Paul Marquardt

Subscribe to Paul Marquardt's Posts

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order[1] that will, following an initial two-month grace period and a further ten-month wind-down period in which only dispositions are permitted, prohibit U.S. persons (including citizens and U.S. legal entities acting outside the United States and foreign citizens and legal entities acting inside the United States)[2] from engaging in any transactions in publicly traded securities (debt or equity) issued by companies that the U.S. government designates as tied to the Chinese military (Designated Entities), as well as in any securities linked (in an undefined manner) to the targeted Chinese securities.  The 31 current Designated Entities are listed at the end of this note.[3]
Continue Reading Trump Administration Bans Transactions in Securities of Military-Linked Chinese Companies: Potentially Far-Ranging Consequences Remain Unclear

Yesterday afternoon, the U.S. Department of State issued the first of two mandatory reports under the Hong Kong Autonomy Act (HKAA), identifying 10 Hong Kong and mainland China officials as materially contributing to the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy (the “Section 5(a) Report”).[1]  Because the same individuals were already designated on the List of Specially Designated and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) maintained by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) on August 7, 2020,[2] the practical effect of the report is limited to setting a deadline of 30 to 60 days for the U.S. administration to issue the second required report under the HKAA identifying foreign financial institutions that knowingly conduct a “significant” transaction with the 10 individuals listed in yesterday’s Section 5(a) Report (the “Section 5(b) Report”).[3]  We discussed the reports required under the HKAA and the potential impact of those reports in our earlier blog post.[4]
Continue Reading State Department Releases Hong Kong Autonomy Act Persons Report, Starts the Clock for Foreign Financial Institutions Report

Between July 28, 2020 and September 1, 2020, the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) released updates to its model legal documents for use in venture capital financing transactions. This memorandum will explain the changes to these model forms and some of the reasons for, and implications of, such changes.

As background, the NVCA is an…

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule (the Final Rule) imposing export controls on additional emerging technologies pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA).[1]  We previously wrote about the process to identify and impose export controls on emerging and foundational technologies under the ECRA, as well as the steps taken in furtherance of that process to date, here.
Continue Reading BIS Imposes Export Controls on Additional Emerging Technologies; Further Defines Scope of CFIUS Mandatory Notification Requirement

On September 18, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) released for public inspection substantively identical notices[1] specifying the transactions relating to mobile applications TikTok and WeChat to be prohibited pursuant to the executive orders related to both entities issued by President Trump on August 6, 2020 (the TikTok Notice and the WeChat Notice, respectively, and together, the Notices).[2]  Commerce withdrew both Notices before formal publication on September 22, presumably to address uncertainty regarding the effective dates in light of developments in both matters; the TikTok Notice has already been re-issued with revised timing, but negotiations over a possible partial sale of TikTok continue.[3]  The WeChat Notice has yet to be re-issued, possibly as a result of timing uncertainty regarding the preliminary injunction discussed below.[4]
Continue Reading Commerce Provides Clarity on the Potential Scope of the TikTok and WeChat Bans; All Else Remains Murky

On September 15, 2020, the U.S. Department of the Treasury published a final rule (the “Final Rule”) significantly changing the scope of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) mandatory notification requirements for foreign investments in U.S. critical technology businesses and expanding it to investments in all industries.  The Final Rule, which…

The Court of Appeal confirmed[1] that a borrower under a Tier 2 facility agreement was excused from making payments because of the risk of U.S. secondary sanctions.

The court made it explicitly clear that whether or not non-performance may be excused will depend on the specific words of the affected contract and the wider context.  However, whilst fact sensitive, the decision also makes clear that the English court is likely to consider U.S. secondary sanctions as “mandatory” provisions of law.  
Continue Reading UK Court of Appeal Says Risk of U.S. Secondary Sanctions is a “Mandatory Provision of Law” Excusing Non-Payment

On August 27, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (the ANPRM) requesting public comment on the definition of, and criteria for identifying, “foundational” technologies[1] that are essential to U.S. national security and should be subject to more stringent export controls.[2]  The ANPRM marks another step toward implementing the long-delayed “emerging and foundational technology” provisions of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA).[3]  Like the earlier ANPRM regarding emerging technologies, the rulemaking is still at a conceptual stage.
Continue Reading BIS Issues Long-Awaited Request for Public Comment on Foundational Technologies

On August 21, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, together with the federal banking agencies, released a statement to clarify banks’ customer due diligence obligations for politically exposed persons. The Statement affirms that (i) there is no regulatory requirement, and no supervisory expectation, for banks’ Bank Secrecy Act / anti-money laundering programs to include “unique, additional…

On August 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) published a final rule[1] that further tightens restrictions under the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) on Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and its affiliates designated on the Entity List administered by BIS (“Huawei”) (the “Final Rule”).  The Final Rule: (i) expands the prohibition on providing items manufactured with controlled U.S. technology or software to Huawei to include all items transferred to Huawei or for a Huawei device, whether or not specifically designed by or for Huawei ; (ii) removes most of the Temporary General License (“TGL”) that permitted some transactions involving Huawei, including activities that support existing networks and equipment; and (iii) added 38 non-U.S. affiliates of Huawei to the Entity List.  The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on August 20, but became effective upon being made available for public inspection on August 17.

In a contemporaneous final rule,[2] BIS clarified that license requirements for entities included on the Entity List apply regardless of the role that the listed entity has in the transaction (i.e., purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee or end-user) (the “Entity List Final Rule”).  This clarification applies to all entities on the Entity List, not just Huawei.
Continue Reading BIS Further Tightens Export Restrictions on Huawei