5 of the Biggest Compliance Questions About Renewed Iran Trade Sanctions, Answered
Greta Lichtenbaum, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers whose practice includes international trade and regulatory compliance, answered questions about the impact on multinational companies of the Trump administration's renewed sanctions against Iran.
May 15, 2018 at 08:21 PM
6 minute read
Greta Lichtenbaum, partner with O'Melveny & Myers. Courtesy photo.
President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that the United States would withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and renew trade sanctions that were eased during the Obama administration after years of negotiations.
China, the European Union, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom also were parties to the agreement that Iran adopted in 2015, which is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and had agreed to lift some economic sanctions provided that Iran stopped certain aspects of its nuclear program. These other parties haven't indicated they will join the United States in withdrawing from the JCPOA.
Greta Lichtenbaum, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers based in Washington, D.C., who specializes in international trade and U.S. regulatory compliance and writes and speaks often on the subject, said the reimposition of trade sanctions is expected to have a “significant impact” on multinational companies with business interests in both the United States and Iran.
As she explained in a contributed article for Corporate Counsel in 2016, when the economic sanctions against Iran were loosened, sanctions are on two levels: There are primary sanctions, which broadly prohibit U.S. companies from directly engaging in nearly all business with Iran; and secondary sanctions that deny foreign entities access to U.S. markets if they engage in certain business in Iran particularly around energy, financial services transactions and transportation.
Here Lichtenbaum answers five questions about what compliance lawyers and others engaged in international commerce involving Iran need to know about the reimposed sanctions. The interview has been edited for clarity and length.
National Law Journal: Who is most affected by the renewed U.S. trade sanctions on Iran?
Greta Lichtenbaum: U.S. companies with foreign subsidiaries that have been conducting business in Iran under the general licenses that were issued after the JCPOA are very affected, because they will have to wind it down between now and early November. And non-U.S. companies that conduct business in Iran that have U.S. ties also can be affected, because some of their activity will be potentially sanctionable under so-called secondary sanctions based in U.S. law. Obviously, Iranian companies are affected.
Also, there are many European companies and multinational companies based outside the U.S. that have very significant operations here, so they need to pay attention to U.S. restrictions. Any energy sector, oil and gas petrochemical company has to look carefully at these changes, and the banking and insurance industry, and the automotive industry as well. Those are some of the sectors most affected. Certainly, Airbus [and Boeing] because now they are no longer going to be able to sell aircraft[s] to Iran with U.S. content.
What are some of the major changes from the immediate past?
By way of context, the U.S. has maintained broad economic sanctions against Iran since 1995. U.S. companies cannot do business there, except in very limited circumstances. Then, between 2010 and 2015, the U.S. broadened the secondary sanctions, which apply to non-U.S. companies. Under secondary sanctions, if you conduct certain activity in Iran you may lose access to some benefits of the U.S. market.
Then, under the JCPOA, the president waived secondary sanctions associated with Iran's nuclear program. But now all of those are going back in place. The practical effect is 1) U.S. foreign subsidiaries were able to do business in Iran and now they can't; and 2) multinational non-U.S. companies have to be worried about those secondary sanctions. That is the change.
When do the renewed sanctions take effect?
Companies currently engaging in activities that will now be subject to sanctions because of the United States' withdrawal from the JCPOA have been given time to wind down their activities, in some cases three months—August—and in other cases six months—November.
Why should companies and their compliance officers care?
They should care because if they don't pay attention, U.S. companies can pay very significant fines and penalties in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This also can apply to non-U.S. companies if they are acting in the U.S. There have been fines in the high hundreds of millions involving non-U.S. banks using U.S. banks to clear their transactions involving sanctioned countries. If you run afoul of primary sanctions, they can pay fines into hundreds of millions and individuals can be imprisoned for willful violations.
And for non-U.S. companies that engage in activity subject to secondary sanctions, it can drastically affect their ability to do business in the United States. They can face significant sanctions that will make it very difficult to do business in the U.S. or to have access to the U.S. market.
How should compliance officers respond?
The response should be to assess how these reimposed measures will affect their existing business and take steps to address the changes, either through ceasing certain activity, or putting in place procedures to make sure transactions subject to sanctions don't occur. For example, if your foreign subsidiary in Dubai is doing business in Iran—as they are now allowed to do—make sure they are taking steps to wind down the business within the time frame that is required.
Another thing that companies need to be aware of with this change in the law, is that they need to be very careful about their counterparties who are non-U.S. firms who may still be doing business in Iran. You could find yourself in a position where you are facilitating a non-U.S. business in Iran. That is a risk.
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 All'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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