Treasury Creates CFIUS Pilot Program and Releases Interim Regulations as Initial Step Toward Implementing FIRRMA Reforms

As a first step to implementing the wide-ranging Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) that was enacted in August 2018, the U.S. Department of the Treasury on October 10, 2018 issued an interim rule to launch a “pilot program” to expand the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review certain “critical technology” transactions.  Treasury also issued temporary regulations that make limited changes to the existing CFIUS regulations, mostly to implement changes that became effective immediately upon passage of FIRRMA.

Pilot Program Interim Rule

A number of the provisions of FIRRMA that expand CFIUS’s jurisdiction do not become effective until Treasury passes implementing regulations or February 2020, whichever comes first.  Treasury is not expected to finalize the relevant implementing regulations for several months.  However, FIRRMA also authorized Treasury to create temporary “pilot programs” to allow for faster implementation of parts of the legislation that did not become effective immediately upon enactment. Continue Reading

EU Promotes Export Controls and Sanctions Compliance Programs

The European Commission (the Commission) recently issued draft guidelines on the core elements that European industry should take into account when implementing internal export controls and sanctions compliance programs.  The guidance – which is legally non-binding – will be finalized upon the results of a public consultation providing the opportunity for EU exporters to comment on its core elements.  Companies can participate by responding to a survey until November 15.  It is the intention of the Commission to share the results of this survey with a Technical Expert Group before finalizing its guidance.

Internal compliance programs (ICPs) have long been part of a culture of compliance in the US, but much less so within the European Union.  However, ICPs are increasingly viewed in the EU as a key element for an effective export control system.  While not expressly alluding to ICPs, the EU Dual Use Regulation has encouraged Member States to take into consideration whether a company employs adequate means and procedures for compliance when assessing applications for global export authorizations.  In addition, ICP guidelines have been introduced by some Member States as a tool to better monitor compliance with EU and national export controls.  The EU Dual Use Regulation Recast Proposal formally introduces standardized operational ICPs as part of the assessment in the granting and control of global export authorizations and certain general export authorizations.  In implementing these ICP guidelines, the EU is acting pursuant to the multilateral provisions of the Wassenaar Arrangement that have expressed support for ICPs and for this type of regulatory guidance. Continue Reading

US Withdraws from Treaty of Amity with Iran after International Court of Justice Imposes Limited Provisional Measures Against US Iran Sanctions

On October 3, 2018, the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or the “Court”), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, issued an Order ruling partly in favor of Iran on Iran’s request for provisional measures against the US for its May 8, 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) and re-imposition of sanctions on August 6, 2018.

On July 16, 2018, Iran instituted proceedings against the US with regard to alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the US and Iran (“Treaty of Amity”). On the same day, Iran submitted a request for certain provisional measures, including a request that the US “immediately take all measures at its disposal to ensure the suspension of the implementation and enforcement of all of the 8 May sanctions, including the extraterritorial sanctions, and refrain from imposing or threatening announced further sanctions and measures which might aggravate or extend the dispute submitted to the Court.” Iran’s filing essentially asked the ICJ to order the US to provisionally lift its sanctions in advance of more detailed arguments on the merits of the case. Continue Reading

OFAC Adds Additional Names to SDN List under Venezuela Program

On September 25, 2018, OFAC added six individuals, three entities, and an aircraft to the SDN list (link to press release here).  These designations appear to be motivated by a continued effort to pressure the Maduro government to change its policies.  The press release notes that, “By the end of 2018, hyperinflation in Venezuela is projected to reach over one million percent.  Three million Venezuelans will have departed Venezuela for neighboring nations to escape widespread poverty and its attendant hardships.  The Maduro regime, meanwhile, continues to pursue failed policies and financing schemes to mask the regime’s corruption and gross mismanagement. The United States has imposed sanctions on many who have profited during Venezuela’s decline[.]”  These new designations do not specifically target PDVSA or the oil and gas sector. Continue Reading

Trump Administration Sanctions Key Chinese Military Entity under Russia Authorities

On September 20, 2018, the State Department announced sanctions on China’s Equipment Development Department (EDD) (formerly known as the General Armaments Department (GAD)) and its director, Li Shangfu, for engaging in significant transactions with Russia’s Rosoboronexport for the delivery to China of Su-35 combat aircraft in 2017 and equipment for S-400 surface-to-air missile systems in 2018. The EDD is part of the Chinese State Council’s Central Military Commission and plays a key role in the Chinese government’s international military cooperation efforts.

This marks the first time the US government has imposed sanctions under Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). It is also the most significant sanctions action taken by the US government to date under the CAATSA Russia sanctions authorities.  Notably, the Trump Administration chose the most severe measure available under the “menu” of sanctions available under Section 231 of CAATSA – the addition of the targeted persons to the Specially Designated Nationals (“SDN”) list – along with some other restrictions.  Continue Reading

ICSID Proposes Extensive Rule Revisions

On August 3, 2018, twelve years after its last major update, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) proposed extensive revisions to its rules. The “comprehensive set of proposed changes to modernize its rules for resolving disputes between foreign investors and states” includes new provisions on transparency, arbitrator disclosure, security for costs, and third-party funding.

For more information, please see our advisory.

Long-Awaited Decision Issued on FCPA’s Reach Over Non-Resident Foreign Nationals

On August 24, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected an attempt by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to expand the jurisdictional reach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) over foreign nationals. The three-judge panel affirmed the lower court’s ruling in United States v. Hoskins that a non-resident foreign national cannot be charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA, or with aiding and abetting a violation of the statute, unless he falls within a category of persons covered by the substantive provisions of the Act. 

Historically the DOJ has relied on expansive use of conspiracy theories to reach conduct by foreign, non-issuer defendants in negotiated FCPA resolutions. The Hoskins decision restricts the statute’s reach over foreign persons whose alleged bribery-related crimes take place outside the territory of the United States. As a result, the ruling makes it more difficult for the DOJ to bring criminal charges in FCPA cases against foreign nationals, particularly those working for foreign companies that are not “issuers” and whose conduct takes place outside the United States.

The ruling is sufficiently narrow in scope, however, that we do not believe it will meaningfully affect the number or types of FCPA investigations that the DOJ will pursue.

For more information, please see our advisory.

Changes Afoot for CFIUS and US Export Controls as the Dust Settles on FIRRMA

Following months of hearings and other deliberations, Congress passed, and President Trump signed into law on August 13, 2018, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). FIRRMA is the first update to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in over a decade and will significantly expand the jurisdiction of the Committee and make other notable changes to its rules. A text of the final version of FIRRMA (Sections 1701 to 1728 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA)), is available here. The NDAA also includes comprehensive US export control reform legislation that (among other things) mandates increased US export controls on “emerging and foundational technologies” to address some of the US national security concerns that contributed to calls for CFIUS reform. FIRRMA went through several revisions as it advanced through Congress and we discussed earlier versions of the bill in previous advisories from June and January of this year.

For more information, please see our advisory.

EU Blocking Statute Takes Effect to Counter US Re-Imposed Sanctions on Iran

In response to President Trump’s Executive Order re-imposing certain Iran-related sanctions, summarized in our recent post, the EU has expanded the scope of the EU Blocking Statute to cover certain US Iran-focused sanctions.  On August 7, immediately following the US government’s re-imposition of certain Iran-related sanctions, the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1100 amending the annex to the EU Blocking Statute was published in the EU Official Journal and entered into force.

In addition to the Delegated Regulation, the following two texts relating to the application of the Blocking Statute were published in the EU Official Journal:

  • Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101 which sets out: (i) the process for applying to the Commission for an authorization permitting full or partial compliance with the relevant US sanctions; and (ii) a non-exhaustive list of criteria that the Commission will consider in assessing whether an authorization should be granted; and
  • The Commission’s Guidance Note with non-binding guidance on the application of the revised Blocking Statute. The non-binding guidance covers various aspects of the Blocking Statute, including persons/entities within the scope of the Blocking Statute, its temporal application, effects of the Blocking Statute, recovery of damages arising from the application of US Iran-related sanctions, authorizations to comply with US Iran-related sanctions, etc.

Continue Reading

US State Department Announces New Russia Sanctions

On August 8, 2018, the US State Department announced that it would be imposing new sanctions on Russia pursuant to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act).  The new sanctions are in response to a determination by the US government that the Russian government was behind the recent use of a nerve agent in the United Kingdom against two UK citizens.  The CBW Act requires the imposition of sanctions following a determination by the President (delegated to the Secretary of State) of the use of chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or in lethal form against one’s own nationals.  Sanctions under the CBW Act, which are expected to take effect on August 22nd, include the termination of foreign assistance, suspension of sales of defense articles or services, denial of credit or other financial assistance by the US government, and a prohibition of exports of national security-sensitive goods and technology.  In a background briefing the State Department announced that it is making “a number of carve-outs” to these sanctions to allow the continuation of certain foreign assistance; exports for space flight activities, safety of commercial passenger aviation, and “purely commercial end users for civilian end uses”; and perhaps other activities.  A Federal Register notice that is to be published by the State Department on August 22 should explain the sanctions and carve-outs in more detail.  According to the State Department, this is the third occasion on which sanctions have been imposed under the CBW Act.  Sanctions under the Act were imposed against Syria in 2013 and against North Korea earlier this year. Continue Reading

LexBlog