한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

HERE WE ANSWER A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE

What does decertification mean?

For the time being, decertification is a solely U.S. issue. Under the Iran nuclear agreement (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear program in exchange for relief from U.S. and UN sanctions. Soon after the JCPOA was signed, the U.S. Congress passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA). That law requires the president to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is meeting the terms of the nuclear agreement and that continuing to waive sanctions on Iran is vital to the security interests of the United States. President Trump has stated that on October 15, he will decertify Iran under INARA on the grounds that continuing to waive sanctions is not in the national security interests of the United States.
Continue Reading President Trump’s Decertification of the Iran Nuclear Agreement: What It Means and What’s Next

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

CFIUS has the power to unwind your M&A deal. That power will likely expand. That is the headline.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews acquisitions by foreign parties of “critical industries” and “critical infrastructure” in the United States. The inter-agency committee’s actions warrant plenty of explanation, and you can find much of it here.Continue Reading Predicting the Unpredictable: Foreign Investment Under the Trump Administration

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

President Trump has stated that he would impose tariffs on imports from China ranging from ten to forty-five percent. Can he do it? And will it cause a trade war?

The Effects of Increased Tariffs

In the 18th Century, tariffs were considered a method of generating revenue and protecting domestic industry. The first U.S. customs duties were imposed in 1789, and were considered vital to the economic survival of the young nation. That mercantilist approach has since been overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream economists. Even by the time of the American Revolution, specialization and comparative advantage were being touted (including by Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations was published in 1776) as the true route to national prosperity.Continue Reading Predicting the Unpredictable: Will Tariffs Under President Trump Cause a Trade War With China?

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

In the past, the Antitrust Division has used its “Frequently Asked Questions” piece to announce significant changes in the Amnesty Program. In  November 2008, for example, they made mandatory an explicit admission of criminal wrongdoing. Before then, the applicant need only have reported “possible” criminal activity. FAQs, p.6, fn. 7

The Division’s January 17, 2017, edition makes two more very significant changes: (1) to obtain a marker, counsel must identify the client (FAQs, p.3) and (2) amnesty for executives is not guaranteed under the often-used Type B Leniency. In that situation, “…the Division has more discretion…”( FAQs, p. 22).Continue Reading Frequently Asked Questions About the Amnesty Program—Major Changes in the Antitrust Division’s January 2017 Update

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

  • A President Trump will have authority to reinstate sanctions lifted by the Iran Nuclear Deal as well as revoke certain authorizations provided for business with Iran.
  • Several economic and geopolitical factors may cause Mr. Trump to reconsider or mitigate his approach to the Iran Nuclear Deal.
  • Companies should prepare to respond quickly to any changes.

Maybe you’ve seen it before, the series of characters that represents upsetting the whole game, flipping the table:

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

These days, where words fail, we have emojis.  And here they describe what a President Trump may do to the carefully planned Iran Nuclear Deal. One year after the implementation of the Iran Nuclear Deal (much discussed, at least in our blog), Mr. Trump will take office. At that time, we will see whether his campaign rhetoric against Iran becomes policy action or whether it will be tempered by geopolitical and business realities.Continue Reading The Table Flip: Trump, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and American Business

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer SA (“Embraer”) will pay the United States government $205 million to settle allegations that the company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by paying millions in bribes and falsifying accounting records.  The United States government asserted that Embraer bribed government officials within the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, and Mozambique with millions of dollars to win government aircraft contracts. The government also alleged Embraer paid millions in falsely recorded payments in India through a fraudulent agency agreement.Continue Reading Embraer’s FCPA Deferred Prosecution Agreement and $205 Million Payment Demonstrate Need for Adequate Internal Controls

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

On Oct. 27, in a vote split along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) approved a new regulatory regime staking its claim to privacy regulation of both fixed and mobile Internet service providers (“ISPs”) like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.  The FCC’s rules follow its decision in the Open Internet Order, released last year and analyzed here, to classify broadband Internet access service as a common-carrier telecommunications service.  The FCC’s new rules are intended to give consumers control over the ways in which ISPs use and share their customers’ private information.  While the FCC has yet to release its Report and Order, the FCC’s Fact Sheet and statements by the commissioners indicate that the new privacy rules in many respects track the proposed rules the FCC put forward earlier this year, which seek to make the FCC the “toughest” privacy regulator in the Internet ecosystem by imposing on ISPs significantly more onerous and restrictive requirements for use and collection of consumer data than the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) imposes on its non-ISP competitors.Continue Reading FCC Issues New Privacy Rules for Internet Service Providers: Safeguarding Consumers or Lulling Them Into A False Sense of Privacy?

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

Article Highlights:

  • Non-U.S. banks can do business with Iran and continue their relationships with U.S. banks.
  • Non-U.S. companies may use proceeds from Iran transactions more freely, including in the United States.
  • OFAC draws a clearer line with respect to the use of Iran-related funds.

After the Iran nuclear agreement, as non-U.S. companies entered into newly-permitted business in Iran, they faced the difficult question of where they could put the money from their Iran business. U.S. law still prohibits U.S. persons (including U.S. banks) from conducting most business with Iran. Among other rules, OFAC regulations and guidance provided that “Iran-related” funds could not transit the U.S. financial system. But the guidance did not state clearly what constituted “Iran-related” funds. For that reason, foreign financial institutions (FFIs) hesitated, even feared, to process Iran-related transactions because of the risks of sending Iran-related funds into the U.S. financial system in violation of U.S. sanctions. However, a new clarification in the OFAC guidance could change all of that (and change it in the way we proposed right here in this blog[1]).Continue Reading Those Three Little Words: OFAC’s Subtle Language Shift Could Create Sweeping Change on Iran Investment

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

The UK people have voted to leave the European Union. Although there is no constitutional duty to leave the Union as a result, politically this is likely going to happen. Change will not be immediate and happen over time.

Companies are well advised to react quickly to assess the impact Brexit might have on their business and current commercial decisions involving the UK if they have not already done so.Continue Reading Brexit, Here We Come (or Go)

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

On February 29, 2016, the European Commission and United States released the terms of the much-anticipated renewed framework for the transfer, sharing, and processing of European individuals’ data to the United States. The framework replaces the “Safe Harbour” mechanism, which enabled U.S. to transfer data from the EU to the United States by self-certifying that their practices ensured an adequate level of protection for personal data under the EU Data Protection Directive. In October, the “Safe Harbour” framework was declared invalid by the European Court of Justice in the Schrems decision covered earlier in this blog.Continue Reading EU-US Privacy Shield: Brace Yourself . . . or Maybe Not