Category: Export Controls, Economic Sanctions, and National Security

TechCrunch: Western Sanctions against Russia: Tips for Tech Companies Managing Compliance Risk

Anthony Rapa ● TechCrunch ● May 8, 2023 ●

As the war in Ukraine rages on, authorities are cracking down on the smuggling of U.S. technology in support of Russia’s war effort, an initiative with implications for the tech industry. One significant example of this is Russia’s drone program, with a December 2022 expose describing U.S. chips, circuit boards, and amplifiers found in downed Russian drones, and mapping part of the supply chain trafficking such items to Russia in spite of Western sanctions.

This has prompted broader concerns regarding the diversion of Western technology to Russia in support of illicit end-uses, such as, for example, the Russian government’s use of facial recognition technology to crack down on dissidents.

In response to this, the United States and its partners recently imposed new sanctions against Russia to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, including expanded export controls over drone components, electronics, industrial equipment, and other items. The U.S. government followed this up with an advisory warning companies of the risk of third parties diverting their products to Russia.

Suppliers of electronics, drone components, and other sanctioned items face the risk that third parties will divert their products to Russia’s defense industrial base or to the battlefield in Ukraine, given the Russian military’s continued demand for battlefield equipment. Companies can mitigate this risk by conducting due diligence on counterparties and by auditing sales channels.

Read more on our website.

Exporters Take Note: The Commerce Department Really, Really Wants You to Disclose Suspected Violations of the EAR—Both Yours, and Your Competitors’ Too

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Justin A. Chiarodo and Anthony Rapa ●

We wrote earlier this year about the growing web of regulation and enforcement attention around export controls. In another key development in this area, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a memo to all of its export enforcement employees on April 18,2023, both reemphasizing the importance of corporate export control compliance, and clarifying its enforcement policies in two key areas. These two developments—one a stick and one a carrot—are designed to promote more (and more significant) disclosures to BIS with respect to violations of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).

The first item in the memo addresses what happens when a company discovers, but does not report, a “significant possible violation” of the EAR. This marks a major policy change. Going forward, the deliberate non-disclosure of such “significant” possible violations of the EAR will be treated as an aggravating factor when BIS considers penalties. The memo explains that “significant” violations are those that “reflect potential national security harm” as compared to more technical violations. This policy emphasizes the BIS settlement guidelines that focus on the adequacy of a company’s export control program. BIS cautions companies that they face sharply increased risks if they do not make a voluntary disclosure after discovering a “significant” suspected violation.

Continue reading “Exporters Take Note: The Commerce Department Really, Really Wants You to Disclose Suspected Violations of the EAR—Both Yours, and Your Competitors’ Too”

Four Tools of Modern Economic Statecraft

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

The Impact of Modern Economic Statecraft on Cross-Border Trade and Investment: Sanctions, Export Controls, Investment Screening, and Supply Chain Rules

 ● PLI Chronicle: Insights and Perspectives for the Legal Community, March 10, 2023 ●

Anthony Rapa ●

Geopolitical risk is top of mind for companies these days, and it seems that every week brings a new proposed sanction, trade control, or investment restriction. Increasingly, companies and investors are discovering that their cross-border movement of goods, technology, and capital implicates regulatory restrictions of some kind and is subject to governmental scrutiny.

In modern parlance, such measures fall under the rubric of “economic statecraft.” The pace of change is dizzying, and the stakes are high, with each new economic statecraft tool holding the power to cut off business with targeted markets, trigger regulatory scrutiny of transactions, and impact business planning.

Economic statecraft is not new. The earliest recorded example dates back to the 5th century BC, when the Athenian Empire banned the people of Megara, a town allied with Sparta, from trading in harbors and marketplaces controlled by the empire. Another notable example is Napoleon’s Continental System, in which the French emperor sought to prohibit trade between the European continent and Great Britain. A further historical instance, with modern-day implications, is the U.S. embargo of Cuba, which dates back to the early 1960s.

While economic statecraft is not new, what is new is the power of the U.S. government and, increasingly, other governments, to respond swiftly to geopolitical events with economic countermeasures. In the modern landscape, such measures are often multilateral and reinforced through governmental bodies and market gatekeepers such as financial institutions.

Given the prevalence of economic statecraft tools and the geopolitical trends prompting their promulgation, it is important for economic operators engaged in cross-border trade and investment, and those advising them, to understand the nature and scope of the tools at governments’ disposal.

Read more on our website.

Russia Sanctions: 5 Key Points for Companies

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Anthony Rapa ●

The United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom recently imposed new sanctions on Russia to coincide with the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a measure that the European Union described as its “10th package of sanctions against Russia” to date.

So, one year in, after 10 rounds of sanctions against Russia, where do things stand? Here are five key points for companies to consider:

1. For any remaining business with or involving Russia, it is imperative to manage compliance carefully.

Although Russia has been described as “the most sanctioned country in the world,” this is not exactly accurate, as there remains a range (arguably, a substantial range) of business with Russia that is permissible. For companies engaged in such business, it is of paramount importance to manage the various vectors of Russia-related risk, including sweeping export controls, sanctions on Russia’s financial system, and the web of multijurisdictional restrictions.

Continue reading “Russia Sanctions: 5 Key Points for Companies”

Executive Briefing: U.S. Government Imposes New Round of Sanctions on Russia

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Anthony Rapa ●

On February 24, 2023, the Biden Administration issued a package of sanctions, export controls, and tariffs against Russia, an action timed to coincide with the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. measures, which also target Belarus and Iran in certain respects, were implemented in concert with related UK and EU actions.

Sanctions

The U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) designated 22 individuals and 83 entities for asset freeze sanctions, and issued a determination that the Russian metals and mining sector is subject to sanctions under Executive Order 14024. As a result, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions and dealings with the 105 newly sanctioned parties and are required to freeze their assets. Furthermore, individuals and entities that OFAC determines are “operating” in the Russian metals and mining sector are subject to potential designation for asset freeze sanctions.

Moreover, OFAC issued FAQ guidance indicating that U.S. persons seeking to divest from Russian investments may need a license from OFAC before paying any recently required “exit tax” to the Russian government under Russian law, potentially complicating divestment efforts.

Continue reading “Executive Briefing: U.S. Government Imposes New Round of Sanctions on Russia”

Corporate Counsel: Five Geopolitical and International Trade Issues for U.S. Businesses to Watch in 2023

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Corporate Counsel, February 14, 2023

Anthony Rapa and Justin A. Chiarodo ●

Last year marked an inflection point in the geopolitics of the 21st century, with the Biden administration declaring the post-Cold War era “definitively over” against the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the U.S.-China strategic competition. That dynamic drove a range of national security and economic statecraft policies in 2022—notably including broad sanctions against Russia and semiconductor export controls regarding China—that will create heightened legal and business risks for companies with international supply and distribution chains. These risks will be particularly acute for companies and investors operating in highly regulated industries, including aerospace, defense, manufacturing, technology, and financial services. We highlight below five key geopolitical and international trade issues to watch in 2023.

1. Trade war becomes tech war.

The U.S. strategic competition with China will continue in 2023 and beyond, with a continued focus on limiting the flow of advanced and emerging technologies. U.S. authorities are expected to build on key China-related measures implemented in 2022, which included sweeping semiconductor export controls, designations of Chinese companies on restricted lists, and FCC equipment bans.

Perhaps counterintuitively, total U.S.-China trade in 2022 reportedly was at or around an all-time high, and the Biden administration has stated that “[w]e do not seek conflict or a new Cold War.” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s planned visit to China in 2023, postponed after the U.S. shot down a Chinese high-altitude balloon drifting through U.S. airspace, had been intended to build on dialogue between President Biden and Chinese president Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Indonesia last November.

Key takeaway: Expect stronger enforcement measures to weigh on China trade for the foreseeable future. Companies should revisit the risk profile of their international supply chains—including whether any of their technology is subject to the new export controls or could be the subject of future controls—and consider enhancements in their supplier diligence and risk management practices.

Read more on our website.

November 18, 2022: “Navigating the Maze of Embargoes and Sanctions”

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Blank Rome partner Anthony Rapa will serve as a panelist at the International Trademark Association’s (“INTA”) 2022 Leadership Meeting, being held November 15 through 18, 2022, in Miami, Florida.

Anthony’s session, “Navigating the Maze of Embargoes and Sanctions,” will take place on Friday, November 18, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

For more details, visit our website.

New CFIUS Enforcement Guidelines: Executive Briefing

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Anthony Rapa ●

On October 20, 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), in its role as chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”), issued the first-ever CFIUS Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines apprise the public of CFIUS’s intention to penalize violations of the CFIUS regulations, emphasize the importance of voluntary self-disclosures of violations, and provide a basic overview of the penalty process.

As a threshold matter, it is important to clarify what constitutes a “violation” in the CFIUS context. The relevant regulations provide for CFIUS review of certain foreign investments in U.S. businesses and empower CFIUS to block or mitigate such investments on national security grounds. While CFIUS retains broad discretion to take such action in the context of transactions, “violations” punishable by monetary penalties only arise in specific circumstances.

Continue reading “New CFIUS Enforcement Guidelines: Executive Briefing“

Are You Ready for Increasing Buy American Act Content Requirements?

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. ●

Effective October 25, 2022, the domestic content requirements for government purchases subject to the Buy American Act (“BAA”) will increase. A March 7, 2022, final rule implemented significant domestic content threshold increases over a seven-year timeframe for procurements subject to the BAA requirements of FAR Part 25. These increases were based on President Biden’s January 25, 2021, Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers. (See, Buy American Act—Final Rule: What Has Changed?) Note that these changes apply to the BAA as implemented in non-Department of Defense (“DoD”) purchases—the rules for implementing the BAA in DoD acquisitions are set forth in the DFARS, and differ from the FAR implementation in several important respects that we will address in a future post.

Unlike the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), which bans government purchases of non-compliant products, the BAA applies pricing preferences to encourage government agencies to purchase “domestic end products.” Thus, items that are not BAA compliant may still be purchased by government agencies, but they must be significantly less expensive. Currently, FAR Part 25 provides that large businesses offering domestic end products receive a 20 percent price preference and small businesses offering domestic end products receive a 30 percent price preference. The FAR sets forth a two-part test to determine whether a manufactured end product or construction material qualifies as a domestic end product: (1) the end product or construction material must be manufactured in the United States; and (2) the cost of any components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States must exceed a certain percentage of the cost of all components.

Continue reading “Are You Ready for Increasing Buy American Act Content Requirements?“

New Semiconductor Export Controls: Executive Briefing

Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.

Anthony Rapa ●

On October 7, 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued sweeping new export controls under the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) aiming to cut off support for China’s advanced computing and supercomputing capabilities, with the new controls targeting specified chips, chipmaking equipment, and related services.

The BIS rule, which runs over 100 pages, is the most significant expansion of semiconductor-related export controls in recent memory, if not the history of the EAR, and marks a decisive inflection point in the U.S. strategic competition with China. Companies in the semiconductor industry should gauge their exposure to China-related risk, which could be present in oblique and non-obvious ways, and service providers to the industry should assess their risk exposure in light of the rule’s provisions regarding U.S. person “support” for restricted activities.

Continue reading “New Semiconductor Export Controls: Executive Briefing“
%d bloggers like this: