News & Events

OFAC Modifies the 50% Rule and Expands the Reach of U.S. Export Controls

Date Published: 8/25/2014

Article Type:

Share This:

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has made compliance with U.S. economic sanctions more difficult and complex by modifying, on August 13, 2014 the ‘50% Rule’ used to determine whether an entity owned by a blocked person should itself be blocked. The bottom line for businesses required to comply with U.S. economic sanctions: the universe of blocked companies is now significantly larger and, consequently, the compliance burden on accurately identifying blocked companies has increased. 

First, Some Definitions 

OFAC administers the U.S. economic sanctions programs issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act. These programs prohibit U.S. Persons (defined below) from transacting with or investing in (i) entire jurisdictions, including persons and businesses from such jurisdiction (Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, and Cuba); (ii) targeted people, companies and groups within certain jurisdictions (Belarus and D.R. Congo, for example); and (iii) specific persons or entities under sanctions programs that are not country-specific (counter-narcotics, for example). OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) identifies the individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, sanctioned countries, and individuals, groups, and entities designated under targeted and non-country specific sanctions programs. 

If a person, entity or company is on the SDN List, such person, entity or company is ‘blocked’ and U.S. Persons: (i) are prohibited from transacting business with or investing in such entity without first obtaining a license to OFAC; (ii) must freeze any property of such person, entity or company that they hold; and (iii) are prohibited in dealing in such assets until such time as the assets are ‘unfrozen’ by OFAC. The term ‘property’ in this context means any property or any direct or indirect interest in property, tangible or intangible, including present, future or contingent interests. 

The term ‘U.S. Person’ under U.S. sanctions regulation includes U.S. companies and their subsidiaries, U.S. citizens and permanent residents anywhere in the world (including those who are officers and directors of a foreign company), and certain portfolio companies of U.S. investors. 

Next, Comparing the Old and New 50% Rule 

U.S. economic sanctions programs also block the property of entities owned or controlled by a blocked person, even if such controlled entity is not itself on the SDN List. The August 13 guidance changes the ownership test but does not change the control test for blocking the property of a person or entity controlled by a blocked person. The guidance states that an entity that is controlled, but not owned 50% or more by one or more blocked persons is not considered automatically blocked. However, OFAC cautioned that such entities may be designated in the future and that there are significant risks with regard to transacting with such entities. 

The former 50% Rule provided that the property of an entity that was not itself on the SDN List was blocked if at least 50% of its equity was owned by a blocked person or entity. For example, if I were a blocked person and owned more than 51% of a company, that company’s property would be blocked. However, and again assuming that I were a blocked person, if I owned 40% of a company, that company’s property would not be blocked. In other words, the former 50% Rule required U.S. Persons to determine whether any single blocked person or entity owned 50% of another person or entity not otherwise included on the SDN List. 

The revised 50% Rule blocks the property of a person or entity, not itself on the SDN List, if that person or entity is 50% or more owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more blocked individuals or entities. Rather than looking at the ownership interests held by a single blocked person, the revised rule requires aggregation of the ownership interests of all blocked people in an entity to determine whether that entity’s property is blocked. 

Using the example in the last sentence of the above paragraph, and again assuming I am a blocked person, the property of the company in which I owned a 40% interest would be blocked if the company had other blocked owners and the aggregate ownership interest owned by me and the other blocked persons exceeded 50%. Taken one step further, the guidance addresses ‘indirect ownership’ in an interesting manner. We can (perhaps for the last time) assume that I am a blocked person and I own 50% of Newco. Based on the revised 50% Rule, Newco’s property is blocked. Assume further that I own 40% and Newco owns 10% of an entity named ReallyNewco. In that case, since ReallyNewco is owned 50% by blocked persons, its property is also blocked. 

Wrinkles and Headaches 

As with many OFAC pronouncements, the revised 50% Rule has some ‘interesting’ wrinkles and details. For complex corporate structures, the revised rule provides that a company’s property is blocked if it is 50% or more owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more blocked persons, even where those persons are blocked only by virtue of the 50% Rule itself. So, taking the above example, if the blocked company in which I and my blocked friends own more than 50% of the equity in turn owns more than 50% of the equity in any other company, the property of any downstream companies is blocked. 

In addition, the August 13 guidance clarifies that a U.S. Person is prohibited from transacting with a blocked person, even where the blocked person is acting only in a representative capacity on behalf of a non- blocked entity. This would prohibit, for example, a U.S. business from negotiating with a blocked person or having such blocked person execute a document, on behalf of a non-blocked company. 

In the past, a blocked person could have reduced their ownership in an entity to below 50% in order to facilitate a transaction with a U.S. Person. Such divestitures must take place outside of the U.S., but such a strategy may not be sufficient under the revised 50% Rule. The OFAC guidance accompanying the revised 50% Rule clarifies that the property of a blocked entity or in the possession or control of a U.S. person must be released by OFAC before any U.S. Person may transact with such property. Therefore, a divestiture will not, by itself, be sufficient to enable a transaction where (i) the property already has been blocked; or (ii) the aggregate interest owned by blocked persons in an entity remains above 50% even after a divestiture. 

Interplay with Other U.S. Sanctions Programs 

Certain U.S. sanctions programs, such as the Cuba sanctions impose blocking based on control, on ownership levels below 50% or other criteria (the Cuba sanctions do not specify a threshold ownership percentage to determine ownership, and takes ownership/control on a case by case basis). The revised 50% Rule does not change such blocking requirements; in fact, the lower-threshold blocking requirements could be read into the revised 50% Rule insofar as such thresholds define ownership or control for blocking purposes. 

The revised 50% Rule will have a significant impact on the sectoral sanctions imposed as a result of the situation in Ukraine by extending relevant U.S. sanctions to entities that are 50% or more owned by one or more of the entities included on the Sectoral Sanctions Identification List (“SSI List”). While property of these entities is not required to be blocked, the revised 50% Rule helps to identify those subsidiaries and affiliates of SSI List entities subject to the prohibition on dealings with such entities’ newly issued equity or debt having a maturity over 90 days. 

What Companies Need to Do Now 

As before the revision to the 50% Rule, U.S. Persons should screen all parties to a contemplated transaction in high sanctions risk countries. Screening against the SDN List remains a good starting point, but is not sufficient to fully mitigate sanctions risk. 

While the former 50% Rule required U.S. Persons to determine if a single blocked person owned more than 50% of the equity in a given entity, the revised 50% Rule now requires U.S. Persons to screen each ownership interest in a company, and then aggregate the ownership interests of each blocked party. Due diligence must now provide significantly more detail on a company’s ownership structure, including indirect ownership interests. 

OFAC guidance also suggests that U.S. Persons may need to conduct a retrospective analysis of an entity and its property to ensure that the entity was not previously owned 50% or more by blocked parties. This suggestion, of course, presents a huge challenge to U.S. Persons.

View on AGG Website

Find a Member

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

Stephen HirschfeldAs an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel