Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2019: Sanctions

Feb 14, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

U.S. sanctions risks are particularly acute for U.S. persons who serve on the boards of non-U.S. companies. Although non-U.S. companies are not generally subject to primary U.S. sanctions, U.S. directors at these companies must comply with these restrictions, and non-U.S. companies can be held criminally liable for causing U.S. employees to violate U.S. sanctions. Accordingly, non-U.S. companies should consider establishing blanket recusal policies that require U.S. directors to exclude themselves from engaging in any activities that might implicate U.S. sanctions and to wall them off from meetings discussions, decisions or other dealings related to such activities.

Furthermore, the United States has increased its use of secondary sanctions to target non-U.S. companies that engage with proscribed business with sanctioned countries, such as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Russia, as well as sanctioned individuals and entities. Non-U.S. companies targeted with secondary sanctions can face serious repercussions, including being completely cut off from business with the United States. Given this risk, directors are well advised to be mindful of whether the activities of their companies could put them at risk of secondary sanctions, even if they do not have a visible U.S. nexus or U.S. person officers, directors or employees.

Continuing the trend from last year, 2018 ushered in significant changes in the complex U.S. sanctions environment with an expansion of both primary and secondary sanctions that are of particular relevance:

  • President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (i.e., the Iran nuclear agreement) triggered the reimposition of secondary sanctions targeting non-U.S. companies that engage in business involving Iran’s automotive, energy, shipping, shipbuilding, metals and mining, and financial sectors, and renewed primary sanctions that prohibit foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from engaging in business with Iran.
  • In April 2018, the United States imposed sanctions on seven key prominent Russian businessmen and companies that they own or control, making these the toughest and most far-reaching sanctions measures that the Trump administration has imposed against Russia. U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with these persons, and non-U.S. persons can face the risk of secondary sanctions for engaging in significant transactions with them. Additionally, the U.S. Department of State announced in November 2018 that the United States would impose additional sanctions on Russia related to its chemical weapons activities, creating additional risk for business involving Russia.
  • The United States tightened sanctions on Venezuela, restricting certain transactions involving debt owed to, and digital currency issued by, the government of Venezuela, and further tightened restrictions on direct financial transactions with certain Cuban military and intelligence entities.

Combined with these significant changes, the Trump administration has increased enforcement of secondary sanctions to discourage non-U.S. companies from engaging in business with sanctioned countries and persons. In particular, the United States imposed secondary sanctions against a large number of foreign persons engaging in prohibited trade with North Korea and Iran, and recently sanctioned a Chinese company and its director for engaging in significant transactions with the Russian military.

The U.S. government also continues to track the actions of high-ranking officials in companies to assess penalties. Specifically, an individual’s knowledge of, or involvement in, a prohibited transaction is a factor that may influence civil penalty amounts, and a finding that an individual acted willfully in violation of sanctions laws could trigger a referral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

Given the constant evolution of U.S. sanctions and the current unstable geopolitical environment, directors of companies with a global footprint are well served to identify and monitor areas of current and future sanctions risks.

View the full report here.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.