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.

On June 16, the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) announced that it had concluded a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., a Florida-based government contractor, related to apparent violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). DOJ also announced that a former vice president of IAP pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA. IAP agreed to pay more than $7 million to resolve the matter; sentencing for the former vice president is scheduled for September 2015.

Background. IAP provides facilities management, contingency operations, and professional and technical services in contracting capacities to U.S. and non-U.S. governments. According to DOJ, the violations occurred in connection with a surveillance program the government of Kuwait sought to develop. An agent of IAP contracted with the Kuwaiti government to perform services under the first phase of the program. DOJ alleged that, when the agent was paid for its services, it transferred money to IAP, which in turn steered funds to a Kuwaiti company to kickback to Kuwaiti government officials.Continue Reading Government Contractor Fined for FCPA Violations; Former VP Enters Guilty Plea

As yet another step in the continuing Export Control Reform (ECR) effort, the U.S. government has recently issued a series of proposed rules that may help clarify key regulatory definitions and requirements that have confused exporters in the past. In particular, the proposed rules may ease licensing requirements for U.S. persons – and the employers of U.S. persons – working in the global defense industry.

First, on May 26, the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) proposed changes to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to clarify the registration and licensing requirements that apply to U.S. persons in the United States or abroad who furnish defense services to, or on behalf of, their non-U.S. person employers. See 80 Fed. Reg. 30001 (May 26, 2015).

Then, on June 3, DDTC issued proposed revisions to help clarify the scope of activities and information covered by the ITAR. See 80 Fed. Reg. 31525 (June 3, 2015). The same day, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a parallel proposed rule to amend key definitions of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR). See 80 Fed. Reg. 31505 (June 3, 2015).

What follows is a brief summary of several of the key changes.Continue Reading ECR Marches On: State and Commerce Announce More Proposed Changes

In the first three months of 2015, the U.S. government has been – as usual – quite busy on the sanctions front.  The United States has eased sanctions on Cuba, expanded sanctions on North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela, and introduced sanctions against cyber criminals.  And that does not even include Iran (with which preliminary agreement was reached on April 2) or continued, aggressive enforcement against sanctions violators.

What follows is our effort to briefly summarize key sanctions developments since the beginning of the year, and to offer predictions about potential new developments in the coming months.Continue Reading Sanctions Update: First Quarter 2015 Brings New Restrictions, Potential Relief