Photo of Thad McBride

Thad McBride

Thad McBride advises public and private companies on the legal considerations essential to successful business operations in a global marketplace. He focuses his practice on counseling clients on compliance with U.S. export regulations (ITAR and EAR), economic sanctions and embargoes, import controls (CBP), and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). He also advises clients on anti-boycott controls, and assists companies with matters involving the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Thad supports international companies across a range of industries, including aviation, automotive, defense, energy, financial services, manufacturing, medical devices, oilfield services, professional services, research and development, retail, and technology. Beyond advising on day-to-day compliance matters, Thad regularly assists clients in investigations and enforcement actions brought by government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the U.S. State Department Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Commerce Department Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), and the Securities & Exchange Commission.

Since the start of September, the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has settled with two different companies for alleged violations of U.S. economic sanctions on Iran. The settlements, the first with World Class Technology Corporation (WCT) and the second with PanAmerican Seed Company (PanAmerican), yielded vastly different outcomes.  As summarized below, we think the divergent results serve to illustrate how OFAC weighs various factors in calculating penalty amounts.

WCT.  On September 7, 2016, OFAC settled with WCT for $43,200 based on alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR).  The alleged violations occurred when WCT exported seven shipments of orthodontic devices to Germany, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates with suspicion that the devices would be exported to Iran.  The devices were collectively valued at almost $60,000.  The exports occurred between April 2008 and July 2010.Continue Reading Iran Sanctions: Recent Enforcement Sheds Light on OFAC Penalty Calculations

Key Points:

  • Dozens more Russian and Ukrainian entities have been designated as prohibited / restricted parties
  • A limited General License authorizes transactions, for a brief period of time, to halt business with a specific Russian entity
  • The designations reflect OFAC’s continued use of the “50 percent rule,” and the challenges of diligence on Russian transaction partners

Designations. On September 1, 2016, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated 37 individuals and entities pursuant to its Ukraine-related sanctions program.  OFAC last designated individuals and entities under the Ukraine program in December 2015.
Continue Reading Happy September: OFAC Extends Russia/Ukraine Sanctions

On August 2, 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a Finding of Violation against two health insurance providers for activities that violated U.S. economic sanctions. The companies allegedly had issued health insurance policies that covered individuals on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the SDN List).  In general, U.S. companies are prohibited from performing any transaction with or involving parties on the SDN List.
Continue Reading OFAC Dings Two Health Insurance Providers, on the Same Day, for Violating U.S. Sanctions

I offered insights for an article outlining ways that the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union could affect the Washington, D.C. region. My comments are specific to how the transition could impact government contracting and benefit the defense trade.

The full article, “6 Ways Brexit Could Impact Washington Business,” was published by

Despite a host of unanswered questions, national security concerns and political barriers, Boeing announced on June 22, 2016 that it has signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with state-owned Iran Air. If finalized, the agreement would mean that Boeing could sell up to 100 commercial aircraft to Iran, at a cost of roughly $25 billion.

Boeing reportedly obtained a license from the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to execute the MOA and engage in the negotiations that led to its signing. (OFAC is the U.S. government agency that administers most U.S. economic sanctions on Iran.) That authorization was made possible due to a new licensing policy relating to commercial passenger aircraft that OFAC issued in January 2016, following the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the United States and its allies and Iran. The JCPOA significantly scaled back sanctions against Iran.Continue Reading Iran Update: The Significance of the Boeing Deal

May was a busy month in the world of U.S. defense exports. Perhaps most controversial was President Obama’s decision to terminate the arms embargo against Vietnam. The embargo, in place since 1975, was partially lifted in 2014 to provide Vietnam with greater maritime surveillance and improved security systems. Since then, the United States has contributed $46 million to strengthening Vietnam’s maritime security.

Separately, the U.S. State Department announced that it would begin reviewing applications for licenses to export defense articles and defense services to Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia and Sri Lanka on a case-by-case basis. Those announcements followed three U.N. Security Council Resolutions terminating the U.N. arms embargoes against those nations.Continue Reading The United States Lifts Arms Embargoes Against Vietnam and Other Countries

We recently authored an article outlining the details surrounding the United States’ eased trade restrictions with Cuba. Businesses must carefully analyze the new regulations before venturing into business opportunities in Cuba.

As stated in the article, “in its zeal to ease restrictions, the U.S. government has not always accounted for how to authorise certain activities