Tag Archives: Brad S. Karp

FinCEN and BIS Issue Joint Notice Emphasizing That Financial Institutions Should Monitor for Possible Export Control Violations

by Jessica S. Carey, John P. Carlin, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Richard S. Elliott, David Fein, David Kessler, Nathan Mitchell, and Jacobus J. Schutte

photos of the authors

Top left to right: Jessica S. Carey, John P. Carlin, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, and Richard S. Elliott.              Bottom left to right: David Fein, David Kessler, Nathan Mitchell, and Jacobus J. Schutte. (Photos courtesy of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP)

On November 6, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) jointly issued a notice (the “Notice”) announcing a new Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) key term, “FIN-2023-GLOBALEXPORT,” that financial institutions should reference when reporting potential efforts by individuals or entities seeking to evade U.S. export controls.[1]

Continue reading →

CFPB Issues Policy Statement Taking Expansive View of “Abusive” Practices

by Susanna M. Buergel, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Loretta E. Lynch, Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Kannon K. Shanmugam, Alexander Beer, and O’Ryan H. Moore

Author photographs

Top row from left to right: Susanna M. Buergel, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, and Loretta E. Lynch. Bottom row from left to right: Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Kannon K. Shanmugam, Alexander Beer, and O’Ryan H. Moore (Photos courtesy of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP)

On April 3, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) released a policy statement (the “Policy Statement”) outlining its broad interpretation of the “abusive” component of the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (“UDAAP”).[1] The Policy Statement replaces a prior statement that adopted a restrained posture towards enforcing the prohibition on abusive acts and practices, which the CFPB rescinded in March 2021.[2]

Continue reading →

OFAC Enforcement Action Against U.S. Payments Company Shows the Importance of Robust Sanctioned Person and Location Screening

by Jessica S. Carey, Christopher D. Frey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Richard S. Elliott, Rachel Fiorill, and Joshua R. Thompson

On July 23, 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Assets Control (“OFAC”) announced a $1,400,301 settlement agreement with a New York-based online money transmitter and provider of prepaid access, Payoneer Inc. (“Payoneer”), to resolve 2,260 apparent violations of multiple OFAC sanctions programs.[1]  OFAC determined that Payoneer’s sanctions compliance program—in particular its sanctioned person and location screening procedures—had several deficiencies that allowed persons located in sanctioned jurisdictions and persons on OFAC’s Specially Designation Nationals and Blocked Persons List (the “SDN List”) to engage in approximately $802,117 worth of transactions via Payoneer’s services. Continue reading →

Update on Communist Chinese Military Companies (CCMCs) Sanctions (Part II of II)

by H. Christopher Boehning, Jessica S. Carey, Christopher D. Frey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Xiaoyu Greg Liu, Richard S. Elliott, Rachel M. Fiorill, and Karen R. King

In response to the Trump administration’s CCMC sanctions (discussed in Part I of this post), the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has released additional guidance and its first two general licenses. The U.S. Department of Commerce also responded to the sanctions; it published on December 21, 2020 the first ever Military End User List pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations as well as a warning that exports to CCMCs will raise red flags and require due diligence. Continue reading →

Update on Communist Chinese Military Companies (CCMCs) Sanctions (Part I of II)

by H. Christopher Boehning, Jessica S. Carey, Christopher D. Frey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Xiaoyu Greg Liu, Richard S. Elliott, Rachel M. Fiorill, and Karen R. King

On November 12, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Addressing the Threat from Securities Investments that Finance Communist Chinese Military Companies” (the “Order”), which went into effect on January 11, 2021 (after a 60-day grace period).[1] The Order prohibits U.S. persons[2] from engaging in transactions in publicly traded securities (or any securities that are derivative or otherwise designed to provide investment exposure to such publicly traded securities) of any identified “Communist Chinese Military Companies” (“CCMCs”). In the Order, President Trump cited the national security threat posed by the People’s Republic of China’s (the “PRC”) national strategy of Military-Civil Fusion, and, specifically, the threat posed by PRC companies that sell securities to U.S. investors and then invest this capital to finance the development and modernization of the Chinese military. Continue reading →

United States Imposes Sanctions on Turkey under CAATSA Section 231 for Purchase of Russian Missile System

by H. Christopher Boehning, Jessica S. Carey,  Christopher D. Frey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Mark F. Mendelsohn, Richard S. Elliott, Rachel Fiorill, Karen R. King, and Maria E. Eliot

On December 14, 2020, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the Republic of Turkey’s Presidency of Defense Industries (“SSB”) pursuant to Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”), which mandates the imposition of sanctions against non-U.S. persons who conduct “significant” transactions with Russia’s defense or intelligence sectors.[1] The U.S. State Department determined that SSB’s acquisition of a Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile from Rosoboronexport (“ROE”) qualified as a significant transaction under Section 231. Continue reading →

Congress to Include Significant Expansion of Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Requirements for U.S. Companies and Non-U.S. Companies Registered to Do Business in the United States as a Part of the 2021 NDAA

by H. Christopher Boehning, Jessica S. Carey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Mark F. Mendelsohn, Richard S. Elliott, Rachel M. Fiorill, Karen R. King,  Anand Sithian, and Joshua R. Thompson

As has been widely reported[1] and announced in statements by members of both the House and Senate,[2] Congress has included a significant expansion of beneficial ownership disclosure requirements for companies in the United States as a part of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (the “2021 NDAA”), a spending bill that is expected to pass by the end of the year. The most recent version of the 2021 NDAA reported out of conference to the House last week includes new beneficial ownership (defined for purposes of the 2021 NDAA as those individuals who own 25 percent or more of the ownership interests of a company and/or who exercise “substantial control” over a company) reporting requirements for companies that closely track the Corporate Transparency Act of 2019,[3] which passed the House in October 2019, although certain changes were made to make the disclosure provisions somewhat more business-friendly. Nonetheless, if the 2021 NDAA is passed and signed into law in its current form,[4] the law would impose new beneficial ownership disclosure requirements on many U.S. companies—and non-U.S. companies that are registered to do business in the United States (collectively, “reporting companies”)—that previously had not been required to disclose their beneficial owners. Continue reading →

In Global First, the United Kingdom Moves Toward Mandatory Climate-Related Disclosures by 2025

by Mark S. Bergman, Ariel J. Deckelbaum, Brad S. Karp, Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Scott P. Grader, Frances F. Mi, William J. O’Brien, David G. Curran, and Sofia D. Martos

On November 9, 2020, a UK taskforce chaired by HM Treasury and made up of UK regulators and government officials (the “Taskforce”) published the Interim Report of the UK’s Joint Government-Regulator TCFD Taskforce (the “Interim Report”), along with a roadmap to achieving its recommendations (the “Roadmap”).[1] The Interim Report concluded that the United Kingdom should move towards mandatory TCFD-aligned disclosures across all sectors of the UK economy over the next five years. The Roadmap presents a five-year timeline of planned or potential regulatory actions or legislative measures across seven categories of organizations: listed commercial companies; UK-registered large private companies; banks and building societies; insurance companies; asset managers; life insurers and regulated pension schemes; and occupational pension schemes. The UK Government expects a significant portion of mandatory requirements to be in place by 2023.

Continue reading →

ESG Disclosures: Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures

by Mark S. Bergman, Ariel J. Deckelbaum, Jeh Charles Johnson, Brad S. Karp, Loretta E. Lynch, Richard A. Rosen, Audra J. Soloway, Frances F. Mi, and David G. Curran

The disclosure recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”), which consider the physical, liability and transition risks associated with climate change, are intended to facilitate the development of voluntary and consistent climate-related financial disclosures by companies for investors, lenders, insurers and other stakeholders. Since their publication in 2017, the TCFD recommendations have emerged as a leading international framework for climate-related disclosures, although uptake on these standards has been slower in the United States than elsewhere. The number of companies that reference the TCFD recommendations in their disclosures is steadily increasing, and industry leaders continue to call on companies to adopt these recommendations.

Continue reading →

ESG Disclosures: The Push for Consistent and Comparable Standards – Europe

by Mark S. Bergman, Ariel J. Deckelbaum, Jeh Charles Johnson, Brad S. Karp, Loretta E. Lynch, Richard A. Rosen, and Audra J. Soloway

Key Takeaways

  • The European Union has taken a leading role in advancing ESG disclosure requirements across the full spectrum of sustainability topics. Some of the initiatives are focused largely on climate issues, while others address the broader sustainability landscape.
  • In the absence of international consensus on ESG disclosure requirements, EU regulations and guidance could begin to shape disclosure in other jurisdictions.

Continue reading →