U.S. Congress Passes Russia Sanctions Legislation

Dec 16, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

The legislation includes a mix of mandatory and discretionary sanctions that could significantly discourage investment in, and transactions with, Russia’s energy and defense sectors.  The legislation also authorizes extraterritorial sanctions aimed at foreign financial institutions that facilitate certain sanctionable activities.  Below is a summary of the key sanctions provisions provided in the legislation.

A.        Sanctions Against Russian Energy and Defense Sectors

1.         Energy Sector Provisions

The legislation includes several measures targeting Russia’s energy sector.  Specifically, it:

  • authorizes the president to impose three or more of the sanctions (identified in A.3 below) against foreign persons deemed to knowingly make significant investments in “special Russian crude oil projects” (i.e., projects intended to extract crude oil from Russian deepwater (greater than 500-feet depth), Arctic offshore locations and shale formations); in a previous version of this legislation, these sanctions were mandatory, but, under the legislation approved by both the Senate and the House, they are discretionary
  • authorizes the departments of Commerce and Treasury to impose additional licensing requirements for, or restrictions on, the export or re-export of items for use in the energy sector in Russia, including equipment used for tertiary oil recovery
  • requires that, if the president determines that Gazprom is withholding significant natural gas supplies from member countries of NATO or further withholds such supplies from countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova, the president shall restrict U.S. persons from investing in debt with greater than 90 days’ maturity or equity of Gazprom and impose one additional type of sanction (identified in A.3 below) against Gazprom.  

2.         Defense Sector Provisions

In connection with the Russian defense sector, the legislation separately requires the President to impose three or more types of sanctions (identified in Section A.3 below) against:

  • Rosoboronexport
  • Russian-owned or -controlled entities that knowingly manufacture, sell, transfer or broker the transfer of defense articles to Syria or specified countries (e.g., Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova) without authorization from the internationally recognized governments of those specified countries
  • other foreign persons knowingly assisting, sponsoring or providing financial, material or technological support for, goods or services to or in support of, entities identified in the bullet above.

3.         Potential Sanctions

The legislation provides a menu of potential sanctions from which the president may choose:

  • restrictions on U.S. Export-Import Bank assistance
  • restrictions on obtaining U.S. government procurement contracts
  • arms export prohibitions
  • dual-use item export prohibitions
  • property-blocking measures
  • restrictions on banking transactions
  • prohibitions on investment in equity or debt of the sanctioned person
  • visa bans
  • sanctions on principal executive officers of sanctioned entities.

As noted above, the president has the discretion to decide which of the above sanctions will be imposed against the entities identified in Sections A.1 and A.2 above.

B.        Foreign Financial Institutions

The legislation also authorizes extraterritorial sanctions against foreign financial institutions that facilitate certain sanctionable activity with respect to Russia’s energy and defense sectors or Specially Designated Nationals (“SDNs”).  Specifically, discretionary sanctions are available against foreign financial institutions that knowingly:

  • engage in “significant transactions” involving sanctioned entities engaged in activities described in:
    • the Energy Sector Provisions above in Section A.1 (excluding the licensing provisions in bullet 2)
    • the Defense Sector Provisions above in Section A.2 (including Rosobornexport only to the extent that it is participating in the types of activities described in Section A.2).  

The legislation does not provide a definition of what constitutes a “significant transaction.”

  • facilitate “significant financial transactions” on behalf of Russian SDNs designated under the various Ukraine/Russia-related measures.  The legislation does not provide a definition of what constitutes a “significant financial transaction.”

In such cases, the president may restrict foreign financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States.  These measures are similar to sanctions that OFAC is authorized to impose against non-U.S. financial institutions found to knowingly engage in certain sanctionable activities with respect to Iran.

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.