign merger control regimes.

His knowledge, reputation and extensive experience with the legal, practical, and technical requirements of merger clearance make him a recognized authority on Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust merger review. John is regularly invited to participate in Federal Trade Commission and bar association meetings and takes on the issues of the day.

Photo of William Komaroff William Komaroff

Bill Komaroff is a partner in the Litigation Department, as well as a member of the Asset Management Litigation and White Collar Defense & Investigations Groups.  His practice is focused on counseling and defending institutional and individual clients in connection with a broad…

Bill Komaroff is a partner in the Litigation Department, as well as a member of the Asset Management Litigation and White Collar Defense & Investigations Groups.  His practice is focused on counseling and defending institutional and individual clients in connection with a broad array of complex civil disputes, government investigations and prosecutions.

Bill is an experienced trial lawyer, having conducted numerous trials both as a prosecutor and on both sides of the “v.” in private practice.  He has also conducted internal investigations for a wide variety of clients including asset managers, sports leagues, medical device companies, hospitals and non-profits.  Bill previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and prosecuted tax fraud, money laundering, bank fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud cases, among others.

Photo of Dorothy Murray Dorothy Murray

Dorothy Murray is a partner in the Litigation Department specializing in investment and commercial dispute resolution. She supports clients across a wide range of sectors, including financial services, asset management/private equity, energy, telecoms, and maritime.

Dorothy represents clients in disputes arising from all…

Dorothy Murray is a partner in the Litigation Department specializing in investment and commercial dispute resolution. She supports clients across a wide range of sectors, including financial services, asset management/private equity, energy, telecoms, and maritime.

Dorothy represents clients in disputes arising from all aspects of their business, whether those disputes are post M&A, shareholder, employment, contractual, partnership or JV related.

Dorothy has experience managing litigation in common and civil law jurisdictions, and in commercial and investor state arbitration.  She is fluent with all the key divisions of the English High Courts and major arbitral institutional rules, including LCIA, ICC, LMAA, SCC, ISCID and UNICTRAL.  One of her particular interests is in the enforcement of arbitral awards.

In addition to representation in contentious matters, she uses her disputes experience to support clients at the transaction and pre‑action stages, working with companies and funds to identify, understand and mitigate personal and corporate liabilities and risks.

Photo of Joshua M. Newville Joshua M. Newville

Joshua M. Newville is a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of Proskauer’s White Collar Defense & Investigations Group and the Asset Management Litigation team.

Josh handles securities litigation, enforcement and regulatory matters, representing corporations and senior executives in civil and…

Joshua M. Newville is a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of Proskauer’s White Collar Defense & Investigations Group and the Asset Management Litigation team.

Josh handles securities litigation, enforcement and regulatory matters, representing corporations and senior executives in civil and criminal investigations. In addition, Josh advises registered investment advisers and private fund managers on regulatory compliance, SEC exams, MNPI/insider trading and related risks.

Before joining Proskauer, Josh was senior counsel in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement, where he investigated and prosecuted violations of the federal securities laws. Josh served in the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit, a specialized unit focusing on investment advisers and the asset management industry. His prior experience with the SEC provides a unique perspective to help asset managers manage risk and handle regulatory issues.

Photo of Todd J. Ohlms Todd J. Ohlms

Todd J. Ohlms is as a partner in the Litigation department and a member of the Asset Management Litigation Group. Todd has represented clients in business-critical litigation matters for over 25 years, and has tried several cases to verdict before juries and the…

Todd J. Ohlms is as a partner in the Litigation department and a member of the Asset Management Litigation Group. Todd has represented clients in business-critical litigation matters for over 25 years, and has tried several cases to verdict before juries and the bench. He has also participated in numerous arbitration proceedings, including counseling clients regarding disputes subject to international arbitration agreements.

Todd is often retained by private equity firms to counsel them and their portfolio companies on a wide range of matters and is frequently chosen to serve as outside general counsel to their portfolio companies. He also represents family offices in disputes related to their operating companies where sensitive and complex relationships often play as large a role in determining the result as the actual legal theories at issue.

Todd has substantial experience in actions involving temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and in the critical areas of securities and shareholder litigation, corporate governance, intellectual property, fiduciary litigation, antitrust and trade regulation and complex/multi-jurisdictional disputes. He also has extensive experience in creating and implementing electronic discovery strategies and protocol for clients.

Photo of Robert Pommer Robert Pommer

Robert W. Pommer III is a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of Proskauer’s Securities Litigation, White Collar Defense & Investigations groups and the Asset Management Litigation team.

Bob’s practice focuses on a broad range of securities-related enforcement and compliance issues.

Robert W. Pommer III is a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of Proskauer’s Securities Litigation, White Collar Defense & Investigations groups and the Asset Management Litigation team.

Bob’s practice focuses on a broad range of securities-related enforcement and compliance issues. He represents private fund managers, financial institutions, public companies, and their senior executives in enforcement investigations and litigation conducted by the SEC, the U.S. Department of Justice, and other governmental entities and financial services regulators. He also conducts internal investigations and counsels investment advisers and public companies on regulatory compliance, corporate governance and other SEC-related issues.

Prior to his career in private practice, Bob served as Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement for nine years. While there, he investigated and litigated several high-profile cases involving complex financial fraud and audit failures. Bob also worked on enforcement actions involving insider trading, investment adviser and broker-dealer issues, market manipulation and other violations of the federal securities laws.

Photo of Seetha Ramachandran Seetha Ramachandran

Seetha Ramachandran is a partner in the Litigation Department, and a member of the White Collar and Asset Management Litigation practices. An experienced trial and appellate lawyer, Seetha has conducted 10 criminal jury trials, argued 10 appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals…

Seetha Ramachandran is a partner in the Litigation Department, and a member of the White Collar and Asset Management Litigation practices. An experienced trial and appellate lawyer, Seetha has conducted 10 criminal jury trials, argued 10 appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and handled ancillary civil proceedings in forfeiture cases.

Seetha is a leading expert in anti-money laundering (AML), Bank Secrecy Act, economic sanctions and asset forfeiture matters. Her practice focuses on white collar and regulatory enforcement defense, internal investigations, and compliance counseling. She represents banks, broker dealers, hedge funds, private equity funds, online payment companies, and individual executives and officers in high stakes and sensitive matters. Seetha has deep experience representing institutions and individuals in financial penalty phase of criminal and regulatory matters, and is often retained to litigate forfeiture and restitution claims on behalf of victims and third parties in criminal cases, as well as handling these issues for individual defendants.

Seetha served as a federal prosecutor for nearly 10 years, including as Deputy Chief in the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS), Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice. She was the first head of DOJ’s Money Laundering & Bank Integrity Unit, where she supervised DOJ’s first major AML prosecutions, and oversaw all of the Criminal Division’s AML cases. In that role, Seetha coordinated closely with state and federal banking regulators, including FinCEN, the OCC and the New York State Department of Financial Services, giving her deep experience with how these agencies work together, especially in matters involving civil and criminal liability. Her work developing and charging criminal cases under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) formed the model for AML enforcement that regulators and prosecutors follow today.

Seetha also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for nearly six years, in the Complex Frauds, Major Crimes and Asset Forfeiture units where she investigated and prosecuted white-collar cases involving a wide range of financial crimes, including bank fraud, mail and wire fraud, tax fraud, money laundering, stolen art and cultural property, and civil and criminal forfeiture cases.

Seetha is a frequent speaker and prolific author on topics including enforcement trends in the financial services industry, OFAC sanctions, effective AML programs and asset forfeiture.

Photo of Nathan Schuur Nathan Schuur

Nathan Schuur is a partner in the firm’s Private Funds Group and a member of the Corporate Department. He counsels clients on regulatory and compliance matters related to fund formation across all asset classes.

Nate’s practice focuses on regulatory issues arising under the…

Nathan Schuur is a partner in the firm’s Private Funds Group and a member of the Corporate Department. He counsels clients on regulatory and compliance matters related to fund formation across all asset classes.

Nate’s practice focuses on regulatory issues arising under the Advisers Act and Investment Company Act. He advises on regulations surrounding the structuring and operation of funds, including marketing issues, SEC exams, adviser M&A, GP stake sales, continuation funds and stapled transactions. Nate provides legal advice and guidance on a wide range of matters involving the regulation of investment companies, investment advisers, and related entities such as BDCs and ERAs.

Before joining Proskauer, Nate spent several years at the Securities and Exchange Commission. During his time at the SEC, he served as counsel to a Commissioner, where he provided legal and policy advice on rulemaking, enforcement, litigation, and other matters, with a special focus on investment management issues. He also served as senior counsel in the Division of Investment Management. Prior to his SEC tenure, Nate practiced in the funds and regulatory teams of two top law firms. This combination of experience in private practice and at the senior levels of a regulator provides him with valuable perspective in helping funds and advisers navigate complex regulatory requirements and assess risk.

Photo of Jonathan M. Weiss Jonathan M. Weiss

Jonathan Weiss is a partner in the Litigation Department. Jonathan represents both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide range of high-stakes litigation, including antitrust, class action, financial services, securities and other complex commercial litigation. Jonathan has won multiple noteworthy jury verdicts, including the…

Jonathan Weiss is a partner in the Litigation Department. Jonathan represents both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide range of high-stakes litigation, including antitrust, class action, financial services, securities and other complex commercial litigation. Jonathan has won multiple noteworthy jury verdicts, including the fourth largest jury award in the history of the State of Arizona (over $110 million), and has significant appellate experience briefing and arguing appeals in both state and federal courts across the nation.

Jonathan has been recognized as a “Rising Star” by Southern California Super Lawyers every year since 2011, and was recognized by Legal 500 U.S. in their 2015 leading lawyers in appellate litigation edition, noting his “incredibly dedicated” advocacy on behalf of his clients. Jonathan has also spent considerable time on pro bono matters, for which he has been honored by Public Counsel among other organizations.

In addition to his busy practice, Jonathan has taught courses on Ninth Circuit appellate advocacy throughout Southern California and has lectured at several universities nationally, including Harvard Law School, UCLA Law School, the University of Illinois and the University of Pittsburgh. Jonathan is also a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Photo of Mary Wilks Mary Wilks

Mary Wilks is an Antitrust partner and a member of the Firm’s Private Capital industry group.

Mary advises on a broad range of EU and UK competition law issues, including multijurisdictional mergers, behavioral investigations, complex supply and distribution arrangements, and foreign investment controls…

Mary Wilks is an Antitrust partner and a member of the Firm’s Private Capital industry group.

Mary advises on a broad range of EU and UK competition law issues, including multijurisdictional mergers, behavioral investigations, complex supply and distribution arrangements, and foreign investment controls including, notably, the UK’s newly adopted National Security and Investment Act. She advises clients on the competition aspects of transactions including M&A, equity investments, consortium transactions and secondaries.

Mary works across all sectors, with particular experience in consumer products, healthcare, TMT and financial services.

Mary regularly counsels clients on their engagement with the Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, and other prominent international enforcement agencies and regulatory authorities.

Mary Wilks has a reputation as an “excellent lawyer” who “plays a leading role on a range of high-profile cases.” According to sources, “She is always fully on top of the detail but also able to pull out the most important points for the case.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Mary was a counsel in the antitrust, competition and trade department at another leading law firm in London.

Photo of William D. Dalsen William D. Dalsen

Will Dalsen is a senior counsel in the Litigation Department. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and high-stakes trials, with a particular emphasis on private credit, private equity, venture capital and hedge funds. Will is highly regarded for his deep knowledge of…

Will Dalsen is a senior counsel in the Litigation Department. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and high-stakes trials, with a particular emphasis on private credit, private equity, venture capital and hedge funds. Will is highly regarded for his deep knowledge of the private credit and private investment fund industries, and his ability to resolve disputes for both sponsors and portfolio companies.

Will provides counseling regarding creditor rights, lender liability, sponsor liability, operating company disputes, control rights, regulatory compliance, and investigations. He advises funds, fund sponsors, investment advisers, and institutional and individual investors. In addition, he has represented public and private corporations in contractual disputes, business tort cases, and government investigations.

Will leads all phases of the litigation process, including pre-suit investigations, negotiating discovery disputes and arguing discovery motions, deposing fact and expert witnesses, managing expert discovery, preparing and arguing dispositive motions, preparing witnesses for trial, and examining and cross-examining witnesses at hearings and at trial.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Will served for two years as a law clerk to Judge Susan Phillips Read of the New York State Court of Appeals, drafting bench memoranda and assisting with opinions in a variety of civil and criminal matters. In law school, Will was Editor in Chief of the Wisconsin Law Review and served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Shirley S. Abrahamson, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Photo of Adam L. Deming Adam L. Deming

Adam Deming is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Appellate and International Arbitration Groups. His practice focuses on complex commercial disputes, including corporate governance, transactions, fiduciary duties, securities and insolvency. Adam has successfully argued before state and federal…

Adam Deming is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Appellate and International Arbitration Groups. His practice focuses on complex commercial disputes, including corporate governance, transactions, fiduciary duties, securities and insolvency. Adam has successfully argued before state and federal appellate courts and has drafted dozens of briefs for appeals to the United States Supreme Court, various Circuit Courts of Appeals and several state appellate courts, including the New York Court of Appeals and Delaware Supreme Court. He has also played a key role in leading trial teams to winning outcomes before federal, state and arbitral tribunals.

A member of the Appellate group, Adam has represented a wide range of clients in high-stakes appeals involving commercial transactions, labor relations, life sciences, insurance, patent and constitutional law. Adam leverages his appellate expertise at the trial level to advise clients on litigation strategy, preserve appellate issues, and draft key filings spanning the litigation lifecycle. He has co-authored chapters of Principles of Appellate Litigation: A Guide to Modern Practice (PLI Press), a leading annual treatise on appellate law.

Adam also draws on his extensive experience with complex legal issues and appeals to effectively represent clients in an array of commercial disputes. He regularly represents corporations and board members in complex cases and arbitrations arising from business transactions, including matters before the Delaware Chancery Court and New York Supreme Court Commercial Division. Adam has also handled cross-border transaction cases to completion under the rules of both the American Arbitration Association and the International Chamber of Commerce. Representative matters include:

  • Pursuit of claims on behalf of an international chemical company arising out of its acquisition of a subsidiary
  • Defense of a board member and company private-equity investor against claims of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with drag-along sale of a fantasy sports company
  • Pursuit of claims on behalf of a healthcare company founder and stockholders arising from post-merger breaches of earnout provisions by acquiring company
  • Defense of a real estate company, including by the pursuit of an anti-suit injunction, against state claims for breach of corporate governance agreement by an investment entity

Adam actively maintains a pro bono practice. Recently, he represented a New York inmate in his appeal of the dismissal of his Eighth Amendment claims arising from an alleged series of abusive pat frisk searches. Arguing before the Second Circuit, Adam successfully secured a reversal of the district court’s decision.

Before joining Proskauer, Adam served as a law clerk to Judge Patty Shwartz of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Adam also spent a year as a litigation associate at another international law firm. Prior to his legal career, Adam spent three years as a Teach for America Corps Member in New Orleans, Louisiana, where he taught middle school English.

Photo of Adam Farbiarz Adam Farbiarz

Adam Farbiarz is a senior counsel in the Litigation Department. He litigates and advises on a wide range of high-stakes commercial matters with a focus on disputes involving complex financial issues, governance, sports and media.

In 2025, Adam was on the trial team…

Adam Farbiarz is a senior counsel in the Litigation Department. He litigates and advises on a wide range of high-stakes commercial matters with a focus on disputes involving complex financial issues, governance, sports and media.

In 2025, Adam was on the trial team that secured a complete defense verdict for Major League Soccer, successfully defeating allegations of a pervasive antitrust conspiracy. Adam prepared the key defense witnesses for their testimony and crafted the cross examination of the plaintiff’s chairman.

In 2024, in a trial concerning the bankruptcy of the country’s largest electric utility, Adam led the team’s presentation of expert evidence on macroeconomics. He examined the debtor’s economist and gave a searing cross examination of the creditors’ economist, a luminary in his field.

In recent years, Adam has cross-examined the CFO of a major company in federal court, deposed numerous financial and economic experts, defended the depositions of key client personnel, drafted many dispositive motions and led teams of associates through complex discovery and pre-trial.

In addition to litigating a wide range of matters in courts and arbitral forums, Adam also advises professional sports leagues and media companies on licensing, antitrust and governance issues and disputes.

Photo of Hena M. Vora Hena M. Vora

Hena M. Vora is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Asset Management Litigation, Trials, Mass Torts & Product Liability, and Consumer Litigation practices, as well as the Real Estate Litigation group. Her practice encompasses a range of complex…

Hena M. Vora is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Asset Management Litigation, Trials, Mass Torts & Product Liability, and Consumer Litigation practices, as well as the Real Estate Litigation group. Her practice encompasses a range of complex civil and commercial litigation matters, including securities litigation, partnership disputes, and consumer products.

Hena has experience with various stages of litigation, including pitching clients, coordinating discovery, drafting dispositive motions and trial memoranda, handling court conferences, taking and defending depositions, and preparing witnesses for depositions and trial. She also has experience conducting highly sensitive and confidential internal investigations. Hena was part of two trial teams that secured complete defense verdicts on behalf of Monsanto in high-profile product liability actions. She also helped secure a complete dismissal at the trial court and appellate levels on behalf of a prominent private fund client, defending against claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and unjust enrichment.

Hena serves as the president of the South Asian Bar Association of New York (SABANY). She also maintains an active pro bono practice and has been awarded for creating a partnership between Proskauer’s Boston office and Minds Matter Boston, through which she helps high school students from low-income backgrounds achieve college readiness and success.

Hena earned her J.D. from Emory University School of Law, where she received the Pro Bono Publico honor and a Transactional Law Certificate. In addition, she was a national competitor on the Moot Court Society and served as president of Emory’s South Asian Law Students Association. While at Emory, Hena served as judicial intern for Judge Denny Chin at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.