On 1 July, the European Sanctions Blog reported on a Court of Appeal case, with an appeal being dismissed and it being held that the defendant was “complying” with US secondary sanctions by not paying interest to the claimant, and that secondary sanctions were a mandatory provision of law under the agreement involved, because a “mandatory provision” did not only refer to a prohibition that directly bound the borrower not to pay. US secondary sanctions were an “effective prohibition”, and the reason for non-payment (which was what the Court said mattered) was to comply with them.
If you would like to say thanks by making a small contribution, in case I need to upgrade or replace my computers and other paraphernalia, I have a page at https://www.buymeacoffee.com/KoIvM842y
