Sanctions Relating to Situation in Ukraine: An Overview of Recent Developments

Mar 24, 2014

Reading Time : 6 min

The U.S. and EU sanctions are expected to continue to expand based on how events have unfolded and may progress. Russian sanctions may also further develop in response to expanding U.S. and EU sanctions. These sanctions could potentially affect U.S. and EU companies’ trade and financial transactions with Russia. Likewise, Russian companies and their subsidiaries, and companies from the United States, the EU and other countries that have subsidiaries, investments, or joint-ventures within Russia or subsidiaries (organized under the laws of Russia) elsewhere, may be affected by the imposition of sanctions.

Here is a brief summary of sanctions that the United States, EU and Russia have recently implemented.

United States Sanctions

Executive Branch

On March 6, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13660 authorizing list-based sanctions, including asset freezes and blocking property on certain persons deemed responsible for (1) asserting governmental authority in Ukraine without authority and undermining democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine, (2) threatening Ukraine’s peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity, and (3) contributing to the misappropriation of Ukraine’s assets or constituting a serious threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The order also restricts U.S. persons from providing or receiving any contribution, funds, goods, or services to, for the benefit of, or from any individual or entity sanctioned pursuant to the Executive Order. Currently, four individuals are subject to sanctions under this Executive Order. The Order also provides a framework for future additional sanctions. Click here for the Executive Order.

On March 17, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13661, expanding the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 and announcing targeted sanctions, including asset freezes and visa bans, against seven Russians.  The order is significant for three main reasons: it allows for sanctions to be imposed on (1) Russian government officials, (2) individuals or entities that operate in the arms or materiel related sectors within the Russian Federation, and (3) entities that are owned or controlled by designated persons or those that act or purport to act on behalf of a senior Russian government official or a designated person or provide material or other support to the same. Click here for Executive Order 13661. Click here for the press release.

On March 20, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury broadened the list of sanctioned individuals to include 20 additional Russian government officials and members of President Putin’s inner circle. The list also includes Bank Rossiya, the 17th largest bank in Russia, which reportedly holds $10 billion in assets and handles the accounts for several top government officials. Rossiya also services the Russian oil, gas and energy sectors. Rossiya was designated for being controlled by Yury Kovalchuk, a member of President Putin’s inner circle. Notably, the list includes those with close ties to President Putin, including Vladimir Yakunin, President of Russian Railways; Yury Kovalchuk, banker, businessman and financier; and brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, co-owners of SMP Bank and SGM Group, who executed large contracts for the Sochi Olympic Games and for state-controlled Gazprom. Click here for the press release.

On March 20, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13662 laying the groundwork for broader sanctions that could target individuals and entities that operate in certain strategic sectors within Russia, including financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense and related materials. Specifically, the Executive Order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to block all assets and deny entry to any entity or person deemed:

1)      to operate in such sectors of the Russian Federation economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, as financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense and related material

2)      to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order

3)      to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

The order also restricts U.S. persons from providing or receiving any contribution, funds, goods, or services to, for the benefit of, or from any individual or entity sanctioned pursuant to the Executive Order. Click here for the Executive Order.

European Union

On March 6, 2014, EU leaders agreed to a three-stage process to address Russia’s activities in Ukraine. EU leaders previously implemented stage one of the process on March 3, 2014, when it suspended visa talks and negotiations over a new investment agreement with Russia.

On March 6, 2014, an EU regulation imposing an asset freeze on 18 Ukrainian individuals came into force. Viktor Yanukovych, the ousted president, is at the top of the list. The list also includes Andrey Kliuiev, the former head of Yanukovych’s administration and other close aids and family members of Yanukovych. Click here for the list.

On March 17, 2014, EU Foreign ministers implemented the second stage of sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes. The list of sanctioned individuals includes 21 Ukrainian and Russian officials deemed responsible for threatening Ukraine’s peace and stability. Click here for the initial list. On March 21, 2014, the EU imposed asset bans and travel restrictions on 12 additional Russian officials, raising the total number of individuals subject to EU sanctions to 33. See the list of additional targeted individuals here. The list is expected to expand as the political situation continues to develop — EU leaders highlight the fact that the list is not set in stone and that other individuals may be added in the future, depending on Russia’s actions.

News reports suggest that the EU may soon consider the third stage of sanctions, which would likely involve an arms embargo and trade sanctions; however, the EU has not provided a timeline as to when these more severe measures might be introduced. Further, stage-three sanctions could prove difficult to enact given the need for consensus and the interdependency between certain EU countries (i.e., Germany, France) and Russia.

Russian Sanctions

On March 20, 2014, in response to U.S. sanctions, Russia’s Foreign Ministry announced visa bans on nine U.S. Senators, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Administration Officials. The list includes Senators John McCain, Harry Reid, Robert Menendez, Daniel Coats and Mary Landrieu; Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner; Dan Pfeiffer, senior adviser to President Barack Obama; and deputy national security advisers, Ben Rhodes and Caroline Atkinson. Read more here.

Russia had previously signaled that it would retaliate if it was sanctioned by Western powers. In particular, Chairman of Russia’s Upper House Committee for Constitutional Law, Andrey Klishas, announced his work on federal legislation that would freeze the assets of American and European companies that operate in Russia if the West imposes economic sanctions. Moreover, Klishas noted that a team of attorneys is working on a separate bill that would allow the Russian president and government to confiscate foreign-owned property in Russia, including assets belonging to private companies.”  See the article here.

The Russian Foreign Ministry released this statement: “Moscow has explained to the Americans, repeatedly and demonstrably, why their one-sided punitive measures are not matching the standards of civilized relations between nations. If this fails to take effect, we will have to retaliate, and not necessarily in a mirror way.”  The Russians have also said they may impose sanctions against Ukrainian “oligarchs” responsible for the situation in Ukraine.

*******

The United States and EU could impose additional economic sanctions on Russia that may be more comprehensive than the targeted sanctions currently in place. As shown above, Russia has also indicated that it would retaliate for any sanctions that the United States or EU imposes. These intersecting and opposing sanctions programs would cause shifts in the international business environment that must be monitored and assessed by businesses that may be affected due to a company’s country of organization, geographic footprint, location of subsidiaries or joint-venture partners, major contracts, financial service providers or investments, supply chain or other variables.

If you have questions on how these sanctions or future potential sanctions could affect your company’s business or investment operations, please contact a member of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP’s sanctions practice.

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.