Photo of Peter Lichtenbaum

Peter Lichtenbaum

Peter Lichtenbaum advises clients on a broad array of international regulatory compliance and trade matters, including export controls, economic sanctions, national security reviews of foreign investments, anti-corruption laws, market access, and international trade disputes. He has specialized experience in the aerospace and defense industries.

Peter is ranked in Band 1 for Export Controls & Sanctions in Chambers USA (2019), which reports that he is “one of those rare lawyers who thinks through all the options moving forward.” Chambers describes him as a “go-to lawyer for those with export controls and sanctions issues.”

Peter has recently helped several companies establish, review or enhance their compliance programs. He is advising major technology companies regarding the impact of recent and ongoing export control developments on their businesses. He has worked with many leading aerospace and defense companies on internal investigations and disclosures related to trade controls and China. He also advises many of these companies on export control reform and defense trade policy issues, including international agreements on the regulation of defense trade. He has extensive experience with the trade controls issues that arise in the U.S. system for national security review of foreign investment, helping companies to identify issues and mitigate government concerns.

Peter served as Vice President for Regulatory Compliance and International Policy at BAE Systems, Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of one of the world’s largest defense contractors. He was responsible for a broad array of regulatory compliance and policy issues. He participated in BAE Systems’ development of innovative standards of internal governance in order for the company to be recognized as a global leader in ethical business conduct.

Previously, Peter held senior positions in the Department of Commerce, one of three key agencies responsible for administering U.S. trade controls. From October 2003 through February 2006, he served as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration, responsible for developing BIS policies regarding export controls imposed for national security, foreign policy, nonproliferation, and other reasons. Peter chaired the inter-agency Advisory Committee on Export Policy, and managed BIS’s participation in multilateral export control regimes. He represented the Department of Commerce in many sensitive matters reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Peter served for several months as Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security and as Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade.

On 4 September 2019, the U.S. Department of State (“DoS”) published draft ‘Guidance for the Export of Hardware, Software and Technology with Surveillance Capabilities and/or Parts/Know-How’ (the “Guidance”). The DoS invited public comment on the draft Guidance until 4 October 2019, after which they will publish finalised guidance.

Goal: Preventing
Continue Reading U.S. Draft Human Rights Guidance for Exporters of Surveillance Technology

The U.S. government is now considering how to define potential new export controls on “emerging technologies.” Our article in the China Business Review explains the legislative context informing the current rulemaking process, highlights key themes in public comments submitted by stakeholders in response to an initial request for input, and
Continue Reading  Industry Weighs In on Potential “Emerging Technologies” Export Controls

On February 15, 2018, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) introduced bipartisan legislation—the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (“ECRA”)⸺to modernize U.S. export control regulation of commercial and dual-use items. The bill is co-sponsored by the committee’s ranking Democratic member, Eliot Engel (D-NY). The proposed legislation seeks to establish a permanent statutory basis for export control of commercial, dual-use, and less sensitive defense items.

Introducing the ECRA, Chairman Royce emphasized that the need for export control reform is dictated by aggressive Chinese government policies that have increasingly forced U.S. companies to hand over sensitive technology as a cost of doing business in China. In response, the ECRA establishes a framework to protect critical and emerging U.S. technology and know-how. The same issue also has been taken up through the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (“FIRRMA”), a bipartisan effort to control outbound technology transfers (among other issues) through the expansion of the authority and operation of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). It remains to be seen whether Congress will proceed with the ECRA or FIRRMA, or potentially combine the two efforts.

Key Aspects of the Export Control Reform Act

If enacted as introduced, the potential impact of the ECRA on export controls would be far- reaching:

  • The ECRA on its face would significantly expand U.S. jurisdiction to regulate the transfer abroad by U.S. and foreign persons of commodities, software, or technology regardless of any U.S. content.
  • The ECRA would for the first time apply U.S. deemed export controls to transfers of controlled technology to U.S. companies unless they are majority-owned by U.S. natural persons.
  • The ECRA would establish control over release of technology that includes information at any stage of its creation, such as “foundational information” and “know-how,” in order to protect emerging technology and sensitive intellectual property. To that extent, the bill would require the president to establish an interagency process to identify emerging technologies that are not identified in any U.S. or multilateral control list, but nonetheless could be essential to U.S. national security.

Continue Reading Export Control Reform Act Introduced in Congress

During the past two weeks, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) and the U.S. Department of State have taken a number of steps toward implementing aspects of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”), a major piece of sanctions legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in July and signed by President Trump in early August. These steps are in addition to those described in our client alert last month.

Specifically, as called for by CAATSA, OFAC on October 31 issued a revised Russia sectoral sanctions Directive 4 that expands the restrictions on U.S. person support for certain unconventional oil projects to reach new such projects being undertaken anywhere in the world where a sectorally sanctioned Russian energy company has a majority voting or 33 percent or greater ownership interest in the project. OFAC also issued related guidance on this expanded sanction. In addition, OFAC issued guidance on the application of secondary sanctions to foreign financial institutions and on the implementation of other measures in CAATSA.

Also with respect to CAATSA, the U.S. Department of State has issued guidance on the imposition of secondary sanctions relating to Russia’s energy export pipelines, investments in special Russian crude oil projects, and a CAATSA provision that requires the President to sanction persons who knowingly engage in significant transactions with parties affiliated with Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors.

With respect to Iran, OFAC issued amended regulations on October 31 implementing CAATSA’s requirement to impose terrorism-related sanctions with respect to officials, agents, or affiliates of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”).

Primary Sectoral Sanctions Targeting Russia’s Energy Sector

Since September 12, 2014, OFAC Directive 4 has prohibited U.S. persons from providing goods, services (except for financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production from deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in Russia or its territorial waters and that involve a sectorally sanctioned Russian energy company or an entity owned 50 percent or more, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, by one or more such companies. “U.S. persons” are legal entities organized under U.S. law and their non-U.S. branches; individual U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“green-card” holders), wherever located or employed; and any persons when physically present in the United States.Continue Reading Russia and Iran Sanctions: Recent Developments

On April 20, 2017, President Trump issued a memorandum announcing that the Secretary of Commerce had initiated an investigation to determine the effects of imported steel on national security. The investigation was initiated under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.

I. Conduct of
Continue Reading Trump Moves on Steel Under Section 232

President Obama’s announcement that the United States is “changing its relationship with the people of Cuba” has been welcomed by many in the business community, who continue to await regulatory amendments that will implement the new policy.  (For background on the President’s announcement, please see our client alert of December
Continue Reading President’s Cuba Announcement Presents Commercial Opportunity, Test of Executive Power