Log in
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Dynamic quotes 

MarketScreener Homepage  >  Equities  >  Xetra  >  Siemens AG    SIE   DE0007236101


News SummaryMost relevantAll newsPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener StrategiesAnalyst Recommendations

Siemens : District Court Decision Incorrectly Holds That OFAC Sanctions Bar PdVSA From Making Payment On Pre-Sanctions Debts

share with twitter share with LinkedIn share with facebook
share via e-mail
02/17/2020 | 09:10am EDT

On February 11, 2020, Judge Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Dresser-Rand Company's (Dresser Rand) motion for summary judgment in a suit to collect on a promissory note issued by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA). The Court's decision turned on a finding that payment by PdVSA was legally impossible under U.S. sanctions. That finding was based on incomplete briefing by the parties and appears seriously flawed given the licenses and guidance provided by the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). We discuss the decision and the U.S. sanctions regime as applied to the promissory note below.

The Order and the Parties' Submissions

According to the opinion and order issued by the Court (the Order), Dresser-Rand holds a note issued by PdVSA on January 20, 2017, and guaranteed by PdVSA Petróleo, S.A. (Petróleo), a wholly owned subsidiary of PdVSA, for the principal sum of $119,645,069.70. PdVSA made its first two payments on the note, but subsequent attempts at payment were rejected by Dresser-Rand's bank for internal policy reasons following the U.S. imposition of targeted sanctions against PdVSA on August 25, 2017. PdVSA and Dresser-Rand discussed other methods of payment, but default on the payments continued. In February 2019, Dresser-Rand filed suit via a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint against PdVSA and Petróleo.

The Order addressed whether U.S. sanctions provided PdVSA and/or Petróleo an impossibility defense (i.e., whether "governmental sanctions make it impracticable or impossible . . . to pay Dresser-Rand"). The Court found that Petróleo as guarantor had waived all defenses except for complete payment and granted summary judgment against Petróleo. However, the Court also held that U.S. sanctions (in particular, blocking sanctions imposed pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13850) "make it legally impossible here for PdVSA to pay Dresser‑Rand,"1 which the Court found created a disputed factual issue precluding summary judgment and necessitating a trial over PdVSA's impossibility of payment defense.. As discussed below, the Court's finding fails to take into account (and the parties failed to brief) general licenses and guidance issued by OFAC that make it clear that PdVSA is not prohibited from making payments on pre-sanctions debt.

Both PdVSA and Petróleo (as a subsidiary of PdVSA by operation of OFAC's 50 Percent Rule) are subject to blocking sanctions under E.O. 13850 and E.O. 13884. These blocking sanctions provide that the assets of PdVSA and Petróleo within U.S. jurisdictions are blocked and all transactions within U.S. jurisdiction involving PdVSA and Petróleo are prohibited, absent a license. The Court relied upon E.O. 13850 to conclude that payment on the note was prohibited.

However, OFAC's General License (GL) 9F exempts transactions and activities ordinarily incident and necessary to dealings in any debt (explicitly including promissory notes) of PdVSA and Petróleo issued prior to August 25, 2017 from blocking sanctions under those E.O. 13850 and E.O. 13884.2 OFAC has given specific guidance that those provisions of the license authorize "engaging in transactions related to the receipt and processing of interest or principal payments." We note that PdVSA made an interest payment in May 2019 on its bond maturing in 2020 ⁠—after it had been targeted for blocking sanctions in January 2019⁠— based on GL 9F's predecessor license. This payment was permissible under U.S. sanctions law, just as payment on the note held by Dresser-Rand would appear to be permissible.3

Neither the Order nor the parties' briefs mention or discuss the General License.


There are a few lessons to be learned from the litigation and the Order:

  • Despite clear OFAC regulatory action and guidance to the contrary, for the moment there is a U.S. federal district court decision that states that PdVSA is legally barred from making payment on its debts.
  • It is possible that, as in this case and others of which we are aware, banks will refuse to process even payments that are legally permissible when sanctioned persons are involved as a matter of internal policy.
  • Parties facing sanctions issues, including litigants, bondholders, and others, should seek specialist advice, as U.S. sanctions programs are increasingly complicated and difficult to navigate.


[1] Order at 8 (emphasis added).

[2] GL 9F does not address restrictions under E.O. 13835 on dealings in equity collateral securing debt of the Government of Venezuela and its controlled entities, such as the shares in Citgo Holding Inc. securing the PdVSA 2020 bonds; GL 5B, which under its current terms is not effective until April 22, 2020, a date that could be further delayed, would be needed to execute on that collateral.

[3] Both PdVSA and Petróleo are also subject to sanctions under E.O. 13808, which prohibits dealings in "new debt" created on or after August 25, 2017, with a maturity of greater than 90 days of both entities within U.S. jurisdiction. While the Order states that "Dresser-Rand extended PdVSA's time to make payments," OFAC guidance indicates that mere late payment does not create "new debt," and the Order contains no analysis supporting a conclusion that Dresser-Rand and PdVSA entered into a new, post-sanctions agreement (nor any language limiting its holding to that situation).

To view original article, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mr Paul Marquardt
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
One Liberty Plaza
44th Floor
New York
Tel: 212225 2000
Fax: 212225 3999
E-mail: clearygottlieb@clearygottlieb.com
URL: www.clearygottlieb.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

share with twitter share with LinkedIn share with facebook
share via e-mail
Latest news on SIEMENS AG
03/30German engineering industry faces more supply chain problems - VDMA
03/30SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT : Release of a capital market information
03/27SIEMENS : connects healthcare providers and medical designers to produce compone..
03/26SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT : Notification and public disclosure of transactions ..
03/24Germany eyes post-virus stimulus package
03/23SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT : Release of a capital market information
03/20Germany will block foreign takeovers to avoid economy sell-out
03/20GLOBAL MARKETS LIVE: Aldi purchases Leader Price, Apple limits iPhone purchas..
03/20Siemens says Chinese operations almost back to normal after virus outbreak
03/20SIEMENS : Conference Call – March 2020
More news
Financials (EUR)
Sales 2020 86 905 M
EBIT 2020 6 530 M
Net income 2020 4 826 M
Debt 2020 27 409 M
Yield 2020 5,18%
P/E ratio 2020 12,7x
P/E ratio 2021 10,7x
EV / Sales2020 1,01x
EV / Sales2021 0,95x
Capitalization 60 190 M
Duration : Period :
Siemens AG Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends SIEMENS AG
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
Income Statement Evolution
Mean consensus OUTPERFORM
Number of Analysts 24
Average target price 109,31  €
Last Close Price 75,26  €
Spread / Highest target 99,3%
Spread / Average Target 45,2%
Spread / Lowest Target -6,99%
EPS Revisions
Josef Kaeser President & Chief Executive Officer
Jim Hagemann Snabe Chairman-Supervisory Board
Roland Emil Busch Deputy CEO, COO, CTO & Labour Director
Ralf Peter Thomas Chief Financial Officer
Hanna Hennig Chief Information Officer
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capitalization (M$)
SIEMENS AG-35.42%66 405
3M COMPANY-21.93%79 236
HITACHI, LTD.6.70%27 798