• Penalties imposed for violations of U.S. sanctions on Russia and Ukraine
  • Violations identified during pre-acquisition due diligence on contractor
  • Denied persons screening was conducted but missed prohibited parties

In late November 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that Cobham Holdings, Inc. agreed to pay $87,507 to settle violations of U.S. sanctions on Ukraine and Russia.

Violations Identified During Pre-acquisition Due Diligence

According to OFAC, the violations were committed by Cobham’s former subsidiary, Metelics, prior to the sale of Metelics to MACOM. It was MACOM that identified the violations during due diligence related to its acquisition of Metelics. And it was presumably MACOM that required Cobham to make the voluntary disclosure to OFAC that led to the penalty in this matter.

The penalty is small by recent OFAC standards. (For example, it is about 620 times less than Societe Generale paid to OFAC as part of its global settlement of sanctions violations.)

But as a cautionary tale, the Cobham matter is important to any exporter.


Continue Reading

I provided insight on the Export Control Reform Act – a law passed in August 2018 that will limit exports of some emerging technologies to curb national security threats and espionage. Some technology groups fear that the Commerce Department, which regulates most U.S. exports, will too broadly define which emerging technologies should be covered by

I recently provided insight for a Bloomberg Law article on the new interim rules implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The interim rules, which went into effect on November 10, broaden the authority of the Committee of Foreign Investment of the United States (CFIUS) – an interagency committee that reviews foreign investments

On November 7, 2018, Global Trade Magazine republished a blog post that I wrote discussing recent changes to U.S. law that further restrict trade with individuals and entities in Russia. The changes further complicate an already-difficult situation for businesses working in and with the country.

You may access the original September 27 blog post on

In an article published in the November 2018 issue of the ACC Docket, I co-authored an article with Elliot Burger, senior legal counsel at Linamar Corporation in Ontario, Canada discuss the expanding role of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).  CFIUS is the U.S. government committee that reviews transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person in order to determine whether the transaction could harm U.S. national security.

Continue Reading

  • Mandatory declarations of certain transactions now required
  • Certain changes to pre-existing regulations also announced and effective immediately
  • Mandatory declaration requirement may not ease burden on parties filing with CFIUS

On October 11, the U.S. Treasury Department took the first steps to implement the significant changes introduced under the Foreign Industrial Review and Risk Modernization Act (FIRRMA). FIRRMA broadens the mandate of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews foreign investments in the United States that could impact U.S. national security.

Most notably, the Treasury Department is establishing a pilot program that imposes new obligations on foreign parties making investments, even non-controlling investments, in U.S. businesses involved in 27 explicitly designated industries. The pilot program defines such investments as “pilot program investments.”


Continue Reading

  • Economic sanctions and export restrictions extended
  • Russian investment in United States likely subject to heightened scrutiny
  • Diligence on Russia transactions and business partners is essential to ensure compliance

Since the beginning of August 2018, the United States has taken multiple actions that will affect U.S. trade with Russia.  The actions cover exports to Russia, doing business with Russian partners, and potential Russian investment in the United States.  These actions have added to the already challenging landscape of conducting business in and with Russia.

Economic Sanctions in Place Since 2014 Are Expanded Again

The United States has maintained targeted economic sanctions on Russia since 2014.  Most of these sanctions are administered by the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

These sanctions ensnare many prominent Russian individuals and entities.  They have also ensnared prominent U.S. companies: see our July 2017 blog post on penalties imposed against Exxon for Russia sanctions violations.  For an example of how sanctions have been periodically and consistently extended, see our September 2016 blog post.


Continue Reading

I provided insight on Tesla Inc.’s recent announcement of potential Saudi Arabian funding to take the company private and how this move could draw scrutiny from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).  “The big question is whether this technology is really sensitive enough and whether if acquired by a non-U.S. company it could have some kind of negative impact on U.S. national security,” I explained. I noted that this could be possible since the Trump administration has announced possible tariffs on auto imports for national security reasons.

Continue Reading

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Thad McBride provided insight on the sanctions evasion techniques being used by foreign owners of seemingly legitimate money services businesses (MSBs) to move funds illicitly. The article provides examples of foreign entities – such as those in countries faced with strict U.S. sanctions, such as Iran or North Korea – taking control of MSBs in foreign jurisdictions and then using the ownership status to pass money and convert funds to U.S. dollars. Because entities in sanctioned countries are severely restricted related to the amount of money that can be brought into or moved within the United States, ownership of these MSBs can be a profitable way of avoiding detection.

Continue Reading