Skip to main content

Legal Capsule by Economic Law Practice

Sanctions, Exports Controls, CFIUS and ICTS

As an important foreign policy tool to tackle geopolitical challenges, the United States (US) continues to impose economic sanctions on various countries including Iran, Russia, North Korea and Syria (sanctioned countries), individuals and companies (sanctioned persons). Further, to increase national security, advance its foreign policy interests and economy, the US maintains various regulations (including export controls and foreign investment related laws and regulations) against US and non-US
based companies.

Given the constantly changing nature of these regulations,  their  extraterritorial  applicability and more critically, the impact of these  regulations on businesses, it is important for international companies to keep abreast with any latest developments.

This article provides an insight on key regulations of the US which have a significant bearing on businesses globally.

Administered by: The Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of Treasury, Department of State, Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Defense and Department of Justice.30

Primary Sanctions
Applicable to: Companies organized in the US, US citizens and permanent residents, and all persons located in the US, regardless of nationality.

Prohibition: Imposed by the US to prohibit the above from transacting with sanctioned countries or sanctioned persons. These US primary  sanctions are generally in the form of  asset  freezes or trade embargoes.

Secondary Sanctions
Applicable to: Non-US individuals and companies to deter them from entering into certain transactions that are contrary to US national security and policy interests.

Prohibition/Restriction: More specifically, secondary sanctions (which are generally in the form  of  restriction/limitation  to   the   US   market   or   financial   system)   are    imposed    on  non-US  individuals   and   companies   for   their significant transactions with sanctioned countries or sanctioned persons.

Case Studies
Case Study 1: In the past, the US imposed secondary sanctions (such as denial of export licenses, prohibition of foreign exchange transactions with the US financial system, blocking of all property and interest in property within US, visa ban) on a Chinese company and its Director for engaging in significant transactions with a Russian sanctioned company. According to the US Department of State, the significant transactions between the Chinese company and Russian sanctioned company involved delivery of Su-35 combat aircraft in 2017 and S-400 surface-to-air missile  related  equipment in 2018 by the Russian company to the Chinese company.31

Case Study 2: An Indian company 32, its subsidiaries and individuals were recently sanctioned for its involvement with an Iranian network that supplied oil to Syria in breach of US Sanctions laws33. Consequently, all the property and interests of these Indian companies in the US or in control or  possession of US persons were blocked. As a result, individuals or companies that engage in certain transactions with these designated companies may themselves be exposed to US sanctions laws.

Administered by: The US Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), US Department of Commerce.

Applicable to: Non-US companies for acting contrary to US national security and  foreign  policy interests.

Prohibition/Restriction: The US maintains various lists/entity lists, whereby the US identifies certain foreign companies and its affiliates as posing a significant risk of involvement in activities contrary to US national security interests. Consequently, the exporters in the US and foreign re-exporters are required to apply for license for exporting, re-exporting or transferring any commodity, software or technology (collectively referred to as “items”) subject to the US Export Administration Regulations 34(EAR) to these listed companies.

Administered by: The US Department of Treasury, Committee on Foreign Investment  in  the United States (CFIUS) under the Defense Production Act of 195937 (Act of 1959) has the power to review certain transactions involving foreign investments in the US (“covered transactions”38) to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the US.

Applicable to: The US Department of Treasury has provided an illustrative list of transactions that have presented national security considerations for the US, whereby it has conducted a unilateral review of the covered transaction:

  • A business - based out of the US which has government contracts/operations relevant  to US national security or deals in certain  advanced technologies or goods and services controlled for export
  • Track record of the foreign person acquiring control of the US business, or the record of person’s country of origin
  • Foreign government-controlled transaction

Besides the power to review  covered  transactions, the CFIUS (pursuant to Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA)) also has the power to review certain non-controlling investments made by foreign persons in US businesses involved in technologies related to specific industries.

Further, the proposed CFIUS regulations to implement FIRRMA (which were recently published for comments) seeks to broaden the powers of the CFIUS to review certain foreign non-controlling investments (for example,  supplies critical infrastructure or  collects  sensitive personal data of US citizens) and real estate transactions that previously fell outside CFIUS’s jurisdiction. Further, the proposed CFIUS regulations provides for exclusion of certain investors from its jurisdiction provided they qualify certain criteria including that the foreign investor is a national of an excepted foreign state and is in compliance with certain law and regulations.43

Consequently, companies that intend to invest in the US should keep themselves abreast with the key developments in this area – as their investments may be subject to mandatory review by the CFIUS. If faced with non-compliance, they may also face penalties for any violations of the   US laws or national security considerations.

Administered by: The US Department of Commerce, on November 26, 2019, issued “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply  Chain”  - proposed rules that can potentially block or restrict transactions involving “information and communications technology and services” (ICTS) from a “foreign adversary”.

Applicable to: Under the proposed rules, the Secretary of Commerce has been given the power to evaluate the effect – of any transaction i.e. acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of ICTS that has been developed, manufactured or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of “foreign adversary” – on the national security, foreign policy, and economy of  the  United States.44 However, the following three conditions are required to exist for the Secretary  of Commerce to exercise the aforesaid power of evaluation:
  • Transaction is conducted by any person subject to US jurisdiction or involves property subject  to US jurisdiction;
  • Transaction involves any property in which any foreign country or foreign national has an interest; and
  • Transaction was initiated, is pending, or will be completed after May 15, 2019.
Further, the power to determine who is a foreign adversary has also been vested with  the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with other relevant authorities under the proposed rules.

While the Department of Commerce has not identified any list of individuals or countries or countries that are foreign adversaries, various stakeholders opine that these proposed rules have been issued to target Chinese ICTS companies.

In any event, considering that the criteria  to review a transaction under the proposed rules is open-ended, a wide range of transactions involving US and foreign companies operating in the ICTS sectors may be impacted.

The current international business environment is getting increasingly  unpredictable  with geo-politics playing a far greater role. Businesses are vulnerable to far greater risks – risks of geopolitical changes, sanctions and protectionism.
It is important for international companies to understand the impact of the above challenges to remain sustainable and competitive. Companies must have robust compliance  programs  – including – monitoring investors, customers and procurement and supply backgrounds. For companies wanting to do business with the US, vigilance will be the new normal.

Popular posts from this blog

VC Interview: Shailendra Singh of Sequoia Capital India

In a recent interview to Venture Intelligence, Shailendra Singh discussed some of the firm’s newer investments in the early stage segment including in the online payments space, the progress at a few existing portfolio companies and the active role the firm is playing in helping its portfolio companies scale and succeed in India and globally. Prior to joining the firm in 2006, Singh was a strategy consultant at Bain & Company in New York and before that, an entrepreneur in the digital media industry.

Venture Intelligence: How does Sequoia go about identifying potential early stage investments in India? Is there anything different you are doing today than, say, a couple of years back?

Shailendra Singh: There is a lot more focus on technology investing and early stage investing. In general, as you might remember a few years ago, we were doing primarily growth investing but in the past 18-odd months, we have had a very strong focus on early stage and that’s continuing. In terms of how…

ChrysCapital and Sequoia Capital India grab two awards at APEX’19 PE-VC Awards

Mumbai, India, Feb 27, 2019: ChrysCapital and Sequoia Capital bagged two awards each as part of the “Awards for Private Equity Excellence” (APEX)event organized by Venture Intelligence. 

ChrysCapital bagged the Private Equity Fund Raise of 2018 Award (Closed $850 M Fund VIII within 4 months of launch) and the Private Equity Investor of 2018 Award (for its Exits from LiquidHub with 4x in dollar terms (within 4 years of its $53-M investment), AU Small Finance Bank with 11.5x return,  Torrent Pharma with 2.95x, City Union Bank with 2.83x, L&T Infotech with 2.56x)

Sequoia Capital India won the Early Stage VCInvestor(the firm registered 10x+ exits in Byjus Classes and SCIOInspire) and VC Fund Raise of 2018 (the firm closed an almost $700-M Fund VI).

Award Winners at APEX'19 PE-VC Awards

The event opened with a Fireside Chat with Kiran Reddy, CEO of SPI Group interviewed by his long time friend and colleague Vineeth Vijayraghavan.

Snapshots of the Awards Ceremony: (L-R) Gopal Srinivasan, …

PE investments in 2018 crosses $33-B to set new all-time high

Big Ticket investments in consumer apps Swiggy & Byju’s dominates year-end activity, even as investments in Core Sectors slow down
Private Equity (PE) investments in India rose to their highest ever figure of $33.1 billion in 2018 (across 720 transactions), according to data from Venture Intelligence (, a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. While PE investments have already surpassed the previous high - $24.3 Billion across 734 deals in 2017 - in the first nine months of 2018, the mega investments in Consumer Internet & Mobile startups such as Swiggy and Byjus towards the year-end, helped the 2018 total vault by 36% year-on-year. (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate.) The year witnessed 81 PE investments worth $100 million or more (accounting for 77% of the total investment value during the period), compared to 47 such transac…

Private Equity investments up 26% to $10-B in Q1’19

Press Release
Private Equity and Venture Capital firms invested a record $10.1 Billion (across 159 deals) during the quarter ended March 2019, according to data from Venture Intelligence, a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. The investment value increased 26% compared to the $8.0 Billion (across 208 transactions) recorded in the same period in 2018 and 39% higher than the immediate previous quarter (which had witnessed $7.3 Billion being invested across 178 transactions). (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate).
The latest quarter witnessed 23 PE investments worth $100 million or more (with 6 of them $500-M or above) compared to 17 such transactions in the same period last year. Infrastructure related companies (especially in Energy, Roads and Telecom) accounted for 48% of the investment value during the period - accounting for $4.9 Billion (across 16 deals), compared t…

"Leveraged stock purchase led Arvind Rao to go astray": Forbes India

Forbes India has an article on the series of events leading to the recent controversial exit of Arvind Rao, Co-founder & CEO of listed Mobile VAS firm OnMobile.

On November 23, 2010, Arvind Rao, the 53-year-old co-founder and CEO of OnMobile, bought approximately 6 lakh shares of his company from the open market, representing a little over 1 percent of the company’s total shares....At Rs 277 a share, he had to pony up nearly Rs 16.5 crore to acquire them....So he went ahead and borrowed money to buy the shares, thinking nothing of the interest it entailed or the fact that he’d need to put up nearly half his existing shareholding as collateral...OnMobile’s shares continued to fall from those levels, while Rao’s interest payments ballooned.

...Motivated by OnMobile’s growth all these years, he had never paid much attention to his salary, most of which went towards the monthly rental on his sea-facing apartment in Mumbai and his BMW 7-Series, both paid directly by the company. He reque…