Search

The U.S. faces an increasingly complicated set of national security and economic threats. Chief among these are: (1) increasingly sophisticated and damaging cyber-attacks that threaten national security; harm government institutions, for-profit enterprises (including defense contractors), and institutions of higher learning; and undermine the country’s system of property rights; and (2) rising levels of national debt held by foreign competitors. China poses the greatest threat in both regards. China’s government carries out, organizes, and/or facilitates cyber-attacks to misappropriate intellectual property with serious consequences to the U.S.’s national security and economy. China also has acquired significant holdings in U.S. government issued debt instruments. Mounting U.S. government debt restricts annual federal government budgetary decisions, negatively affects the U.S.’s international standing as a borrower, and threatens national security by giving foreign debt holders, such as China, potential leverage in foreign relations negotiations. No policy prescription to date has achieved meaningful and lasting success in addressing these threats, and there are indications the threats are only worsening. The National Trade Secret Protection and Remedy Strategy (“NTSPS”) policy prescription proposed by this Article addresses the cyber attack and federal debt threats in a way that links and transforms them from vulnerabilities into leverage to protect the U.S.’s national security, system of property rights, and future economic well-being. Specifically, the U.S. government should pursue trade secret theft-related litigation and remedies against the Chinese government and its surrogates in U.S. federal courts. The proposed NTSPS would: (a) create a specific, limited government property interest in intellectual property developed under government defense contracts; (b) create extra-territorial jurisdiction for the U.S. government and personal jurisdiction over foreign nations that engage in trade secret misappropriation either directly, or indirectly through state-supported or enabled entities or persons; and (c) provide for ready availability of pre-judgment remedies, such as attachment and liens to secure the government’s remedy, and satisfaction of judgement through execution on U.S. debt held instruments held by the mis-appropriator — in this case, China. Successful implementation of the NTSPS would require amendments to several existing federal statutes and defense contracting regulations and procedures. Implementing the NTSPS strategy will allow the U.S. federal government to: (1) compensate itself and U.S.-based companies for the damages each has suffered as the result of Chinese-led or sponsored cyber-attacks; (2) deter future Chinese cyber-attacks by conveying a strong message that the U.S. will take meaningful action in response to said attacks; (3) slow the advancement of Chinese military technology by forcing China to internalize the significant research and development expenses incurred by the U.S. to develop the technological capabilities often targeted by cyber espionage initiatives; (4) significantly reduce U.S. debt and consequently the restrictions and burdens it places on the U.S. economy and national defense capability; and (5) pare down the financial leverage China holds over the U.S. in foreign relations.

Arizona’s position as a leader in economic freedom has made it one of the United States’ most business-friendly states, resulting in a relatively sustained economic boom over the last 30 years. Post-recession success is at least partially due to the state’s deregulation and pro-technology development policies. Unfortunately, technology development in Arizona and across the country is often still stunted by a complicated, laborious web of federal regulations. Federal and state leaders can work cooperatively to lower regulatory barriers to innovation and supercharge the economy. Current Arizona Governor Doug Ducey’s administration has done an admirable job of encouraging legislation that addresses both these needs. One notable example is the Regulatory Sandbox—a pro-growth, pro-technology, and pro-competition program aimed at attracting increased out-of-state investment and high-paying technology jobs. The Sandbox enables an approved business limited access to the Arizona consumer market to test innovative FinTech and RegTech products and services without first having to obtain otherwise applicable authorizations to operate, such as a business license. This program promises to be an unparalleled opportunity for Arizona to help secure the state’s technological and financial future, while strengthening consumer safeguards and economic liberty. However, for the benefits of sandbox-like programs to be fully realized, federal agencies will need to participate in regulatory coordination with state agencies. This will require federal agencies to exercise their exemptive authority, to ensure Sandbox participants are not burdened by federal regulations that are redundant of exempted state regulations. If such coordination is achieved, innovation should truly flourish. This article describes how the Sandbox works, the reasons for its creation, why regulatory coordination is imperative to unlocking the Sandbox’s full innovation-generating potential, and the ways in which federal agencies can exercise their exemptive authority to facilitate this increased innovation and economic growth.

The sharp housing market decline leading up to the 2008 Great Recession highlighted the significant risks associated with subprime debt instruments. What began in 2006 as a disruption in the mortgage-backed security (“MBS”) and collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) markets quickly developed into the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression. The questionable practices employed by many financial institutions to create, market, and sell the risk-laden MBS and CDO investment instruments to purchasers aggressively seeking greater returns led to a wave of regulatory inquiries, securities litigation, and legislative and regulatory action by federal and state authorities. Despite efforts to mitigate the risks posed by these sub-prime investments, similarly marketed and utilized investment vehicles now pose comparable risks for investors on an individual level and for the U.S. financial system in the aggregate. The most notable of these risky investments are non-exchange traded real estate investment trusts (“Non-Traded REITs”). With many financial experts predicting an economic downturn in 2020, the exposure created by high-risk, illiquid Non-Traded REITs and other similar investments are likely to be realized in the form of significant financial losses. This article explains the nature of Non-Traded REITs; the risk characteristics of Non- Traded REITs that increase the likelihood of losses and securities litigation; the likely targets of Non-Traded REIT-related securities actions; and the claims for relief most likely to be asserted.