On February 10, 2022, the United Kingdom published new legislation (the “Amendment”) significantly expanding the scope of targets on which the UK government may impose sanctions relating to Russia.[1]  The Amendment, which was issued in response to the current situation in Ukraine and takes immediate effect, broadens the designation criteria of the existing Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.[2]  Whereas the existing provisions were limited to persons directly engaged in activities relating to the “destabilisation” of Ukraine,[3] the Amendment further authorizes sanctions against:

  • any “Government of Russia-affiliated entity,” defined as entities:
    • directly or indirectly owned or controlled by the Russian government;
    • in which the Russian government directly or indirectly holds a minority interest;
    • that receive or have received financing directly or indirectly from the Russian Direct Investment Fund or the National Wealth Fund; or
    • which “otherwise obtain a financial benefit or other material benefit” from the Russian government;
  • individuals or entities carrying on business of “economic significance” (which is not further defined) to the Russian government;
  • individuals or entities carrying on business in a sector of “strategic significance” to the Russian government, defined as the Russian chemicals, construction, defence, electronics, energy, extractives, financial services, information, communications and digital technology, and transport sectors; and
  • individuals or entities that directly or indirectly own or control or work as a director (whether executive or non-executive), trustee, or equivalent of any entity in the above categories.

As before, sanctions imposed under the United Kingdom’s Russia sanctions program include an asset freeze, travel ban (for individuals), prohibition on making funds or economic resources available to or for the benefit of the designated party, and prohibition on dealing with funds or economic resources of the designated party (as well as entities owned or controlled by the designated party).

Continue Reading United Kingdom Broadens Scope of Potential Russian Sanctions Targets

On Thursday, March 25, the Biden administration imposed blocking sanctions against Myanma Economic Holdings Public Company Limited (MEHL) and Myanmar Economic Corporation Limited (MEC), pursuant to Executive Order 14014 (the Burma EO), in response to the military’s refusal to disavow the February 1, 2021 military coup.[1]  As a result of the sanctions, all transactions and dealings within U.S. jurisdiction, including U.S. dollar interbank transfers, in which MEHL and MEC have a direct or indirect interest are prohibited, and all property within the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons in which either has a direct or indirect is blocked.  These sanctions also extend to any entity directly or indirectly 50% or more owned by one or more sanctioned persons or entities, directly or indirectly.[2]  The move was made in coordination with the United Kingdom, which also imposed blocking sanctions against MEHL.[3]  You can read our previous blog post on the Burma EO here.[4]
Continue Reading United States Designates Myanmar Military Conglomerates

On November 11, the UK Government proposed a new national security screening regime that would allow the Government to intervene in “potentially hostile” foreign investments that threatened UK national security while “ensuring the UK remains a global champion of free trade and an attractive place to invest.”

If approved by Parliament, the National Security and

On 5 September 2020, the UK Government accepted undertakings from Gardner Aerospace not to proceed with its proposed acquisition of Impcross, a UK-based manufacturer of components for the aerospace industry (including for military aircraft). Gardner is owned by Shenzhen-listed Ligeance Aerospace Technology. This is a rare case of the UK Government effectively prohibiting a transaction

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 6 July 2020, the UK Government announced the introduction of a “Global Human Rights” sanctions regime (the “GHR Sanctions”). The regime marks the first time the UK Government has imposed sanctions measures independently from the European Union and the first time it has exercised its ability to impose sanctions directly in response to human rights violations. However, the new measures do not necessarily indicate the UK’s future policy direction, and after Brexit the UK sanctions regime will look broadly similar to that of the EU.
Continue Reading New UK Sanctions Regime Introduced

On March 25, the European Commission issued guidance on the screening of foreign direct investment in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission calls Member States to make use of existing FDI regimes to protect critical health infrastructure, supply of critical inputs, and other critical sectors. Further details can be found in our memorandum,