Obama Administration To Terminate Sudan Sanctions Program

Jan 17, 2017

Reading Time : 4 min

Summary of Changes

Effective today, a new general license at 31 C.F.R. § 538.540 authorizes all transactions otherwise prohibited by the SSR. Under this general license, both U.S. and non-U.S. persons can engage in transactions with individuals and entities in Sudan, and with the government of Sudan, provided that the transactions in which they engage do not violate any other sanctions programs or any other relevant laws and regulations, the most pertinent of which are detailed in the next section.

In addition to the general license, the Obama administration issued an executive order that will revoke prior executive orders underlying the SSR. The executive order becomes effective on July 12, 2017, provided that the incoming Secretary of State publishes a notice in the Federal Register on or before that date stating that the Government of Sudan has sustained positive action toward cessation of hostilities in conflict areas in Sudan; continued improvement of humanitarian access throughout Sudan; and maintained its cooperation with the United States on addressing regional conflicts and the threat of terrorism.

Finally, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) revised its denial policy for Sudan export and reexport license applications to an approval policy, provided that the transaction involves certain items that are intended to ensure the safety of civil aviation or the safe operation of fixed-wing commercial passenger aircraft, or that items will be used to inspect, design, construct, operate, improve, maintain, repair, overhaul or refurbish railroads in Sudan. As explained below, this new rule does not remove any existing license requirements for exports or reexports to Sudan.

Remaining Limitations and Key Considerations

Notwithstanding the general license, important limitations remain that should be considered by U.S. and non-U.S. persons seeking to conduct Sudan-related business. The following provides a brief overview of these remaining limitations and considerations:

  • U.S. List-Based Sanctions. While the action taken by the U.S. government serves to unblock the property of parties designated solely pursuant to the SSR, it does not affect other U.S. sanctions programs, some of which may intersect with activities in Sudan, such as the programs relating to South Sudan and Darfur. As with many of the sanctions programs administered by OFAC, these programs are list-based and prohibit companies from doing business with individuals on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list. Companies therefore should continue to screen parties for hits against the SDN list, regardless of the recent policy changes.
  • Export Controls. Notwithstanding the OFAC changes and BIS’s revised licensing policy, exports and reexports to Sudan of items subject to U.S. export controls continue to be severely restricted. This means that, even though U.S. persons can now engage in transactions with Sudan, these activities may not involve the export or reexport of items subject to U.S. export controls, other than very low-level (i.e., EAR991) items, without prior U.S. government authorization. Notably, because Sudan is not subject to embargoes or other special controls under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), certain EAR license exceptions may be available to authorize transactions of items listed on the U.S. Commerce Control List (CCL) to Sudan.
  • Agricultural Commodities, Medicine and Medical Devices. Persons engaged in the trade of agricultural commodities (including food), medicine and medical devices continue to be subject to restrictions requiring that any exports or reexports of agricultural commodities, medicine or medical devices destined for Sudan be shipped within a 12-month period, which runs from the date of the signing of the contract for export or reexport. This restriction is mandated by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) and will remain in place absent an act of Congress. Effectively, this restriction requires entities dealing in such items to enter into new contracts annually, rather than rely on long-term contractual arrangements.
  • Financial Institutions. Financial institutions are now permitted to process transactions denominated in U.S. dollars involving Sudan, both as correspondent institutions and on behalf of their own customers. However, banks should be mindful of these remaining restrictions, particularly in the context of trade finance transactions where the export control restrictions described above can expose the institution to risk for financing a transaction in violation of U.S. export control laws.
  • Contractual Limitations. Given that Sudan has long been a target of comprehensive sanctions by the U.S. government, it is not uncommon to find broad limitations on Sudan-related transactions in business contracts. Companies seeking to do business in Sudan under the new general license should review existing agreements to ensure that legally permissible Sudan-related business does not give rise to breaches of commercial agreements.
  • State Divestment Policies. Several U.S. states continue to maintain Sudan-related divestment policies, requiring public funds to divest from certain companies engaging in certain types of business operations involving Sudan. Such policies will continue to pose business and reputational risks for companies seeking to do business in Sudan under the new general license.

Concluding Remarks

The reversal of U.S. policy on Sudan is a significant change in the final days of the Obama administration and is likely to have major implications for U.S. and non-U.S. companies that conduct business in the region. Accordingly, we expect these changes to remain in place unless the incoming administration fails to issue a finding, before July 12, 2017, that Sudan has taken positive steps toward U.S. policy goals in the region, such as maintaining a cessation of hostilities in conflict areas in Sudan, improving humanitarian access throughout Sudan, and/or cooperating with the United States on counterterrorism and regional conflicts.


1 EAR99 items are those items that are subject to the EAR, but not listed on the CCL, and are not subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

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

© 2024 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.