No? Mr. Kincaid quotes the law (wherever it is) as thusly:>>>Some of the negative reaction to the deal stems not from racism or Arab-bashing but the fact that initial federal approval of the deal sidestepped a legally authorized 45-day investigation. The law requires such a probe when "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and when the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S." By reluctantly agreeing to have a 45-day investigation, Dubai Ports World only recognized what the law required<<<<<<<
Sounds like a 45 day investigation of this deal is mandated in my humble view. The company is engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. and it concerns national security. Cliff Kincaid doesn't say it has to do with it being an american company that is acquired.
Here's where I think it gets squishy... what you quoted is true but there's more to the statute. A literal read of the statute says those conditions apply but only to foreign aquisition of U.S. firms. Not to get into a discussion of "is", but it's simply the difference between AND and OR.
If in fact these conditions apply to foreign aquisition of a foreign firm that would AFFECT the U.S., then it's a badly written law and needs to be clarified. I can understand the interpretive differences that are being bandied about.