OFAC Authorizes Certain Commercial Passenger Aircraft Transactions with Iran

Apr 1, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

Background

OFAC’s January 16, 2016, SLP set forth a policy of favorable treatment for license applications involving Iran-related transactions for the (i) export, reexport, sale, lease or transfer to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft exclusively for civil aviation end use; (ii) export, reexport, sale, lease or transfer to Iran of spare parts and components for commercial passenger aircraft; and (iii) provision of associated services, including warranty, maintenance and repair services and safety-related inspections for all the foregoing, so long as licensed items and services are used exclusively for commercial passenger aviation.

The SLP generated significant industry interest, which, in turn, contributed to a backlog of commercial passenger aircraft-related license applications and inquiries. In particular, questions arose on whether U.S. persons may engage in transactions that are related to negotiating and entering into contracts for activities covered by the SLP under the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR) and, if so, whether such transactions require separate OFAC authorizations.

Analysis

Contingent Contracts

General License I now authorizes U.S. persons to engage in all ordinarily incidental transactions eligible for authorization under the SLP, provided that performance is made expressly contingent upon the issuance of a specific OFAC license authorizing the activities to be performed. Accordingly, General License I applies to only “contingent contracts,” which includes “executory contracts, executory pro forma invoices, agreements in principle, executory offers capable of acceptance” (i.e., bids or proposals responding to public tenders), binding memorandums of understanding and “any other similar agreement.”

For example, General License I would authorize the negotiation of, and entry into, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in connection with the negotiation of a contingent contract for activities eligible for authorization under the SLP. However, it would not authorize the enforcement of any NDA breach against an Iranian party. OFAC states in its updated FAQs that such activity “may require” separate authorization.

Ordinarily Incident

Neither General License I nor the updated FAQs define what transactions are “ordinarily incident” to the negotiation of, and entry into, a contingent contract. FAQ J.9 implies that the importation of services from, or the exportation of services to, an Iranian party would constitute such “ordinarily incident” transactions. As a consequence, participants in the civil aviation trade are left to make determinations as to whether a particular activity is “ordinarily incident” to the negotiation of, and entry into, a contingent contract.

Other Limitations

General License I does not authorize:

  • dealings with persons whose property and interests in property are blocked under other (non-ITSR) OFAC regulations (i.e., individuals and entities on the Specially Designated Nationals List) or
  • the export or reexport of any aircraft or related parts or services to Iran (these require the submission of a specific license application).

License Applications

OFAC also updated its guidance regarding what should be included in license applications under the SLP. The FAQs now state that all such requests must include:

  • the types and number of aircraft being exported or leased
  • the Export Control Classification Number(s) for the aircraft, related parts, and/or technology being exported or leased
  • the Iranian airline receiving the aircraft
  • the proposed end use of the aircraft.

OFAC further states that applicants must also provide “any other information that may be relevant” and should generally include as much detail as possible about the transaction.

Conclusion

OFAC and regulated parties in the commercial passenger aircraft sector will likely benefit from more efficient processing of license applications as a result of General License I. In particular, General License I will allow companies to enter into negotiations with, and sign, contingent contracts with greater comfort than before this new General License was issued. Nevertheless, prohibitions related to such activities remain in place and companies must comply with the General License and sanctions regulations when undertaking such activities. For example: (1) all activities related to the negotiation of, and entry into, contracts must be “ordinarily incident” to such a negotiation; (2) the contract must be “contingent” upon the approval of OFAC; (3) companies must ensure they comply with other requirements (e.g., not dealing with an SDN) and limitations (e.g., General License I does not explicitly authorize the enforcement of an NDA breach against an Iranian party).

Companies engaged in the aviation trade should structure their approach to this new General License I with these uncertainties and limitations in mind.  Companies seeking to use General License I should establish compliance procedures to avoid running of afoul of the requirements.  Where appropriate, they should seek guidance, including advice from OFAC, to confirm that their activities are consistent with the General License. OFAC has stated that it will continue to enforce the remaining sanctions, which would include activities falling outside any General License.

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.