President to Remove Cuba’s Terrorism Designation: Most Sanctions Remain in Effect

Apr 20, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

SSOTs are countries that the secretary of State has determined to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. Such designations are pursuant to three laws: (i) Section 6(j) of the lapsed Export Administration Act (EAA); (ii) Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act; and (iii) Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Aside from the diplomatic stigma attached to the SSOT designation, four main categories of sanctions result from designation under these authorities: a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual-use items; restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Importantly, while Cuba’s removal from the SSOT list may ease certain sanctions, as discussed below, most components of the U.S. embargo are not based upon an SSOT designation and will remain in place (e.g., the Helms-Burton Act specifically identifies Cuba and is not linked to Cuba’s designation as an SSOT). The president has not yet announced amendments to U.S. regulations governing dealings with Cuba as a result of its removal from the list of SSOTs, but any regulatory changes should be carefully reviewed with counsel before engaging in any transactions with Cuba.

With that in mind, the removal of Cuba as an SSOT may affect trade with Cuba in several limited ways:

  • Potential Eligibility for Expanded Licensing of Dual-Use Items to Cuba: The EAA required the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to notify certain congressional committees before issuing any license for exports above a certain value of items controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL) to countries identified as an SSOT. Commerce implemented this policy via their Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which prohibit most exports and rexports to Cuba of goods, technology and software controlled pursuant to the CCL unless the export is authorized pursuant to a specific license or license exception. Commerce reviews such license applications under a presumption of denial unless the export meets certain conditions (e.g., medicines and medical devices, telecommunications equipment, etc.). While the original statutory authority for the EAR (the EAA) lapsed in 2001, the EAR have been maintained under authority granted to the president by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). Once Cuba is removed from the SSOT list, Commerce would have the option to amend the EAR to license a wider range of dual-use items for export to Cuba. However, given the statutory constraints in laws such as Helms-Burton that generally limit exports to those in support of the Cuban people, licensing changes will be relatively modest and will not ease restrictions on highly controlled dual-use or military items.
  • Fewer Prohibitions on Financial Transactions Involving Cuba: Under 31 C.F.R. Part 596.201, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in a financial transaction with the government of a designated SSOT, absent authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Again, however, other sanctions relating to Cuba and administered by OFAC that may involve financial transactions should remain unaffected.
  • Greater Eligibility for Foreign Aid to Cuba: Once Cuba is removed as an SSOT, the statutory restrictions on foreign aid under the Foreign Assistance Act will no longer apply, provided the assistance is not in violation of other aspects of the Cuba embargo. However, other laws may continue to restrict the likelihood of such aid. For instance, Helms-Burton will still mandate that the U.S. government oppose Cuba’s induction into international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. If Cuba is admitted as a member to such organizations over the opposition of the United States, the president must reduce U.S. funding for such institutions.
  • Fewer Allowances for Private Rights of Action for Terrorism: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 was amended in 2008 to allow victims of state-sponsored terrorism to file private rights of action in U.S. courts against SSOTs. These rights of action are tied to the SSOT designation and once Cuba is removed, private rights of action allowed under the FSIA against Cuba may be unavailable to claimants.

Other federal and state government agencies, including the SEC’s Office of Global Security Risk and state banking regulators or agencies administering state divestment laws, may also be affected by the removal of Cuba as an SSOT. At this point, however, it does not appear that this removal of the SSOT status will result in significant changes to U.S. sanctions and export controls targeting Cuba.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.