Proactive Counterintelligence in M&A and Joint Ventures (U.S. Cross-Industry White Paper)

Executive Summary

Elevated Threats to Deals: In the current climate, foreign adversaries and sophisticated competitors target U.S. mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures (M&A/JVs) as channels to obtain sensitive technology and data. The National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) recently warned that foreign intelligence agencies use investment opportunities to access U.S. tech. Even companies outside the defense sector can be pathways for illicit tech transfer, putting corporate value and national security at risk.

Business and National Security Risks: Proactive counterintelligence (CI) has become essential to protect deal value. CI lapses can lead to intellectual property (IP) theft, loss of government contracts, regulatory intervention, or insider-inflicted damage. Malicious foreign investment, for example, may enable data theft that undermines competitive position and unwanted foreign influence over corporate decisions. At the national level, such deals can facilitate espionage and boost adversaries’ military capabilities. High-profile breaches during acquisitions (i.e. the Marriott–Starwood hack) have exposed hundreds of millions of customer records, causing financial and reputational damage.

Common CI Risk Factors: Key risks during M&A/JV transactions include foreign ownership/control risks (foreign influence or FOCI, which can trigger government scrutiny and loss of defense contracts), adversarial infiltration and insider threats (spies or disgruntled staff leaking information), IP theft and technology diversion (partners or buyers siphoning innovation to competitors or hostile states), and cyber espionage targeting deal communications and IT integration. For instance, insiders are more likely to steal data amid M&A uncertainty. About 60% of exiting employees take data with them if not deterred, and state-backed hackers often exploit the chaos of mergers to strike.

Regulatory Imperatives: U.S. regulations demand CI diligence. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews foreign investments for national security risks and can block or unwind deals (i.e. a Chinese-backed fund’s takeover of Lattice Semiconductor was stopped by presidential order on CFIUS’s recommendation). The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) requires cleared contractors to mitigate foreign ownership risks or face loss of clearances. Newly published Department of Defense rules are extending FOCI requirements even to unclassified defense contracts. Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 3 mandates that cleared industry personnel report foreign contacts and travel, strengthening insider threat detection. Compliance with these and other rules (i.e. Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations, export controls, data privacy laws) is critical to avoid legal exposure and deal disruptions.

Phased CI Risk Management: This white paper presents a phased model for integrating CI into M&A/JV activities:

·         Pre-Deal (Planning & Due Diligence): Identify critical assets, vet investors/partners for hidden foreign ties, assess the target’s security posture (including any government clearance status), and involve CI experts early to flag risks and required mitigations (such as a potential CFIUS filing or NISPOM FOCI action).

·         During the Deal (Negotiation & Approval): Protect sensitive information through secure data rooms and “need-to-know” access controls, actively monitor for cyber intrusions or insider leaks, reinforce employee security awareness (to thwart phishing and social engineering spikes during deals), and engage regulators proactively to address national security concerns.

·         Post-Deal (Integration & Monitoring): Implement agreed security measures (i.e. proxy boards or carve-outs for FOCI mitigation), extend insider threat programs to the new entity, conduct post-merger security audits to catch any hidden malware or compliance gaps, and continuously monitor for emerging risks (such as changes in foreign ownership or employees exhibiting stress behaviors). Ensuring ongoing CI vigilance preserves the value created by the transaction.

·         Value Proposition: A strategic, proactive CI approach in M&A and JVs protects shareholder value and creates competitive advantage. It prevents costly surprises (breaches, IP loss, or regulatory sanctions), safeguards intellectual capital, and builds trust with stakeholders (including government customers). In an era where a single security incident can erase hundreds of millions in deal value , CI-informed transactions are simply smarter business. Executive leadership that champions CI risk management can turn security into an enabler of smooth integrations and sustained growth.

Why Proactive CI Is Essential in Today’s M&A Landscape

In the current threat environment, proactive counterintelligence is a strategic necessity for any U.S. company pursuing mergers, acquisitions, or joint ventures. Adversarial nation-states and well-resourced competitors view M&A transactions as prime opportunities to infiltrate, influence, or steal from companies. The U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center explicitly cautions that foreign intelligence agencies are leveraging investments and partnerships to obtain sensitive U.S. technology. Notably, even businesses that don’t deal in obvious defense or security products are on the radar – a company with niche data or a component technology can be a target if it serves as a “pathway for transferring technology and IP to malicious actors,” according to the NCSC advisory.

Several factors elevate the CI risk around M&A and JVs:

Economic Espionage on the Rise: Foreign adversaries, particularly China and Russia, have significantly ramped up economic espionage efforts in recent years. The FBI reports thousands of cases of attempted tech theft, many linked to China’s state strategy to acquire advanced know-how. Acquisition of a U.S. firm or formation of a joint venture can be a Trojan horse for espionage, allowing insiders or network access that bypasses front-line cybersecurity and export controls. A 2024 analysis highlights that even seemingly benign foreign investments can facilitate spying and unauthorized technology transfer, ultimately boosting foreign military and economic power at U.S. expense.

Intangible Assets Equal High Stakes: In modern deals, the crown jewels being acquired are often intangible assets such as intellectual property, R&D knowledge, proprietary algorithms, and large data sets, which are precisely what foreign intelligence services and cybercriminals covet. The business value of these assets is directly tied to maintaining their confidentiality and integrity. If an adversary steals critical IP during negotiations or integration, it can undercut the entire rationale of the deal. For example, cutting-edge AI software or semiconductor designs illicitly copied through a JV could enable a foreign competitor to leapfrog, nullifying the acquirer’s investment. Proactive CI measures ensure that the value drivers of a deal are safeguarded from enemy exploitation, preserving the acquirer’s competitive edge.

Transactional Complexity Creates Gaps: M&A processes involve intensive information exchange, tight timelines, and often organizational upheaval, which are conditions skilled adversaries exploit. During a deal, companies may be laser-focused on financial and legal due diligence, leaving security gaps. Confidential data is shared with multiple parties (sellers, buyers, attorneys, consultants) and often stored in online deal rooms. Corporate networks may temporarily connect for integration preparation. This complexity and expanded access increase the attack surface. Without CI vigilance, it’s easier for a malicious actor to slip in. For instance, a hacker impersonating a vendor might trick a distracted employee into clicking malware, or a spy posing as an advisor could glean sensitive information. In short, the chaotic environment of M&A can lower defenses if not actively countered.

Consequences of Failure Are Costly: The fallout from a counterintelligence failure in an M&A/JV context can be devastating. Beyond the national security implications, companies face massive business damage: regulatory penalties, lost contracts, plummeting share value, and legal liabilities. High-profile examples abound. When Marriott acquired Starwood Hotels, it unknowingly inherited a state-sponsored data breach that ultimately exposed records of up to 500 million guests. The breach (linked to Chinese intelligence) caused Marriott’s stock to drop approximately 7% and inflicted severe reputational harm. In another case, Yahoo’s failure to detect earlier cyber breaches led Verizon to cut its acquisition offer by $350 million. These examples underscore that C-suite leaders cannot treat security as an afterthought. Proactive CI is essential to avoiding deal disasters.

Given this environment, proactive counterintelligence during M&A and joint ventures is as critical as financial due diligence. By anticipating threat scenarios and implementing safeguards from the outset, leadership can thwart adversarial moves before they impact the deal, ensuring that strategic transactions fulfill their promise of growth and value creation.

Key Counterintelligence Risks in M&A/JV Transactions

Every merger, acquisition, or partnership deal carries inherent counterintelligence risks. Below we detail the most common CI risk areas and why they demand executive attention, including foreign ownership influence, adversarial infiltration (insiders and spies), intellectual property theft, and cyber-espionage vulnerabilities.

Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) Risks

Foreign ownership and influence is a top CI concern in cross-border deals. When an acquiring company or major investor is foreign (or has foreign government ties), the transaction can introduce FOCI over the U.S. business. This raises multiple red flags:

·         National Security Scrutiny: A foreign stakeholder, especially from a strategic competitor nation, may gain access to sensitive assets or decision-making. U.S. authorities scrutinize such deals closely. CFIUS, the interagency committee overseeing foreign investments, has authority to block or unwind transactions if they pose security risks. For instance, in 2017 a Chinese-funded private equity bid to acquire Lattice Semiconductor (an Oregon-based chipmaker) was blocked by a presidential order due to national security concerns. It was noted as part of a broader U.S. crackdown on Chinese investment in high-tech industries. Similarly, CFIUS forced the Chinese owner of Grindr (a social media app) to divest due to fears that sensitive personal data (including that of U.S. military/intelligence personnel) could be exploited. These cases demonstrate that deals with foreign actors can be halted or reversed if CI risks aren’t mitigated.

·         Loss of Government Business: Foreign control of a company can jeopardize its U.S. government contracts and relationships. Federal customers may cease doing business with a contractor seen as influenced by an adversarial nation. Notably, a foreign parent could trigger termination of contracts involving classified or sensitive work. Under NISPOM rules, if a cleared defense contractor comes under significant foreign ownership, it must implement government-approved FOCI mitigation measures (such as proxy boards or Special Security Agreements) or risk losing its facility security clearance, and with it, the ability to perform classified contracts. Foreign control might also lead to loss of future contract opportunities; for example, a company now owned by a competitor nation’s interests could be excluded from certain supply chains or trusted vendor pools. In essence, without careful structuring, the prize of the deal (access to U.S. government business) could evaporate under foreign ownership.

·         Unwanted Strategic Influence: A foreign investor may pursue political or strategic agendas that conflict with the company’s or national interests. They might pressure the company to transfer technology abroad, relocate operations, or influence product decisions to align with their home country’s goals. As Control Risks notes, such investors can, “sway corporate decisions to serve their own national interests,” inserting a hidden hand in governance. In extreme cases, foreign ownership can enable espionage. For instance, placing agents on the board or in management to siphon intelligence. U.S. Defense Counterintelligence officials have highlighted China’s use of complex investment and joint venture structures to gain influence in critical technology sectors. This underscores that an apparently routine foreign investment might conceal orchestrated intel operations.

Overall, FOCI risk means that executives must conduct enhanced due diligence on any foreign party in a deal. Identifying the ultimate beneficial owners, any government affiliations, and compliance with U.S. laws (sanctions, export controls) is vital. Where foreign ownership is unavoidable or desired for business reasons, companies should be prepared to negotiate mitigation with the U.S. government (i.e. carving out sensitive operations or accepting security oversight). The key is transparency and early action: by recognizing foreign influence risk up front, firms can either address it or, if necessary, walk away from a transaction that would compromise their strategic security standing.

Adversarial Infiltration and Insider Threats

M&A and JV transactions are especially vulnerable to insider threats and adversarial infiltration. The turbulence of a pending deal, including organizational change, uncertainty among staff, increased collaboration with outsiders, creates a ripe environment for malicious insiders or spies to operate. Several dimensions of this risk include:

·         Insider Threats During M&A: Insiders are employees or contractors with authorized access who, wittingly or unwittingly, cause harm (through theft, leaks, or sabotage). M&A activities tend to amplify insider risk. According to an Intelligence and National Security Alliance study, during an M&A the potential for data theft or other harmful insider activity “increases significantly” because companies must balance transparency (to facilitate the deal) with discretion (to prevent leaks). Normal controls might be loosened as teams rush to integrate or as new people gain provisional access. At the same time, employees often experience anxiety about job security or new leadership, which can motivate misconduct. Industry data shows roughly 60% of employees who leave an organization (voluntarily or through layoffs) attempt to take IP or data with them. In a merger, large numbers of departures are common (due to redundancies or voluntary attrition), meaning a surge of insider theft attempts if not properly managed. A disgruntled engineer fearing layoff might download trade secrets to shop to competitors or to launch a startup; a pair of employees might conspire to leak deal details to stock traders for profit. Without an active insider risk program in place, such actions may go undetected until after the damage is done.

·         Corporate Espionage and Human Spies: Big deals can attract human intelligence operatives seeking proprietary information. Competitors or foreign intelligence services may plant a mole inside one of the companies ahead of a transaction, anticipating access to valuable data. Or they may attempt to recruit existing employees with knowledge of the negotiations. The secrecy around M&A makes it hard to detect such spying until it’s too late, as few people are aware of the deal, a well-placed insider can leak information with little oversight. There have been cases (often hushed up) of insiders selling deal secrets. For example, within the past few years a Fortune 500 firm’s insider risk team discovered that, after a merger was announced, several employees exhibited significant risk behaviors requiring legal action. An issue that cost over $1 million to remediate. Had CI personnel been involved earlier, the company noted, they might have prevented these espionage attempts altogether. The M&A phase also sees heightened outsider espionage tactics: Posing as janitors, rival agents have sifted through office trash (“dumpster diving”) to find clues on pending deals. In one famous incident during P&G’s 2001 acquisition of Clairol, Procter & Gamble admitted to hiring agents to rummage through a rival’s garbage for intel, an illegal intelligence-gathering scheme that cost P&G $10 million in a settlement with Unilever. That example also shows how even careless insider behavior (discarding confidential papers) can be exploited by outsiders.

·         Sabotage and Illicit Surveillance: Insiders with malintent can do more than steal data. They might attempt to derail or manipulate a deal. A striking case occurred in 2019 with the sale of London’s Ritz Hotel. During the bidding process, one of the owner’s relatives covertly bugged the hotel’s conservatory to eavesdrop on private buyer conversations and gain advantage. When this espionage was discovered, trust evaporated and the hotel, once valued near £1 billion, sold for less than half its market value. This shows that internal stakeholders themselves may resort to espionage (the owner’s nephew, in this case) and in doing so, destroy deal value. Similarly, a well-timed leak of sensitive deal information by an insider to the media or investors can tank stock prices or invite regulatory scrutiny, complicating or even scuttling the transaction.

·         Counterintelligence Controls: To mitigate infiltration and insider threats, organizations need a robust CI framework that extends into the M&A process. This includes strict background checks on any new personnel brought in (i.e., consultants or contractors in the data room), monitoring for unusual behavior by employees (sudden downloads of large files, attempts to access areas outside one’s role), and fostering a culture where employees are encouraged to report suspicious contacts or activities. The government has reinforced some of these practices via policy: Security Executive Agent Directive 3 (SEAD-3) now requires all cleared industry employees to report foreign travel, foreign contacts, and other potentially suspicious activities. Such reporting helps surface early signs that an employee might be in touch with foreign agents or being targeted, which is especially relevant if a deal involves overseas parties. Companies engaged in sensitive M&A should similarly encourage reporting and perhaps seek defensive counterintelligence briefings from agencies like the FBI. By treating insider risk as a core due diligence area, on par with financial or legal due diligence, executives can catch red flags (like an engineer with unexplained wealth or a staffer communicating with a competitor) before they compromise the deal.

In summary, adversarial infiltration and insider threats are not hypothetical in M&A; they are documented risks with real-world examples of deals damaged by espionage or insider leaks. A proactive stance including vetting personnel, monitoring behavior, controlling information access, and quickly investigating anomalies, is the best defense. Leaders should ask not just “What are we acquiring?” but also “Who are we trusting, and can they be turned against us?” during deal planning.

Intellectual Property Theft and Technology Diversion

At the heart of many M&A and JV deals is valuable intellectual property, to include patents, proprietary designs, source code, trade secrets, or specialized expertise. Unfortunately, the M&A process can inadvertently open the door to IP theft and technology diversion, especially when dealing with foreign partners or operating in jurisdictions with weak IP protection. Key facets of this risk include:

·         Deal-Motivated IP Theft: A malicious actor might initiate an acquisition or partnership specifically to steal technology. This is a classic tactic: an overseas firm expresses interest in a JV or minority investment, gains access to the target’s know-how during due diligence or collaboration, and then walks away (or proceeds to acquire only to gut the IP). One notorious example is the case of American Superconductor (AMSC) and China’s Sinovel. AMSC, a U.S. energy tech company, had a large contract and was exploring a partnership with Sinovel for wind turbine software. Instead of a lasting business, Sinovel bribed an AMSC insider to steal the source code for its turbine control system and then refused to pay for products. The result: AMSC lost an estimated $550+ million and nearly 700 jobs, and its shareholder value plummeted by over $1 billion. Sinovel eventually was convicted of IP theft in U.S. court, but the damage to the U.S. company was done. This case underscores how a would-be partner can turn out to be an IP thief – using the pretext of a business deal to appropriate critical technology.

·         Joint Ventures in High-Risk Regions: Companies entering joint ventures in countries like China must contend with regulations and practices that often require sharing of IP with the local partner. There is a long history of foreign JV partners in strategic sectors (automotive, aerospace, software, pharmaceuticals, etc.) taking the foreign company’s technology and developing a competing product for the domestic market, or even global markets, once they’ve learned enough. Unlike a straightforward acquisition, a JV means you are actively handing over some know-how to another entity. Without strong protections, that IP can “leak” to the partner’s other ventures or to the host government. Enforcement of IP agreements can be difficult across borders. Thus, while JVs can be a market entry strategy, they carry the CI risk of technology transfer beyond intended bounds. As a mitigation, companies need multilayered defenses: only share what is necessary, use phased technology transfer (don’t give away the “secret sauce” at once), and include audit and monitoring rights in JV contracts. But even then, as CI professionals warn, assume that adversaries will try to circumvent controls. Constant vigilance is required.

·         Data Room and Due Diligence Exposures: During M&A due diligence, the target company is often required to open its books and technical repositories to the potential acquirer. If the suitor is actually a front for a competitor or hostile entity, this period can be used to vacuum up trade secrets. Even if the deal falls through, the rogue suitor walks away with valuable IP. In one sense, unsuccessful deals can be the bigger CI threat, since a bad actor might intentionally bid for a company not to buy it, but to learn from it. Best practices here include using “clean teams” or intermediaries for the most sensitive data (so the bidder doesn’t directly see crown jewel IP until late stages and commitments), watermarking and encrypting shared files, and verifying the bona fides of any potential buyer (ensure they are financially real and not a shell concealing someone else). It’s also prudent to share sensitive designs or code in controlled environments where copying is difficult. For example, use secured laptops that must be returned, or require supervised site visits rather than remote access to files.

·         Export Control and Legal Violations: Technology diversion isn’t only a competitive concern; it can also violate U.S. laws. Many advanced technologies are controlled under export regulations (ITAR for defense articles, EAR for dual-use tech). If an acquisition or partnership gives a foreign person access to controlled technology without proper licenses, the company could face serious penalties. A famous case involved a U.S. aerospace company that was fined for sharing rocket data with a foreign partner outside approved channels. Thus, CI risk management in deals must overlap with export compliance, to include understanding what technology or data is being shared in the transaction and with whom, and obtaining necessary government approvals or implementing firewalls. A proactive CI approach ensures no unintentional tech transfer happens in the excitement of a deal closing.

Ultimately, protecting IP during M&A/JVs requires treating it as the crown jewel that it is. Executive teams should ask: Would we be comfortable if the other side walked away with this information even if the deal doesn’t happen? If the answer is no, then protection must be put in place to prevent that scenario. Strong non-disclosure agreements, staged disclosure of IP, and background checks on people accessing technical data are all part of the counterintelligence toolkit. Considering the enormous financial impact of IP theft (the AMSC case being a $1B lesson), the upfront investment in CI measures is a fraction of the cost of losing one’s hard-won innovation to an economic predator.

Cyber Espionage and IT Integration Vulnerabilities

Modern M&A deals inevitably involve complex IT and data integration, and this creates fertile ground for cyber espionage and exploitation. Threat actors, from state-sponsored hackers to criminal groups, monitor high-value transactions and often ramp up attacks during periods of corporate transition. Key concerns in this domain include:

·         Hacking During the Deal: While executives negotiate in boardrooms, nation-state hackers may be working in the shadows to penetrate one or both companies’ networks. M&A activity can be public (announced) or rumor-driven, tipping off attackers that a trove of sensitive information (i.e., IP, negotiations details, deal rationale) is ripe for theft. There’s also an element of lowered guard: IT staff might be preoccupied with connecting systems or setting up data exchanges, potentially leaving security holes. Attackers know that transitional periods are their window. A Reuters analysis noted that cybercriminals often target companies during M&A transitions, exploiting the fact that integration of networks and applications can create new vulnerabilities. For example, in the Marriott-Starwood case, investigators believe Chinese hackers took advantage of Starwood’s weaker systems during the acquisition process, using a phishing email to an insider as the entry point. Because Marriott was busy merging operations, the intrusion persisted, ultimately compromising a massive customer database. This shows how a single successful phishing attack in the middle of integration can escalate into a strategic breach.

·         Inherited Breaches (“Cyber Due Diligence” miss): An often-overlooked CI risk is acquiring a company that is already compromised. If the target company’s network is harboring malware or a backdoor, the acquirer essentially inherits that threat. The attacker might even lay low until the acquisition is done, then leverage the new connectivity to move into the parent company’s systems. This scenario is increasingly common. Think of it as a “cyber trojan horse.” Security experts warn that M&A is a variant of supply chain attack: adversaries may compromise a smaller company in anticipation of it being bought by a larger firm, thus gaining a foothold in the bigger prize. Former Siemens USA cybersecurity chief Kurt John described M&As as exactly this type of risk, where threat actors hedge their bets that a compromise today will pay off when the victim is taken over by a major player. A real-world example: When Verizon was evaluating Yahoo for purchase, Yahoo’s historical data breaches (which were not fully disclosed initially) drastically altered the deal. Once uncovered, these breaches, effectively an inherited cyber problem, led Verizon to reduce its offer by $350 million. Such outcomes have made cybersecurity due diligence nonnegotiable in deals: undiscovered cyber risks can, “significantly diminish the value of the deal or, worse, lead to post-acquisition crises,” that proper due diligence could have prevented.

·         Expanded Attack Surface and Integration Challenges: Post-merger integration often connects two previously separate IT environments. Until fully harmonized, there might be weak links such as legacy systems, different security standards, duplicate user accounts, etc. Attackers try to exploit this confusion. For instance, if one company uses outdated software or has less mature security, that becomes the entry point to pivot into the more secure partner’s network once a trust connection is established. Additionally, the rush to integrate systems for business synergy can lead to shortcuts (i.e., temporarily disabling some security monitoring for compatibility). All of this creates a temporary but critical security gap during integration. If threat actors have been lurking, they may take advantage of any lapses in monitoring. The integration phase is when ransomware gangs or APT groups might strike, knowing that the new entity is juggling resources and may have less coordinated incident response.

·         Information Leakage and Communication Security: Throughout a deal, there is constant electronic communication such as emails, virtual data room messages, and video conferences among executives, lawyers, bankers, and advisors. Each of these channels is a potential target for eavesdropping. A sophisticated attacker might target an investment bank or law firm (which may have weaker security than a Fortune 500 company) to steal deal-related documents. In one FBI-reported case, hackers penetrated a law firm to extract M&A negotiation details, aiming for insider trading profits. Ensuring secure communications (encrypted email, secure collaboration platforms, even face-to-face meetings for the most sensitive talks) is a CI concern. A business email compromise (BEC) is another threat: attackers may spoof an email from a CEO involved in the deal to trick finance staff into an unauthorized transfer, capitalizing on the hectic environment. As noted earlier, as deals become public, phishing attempts against employees tend to spike, with tactics such as posing as new contacts or sending “required” login links for integration. It only takes one errant click by an employee to potentially compromise the entire transaction.

In light of these risks, cybersecurity must be tightly interwoven with counterintelligence in M&A. Mitigations include conducting a thorough cyber risk assessment of the target (and of one’s own readiness) before deal closure, using specialized “cyber due diligence” teams. If a breach is found, build incident response and remediation into deal negotiations (as Verizon did by negotiating cost-sharing for Yahoo’s breach liabilities). During integration, maintain segregated networks until systems are cleaned and verified. And importantly, treat the interim period as high-threat: increase logging and monitoring, employ threat intelligence to watch for chatter about your deal on the dark web, and possibly invite third-party experts to probe for vulnerabilities. A proactive stance can turn a potential cyber ambush into a non-event. In summary, cyber espionage is a present danger in M&A, but with vigilant controls and due diligence, companies can greatly reduce the risk of a “deal-breaker” breach.

U.S. Regulatory Landscape: CI Considerations in M&A Compliance

Multiple U.S. laws and regulations intersect with counterintelligence concerns in M&A and joint ventures. C-suite leaders need to be aware of these national security regulations, as they not only dictate legal obligations but also highlight areas of heightened CI risk that must be managed during deals. Below is an overview of key regulations and their impact on M&A due diligence and post-deal obligations:

·         Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS): CFIUS is a U.S. government interagency committee with the power to review, condition, or block transactions involving foreign investment in U.S. businesses, if such deals might harm national security. Its jurisdiction has expanded in recent years (especially under the 2018 FIRRMA law) to cover not just defense companies, but also deals involving critical technologies, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal data. For any M&A/JV involving a foreign entity, CFIUS due diligence is essential. Companies should analyze early whether a filing is mandatory or advisable, and what risks the committee might flag. Ignoring CFIUS can be fatal to a deal: in 2019, CFIUS forced the divestiture of Grindr from its Chinese owner because the acquisition (which had initially bypassed CFIUS review) was deemed a security risk due to the sensitive personal data at stake. This was a rare unwinding of an already-completed deal, and it underscores CFIUS’s willingness to act even after the fact. Additionally, only the President can ultimately prohibit a transaction, which has happened on a handful of occasions (i.e., the Lattice Semiconductor case in 2017 where a Chinese-backed fund was stopped from acquiring a U.S. chipmaker). To avoid such drastic outcomes, companies can negotiate mitigation agreements with CFIUS. For example, companies can agree to exclude certain sensitive assets, implement U.S.-only data storage, or accept a U.S. government security monitor. The executive takeaway is that any foreign-involved deal must be mapped against CFIUS criteria early, and that engaging proactively with CFIUS (through voluntary notification and proposed mitigation measures) can save a transaction. Failure to do so could result in costly delays, public scrutiny, or a deal being killed at the 11th hour.

·         National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) & FOCI Mitigation: NISPOM (currently codified at 32 CFR Part 117) governs how cleared U.S. contractors protect classified information. For M&A, the crucial aspect is its FOCI provisions. If a company that holds a facility security clearance (FCL), meaning it works on classified contracts, is being acquired by a foreign entity or merges into a foreign-owned firm, that company must immediately inform the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and work out a FOCI mitigation plan approved by DCSA. Mitigation instruments include establishing a proxy board or trust (where U.S. citizens approved by DCSA run the cleared business independently of the foreign parent), carving out the classified portion into a subsidiary with security controls, or in some cases, dropping the classified work entirely. Timely notification is not just best practice, it’s mandatory. DCSA has warned that failure to report a foreign acquisition or influence in a cleared company can lead to invalidation of that company’s FCL. In fact, there have been instances where clearances were revoked due to late or non-notification, effectively terminating the company’s ability to continue certain contracts. Even if a company is not currently working with classified material, if it ever needs a clearance or works with export-controlled technology, foreign ownership can be a hurdle. Executives should conduct a FOCI analysis as part of due diligence: Are there existing foreign shareholders? Will any new board members be foreign nationals? Does the target have classified contracts or sensitive DOD programs? If yes, involving security compliance experts and DCSA early is key to preserving business continuity. It’s worth noting that DCSA is increasingly focusing on the “Influence” part of FOCI, not just ownership. This means even minority foreign investments or joint venture entanglements that could give a foreign actor leverage might need mitigation. As an emerging development, the Department of Defense is expanding FOCI requirements to uncleared defense contractors as well. Pursuant to Section 847 of the 2020 NDAA, DOD will require assessments of foreign ownership for contractors on unclassified contracts above $5 million. A new DFARS rule is in progress to implement this. The trend is clear: the Pentagon wants visibility and control over foreign influence across its supply chain, classified or not. So even in deals outside the traditional cleared arena, if the businesses have significant defense ties, be prepared for FOCI mitigation obligations.

·         SEAD-3: As mentioned earlier, SEAD-3 is a directive that imposes reporting requirements on cleared personnel (and by extension, cleared contractors). Effective since 2021 for industry, it requires individuals with security clearances to report foreign travel (personal or business), foreign contacts that are close or involve sensitive topics, attempts at recruitment or coercion, unexplained affluence, and other potential security concerns. Why does this matter for M&A? First, if your company is buying another company that holds clearances, you inherit a workforce that must comply with these reporting rules, and you need to have infrastructure (insider threat programs, security officers) to support that. It’s a due diligence item to check: Does the target have an insider threat program per NISPOM requirements, and are they enforcing SEAD-3 reporting? Second, SEAD-3 reporting can actually be a tool for counterintelligence during a deal. For example, if a cleared employee suddenly plans repeated unofficial trips to a foreign country or starts contacting foreign business associates outside official channels, those reports could flag a potential information leakage or recruitment attempt in the context of the merger. In one sense, SEAD-3 institutionalizes a security-conscious culture, something that any company in a high-threat M&A should emulate, cleared or not. Companies not under NISPOM may not be legally bound by SEAD-3, but adopting similar policies (encouraging all employees to report suspicious approaches or travel during sensitive projects) can provide early warning of CI issues. Overall, SEAD-3 reflects the U.S. government’s push for early detection of insider and espionage risks, which aligns perfectly with the need for proactive CI in corporate transactions.

·         Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFARS) and Other Contract Clauses: Companies involved in federal contracting should consider specific contract clauses that might be implicated by a merger. For example, DFARS provisions require contractors to maintain certain security standards (i.e., DFARS 252.204-7012 mandates cybersecurity controls and incident reporting for defense contractors). If an acquiring company or a target has such obligations, the combined entity must continue to meet them, including reporting any cyber incidents that may have occurred undisclosed. A merger is also a triggering event for re-evaluation of compliance with Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA, which prohibits contractors from using certain Chinese telecommunications equipment (Huawei, ZTE, etc.). If a target company uses prohibited technology in its infrastructure, that issue must be resolved prior to contract award or novation. Additionally, if the deal involves companies on the U.S. Entity List or sanctions lists, there are legal barriers to technology transfer that could carry criminal penalties if violated.

·         Data Privacy Regulations: While not traditionally viewed as counterintelligence laws, regulations like the EU’s GDPR or California’s CCPA bear mentioning because personal data is now a national security concern (as seen by CFIUS treating Grindr’s user data as sensitive). If an acquisition involves large volumes of personal data, executives must ensure compliance with breach disclosure and data handling rules. A breach discovered during integration could trigger regulatory fines (GDPR fines can reach 4% of global turnover). Thus, privacy compliance due diligence (how the target secures data and whether there have been undisclosed breaches) is pertinent both from a regulatory and CI perspective, since nation-state hackers often target personal data for espionage purposes (i.e., identifying persons of interest, blackmail material).

In summary, the U.S. regulatory environment has raised the stakes for CI issues in M&A. Transactions now occur under the watchful eye of CFIUS, DCSA, and other bodies keenly attuned to foreign threats and insider risks. The message to the C-suite is clear: compliance and security are two sides of the same coin. A deal team must integrate regulatory expertise with CI risk management, ensuring that all filings are made, all mitigation plans in place, and all relevant laws respected. Those who do will find that regulators can actually become partners in facilitating a secure transaction (or at least not obstacles), whereas those who don’t may find their deals delayed, altered, or dead on arrival. Staying updated on these regulations and even engaging outside counsel specialized in CFIUS/NISPOM can be invaluable insurance for high-risk deals.

Best Practices: A Phased Counterintelligence Risk Management Model

To effectively manage counterintelligence risks in mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, companies should adopt a phased approach, embedding CI measures at each stage of the deal. This section outlines a model across three phases (Pre-Deal, During Deal, and Post-Deal) with best practices in each. By following this structured approach, executives can systematically reduce risk while still achieving strategic objectives. The emphasis throughout is on early identification of threats, protection of critical assets, and sustaining vigilance even after the ink is dry on the deal.

Pre-Deal Phase: Preparation and Due Diligence

The pre-deal stage is when proactive CI planning yields the greatest dividends. Before an M&A or JV agreement is signed (and ideally even before a letter of intent), companies have an opportunity to scope out the threat landscape and build security into the deal process. Key best practices in this phase include:

·         Map the Assets and Risks: Begin by identifying what crown jewels are in play. Is it a proprietary technology, a client list, a sensitive facility, or perhaps personnel with specialized knowledge? Knowing what must be protected allows the deal team to focus CI efforts. For example, if a target company’s value lies in its software source code or patented formulas, these should be tightly guarded in any information sharing. Conduct an internal audit of the target’s most sensitive assets and current protections. Additionally, profile likely threat actors: if you’re a biotech firm acquiring a smaller rival, consider if any competitor or foreign state (known to target health data or IP) might be interested. This threat modeling guides where to dig deeper in due diligence.

·         Integrate CI into Due Diligence: Traditional due diligence covers financials, legal liabilities, and operations. To this, add security and counterintelligence due diligence. This means evaluating the target’s security posture (Have they had breaches? Do they enforce access controls? Is there malware calling out from their network?), as well as any CI red flags among the workforce or partners. If the target holds security clearances or defense contracts, a Security Clearance Due Diligence Review is essential. Check their history of FOCI mitigation, any recent foreign travel by key cleared managers (as reported under SEAD-3), and whether insider threat programs are in place. It’s wise to involve your CISO and security team from day one in the M&A discussion. They can run vulnerability assessments and review logs for signs of compromise at the target. Consider employing external specialists to do a discreet “compromise assessment” on the target’s network (with permission via NDA) to ensure you’re not walking into a cybersecurity ambush. If the target is known to be an acquisition candidate broadly (shopping itself around), step up monitoring of your own organization too. Because news could leak and prompt attacks or insider trading.

·         Know Your Counterparty: Whether it’s an investor, buyer, or JV partner, thoroughly vet the other side. This goes beyond standard credit checks. Perform deep background investigations on the acquiring company or investor: map their ownership (uncover any shell companies or hidden foreign government stakes), check past dealings for espionage or IP theft allegations, and verify source of funds. Public records and intelligence community resources can help. For instance, the NCSC or FBI may provide defensive briefings if a known high-risk foreign entity is involved. If the investor is foreign, scrutinize their home country’s practices: is it one known for using companies as extensions of state intelligence (i.e., certain state-owned or influenced firms)? As the Control Risks guidance succinctly puts it: “Know your investor”. This also applies to JV partners – insist on transparency of who you’re really partnering with. It’s not rude to ask tough questions here; it’s necessary due diligence to prevent teaming up with a trojan horse.

·         Plan for Regulatory Requirements Early: If you anticipate CFIUS review or export control approvals, engage legal counsel early and develop a game plan. This might include preparing a draft mitigation proposal to CFIUS (i.e., excluding a sensitive division from the deal), identifying which government stakeholders need consultation, or determining if a special security agreement will be needed with DCSA for FOCI. Early planning can align the deal timeline with regulatory timelines, avoiding last-minute surprises. Also, build any deal terms to address these issues. For instance, a clause that the buyer will implement security measures or a pricing adjustment if certain mitigation is required.

·         Secure the Deal Process: Even at the courting stage, confidentiality is key. Use secure channels for communications among the negotiating team – consider encrypted email or secure file-sharing platforms rather than open email. Limit the number of people who know about the deal internally (“need-to-know” principle) until necessary. This reduces chances of leaks (whether deliberate or accidental) that could attract unwanted attention. If rumors in the market are inevitable (for public company deals), prepare your IT team to heighten monitoring once speculation starts. Additionally, put robust NDAs in place with all external advisors and enforce clear guidelines: no using personal devices for deal documents, no sharing details with colleagues not on the project, etc. Essentially, treat a major M&A like a sensitive operation; operational security (OPSEC) matters.

·         Involve Insider Threat Management Pre-announcement: A subtle but powerful best practice is to quietly involve your insider threat program before news of a merger is widespread. Insider risk teams can identify employees who might react negatively (for example, those likely to lose status or jobs) and put extra monitoring or controls around them during the vulnerable period. They can also run checks for any unusual behavior as the deal approaches (i.e., is someone downloading large files unrelated to their job?). Importantly, they can help shape the messaging to the workforce when the deal is announced to minimize panic and rumor (which can drive insiders to do rash things). If your company doesn’t have a formal insider threat program, designate a small cross-functional team (HR, IT security, legal) to handle insider risk during the deal, even if on an ad hoc basis.

In short, the pre-deal phase is about foreseeing and fortifying. By the time you sign a definitive agreement, you should have a clear picture of the CI risks and a preliminary plan for managing them. Think of it as building a, “security due diligence checklist.” If every box isn’t checked, consider whether proceeding is worth the risk or what can be done to mitigate the gap.

Sample Pre-Deal CI Due Diligence Checklist:

By completing such a checklist, management can proceed to the next phase confident that major CI pitfalls have been addressed or at least recognized.

During-Deal Phase: Vigilance Through Negotiation and Closing

The period during which the deal is being negotiated, announced, reviewed by regulators, and moving toward closing is often the highest-risk phase. The existence of the deal is now likely known to more stakeholders (employees, media, government), which can attract threat actors or provoke internal anxieties. CI best practices during this phase focus on maintaining rigorous controls and monitoring in an environment that is changing rapidly.

·         Maintain Rigid Information Control: Continue to enforce need-to-know access as the circle widens. Not every employee in either company needs access to integration plans or sensitive data from the other side. Use the principle of compartmentalization. For example, if sharing technical data for integration planning, limit it to a “clean team” of a few trusted individuals who are separated from competitive decision-making. Limit data sharing to what’s absolutely necessary. As advised, define non-negotiable categories of information that will not be shared until after closing (if ever). Any data shared should be monitored; utilize digital rights management if possible so you can audit who opens documents and when. And remind both sides that the NDA and data room rules are in force. Just because we’re closer to closing doesn’t mean people can get sloppy with information.

·         Heighten Cybersecurity Monitoring: Knowing that malicious actors may try to strike while the deal is in motion, turn up your network defenses. This could include geofencing (blocking traffic from countries that have no legitimate business with your systems during this time), intensifying intrusion detection on key systems, and frequent threat hunting. If resources allow, run continuous dark web surveillance for chatter or leaked credentials related to either company. Sometimes hackers advertise access to a “company about to be acquired” for profit. Also, beware of spear-phishing attempts aimed at deal participants. It’s wise to run short refresher training for all employees on how to spot phishing, especially referencing that M&A news can be exploited in lures. The Marriott-Starwood breach taught hard lessons: a simple spoofed email to an employee can lead to a catastrophic breach during an acquisition. Thus, IT/security teams should simulate phishing tests during this period and be prepared to isolate any infected machine immediately to prevent lateral spread.

·         Secure Remote Work and Meetings: Many deals involve remote collaboration (across offices or countries). Ensure that all virtual deal meetings use secure, preferably enterprise-grade conferencing with access controls. No public Zoom links or unprotected calls where possible. If discussing highly sensitive matters (like negotiating strategy or national security mitigations), consider doing it in person or via secure lines. It’s not unheard of for adversaries to attempt intercepting communications; for instance, intelligence services have tapped undersea cables and hacked video conference systems to spy on negotiations. Also, if executives travel to meet partners (especially overseas), they should practice travel security: use clean “burner” devices, assume hotel rooms might be bugged (like the Ritz case with hidden recording devices), and keep devices with them (to avoid tampering). These may sound like extreme measures, but for high-stakes international deals, they are prudent CI steps.

·         Employee Communications and Morale: A frequently underestimated aspect is managing the human element internally. Once a merger or acquisition is announced, uncertainty can cause gossip, attrition, or worse, employees trying to “save” data or positioning themselves by stealing client lists, etc. Leadership should communicate clearly (within legal bounds) to the workforce about what the deal means, expected timelines, and that security policies still apply fully. Remind everyone that company information remains protected and any unauthorized removal or sharing is prohibited. Sometimes insiders rationalize misbehavior during these times (“I might lose my job, so I better take my work portfolio”). Counter that by reinforcing policies and perhaps offering incentives for key talent to stay through the transition (retention agreements can reduce the flight risk). From a CI perspective, keep an eye on privileged users such as system administrators or executives who have broad access. Ensure their access is monitored for any unusual downloads or transfers. This is the phase where an employee could most easily justify to themselves taking something (because they fear changes ahead), so empathy combined with monitoring is needed.

·         Regulatory and Security Coordination: During the deal, you may be engaging with CFIUS or other regulators. Cooperate fully and heed any interim mitigation steps they require. Sometimes CFIUS, for example, will allow a deal to proceed conditionally, with a monitored agreement in place. Embrace those requirements as they effectively become part of your CI strategy. If DCSA is involved due to a clearance, work with them to implement any necessary controls (i.e., maybe the foreign owner agrees to not have access to a certain lab or product). Showing regulators that you have a strong handle on security builds trust and can expedite approvals. On the flip side, be cautious about public disclosures. While maintaining transparency is important, avoid publishing technical details that adversaries could exploit. Mandatory disclosures (like to shareholders or in regulatory filings) should be reviewed by security experts to ensure you’re not inadvertently providing a roadmap to hackers or spies.

·         Prepare Incident Response & Contingency Plans: Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Have a plan for if a major security incident occurs mid-deal. This could be a data breach, a discovered espionage situation, or a ransomware attack. Who informs whom? How do you engage the other party cooperatively, since both are in it together now? You don’t want to be figuring this out on the fly, under duress. Also, consider contingency plans: if due diligence uncovers a serious CI issue (say you find evidence of an insider colluding with a competitor, or the target gets hit by a cyberattack exfiltrating data during integration), at what point do you pause or renegotiate the deal? Defining those red lines in advance, with board awareness, can save making emotional or hasty decisions later.

In summary, the mantra during the deal is “trust but verify, and vigorously guard.” Trust built between parties is important to get the deal done, but that trust should not equate to blind faith when it comes to protecting assets. Verify through audits and monitoring that agreements are honored (i.e., the other side isn’t poking in off-limits areas of the data room). And guard your combined interests as if the deal could fall apart, meaning each side should protect its own sensitive info until the deal is a sure thing. Deals in this phase can feel like a sprint to closing, but it’s crucial not to outrun your security coverage. Many threats are transient (peaking at times of change), so a few months of heightened vigilance can prevent long-term pain.

Post-Deal Phase: Integration, Monitoring, and Sustained Security

Congratulations – the deal is signed and closed. However, from a counterintelligence perspective, this is no time to relax. Post-deal integration is where earlier plans must be executed and where new risks can emerge. The focus shifts to combining organizations securely and maintaining CI efforts over the long term. Best practices in this phase include:

·         Execute FOCI Mitigation and Compliance Measures: If your deal involved any commitments to the government (CFIUS mitigation terms, DCSA FOCI agreement, etc.), those now must be implemented swiftly. For example, if a proxy board was part of a FOCI arrangement to allow a foreign acquisition of a cleared contractor, ensure that board is constituted and empowered right away. If CFIUS requires segregation of certain sensitive customer data or discontinuation of a product line, get those actions in motion and document them. Regulators may require periodic audits or certifications of compliance. Make sure internal ownership for those exists. Essentially, honor the letter and spirit of any security mitigation agreements; failing to do so could result in fines or an unwinding of the deal even after closing. As a positive, view these measures as a framework for stronger security. For instance, if as part of mitigation you need to implement stricter monitoring of network traffic or install government-furnished equipment to detect intrusions, leverage that to better protect the whole enterprise.

·         Integrate and Update Security Programs: Merging two companies means merging their security cultures and processes. Right after closing, conduct a comprehensive security integration audit: Are all critical systems inventoried and assessed? Which security policies need harmonizing? Often the acquired company might be smaller or less mature in security. Now is the time to bring them up to the acquirer’s standards (or higher). Extend your insider threat program to cover all new employees and locations. That includes rolling out any monitoring software, updating insider risk training, and ensuring reporting channels (like for SEAD-3 or internal reporting) include the new folks. If the acquired business had an insider threat program, combine intelligence, learn what issues they were tracking and fold that into your program. Onboarding training for all transferred employees should include security orientation, emphasizing that just because the company’s ownership changed, the expectation of protecting information remains (and perhaps even is heightened, given integration). Don’t overlook third parties: if the target had contractors, suppliers, or JV partners that now interface with your company, reevaluate those relationships under a CI lens as well.

·         Post-Acquisition Cyber Cleanup: It’s prudent to operate under the assumption that the target was compromised (if you haven’t conclusively proven otherwise). Immediately post-close, run thorough scans and threat-hunting in the combined network. Look for any persistent malware, unusual outbound traffic, or unauthorized user accounts. If you find something suspicious, treat it as an active incident. Involve cyber threat intel and containment measures. The goal is to start the new chapter with as clean a slate as possible. It’s also wise to update all critical credentials and passwords (many breaches originate from stolen credentials that might have been hovering out there). Essentially, change the locks after you take ownership. This reduces the chance that any previous unnoticed breach can continue. Remember that attackers sometimes deliberately go quiet during an acquisition to avoid detection, hoping to resurface later; a proactive sweep can root them out.

·         Monitor Workforce Changes and Morale: As integration progresses, some employee turnover is inevitable. Some people don’t find a place in the new org chart, others self-select out. This period can stretch many months to a couple of years. Throughout, maintain vigilance for insider risks. As noted, a large fraction of departing employees try to take data with them. So strengthen your off-boarding procedures: ensure that when someone exits, their accounts are immediately disabled, and any large data transfers in the weeks prior are reviewed. Use data loss prevention (DLP) tools to catch attempts to forward emails outside or upload files to personal cloud storage. Also, watch for signs of insider disgruntlement during cultural integration (i.e., if one company’s employees feel sidelined, there could be resentment that manifests in insider incidents). Continuously engage employees, solicit concerns, and reinforce that security is a shared responsibility of the new organization. It may help to highlight success stories where proactive security protected the business or even jobs, turning CI into a value-add in their eyes rather than just policing.

·         Continuous Counterintelligence Awareness: After the deal, your threat profile may have changed. A combined company might have a higher profile, making it a bigger target for adversaries. If you moved into new markets or technologies through the acquisition, you may now face new espionage threats (i.e., acquiring a defense supplier could make a commercial firm subject to nation-state targeting for the first time). It’s important for the CI and security teams to update threat assessments and share them with leadership. Engage with government agencies for threat briefings in your new industry area; the FBI and DHS regularly provide unclassified threat advisories to industry. Maintain relationships with DCSA and CFIUS monitoring agencies if they’re overseeing compliance. They can often alert you to emerging issues. For example, if the foreign owner later plans to increase ownership beyond what was agreed, that might trigger a fresh CFIUS look; stay ahead of such developments by monitoring any changes in your ownership structure. Another aspect is lessons learned: conduct a post-mortem on the CI aspect of the deal. What did you catch or miss? Were there any close calls (phishing attempts, etc.) and how were they handled? Feed those lessons into your playbook for the next deal.

·         Protect the Investment (ROI Security): Executives should view CI post-merger efforts as protecting the investment thesis of the deal. You likely paid a premium for the company’s IP, talent, or market position. Now you must ensure those are not eroded by a security lapse. For instance, if part of the reason for an acquisition was to obtain a cutting-edge technology, institute strong access controls and monitoring around that technology in the new environment to prevent theft. Consider deploying counterintelligence measures like honey-pots or canary files (decoy files that alert if accessed) for especially sensitive IP, to detect any inappropriate access early. If the joint venture is in a sensitive country, make sure your people on the ground have regular security check-ins and perhaps counter-surveillance if needed (for example, ensuring they aren’t being coerced or their laptops aren’t bugged). These may seem operational, but from a high-level perspective, they are about securing the value creation that was expected. Nothing destroys deal value faster than a security scandal or the loss of proprietary advantage.

To summarize the post-deal phase: finish strong and stay vigilant. The integration period should be treated as an extension of due diligence. A time to validate that all is as expected and to neutralize any lingering threats. By institutionalizing robust CI practices into the everyday operations of the merged entity, the company not only protects this transaction but also fortifies itself for the future. Given that many organizations grow through serial acquisitions, developing a reputation for integrating companies securely can become a strategic asset in its own right (partners and customers will trust you more). The end state you want is a unified organization with a unified security posture, where the notion of “us vs. them” (old company vs. new) dissolves, and everyone is part of one team safeguarding the enterprise.

Case Studies: Consequences of CI Lapses in M&A

Real-world incidents illustrate how lapses in counterintelligence during M&A and JV dealings can lead to severe business and security repercussions. Below are several anonymized or public examples that highlight the stakes:

·         Marriott–Starwood (2016) – State Espionage via Cyber Breach: During Marriott’s acquisition of Starwood, Chinese state-sponsored hackers had already infiltrated Starwood’s reservation system (starting in 2014) and maintained access throughout the merger. The breach, discovered in 2018, exposed personal data of up to 500 million guests. Investigators found tools and methods linked to China’s Ministry of State Security, suggesting the hack was for intelligence gathering, not theft for profit. Marriott suffered significant reputational damage, a 7% stock drop, and customer lawsuits. CI lesson: Perform cyber due diligence on targets. Marriott might have detected the compromise pre-deal with deeper security audits. Also, segregate and closely monitor networks during integration to contain any inherited threats.

·         Yahoo–Verizon (2017) – Undisclosed Breaches Erode Deal Value: After Verizon agreed to acquire Yahoo, it emerged that Yahoo had suffered massive data breaches (in 2013–2014) affecting all 3 billion accounts; incidents not fully disclosed during initial due diligence. Upon revelation, Verizon reduced the purchase price by $350 million (about 7%) and forced Yahoo to share legal liabilities for the breaches. The deal did close, but only after renegotiation. CI lesson: Cybersecurity failures can directly translate into lost M&A value. Companies must be transparent about security issues; conversely, buyers should insist on reps & warranties about past breaches and perhaps holdbacks/escrow to cover potential incident fallout.

·         American Superconductor & Sinovel (2011) – IP Theft under the Guise of Partnership: U.S.-based AMSC was in business discussions with China’s Sinovel Wind Group, including supplying software and a possible JV. Sinovel instead conspired with an AMSC insider to steal the wind turbine control software source code. As a result, AMSC’s expected revenue evaporated and it lost roughly $1 billion in shareholder equity and 700 jobs. Sinovel was later convicted in U.S. court and fined, but the damage was irreversible. CI lesson: A potential “partner” can be an IP thief. Strict controls on intellectual property sharing, even with trusted partners, are needed (i.e., code escrow arrangements, no single employee having access to all critical IP, and continuous monitoring for unusual intellectual property access or duplication).

·         Procter & Gamble – Unilever (2001) – Competitive Intelligence Gone Wrong: During a bidding war between P&G and Unilever for hair-care company Clairol, P&G’s staff engaged in corporate espionage by dumpster diving at Unilever to gather intel on its hair-care business and strategy. P&G executives later admitted the tactic, and P&G paid $10 million in compensation to Unilever to settle the issue. Despite ultimately winning the acquisition, P&G suffered reputational harm and internal fallout. CI lesson: Overzealous intelligence-gathering (even by a would-be acquirer) can backfire legally and reputationally. Ethical boundaries in CI should be maintained, and companies should secure their own disposal of sensitive info, especially when in known deal competitions.

·         Ritz Hotel London Sale (2019) – Insider Espionage Collapses a Deal: The owners of the famed Ritz in London sought buyers, with bids around £1.3 billion. During negotiations, one of the owner’s relatives (an insider) was caught bugging meeting areas to eavesdrop on bidders’ private conversations. When discovered, trust evaporated and bidders withdrew or lowered offers. The hotel ultimately sold for roughly half its expected value. CI lesson: Insider actions can directly destroy deal value. Establish protocols to sweep for surveillance devices and ensure fair processes. Also, emphasize integrity. If stakeholders resort to spying on each other, deals can derail and assets devalue due to loss of credibility.

·         Grindr Divestiture (2019) – Regulatory Intervention for CI Reasons: Beijing Kunlun Tech’s acquisition of Grindr (a social networking app) seemed benign until U.S. officials flagged that the personal data of millions of U.S. users (including military and intelligence personnel) on a Chinese-owned platform posed a national security risk. CFIUS intervened and forced the Chinese owner to sell Grindr. This was one of the first major cases emphasizing sensitive personal data as a CI issue. CI lesson: When personal or sensitive data is involved, foreign deals face high scrutiny. Companies in data-rich sectors must assess how a merger could expose such data to foreign access and consider anonymization, data localization, or excluding those datasets to satisfy regulators.

These case studies demonstrate that CI lapses can impact all stages of a deal – from initial valuation to post-merger operations. The stakes range from financial losses and regulatory sanctions to intangible hits like damaged trust and morale. However, they also show that many of these outcomes were preventable. In each case, stronger proactive measures (be it better due diligence, stricter controls, or more ethical oversight) could have altered the outcome. C-suite leaders should internalize these hard lessons: the cost of embedding counterintelligence is far lower than the cost of a CI failure.

Conclusion

In an era of sophisticated threats and intense global competition, proactive counterintelligence has become a cornerstone of successful mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. C-suite executives overseeing M&A deals must recognize that every transaction is not only a financial and strategic endeavor, but also a potential security risk vector. By adopting the practices outlined in this paper, from early-stage CI due diligence and robust insider threat measures to cybersecurity vigilance and compliance with national security regulations, companies can significantly tilt the odds in favor of a smooth, value-creating transaction.

The business benefits of a CI-informed approach are compelling. Deals that thoughtfully manage counterintelligence risks are more likely to preserve their intended value: critical IP remains protected, synergies can be realized without interruption, and there are no nasty surprises draining resources or causing public embarrassment. In contrast, deals that neglect CI can stumble or fail, as unseen threats emerge to erode the competitive advantage the merger was meant to secure. Simply put, integrating CI is about protecting the investment, providing insurance against the hidden perils that can wreck even the best-laid corporate plans.

Moreover, regulatory expectations make CI diligence non-optional. U.S. authorities have made it clear through CFIUS actions, DOD rules, and other policies that national security considerations will be enforced in the corporate arena. Forward-leaning companies that anticipate these concerns can turn them into a proactive strategy, engaging regulators early, structuring deals innovatively to mitigate risks, and even marketing themselves as “trusted” acquirers or partners who take security seriously. In a business environment where trust and resilience are competitive differentiators, demonstrating strong counterintelligence and security governance can enhance a company’s reputation and stakeholder confidence.

For executive leadership, the tone from the top is critical. When CEOs and boards champion security and CI as integral to M&A, it empowers management teams to allocate resources and attention accordingly. It signals to employees and partners that security isn’t a bureaucratic hurdle, but rather a strategic asset, one that enables bold growth moves by containing downside risks. Leaders should foster a culture where deal teams work hand-in-hand with CI experts, and where success is measured not just by closing the deal, but by sustaining its value one year, five years down the line without compromise.

In closing, the current threat landscape demands that mergers and joint ventures be approached with eyes wide open to adversarial risks. A merger might give birth to the next industry giant, but only if it isn’t undermined by espionage, insider betrayal, or regulatory fallout. By weaving proactive counterintelligence practices into the M&A lifecycle, companies can confidently pursue transformative deals while keeping their competitive edge, sensitive assets, and stakeholders safe. In the end, that is the hallmark of a truly successful transaction: one that not only grows the business, but does so in a manner that is secure, compliant, and sustainable in the face of twenty-first-century threats.

Sources

American Superconductor Corp. v. Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd., 962 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (W.D. Wis. 2013).

Control Risks. (2021). Assessing foreign investment and ownership risks: A guide to FOCI and CFIUS. Retrieved from https://www.controlrisks.com

Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). (2020). Insider threat mitigation guide. Retrieved from https://www.cisa.gov

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). (2021). NISPOM Rule (32 CFR Part 117): Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://www.dcsa.mil

Executive Office of the President. (2018). Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). Retrieved from https://home.treasury.gov

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2020). China: The greatest long-term threat to U.S. information and intellectual property. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov

John, K. (2020). Cybersecurity in M&A: Viewing integration as a supply chain risk. Siemens USA Thought Leadership.

Marriott International. (2018). Marriott announces Starwood guest reservation database security incident. Retrieved from https://news.marriott.com

National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC). (2021). Protecting critical and emerging U.S. technologies from foreign threats. Retrieved from https://www.dni.gov/ncsc

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). (2017). Security Executive Agent Directive 3 (SEAD-3): Reporting requirements for personnel with access to classified information. Retrieved from https://www.dni.gov

Reuters. (2019). Exclusive: U.S. opens national security investigation into TikTok owner ByteDance. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com

Sanger, D. E., Perlroth, N., & Rosenberg, M. (2018, December 3). Marriott data breach is traced to Chinese hackers as part of a larger espionage campaign. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com

SEC v. Yahoo! Inc., 17-cv-3964 (N.D. Cal. 2018).

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2020). Bureau of Industry and Security: Entity List additions and CFIUS enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.commerce.gov

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2023). DFARS Case 2021-D013: Assessment of foreign ownership, control or influence (FOCI) for certain DoD contracts. Retrieved from https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2022). CFIUS: Treasury should coordinate assessments of resources needed to carry out its mission. GAO-22-104039. https://www.gao.gov

Verizon Communications Inc. (2017). Verizon revises Yahoo acquisition terms after breach. Retrieved from https://www.verizon.com