Author Archive


Apr

16

Music of My Hartwall Arena


Posted by at 10:29 pm on April 16, 2014
Category: OFACRussia Sanctions

By Paul Holloway from Birmingham, United Kingdom (The Hartwall Arena  Uploaded by Fæ) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AThe_Hartwall_Arena_(100452288).jpgYesterday, my colleague George Murphy posted an analysis on the potential impact (or lack thereof) of the Russia/Ukraine sanctions on a series of concerts by U.S. artists such as Justin Timberlake at Hartwall Arena in Helsinki, Finland. The post noted that the performances would still go on despite the ownership interests by three newly-designated SDNs in Hartwall Arena: Boris and Arkady Rotenberg and Gennady Timchenko. The post speculated that this was because none of the three named individuals had a fifty percent interest or greater in the venue. Under current rules as interpreted by OFAC, a company would not be blocked even if owned entirely by blocked individuals if no single blocked individual owned 5o percent or more of the company.

That post generated an email to us from an official at Live Nation, the concert promoter for the events at Hartwall, taking issue with the post.

I wanted to reach out because there has been quite a bit of erroneous information out in the public domain about the ownership of the Helsinki venue. The shows are going to continue because the venue is not subject to the US sanctions, not “despite” the sanctions.

I replied that the post had said the concert would go on “despite” the ownership of the venue by the three SDNs, not “despite” the sanctions, a very different thing, particularly since the post speculated that the venue wasn’t subject to the sanctions due to the 50 percent rule.

This led to another response:

They do not own 100% of the venue, there several dozen owners. Based on the best information available to Live Nation they own 100% of an entity which owns only a minority interest in the venue itself, which is the reason the sanctions do not apply.

That was certainly not what numerous new sources (such as The Guardian) were reporting as to the ownership of Hartwall Arena, and the official did not respond to my request to document the assertion about the Rotenberg and Timchenko interests in Hartwall . I did a little digging myself and sent to the Live Nation official this presentation made by Roman Rotenberg, the son of Boris Rotenberg and chairman of the Hartwall Arena. That presentation contains a slide that helpfully diagrams the precise ownership of the Arena. It states that the “owners” of Hartwall Arena are Gennady Timchenko and “Rotenberg family via LÃ¥ngvik Capital.” The organizational diagram shows a “company based in Luxembourg” owned by Timchenko that owns 50 percent of Arena Events Oy that, in turns, owns the Hartwall Arena. It also shows that “Oy LÃ¥ngvik Capital Ltd (Finland)” — owned by the Rotenberg family — owns the other 50 percent of the Arena Events Oy.

If Live Nation is trying to assert that Arena Events only owns a minority interest in Hartwall Arena, that is not consistent with what Roman Rotenberg says. The organizational chart shows that Arena Events Oy owns Helsinki Halli Oy (Hartwall Arena) and owns 49% of Jokerit Hockey Club Oy, the company that owns the  hockey team based at Hartwall Arena. It is not clear why the chart would indicate the 49% minority interest in Jokerit but not a corresponding minority interest in Helsinki Halli Oy if, in fact, that was also a minority interest as the Live Nation official asserts.

I also checked the records relating to Arena Events Oy on the Finnish Trade Register which is the official source for corporate records maintained by the Government of Finland. Those records do not indicate the stock ownership of Arena Events Oy and, thus, nothing in those publicly available corporate records contradicts Roman Rotenberg’s charts and statements showing that Timchenko and the Rotenberg family each own 50 percent of Hartwall Arena.

This information, if true, raises the possibility that concerts by Americans at Hartwall Arena might be problematic. Timchenko’s ownership of the Luxembourg holding company would mean that this holding company is blocked, and the Luxembourg holding company’s 50 percent in Helsinki Halli would result in Helsinki Halli being blocked as well. If Helsinki Halli is blocked, no U.S. person or company can be involved in events there. Whether or not Oy LÃ¥ngvik Capital is blocked is not clear, since we don’t know the ownership interests of Boris and Arkady Rotenberg in that company, but this does not matter if Helsinki Halli is blocked by virtue of Timchenko’s 50 percent stake.

So if Justin Timberlake sings a few songs at Hartwall he better hope that Live Nation is right and Roman Rotenberg is wrong about the ownership of the concert venue. Otherwise, he may be the next Dennis Rodman.

Permalink Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Apr

11

Russia/Ukraine Sanctions Designations for April 11, 2014


Posted by at 2:39 pm on April 11, 2014
Category: Russia DesignationsRussia Sanctions

More persons and companies were designated today by the Office of Foreign Assets Control under the Russia/Ukraine sanctions. Here is the list:

The following individuals have been added to OFAC’s SDN List:

CHALIY, Aleksei Mikhailovich (a.k.a. CHALIY, Aleksei; a.k.a. CHALIY, Aleksei Mikhailovich; a.k.a. CHALIY, Aleksey Mikhailovich; a.k.a. CHALIY, Aleksey Mykhaylovych; a.k.a. CHALIY, Alexei; a.k.a. CHALIY, Mikhailovich Oleksiy; a.k.a. CHALY, Aleksey Mikhailovich; a.k.a. CHALY, Alexei; a.k.a. CHALYI, Aleksei; a.k.a. CHALYI, Aleksiy); DOB 13 Jun 1961; POB Sevastopol, Ukraine; Mayor of Sevastopol; Chairman of the Coordination Council for the Establishment of the Sevastopol Municipal Administration (individual) [UKRAINE].

MALYSHEV, Mikhail Grigorevich, 15/9 Ulitsa Turgeneva, Apt. 9, Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine; DOB 10 Oct 1955; POB Simferopol, Crimea; Chair of the Crimea Electoral Commission (individual) [UKRAINE].

MEDVEDEV, Valery Kirillovich, 22 Ulitsa Oktyarskoi Revolutsii, Building 9, Apt. 14, Sevastopol, Crimea, Ukraine; DOB 21 Aug 1946; POB Russia; Chair of the Sevastopol Electoral Commission (individual) [UKRAINE].

TEMIRGALIEV, Rustam Ilmirovich; DOB 15 Aug 1976; POB Ulan-Ude, Russia; Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Crimea; Crimean Deputy Prime Minister (individual) [UKRAINE].

TSEKOV, Sergey Pavlovich; DOB 28 Sep 1953; POB Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine (individual) [UKRAINE].

ZHEREBTSOV, Yuriy Gennadievych (a.k.a. ZHEREBTSOV, Yuriy Gennadyevich; a.k.a. ZHEREBTSOV, Yury), 23 Ulitsa Koltsevaya, Yevpatoria, Crimea, Ukraine; DOB 19 Nov 1969; POB Odessa, Ukraine; Counselor to the Speaker of the Crimean Rada (individual) [UKRAINE].

ZIMA, Pyotr Anatoliyovych (a.k.a. ZIMA, Petr Anatolyevich; a.k.a. ZYMA, Petro), 18 Ulitsa D. Ulyanova, Apartment 110, Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine; DOB 29 Mar 1965; POB Russia; Head of the Crimean SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) (individual) [UKRAINE].

The following entity has been added to OFAC’s SDN List:

CHERNOMORNEFTEGAZ (a.k.a. CHORNOMORNAFTOGAZ; a.k.a. NJSC CHORNOMORNAFTOGAZ), Kirova / per. Sovnarkomovskaya, 52/1, Simferopol, Crimea 95000, Ukraine; This designation refers to the entity in Crimea at the listed address only, and does not include its parent company. [UKRAINE].

Permalink Comments Off on Russia/Ukraine Sanctions Designations for April 11, 2014

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Apr

7

When a Firing Squad Gives You Lemons, You Can’t Make Lemonade


Posted by at 7:11 pm on April 7, 2014
Category: EU

Vietnam Firing Squad via Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/sites/impact.amnesty.org/files/PUBLIC/Regions/ASA/viet-nam-death-penalty-250x161.jpg [By Permission]The recent decision by Vietnam to execute corrupt bankers has garnered world-wide attention. Rather surprisingly, however, the case has an interesting intersection with export law issues.

As has been reported, the bankers will be subject to rather gruesome execution by firing squad.

Vietnam’s traditional means of execution involves binding perpetrators to a wooden post, stuffing their mouths with lemons and calling in a firing squad.

Death Penalty Worldwide adds another gory detail to death by firing squad in Vietnam: “As the prisoner is dying, an officer fires a pistol shot through the condemned’s ear.”

Apparently even Vietnam is somewhat troubled by all this and wants to transition from this barbaric procedure to lethal injection. But it can’t. According to Patrick Winn on the website Global Post, Vietnam is unable to obtain sodium thiopentol used in executions because the European Union refuses to export the chemical to countries that practice capital punishment.

That of course might make the E.U. feel better about itself, but it won’t stop Vietnam from executing anyone and only assures that prisoners in Vietnam will meet their bloody end with a lemon stuffed in their mouth, multiple bullet wounds, and a final coup de grâce of a bullet in the ear. I’m sure that each person executed in Vietnam will appreciate the European Union’s solicitude for their well-being.

Permalink Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Apr

2

New Russia Sanctions Passed by Congress Are Needlessly Confusing


Posted by at 2:16 pm on April 2, 2014
Category: Economic SanctionsOFACRussia Sanctions

Putin Feeds Animals by premier.gov.ru [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APutin_animals.jpegAbout the only thing the current partisanly-split Congress can agree on is sanctions legislation: first Iran and now Russia. So the Ukraine Aid bill passed yesterday contains the obligatory sanctions provisions. The problem is, however, that even though both sides of the aisle love economic sanctions, neither side understands them, and, as a result, the bill is a mess.

Mostly the new sanctions mandate the President to impose sanctions on people he finds have done bad things: “undermin[ing] the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine” or “ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, acts of significant corruption in Ukraine” or the Russian Federation.  Of course, it’s up to the President to determine who these folks are, and this is a power he already has under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) as evidenced by the last two rounds of designations. But, hey, this allows Congress to get in the game too and tell the voters at home they stood up for Ukraine, even if it is, more or less, an empty gesture.

The problem comes with respect to the particular sanctions that Congress tells the President to impose on those who have engaged in undermining security of Ukraine or directing corruption in Ukraine or the Russian Federation. At first, these look pretty standard: asset blocking and visa bans. But then we get to the exception:

The requirement to block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property under paragraph (1)(A) shall not include the authority to impose sanctions on the importation of goods.

What this means is far from clear. Let’s say that the White House sanctions Alexei Kirillovich Vronsky (we’ll call him Captain Vronsky for convenience). Now let’s say that he’s short of cash after having all of his assets blocked, so he decides to sell $300 million dollars of Oblonsky Vodka to the United States. In a normal blocking scenario, the $300 million destined to Captain Vronsky would be blocked by the U.S. banks before they could be wired. Does this contravene the exception? The vodka can still be imported into the United States without problem as long as Captain Vronsky isn’t paid. On the other hand, doesn’t the blocking in this case effectively prohibit the importation of the vodka into the United States? Who knows? Certainly no one on the Hill does.

But there’s an even more hilarious mistake. The bill doesn’t define importation. Does it mean importation into the United States or Russia? Or anywhere else for that matter? An exportation from the United States is, after all, an importation somewhere else, whether Russia or some place else. So can Captain Vronsky import a shiny new Corvette into Russia from Detroit? Does the exception prohibit blocking the funds he uses to pay for the imported/exported Corvette?

Of course, the only thing clear as a result of this mess of an exception is that Captain Vronsky, even if he can buy a car from Detroit, can’t buy a condo in Detroit, since there would clearly be no importation (whichever way you define it) in that case.  I also predict the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which will administer these sanctions, will take the narrow view of the exception and say that blocking payment for the goods does not prohibit their importatiion, which can still occur as long as no payments are made.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

27

BIS Halts Processing on All Export Licenses for Russia


Posted by at 12:28 pm on March 27, 2014
Category: BISDDTCRussia Sanctions

A notice that further processing of all export licenses for CCL items to Russia just appeared in the last several days in the slider on the home page of the website for the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”):

(I’m posting a screenshot because there is no reliable permalink to the slider image).

Existing licenses are not affected; only license applications that were not granted as of March 1, 2014, are covered by this policy. Compare this to the U.K. action which suspended all existing licenses and applications for military and dual-use items destined for the Russian military “which could be or are being deployed against Ukraine.” The State Department has not yet taken action on licenses and applications for USML items to Russia, although possible action in that regard is rumored.

UPDATE: DDTC has just posted this on the home page of its website:

The Department of State has placed a hold on the issuance of licenses that would authorize the export of defense articles and defense services to Russia. State will continue this practice until further notice.

Permalink Comments Off on BIS Halts Processing on All Export Licenses for Russia

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)