Updated as of May 24, 2022

The United States is engaging in a new form of warfare. Russia invaded Ukraine just over two months ago and, rather than join the fight directly by sending troops to defend Ukraine, the United States is fighting indirectly by engaging in unprecedented financial warfare against the Russian Federation. The initial export and sanctions actions were swift and severe – but somewhat expected. As the invasion persists, the U.S. Federal Government and individual States also have begun to leverage procurement policy to amplify the financial harm to Russia. This Guide will try to help make sense of the current efforts targeting Russia, the potential impact to government contractors, and proactive steps to mitigate risk.Continue Reading The Government Contractor’s Guide to (Not) Doing Business with Russia

By David Gallacher 

Earlier this month, we wrote about a new proposed rule from the Department of Energy imposing new and onerous requirements relating to compliance with the U.S. export control laws. DOE claimed that this proposed rule was modeled on a prior rule included in the Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) at DFARS Subpart 204.73 and DFARS 252.204-7008, promulgated originally in 2008 (and discussed here). But be aware that those DFARS rules were recently removed. Kind of. In case you were not paying attention, the DFARS export restrictions were recently moved to DFARS Subpart 225.79 and DFARS 252.225-7048. See 78 Fed. Reg. 36108. So, even though the citations may have changed, the song remains the same.Continue Reading “The Song Remains the Same” – DFARS Removes and Replaces Restrictions on Export Controls

By John W. Chierichella

On September 8, 2008, we posted a commentary on a newly promulgated interim rule relating to “Export-Controlled Items,” that was finalized in 2010 and is now set forth at DFARS Subpart 204.73 and implemented in principal part by the clause set forth at 52.204-7008. Click here. That rule was relatively straightforward, basically reminding DOD contractors (1) that they were obligated to “comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items” and (2) that those compliance obligations existed independent of the new DFARS rule and its implementing clause. In reality, while the clause had the capacity to transform an export violation into a breach of contract, with all of the attendant liabilities and risks that attend such breaches, it imposed no new substantive obligations on DOD contractors.Continue Reading DOE Proposes Highly Burdensome Reporting Obligations With Respect To Export Compliance

By: David S. Gallacher

2011 was a banner year for U.S. export control laws. The Obama administration has vowed to streamline and reform the bloated U.S. export control system – promising to build "higher walls" around a narrower universe of goods and technologies requiring export licenses. Following is a summary of ten of the key reforms to U.S. export laws that took place (or were proposed) in 2011. 
 Continue Reading 2011 Year In Review: Export Controls and Promised Reforms

By Thaddeus McBride & Reid Whitten

Under a recent court decision, UK government agencies may be able to shield the names of British companies transacting in Iran, and thereby aid these companies in averting potential consequences of U.S. law.
 Continue Reading Mind Your Own Businesses: UK Court Decision May Signal Pushback On Extraterritorial Enforcement of US Trade Laws

By Thaddeus McBride, Mark Jensen, & Corey Phelps

In late September, Flowserve Corporation (“Flowserve”) and a number of its subsidiaries agreed to settle alleged export violations with the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry of Security (“BIS”) for $2.5 million, and to remit $502,408 to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) to settle alleged U.S. sanctions violations. Flowserve, including its subsidiaries, is an oil, gas, and chemical services company with operations around the world. The settlement underscores the value of compliance measures specifically tailored to a company’s operations, and provides yet another example of the U.S. government vigorously enforcing U.S. law overseas.
 Continue Reading OFAC, BIS Double Up Flow Serve: What the Flowserve Settlement Says About Corporate Compliance Programs

By Thaddeus McBride & Reid Whitten

On Monday, October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of retired University of Tennessee professor John Reece Roth. In July 2009, Roth received a four year prison sentence for illegally exporting military technology, in large part due to his work with graduate students from Iran and China. Professor Roth’s conviction and prison sentence forcefully remind the research community, commercial as well as academic, of the potentially severe consequences that may arise from ignoring technology export controls.
 Continue Reading Prison Time and Export Controls: University Professor’s Case Illustrates Dangers of Ignoring Export Compliance

By Thaddeus McBride, Mark L. Jensen and Corey Phelps

Beginning on February 20, 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) assumed a role in the U.S. Government’s increasing regulation of technology exports. The new role for CIS relates to the transfer of controlled technology or source code, sometimes referred to as “deemed exports," to non-U.S. nationals.
 Continue Reading Technology Exports: Uncertainty Around Form I-129 Persists

By John M. Hynes

On May 16, 2011, the Department of State (“Department”) published its final rule in the Federal Register amending provisions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) regarding the transfer of ITAR controlled defense articles (including technical data) to dual and third-country nationals employed by approved foreign end-users.  See 76 Fed. Reg. 28174-78 (amending 22 C.F.R. pts. 120, 124 and 126).
 Continue Reading New ITAR Rule on Transfer of Defense Articles to Dual and Third-Country Nationals Creates Substantial New Compliance Obligations

By John M. Hynes

On April 13, 2011, the Department of State (the “Department”) issued proposed amendments to various sections of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) regarding the definition of “defense service.” See International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Defense Services, 76 Fed. Reg. 20590-93 (amending 22 C.F.R. Parts 120 and 124).
 Continue Reading The Department Of State Seeks To Narrow The ITAR Definition Of “Defense Service”

By Curtis M. Dombek

On March 15, 2011, the State Department Directorate of Defense Trade Controls published a proposed new rule that marks a significant change in the approach to ITAR regulation. Historically, ITAR controls have always applied to commercial end products incorporating any ITAR controlled components. This was the basis of the highly publicized QRS chip case, in which the State Department asserted continuing ITAR control over avionics chips that had originated on a military program but had come to be widely used in civilian jet aircraft. That case resulted eventually in a special exception to allow jet aircraft to remain in production and passenger service with the QRS chip and without ITAR licensing.
 Continue Reading Proposed ITAR Rule To Relax ITAR Licensing For Components Incorporated Into Commercial Products