Trump Administration Raises Stakes for Foreign Companies Operating in Iran
With the U.S. poised to designate a branch of the Iranian military as a terrorist group, foreign companies that do business with Iran should be ramping up due diligence efforts or risk facing criminal prosecution.
April 09, 2019 at 03:58 PM
4 minute read
Foreign companies that do business with Iran should be preparing to bolster their due diligence efforts as the U.S. pushes forward with the unprecedented move of designating the country's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
After the designation takes effect April 15, providing support to the IRGC—a military unit that reportedly controls hundreds of companies in Iran's energy, transportation, telecommunications, construction and metals and mining sectors—will be treated as a crime under the authority of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
“This raises the question of whether a non-U.S. company or individual could be prosecuted for engaging in commercial transactions with an Iranian company controlled by the IRGC—that is, whether such activity would be considered 'material support' for the IRGC, even if the dealings are not directly with the IRGC itself,” said Kirkland & Ellis partner Anthony Rapa, an international trade and national security lawyer in Washington, D.C.
Rapa added that “due diligence is now more important than ever” in light of the specter of criminal prosecution, which could mean prison time and massive fines. But ramping up compliance efforts will likely be complicated by the fact that it's difficult to know which companies are under IRGC control.
“We're already fielding questions about it,” Rapa said. “They [clients] are at least at the stage of really wanting to know how the risk level has changed.”
The Trump administration could use this as an opportunity to provide more clarity on the IRGC's economic reach—or the administration “might also be perfectly happy for companies to throw up their hands and say, 'It's not worth it; we are now withdrawing from Iran,'” Rapa said.
President Donald Trump noted in a written statement that his administration's latest move against Iran marks “the first time that the United States has ever named a part of another government as a FTO. It underscores the fact that Iran's actions are fundamentally different from those of other governments.”
He added, “It makes crystal clear the risks of conducting business with, or providing support to, the IRGC. If you are doing business with the IRGC, you will be bankrolling terrorism.”
Iran has countered Trump's move by slapping a terrorist group designation on the U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East along with Central and South Asia.
While the IRGC's designation as a terrorist group could add to the list of compliance headaches for foreign companies, it's unlikely to have any real impact on stateside businesses, as they've already been dealing with harsh Iran sanctions and embargoes.
Michael Gershberg, a partner at Fried Frank in Washington, D.C., and a member of the firm's international trade and investment practice, predicted that, even for foreign entities the “practical effect of this designation may be limited.” He suggested the move could prove to be more symbolic than substantive.
“I think most global companies were probably already hesitant to deal with the IRGC,” he said. “And given how embedded the IRGC is in the Iranian economy, I think the difficulty for foreign companies and U.S. government authorities or prosecutors is going to be identifying which entities are IRGC or are acting on behalf of the IRGC.”
Gershberg added, “At this point, until we see whether the government is going to ramp up enforcement, it's not clear that it's going to have a significant practical effect on most foreign companies.”
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Datasite's Ethics and Compliance Team Drives Transformation
SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250