OFAC Continues Iran Insurance Penalty Focus
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.29.11
OFAC yesterday announced a $38,444 payment in settlement of charges that HCC Insurance Holdings violated the Iranian Transactions Regulations when it "participated in the hull portion of an aircraft hull and liability insurance placement by a foreign insurance broker that insured a foreign-owned commercial airline that leased aircraft to an air charter company that operated in Iran."
This announcement is significant for several reasons. First, OFAC provided enough information in the press release to explain why this conduct was a violation, citing the fact that HCC knew or had reason to know that some of the insured aircraft would be operated in Iran and that the underwriting of this business "was harmful to the objectives of the Iranian sanctions program." Second, it illustrates how OFAC expects insurance companies to comply with the sanctions regulations. Specifically, it demonstrates OFAC's expectations that those subject to US jurisdiction screen all transactions and refrain from participation in coverage that involves Iran (in this case OFAC observed that the insurance policy "would" not "could" cover aircraft flown into Iran, suggesting that there was no room for HCC to argue otherwise). Third, it illustrates the benefits of voluntary disclosure; the base penalty amount was $59,960, meaning that the actual penalty was nearly half of the permissible base penalty. Finally, it illustrates OFAC's ongoing and increasing focus on the insurance/reinsurance industry. OFAC representatives have indicated more cases involving insurance and reinsurance issues are in the pipeline.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
