This interview is with Jean-François Harvey, Managing Partner, Harvey Law Group.
What key experiences or choices shaped your path into global investment and acquisition strategy?
It goes back all the way to the early 1990s when I helped my first client move with their family to Canada. It was such a rewarding experience, and I felt I found my calling. From those humble origins in Montreal to the world’s largest investment immigration law firm, it’s been quite the journey!
Building on that, how is executive mobility and investment immigration changing how corporations plan market entry and acquisitions?
We have observed that key decision-makers often think about market entry not purely from a corporate perspective, as they turn that decision into a personal one (or a combination of both). When founders and senior executives can secure residence or citizenship in strategic hubs, they gain faster deployment, easier banking and deal execution, and more resilience against geopolitical or regulatory shocks.
For corporations, that means expansion plans increasingly start with asking where leadership and core teams can reliably live, work, and travel, not just where a target company is located. Investment immigration programs give boards a choice to de-risk cross-border acquisitions, diversify headquarters or holding structures, and keep deals moving across a diverse array of options even when local immigration, sanctions, or tax rules change suddenly, something we have seen in recent months, especially in the U.S. – and globally, stemming from U.S. policy.
When you scope a cross‑border deal, what first‑principles framework do you use to assess risk and value before deeper diligence?
The starting point is always: can this deal still work if the rules, people, or borders suddenly shift and/or move against you? From there, the first-pass filter is what could be called a 3-part lens:
- First, we look at regulatory and mobility fit. We survey the deal against immigration, foreign exchange, sanctions, and ownership rules in each jurisdiction, and ask whether key people can actually live, work, sign, and exit there over the life of the investment.
- Then we examine the structure and potential downside. We pressure-test the proposed structure for enforceability, tax leakage, and capital controls, then model a worst-case scenario to see what value is still preserved if approvals are delayed, licenses change, or partners fall out.
- Third, it’s about people and political risk. We look at the concentration of decision-makers, the stability of local partners, and exposure to sudden political or policy swings, then overlay alternative residency or citizenship options that keep core executives mobile if the environment deteriorates.
On regulatory risk, what practical steps help you navigate FDI reviews such as CFIUS or EU screening without stalling the deal?
The most useful step is to treat FDI screening as part of the deal design, not as an afterthought, while building the timetable, structure, and documentation around that reality from day one.
In practice, this means assessing early whether the deal is notifiable, running a short-form national security and sector analysis, and getting specialist counsel to pre-clear the story of the transaction so filings present a coherent, transparent narrative that regulators can approve without unwanted surprises and further questions.
From there, parties should double down on flexibility and make it obvious in the documents. This includes:
- Clear closing conditions around CFIUS or EU approvals,
- Realistic long-stop dates, and
- Pre-agreed mitigation tools such as governance safeguards, data-access limits, or carve-outs that can be offered quickly if authorities raise concerns.
Keeping an open information channel with reviewing agencies, responding quickly to questions, and streamlining internal communications so everyone tells the same story helps keep the process moving while maintaining momentum and value in sensitive cross-border deals.
After signing, what have you found most effective for integrating teams across cultures to protect the deal thesis?
In my experience, the most effective moves are the ones that make people feel the deal is happening with them, not to them. That starts with an honest cultural diagnostic on both sides and a very simple, shared story about why the acquisition exists and what success looks like for teams in each country.
From there, the focus is on communication and investing in the people, especially in the first 12–18 months. This could include cross-border leadership visits, joint project teams, and practical cross-cultural coaching so managers know how to give feedback, make decisions, and share credit in ways that resonate locally. When that “soft infrastructure” is in place, you have a much better chance to execute the original idea and actually unlock the potential the model promised on paper.
From a capital management standpoint, how do you approach currency risk in cross‑border deals to protect enterprise value?
The trick is to treat FX not as an afterthought in treasury, but as a core assumption from the deal’s first spreadsheet. That means sizing the exposure across signing, closing, and the first years of integration, then deciding explicitly what portion to hedge, what to price into the deal, and what volatility the business can genuinely live with.
In practice, that usually becomes a mix of contract design and financial tools: price‑adjustment or earn‑out clauses, natural hedges by matching local‑currency debt to local cash flows, and selective use of forwards, options, or collars where FX swings could wipe out the equity story. The goal is not to guess the currency market better than anyone else, but to keep a strategic acquisition from turning into a bad trade because a 10–15% move in the wrong direction erased the premium you thought you were paying for growth.
Looking 12–24 months ahead, what single action should corporate leaders take now to position for the next wave of global acquisitions?
I believe the single most powerful step is to deliberately build a “ready-to-deploy” deal machine now: clear strategy, target filters, capital firepower, and an execution bench that has already rehearsed cross-border moves.
Leaders who pre-define where they will buy, how much risk they can tolerate, and what structures and mobility tools they will use to manage geopolitical and regulatory shocks will likely be able to move several weeks faster than competitors when the next wave of assets comes to market.