Since 2018, Kai Bitter has served as a valued board member of ALTIX Consulting, contributing his extensive international experience and deep expertise in global manufacturing strategy to the company’s mission of empowering industrial champions.
Beyond the boardroom, Kai is a renowned corporate lawyer whose reputation spans borders and continents, recognized for his strategic insight and guidance on complex international business matters. He combines professional excellence with a steadfast commitment to supporting the growth and success of industrial leaders worldwide.
For those who may not know you yet, can you briefly introduce yourself – your background, your career journey, and what you focus on today?
I was born and raised outside of Hannover, Germany, and early on had the opportunity to study and live internationally, including academic exchanges with France and the UK, and a senior high school year in Maryland. I pursued legal studies both in Germany and the United States, and met my wife, Sara, while studying at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. I began my legal career in Germany before relocating to the U.S. in 2007, when I joined FBT Gibbons. Within my first year, I launched the firm’s German practice, which has since grown into a broader European practice. We have replicated the foreign desk model for other key markets, including Japan, China, India, Mexico, and South Korea. Today, I lead the firm’s international team. FBT Gibbons has approximately 800 attorneys, and about 10% are regularly engaged in inbound and cross-border work, advising foreign investors entering and expanding in the United States.
As a German- American attorney, you’ve built a strong practice advising both large German groups and Mittelstand companies in the U.S. In your experience, what separates the German companies that truly succeed in the U.S. from those that never reach their full potential?
In my view, the primary difference is mindset. It’s not the technology, and it’s not the capital you invest. The companies that are successful treat the U.S. as a separate division – not as an export market or market expansion. They invest early in strong local leadership and real decision-making power. A critical success factor is having an advocate at the parent level – at management or board level – ideally someone who has first-hand experience working in the U.S., not just visiting.
The common misconception is the size and complexity of the U.S. market, and the diversity of that market. I recently spoke with someone who analyzed the number of salespeople a German company has in Germany compared to what is needed in the U.S. If you have five salespeople in Germany, you may need closer to one hundred in the U.S. It’s a completely different market. If you haven’t worked in the U.S., it’s very hard to comprehend the size of the market. That’s true for small companies and for large publicly traded companies. When there is someone at board level who has worked in the U.S., they approach the U.S. market very differently.
There are also structural differences. Sales is done very differently in the U.S. Workforce training is done very differently. People are compensated and retained very differently. Those are the factors that determine whether a company is successful in the U.S.
Many companies struggle with over-centralizing decisions in Germany and not giving local management sufficient authority. German companies tend to underestimate the speed of the U.S. market and assume they can apply European concepts in the U.S. Very often, they are well educated, they speak English well, and they have visited the U.S. before – but you need to have worked here to really appreciate the market.
Success in the U.S. market requires a level of local autonomy for the U.S. operation, combined with a strong advocate in Germany. That’s what produces the best results.
Over the past few years, you’ve spent increasing time in Asia and helped build your firm’s Asia practice. From an industrial standpoint, what has most stood out to you about how Asian companies view the U.S. market and approach expansion?
I have worked extensively with Korea and Japan. We also cover China, but with different members of our international team.
Japanese companies have been very successful in the USA for many decades. They are very experienced in operating in the U.S. market and highly adapted to U.S. customer expectations, while still maintaining their core strengths of quality and reliability. Their investments tend to be more conservative. They invest significantly in the USA, but most often through incremental expansion of established plants rather than building entirely new ones.
South Korea is very different. Korean companies are relative newcomers to the U.S. market and, in many cases, to the electric vehicle industry in the USA, particularly to support battery and EV manufacturers. Their approach is much more aggressive and risk-tolerant. Korean companies have invested tens of billions of dollars in new manufacturing plants in the United States.
When you speak with Korean headquarters, the mindset is clearly highly risk tolerant, very different from German or Japanese companies. So far, the results have been mixed.
That said, the Korean mindset today reminds me of the German mindset decades ago. That is very much how Korea – and Seoul in particular – feels to me: a strong engineering focus, phenomenal products, and a clear ambition to grow. They are willing to invest ahead of demand in order to secure long-term position and leadership.
You were in Korea the day the Trump administration announced new tariffs. Can you share what happened in real time and how that announcement immediately impacted the conversations – and the U.S. expansion plans – of the companies involved?
We were in Korea when the tariff announcement came out, and the shift was immediate. Every company we spoke with during that week decided to delay its entry into the U.S. market by two to three years. Just a year earlier, in 2024, South Korea had been one of the largest foreign investors in the United States.
Many foreign industrial companies are concerned about the U.S. legal system – particularly the perceived risk of lawsuits and public litigation. How do you address those fears, and what do you think is most often misunderstood?
I think the U.S. has a very different risk profile. Litigation is part of doing business here, and the scope of litigation is something companies in the U.S. have to deal with. But that does not mean companies cannot be successful in the U.S. market.
What often happens is that companies focus on the wrong perceived risks. One common misconception is employment law. People hear about “hire and fire” or employment at will and assume employment law in the U.S. is easy. In reality, U.S. employment law is often more complex than in Germany, for example. And that is where foreign-owned companies get into trouble most often.
It’s really about understanding how the U.S. system works and how to manage litigation risk. If a company is sued, it is important to recognize that approximately 95% of commercial disputes in the U.S. are resolved through settlement. This is standard practice for U.S. companies, which tend to focus on the cost and complexity of litigation. European companies that have not previously encountered litigation in the U.S. will often, out of principle, be reluctant to settle when they believe they have done nothing wrong. That difference in approach is critical, and disputes in the U.S. have to be managed differently.
You often operate at the intersection of culture, strategy, and law. From your experience, how critical is cultural understanding in making international deals, partnerships, and joint ventures actually work over the long term?
You need someone who owns that project – someone who can make decisions quickly. Most joint ventures that we see struggle don’t have someone who truly owns that collaboration or that project within the organization.
When these efforts are led by clearly designated individuals, expectations are far less likely to become misaligned, communication is more consistent, and decision‑making authority is clear. Some projects require additional funding, others need more time to mature, and some exceed expectations. Each of these dynamics can strain a joint venture if accountability is unclear. That’s why it is critical to have an advocate within the organization who owns the project – a clear liaison with both responsibility and authority to make things happen.
Kai, thank you for sharing your experience and perspective with such clarity and candor. Your unique vantage point — shaped by decades of cross-border legal practice and deep engagement with German, Asian, and U.S. industrial leaders — provides invaluable guidance to companies navigating international growth. We are equally grateful for your longstanding commitment to ALTIX Consulting since 2018. Your strategic insight, global perspective, and steady counsel as a board member continue to strengthen our mission of supporting industrial champions as they expand, adapt, and lead across borders.
