US Provides Broad Sanctions Relief to Syria
On 23 May 2025, the United States provided broad sanctions relief to Syria and the new Government of Syria under President Ahmed al-Sharaa. While speaking at an investment forum in Riyadh, President Trump announced his intentions to lift sanctions on Syria, stating that sanctions relief will “give them a chance at greatness.”
To that end, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License (GL) 25, authorizing transactions prohibited by the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (SySR), as well as transactions prohibited under certain other statutes and executive orders. Alongside GL 25, the US Department of State issued a 180-day waiver of mandatory “Caesar Act” sanctions to permit certain investments in Syria and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network permitted US banks to maintain correspondent accounts for the Commercial Bank of Syria.
Between 2004 and 2011, the United States imposed increasingly comprehensive sanctions on Syria, prohibiting most US investment in Syria, the export of goods and services to Syria, dealings in Syrian petroleum, and transactions involving Syrian blocked parties, including “secondary sanctions” for significant dealings with the blocked Government of Syria.
Under GL 25, US persons are authorized to engage in many transactions prohibited under the SySR, including:
Transactions with 28 Syrian parties on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), including certain financial institutions, ports, oil and gas companies, airlines, and ministries. These parties are named in the Annex to GL 25. Authorization to deal with these named parties extends to the blocked entities they own at least 50% or more (collectively “Annex Parties”).
Certain transactions in Syria, provided they do not involve blocked parties that are not Annex Parties, including: new investment in Syria, the export of services to Syria, US importation and other dealings in Syrian petroleum, dealings in the property and property interests of Annex Parties, and payment transfers involving such authorized activities.
It is important to note that GL 25 does not authorize:
Transactions involving blocked parties not specifically authorized under GL 25.
Unblocking any property blocked as of 22 May 2025.
Exports, reexports, and transfers to or within Syria that require authorization under the Export Administration Regulations or International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Accordingly, the export, reexport, or transfer of defense articles and dual-use items, software, and technology remain prohibited unless authorized.
Transactions involving the Governments of Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
Sanctions relief under GL 25 became effective on 23 May 2025 and is not subject to an expiration date. OFAC can revoke GL 25 at any time or replace it with a “GL 25A” requiring the “wind down” of existing transactions by a certain date. The Treasury Department has signaled that additional sanctions relief may be forthcoming, referring to GL 25 as a “first step.”
Investment Management Client Alert May 2025
ESMA Publishes Final Reports on Liquidity Management Tools
On 15 April 2025, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published its final reports on the Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) and the Guidelines on Liquidity Management Tools (Guidelines). The liquidity management tools (LMTs) were significantly amended by the Directive 2011/61/EU on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD) review. ESMA has a mandate to develop the regulatory technical standards and guidelines and initiated a consultation on this in July 2024.
The RTS are intended to specify the characteristics of the nine LMTs that have been introduced by the AIFMD review. The Guidelines, which are to be read together with the RTS, also concern the selection, activation, and adjustment of the LMTs.
The Guidelines contain a breakdown of the LMTs into three categories: quantitative-based tools (e.g., redemption suspension and restriction), anti-dilution tools (e.g., redemption fees), and other tools (e.g., separating illiquid investments into so-called side pockets). Management companies should assess which LMTs are suitable for which fund types and in which (normal or stressed) market situations and provide a number of examples.
Compared to the consultation, the RTS provide for greater flexibility in the design of the activation limits for redemption restrictions. The requirement for LMTs to be applied uniformly across all share classes has been removed (except for the case of suspension). The organizational requirements for a so-called LMT policy to be drawn up have also been removed from the Guidelines.
In principle, the European Commission has three months to adopt the RTS or submit proposals for amendments (15 July 2025). The RTS will enter into force 20 days after adoption by the European Commission, although no explicit date is specified for the applicability of the regulations in the RTS and Guidelines (the AIFMD review itself must be implemented by 16 April 2026). A 12-month transitional period applies to investment funds that already exist prior to the date of applicability of the RTS and Guidelines.
ESMA Publishes Final Report on MiFID II Best Execution Requirements
On 10 April 2025, ESMA published its final report on the RTS on best execution. The best execution requirements in the EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) were amended as part of the MiFID II review. ESMA has a mandate to develop the technical regulatory standards and initiated a consultation on this in July 2024.
Investment firms executing client orders must monitor the effectiveness of their order execution policy and arrangements and assess, among other things, whether execution venues are providing the best possible result for clients. The RTS should specify criteria to be taken into account when determining and assessing the effectiveness of the order execution policy.
The RTS stipulate that the selected trading venue must be regularly reviewed on the basis of alternative trading venues to ensure that the best possible result is achieved for the client. Compared to the consultation, the requirements for selecting the trading venue have been simplified (e.g., fewer selection criteria).
The European Commission generally has three months to adopt the RTS or submit proposals for amendments (10 July 2025). The RTS enter into force 20 days after adoption by the European Commission. The RTS are applicable 18 months after entry into force.
ESMA Consults RTS on ESG Rating Regulation
On 2 May 2025, ESMA published a consultation paper on draft RTS regarding various aspects of the European Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Rating Regulation.
The ESG Rating Regulation aims to contribute to the transparency and quality of ESG ratings by improving the integrity, transparency, comparability, responsibility, reliability, good governance, and independence of ESG ratings.
The draft RTS defines information that ESG rating providers should provide in applications for authorization and recognition. In addition, the draft details the measures and safeguards that should be put in place to mitigate the risks of conflicts of interest for ESG rating providers when they also engage in activities other than issuing ESG ratings. Finally, the draft proposes information that ESG rating providers should disclose to the public, rated entities, and issuers of rated entities, as well as users of ESG ratings.
ESMA will review the consultation feedback received by 20 June 2025 and plans to publish a final report in October 2025.
ESMA Publishes New Consolidated PRIIPs Q&A
On 5 May 2025, ESMA published an updated version of its Consolidated Questions and Answers (Q&A) on the PRIIPs Key Information Document (KID). Compared to the last version dated 15 March 2024, the document contains further clarifications regarding the definition of the class for the market risk measure (MRM class), the performance scenarios, and the calculation of the summary cost indicator. Regarding entry costs (e.g., issue premiums), for example, it is clarified that these are included in the assumed investment amount of EUR 10,000 (as per point 90 of Annex VI of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653) and are not added on top.
BaFin Consults on “Circular on Members of the Management Board and of Administrative and Supervisory Bodies pursuant to the German Banking Act (KWG)”
On 14 May 2025, the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, or BaFin) published a draft of a “Circular on Members of the Management Board and of Administrative and Supervisory Bodies pursuant to the German Banking Act” (also known as the “Fit and Proper” Circular) for consultation. The final circular is intended to replace the existing “Guidance Note on Managers in accordance with the KWG, ZAG and KAGB” and the “Guidance Note on Members of Administrative and Supervisory Bodies in accordance with the KWG and KAGB”. The aim of the new circular is to summarize the currently existing individual guidance notes for the future in order to avoid duplication and to implement common European guidelines, insofar as BaFin adopts these in its administrative practice. It also contains completion and administrative instructions and takes into account requirements from the German Risk Reduction Act (Risikoreduzierungsgesetz). The consultation is open for comments until 13 June 2025.
BaFin Consults on Ordinance to Simplify Holder Control Procedures and Certain Personal Notifications
On 20 May 2025, BaFin published a draft of an “Ordinance on the Simplification of Holder Control Procedures and Certain Personal Disclosures” for consultation. This ordinance is intended to simplify the holder control procedure in relation to credit institutions, financial services institutions, insurance companies, pension funds, and insurance holding companies in accordance with the German Holder Control Regulation Ordinance (Inhaberkontrollverordnung – InhKontrollV) and in relation to other financial companies to which the InhKontrollV applies accordingly with regard to the documents (e.g., certificates of good conduct) and declarations (e.g., CVs) to be submitted. Indirect acquirers who are not at the top of the acquiring group should, as a rule, no longer have to submit any documents beyond the notification of their intention to acquire, and, in the case of holder control proceedings relating to leasing and factoring institutions in liquidation, the submission of documents may be waived if necessary. Further simplifications focus on natural persons and the documents relating to their reliability. The consultation is open for comments until 5 June 2025.
BaFin Plans Product Intervention With Regard to Trading in Turbo Certificates
BaFin announced on 21 May 2025 that it intends to restrict trading in turbo certificates by issuing a general ruling due to significant concerns for investor protection, and that it is now launching a consultation with affected market participants. Accordingly, the marketing, distribution, and sale of the products shall only be permitted under certain conditions in the future. In particular, a standardized risk warning is to be included, bonuses (e.g., reduced order fees) are no longer to be granted, and an extended appropriateness test is to be carried out. This was preceded by a market investigation by BaFin, which found that 74.2% of investors had suffered losses when trading these leveraged derivative products. The legal bases for this supervisory measure are Art. 42 of the European Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) and § 15 (1), sentence 2, of the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz) in conjunction with Art. 42 MiFIR. Responses to the planned measure can be submitted to BaFin until 3 July 2025.
A Gap in the Market for Corruption Enforcement
This article will examine the evolving attitudes of the United Kingdom (“UK”), European Union (“EU”) and United States (“US”) toward corruption enforcement and will assess whether the UK and EU will be able to plug the potential enforcement gap created by President Trump’s recent Executive Order.
The United States
On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled, ‘Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security’ (the “EO”). As discussed in our previous article, this directs the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to pause enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) for 180 days, while the Attorney General reviews the guidelines and policies governing FCPA investigations and enforcement actions.
The EO does not remove all bribery and corruption risks because, among other things and notwithstanding the temporary pause, it does not apply to civil actions brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, it does not repeal the FCPA, and the FCPA’s statute of limitations remains five years, which could run longer that the current enforcement pause. However, the EO, in addition to numerous other Executive Orders (which can be found here), highlights a shift in enforcement priorities under the Trump administration, the full effects of which are yet to be seen.
European Union
While the US has signalled that it is scaling back on enforcement that “actively harms American economic competitiveness,”[1] the EU is demonstrating an increased commitment to robust bribery and corruption enforcement.
On May 3, 2023, the European Commission put forward an anti-corruption package, which included a proposal for a directive focused on tackling corruption. The proposal’s explanatory memorandum described corruption as an “impediment to sustainable economic growth, diverting resources from productive outcomes”. The Council of the EU approved the general approach for the directive on June 14, 2024, and noted that the EU’s current instruments are “not sufficiently comprehensive, and the current criminalisation of corruption varies across Member States hampering a coherent and effective response across the Union.” The Council of the EU said the directive will establish “minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and criminal and non-criminal penalties in the area of corruption, as well as measures to better prevent and fight corruption.”
In addition to potential legislative changes, on March 20, 2025, the creation of the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce (the “Taskforce”) was announced. The Taskforce, which includes the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”), the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland and France’s Parquet National Financier, issued a Founding Statement, recognizing “the significant threat of bribery and corruption and the severe harm it causes.”[2] The Taskforce seeks to deliver a Leaders’ Group for exchanging insight and strategy, a Working Group for devising proposals for co-operation, increased best practice sharing, and a strengthened foundation to seize opportunities for operational collaboration.
United Kingdom
The UK has also taken positive action to ameliorate its corruption detection and enforcement strategy.
First, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, introduced the failure to prevent fraud offence (“FTPFO”), which means that large organizations, wherever located, can be held criminally liable if a fraud offence is committed by an “associated person” for, or on behalf of, the organisation with the intention of benefitting the organization or its clients. The SFO’s Business Plan 2025-26, emphasized that the “deployment of the failure to prevent fraud offence in September will be a landmark moment which will widen the reach and breadth of prosecutions.”[3]
Also included in the SFO Business Plan was an intention to “progress whistleblower incentivisation reform.” Whistleblower incentivization increases the likelihood of reports being made which first reduces corruption by acting as a deterrent but also aids enforcement as an information gathering tool. The Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulatory Authority have previously cautioned against providing financial incentives for whistleblowers, due to concerns over entrapment, malicious reporting, the quality of reports, and the cost-effectiveness of such schemes.[4] This position is at odds with that adopted by the US where, for example, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has implemented a whistleblower program that incentivizes individuals to report anti-money laundering or sanctions violations. A report by RUSI highlights that US incentivization schemes are so effective, “that US regulators are consistently benefiting from information provided by Canadian and UK citizens.”[5] At his first public speech as director of the SFO, Nick Ephgrave QPM attributed the UK’s change of direction to his intention to concentrate efforts on evidence gathering routes that would lead straight to the evidence and find “smoking guns.” Mr Ephgrave’s intention to adopt a US-style approach suggests the UK may be well-placed to plug any potential enforcement gap left by the US.
On April 24, 2025, the SFO published Guidance on Corporate Co-Operation and Enforcement in relation to Corporate Criminal Offending. This guidance outlines the SFO’s key considerations under the public interest stage of the Full Code Test for Crown Prosecutors when deciding whether to charge a corporate or invite it to enter negotiations for a deferred prosecution agreement. The guidance will make it simpler for corporates to report suspected wrongdoing by a direct route to the SFO’s Intelligence Division via a secure reporting portal.
Finally, on December 12, 2024, the UK Security Minister, Dan Jarvis MP MBE, announced the introduction of a pilot Domestic Corruption Unit (the “Unit”), set up by the City of London Police and the Home Office. The Unit will “bring together the different pieces of the system, such as national agencies, local forces [and] devolved policing bodies” and “lead proactive investigations, providing much needed capacity and a dedicated response in areas where previously this has been lacking”. [6]
Conclusion
The fate of bribery and corruption enforcement in the US is unclear. Instead of spearheading prosecution sand compliance efforts globally, the US appears, at least for the time being, to have taken a step back. However, since before President Trump took office, the EU and UK have been sharpening their enforcement capabilities. Therefore, while Nick Ephgrave QPM has been clear that the Taskforce was not in response to the EO, companies cannot rely on a period of relaxed enforcement on either side of the Atlantic.
[1] The White House, Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security – The White House ((February 10, 2025)
[2] International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce, International_Anti-Corruption_Prosecutorial_Taskforce.pdf (March 20, 2025)
[3] Serious Fraud Office, SFO_2025-26__Business_Plan.pdf (April 3, 2025)
[4] Financial Conduct Authority, Prudential Regulation Authority, Financial Incentives for Whistleblowers (July, 2014)
[5] Royal United Services Institute, The Inside Track: The Role of Financial Rewards for Whistleblowers in the Fight Against Economic Crime (December, 2024)
[6] Home Office, Working with partners to defeat economic crime – GOV.UK (December 12, 2024)
EU Lifts Key Sanctions on Syria: Legal and Compliance Implications Amid Evolving Opportunities
Earlier this week, the Council of the EU adopted a series of legal instruments giving effect to what had been agreed on 20 May 2025, to significantly reduce sanctions on the Syrian Arab Republic. As a result, all EU economic restrictive measures targeting Syria have been lifted, except for those maintained on specific security-related grounds. This marks a substantial shift in the EU’s sanctions posture, intended to facilitate renewed economic engagement, support post-war reconstruction and encourage institutional re-integration, while preserving targeted measures where legal and strategic considerations continue to apply.
As part of this move, 24 entities have been removed from the EU’s list of designated persons and entities subject to asset freezes (vid. Annex II, EU Regulation Nº36/2012). These include financial institutions such as the Central Bank of Syria and commercial actors operating in strategic sectors for the country’s recovery, such as oil production and refining, cotton, telecommunications and media. The council characterises this lifting of sanctions as a principled response to a moment of historic transition, and a reaffirmation of the EU’s longstanding partnership with the Syrian people.
Read the full insight here.
Government Consultation on the Introduction of Mandatory Ethnicity and Disability Pay Gap Reporting Now Open
The UK government has launched a consultation on introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for certain employers. The consultation closes on 30 June 2025. This consultation applies to ‘large employers’ and ‘large public bodies’ who are defined are those with 250 or more employees. The responses to this consultation will be used to inform the government’s drafting of the proposed Equality (Race and Disability) Bill and ensure that the legislation gives employers a clear framework on what is required of them.
Key proposals
Large employers have been required to report their gender pay gap data since 2017 which the Government says has led to greater transparency for employers and employees. The Government plans to use a similar reporting framework for ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, meaning that all employers with 250 or more employees will need to report any ethnicity and disability pay gaps amongst their workforces.
Employers will be required to use data from a ‘snapshot date’ of 5 April each year and report their gaps within 12 months i.e., by 4 April the following year. Employers will report their data online, in a similar way to how gender pay gaps are reported. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which currently enforces gender pay gap reporting, be empowered to enforce ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, too.
Employers will report ethnicity and disability pay gaps on the same measures used for gender pay gap reporting:
mean differences in average hourly pay;
median differences in average hourly pay;
pay quarters – the percentage of employees in four equally-sized groups, ranked from highest to lowest hourly pay;
mean differences in bonus pay;
median differences in bonus pay; and
the percentage of employees receiving bonus pay.
In addition to the above, the Government will also require employers to report on the overall breakdown of their workforce by ethnicity and disability and the percentage of employees who did not disclose their personal data on their ethnicity and disability.
The Government is also seeking views on whether employers should have to produce “action plans” for ethnicity and disability pay gaps (a similar proposal for gender pay gap “action plans” is currently included in the Employment Rights Bill). This would provide employers with an opportunity to explain the reasons for any pay gaps and the steps they are taking to address them.
Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting
In relation to ethnicity pay gap reporting specifically, the Government has proposed employees self-report their ethnicity (with an option to opt out of answering; employees will not be legally required to disclose this information). Those who do wish to disclose their ethnicity should select their ethnicity from the 18 classifications used in the Government Statistical Service ethnicity harmonised standard that was used for the 2021 Census.
In order to report on ethnic pay gaps, the government has proposed that the minimum threshold should be 10 employees in any ethnic group being analysed in terms of pay. If there are fewer than 10 employees in any of the classifications, employers should combine ethnic groups together, following the guidance on ethnicity data from the Office for National Statistics to ensure groupings are as comparable as possible. Where there are smaller numbers of employees in different ethnic groups, the Government has advised that employers report a “binary classification”, for example, reporting the comparison between the largest ethnic group in the organisation and all other groups combined.
The Government is also seeking views on whether large public bodies such as universities should report on ethnicity pay difference by grade or salary bands and data relating to recruitment, retention, and progression by ethnicity.
Disability Pay Gap Reporting
The government proposes using the Equality Act 2010 definition of ‘disability’ as the basis of identifying disabled employees. The Government also proposes to make employers responsible for collecting data on disability in accordance with that definition, however, as with ethnicity pay gap reporting, employees will self-report (or can opt out of reporting) their disability status.
The Government has also proposed a binary approach to disability pay gap calculations. All disabled employees will be grouped together regardless of their disability and employers will be required to compare disabled employees with non-disabled employees. Employers will not be required to collect and publish data about different impairment types.
There should be a minimum of 10 employees in each group being compared. If there are less than 10 employees with disabilities, it is presumed that the employer will still be required to file a report explaining that they cannot publish a disability pay gap to reduce the risk of individuals becoming identifiable.
Practical implications
The introduction of mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting will be a major change for UK employers as many will not have been collecting and analysing such data to date.
The consultation does not specify when these reporting requirements will be introduced, although the Government has stated it will be publishing the draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill this parliamentary session. The earliest the reporting requirements will be introduced is 2026 with the first reports due in 2027.
The collection of ethnicity and disability data will likely be a challenging task for employers who will need to ensure that they approach their obligations in a way that does not compromise employee privacy data protection law. Calculating the average pay of a dataset as small as 10 employees may result in individual identification being possible and its usefulness is questionable as there may be significant fluctuations if employees join or leave.
Employers may also be concerned about the potential triggering liabilities and responsibilities if employees come forward and disclose that they consider themselves to be disabled when they have not previously done so.
The full consultation document can be found here.
*Maya Sterrie, trainee in the Employment Litigation practice, contributed to this article.
Victorian Government to Extend the Temporary Off-the-Plan Duty Concession
As part of the 2025–2026 Victorian State Budget announced on 20 May 2025, the Victorian government has confirmed that it intends to extend the availability of an expanded off-the-plan stamp duty concession for a further 12-month period.
Under the expanded concession regime, purchasers are able to apply a duty concession to the purchase of apartments and townhouses (other than detached dwellings) off the plan. Prior to the temporary expansion being introduced in October 2024, which was legislated to apply for a 12-month period, purchasers were only eligible for the concession where they were buying their principal place of residence and the dutiable value was below a prescribed threshold. Under the expanded regime, the concession is available to all purchasers, including investors and foreign buyers (although the foreign additional duty regime continues to apply).
You can read our previous article on the temporary expansion of the off-the-plan duty concession here.
Once the extension passes Parliament, the expanded off-the-plan stamp duty concession will be extended for a further period of 12-months with an expiry date of 20 October 2026 (unless extended further).
The extension will come as welcome news to both purchasers and developers, particularly in the context of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s recent announcement to further ease interest rates. We remain of the view that the expanded concession should not have a time limit and should have ongoing application (as was the case prior to changes introduced by the Victorian government in 2017) so as to support confidence for investment in new housing projects, which are critical to address Victoria’s housing crisis.
Court Strikes Down Fentanyl and Reciprocal Tariffs, but Appeals Court Temporarily Stays Impact
Key Takeaways
The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down President Trump’s fentanyl and reciprocal tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), ruling the statute did not authorize such broad actions.
The court’s order halts future tariff collection, requires refunds of duties collected since February 2025, and has nationwide impact across all U.S. importers and ports.
The government has appealed the decision and requested a stay of the court’s order, which the Federal Circuit granted. This temporary stay pauses the unwinding of the tariffs, resulting in continued tariff collection in the interim and delayed refunds to importers.
The ruling is limited to IEEPA-based tariffs and does not affect existing or future tariffs imposed under Section 232 or Section 301 authorities.
On May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) struck down the earliest and broadest of President Trump’s second term tariff actions: the tariffs imposed against Canada, Mexico and China starting in February and March (the fentanyl tariffs) and the tariffs imposed against nearly all other countries in early April (the reciprocal tariffs). These actions, together as subsequently modified, subjected most U.S. imports to additional import duties of between 10% and 25%. The court’s order wipes those executive tariff impositions off the table, eliminating prior and prospective collection, including the planned increase of the 10% reciprocal tariffs later this summer. If the opinion and order stand, all fentanyl and reciprocal duties collected since February 2025 will be refunded. The court’s order does not impact tariffs imposed under other tariff authorities like Section 232 or Section 301.
The court’s opinion, issued on May 28, impacts multiple tariff executive orders issued by the President invoking the IEEPA. The court specifically found that that statute did not authorize the President “to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.”
On February 1, President Trump first invoked IEEPA to announce tariffs imposed on U.S. imports from Canada, China and Mexico intended to address the flow of fentanyl and its precursors from those countries crossing the U.S. border; the actions against Canada and Mexico were also intended to address migration flows from those two countries. The tariffs, set to take effect on February 4, were ultimately deferred with regard to Canada and Mexico until early March. Since that time, these tariffs have been revised on several occasions, for example, exempting U.S. imports eligible for preferential treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) from the fentanyl tariffs.
Later, on April 2, President Trump announced 10% tariffs on the vast majority of imports from the vast majority of countries, effective April 5; these tariffs were intended to rebalance U.S. trade flows and achieve “reciprocal” trading treatment. For certain countries, those 10% tariffs briefly increased to higher country-specific rates at 12:01 am ET on April 9, 2025. That same date, however, President Trump paused the increase in reciprocal duty tariff rates for those countries with enhanced rates above 10% for all countries other thanChina, with the higher rates deferred for 90 days (to July 8, 2025). With regard to shipments from China, President Trump announced escalating tariff rates peaking at 125%. The 125% tariffs were subsequently temporarily decreased to 10%, effective May 16, 2025, following productive negotiations between the U.S. and China; higher rates previously in effect are expected to be reimposed effective August 12.
The court’s action from May 28 eliminates the entire IEEPA tariff framework, ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection to refund the fentanyl and reciprocal tariffs collected and cease collection of new duties. This order has national effect, thereby impacting across all U.S. importers and ports.
Although the court invalidates the tariffs and orders that the tariffs be unwound within 10 calendar days of its opinion’s issuance, the government has already appealed the court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has sought a stay of the court’s order pending resolution of the appeal, which the Federal Circuit granted. This temporary stay pauses the unwinding of the tariffs, resulting in continued tariff collection in the interim and delayed refunds to importers. Whichever party prevails on appeal before the Federal Circuit will have an opportunity to seek further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The USCIT’s judgment is limited to the IEEPA-based tariff regimes and does not impact tariffs imposed under other legal mechanisms, for example, tariffs imposed to date or potentially imposed in the future on certain sectors under national security investigations conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (such as on steel, aluminum or autos) or under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (as imposed by President Trump during his first term against certain imports from China and expanded during the Biden Administration). This opinion also does not impact future potential Section 232 actions, such as those that may be taken for pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, semiconductors and heavy trucks following the outcome of those investigations.
Stronger Workplaces for Nova Scotia Act Amendments in Effect in July and September 2025
On September 20, 2024, Nova Scotia’s Stronger Workplaces for Nova Scotia Act, which amended the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Labour Standards Code, received Royal Assent. Portions of the Stronger Workplaces for Nova Scotia Act are already in effect. This article will review the changes coming into effect in July and September 2025.
Quick Hits
The Stronger Workplaces for Nova Scotia Act amends the Workers’ Compensation Act to include Section 89A, which outlines the duties of employers and employees regarding the early and safe return to work of injured workers. This change will come into effect on July 15, 2025.
Starting September 1, 2025, the act will also amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to include psychological health and safety in the definition of “health and safety” and require employers to establish policies to prevent workplace harassment.
Employers may want to review and update their current policies on harassment, occupational health and safety, and safe return to work to comply with the new regulations and address the Nova Scotian government’s focus on preventing workplace harassment and psychological harm.
Changes Coming in July 2025
The Stronger Workplaces for Nova Scotia Act amends the Workers’ Compensation Act by adding Section 89A and changing Subsection 89(3), which provides the definitions for “alternative employment” and “suitable work,” to apply to Section 89A as well. These changes come into effect on July 15, 2025.
Section 89A essentially codifies an employer’s and employee’s duties and the actions when an employee is injured and returns to work. It states,
(1) The employer of an injured worker shall co-operate in the early and safe return to work of the worker by
(a) contacting the worker as soon as practicable after the injury occurs and maintaining communication throughout the period of the worker’s recovery and impairment;
(b) attempting to provide suitable work that is available and, where possible, restores the worker’s pre-injury earnings;
(c) giving the [Workers’ Compensation] Board such information as the Board may request concerning the worker’s return to work; and
(d) doing such other things as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) An injured worker shall co-operate in the worker’s early and safe return to work by
(a) contacting the employer as soon as practicable after the injury occurs and maintaining communication throughout the period of the worker’s recovery and impairment;
(b) assisting the employer, as may be required or requested, to identify suitable work that is available and, where possible, restores the worker’s pre-injury earnings;
(c) giving the Board such information as the Board may request concerning the worker’s return to work; and
(d) doing such other things as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(3) Where, in the opinion of the Board, an employer fails or refuses to comply with subsection (1), the Board may impose a penalty on the employer not exceeding the total of
(a) the full amount or capitalized value, as determined by the Board, of any compensation payable to a worker of the employer in respect of injuries that occurred to the employer’s workers during the period of non-compliance; and
(b) any other expenditures made by the Board in respect of injuries that occurred to the employer’s workers during the period of non-compliance.
(4) Where, in the opinion of the Board, a worker fails or refuses to comply with subsection (2), the Board may suspend, reduce, terminate or withhold the worker’s compensation during the period of non-compliance.
The definitions of “alternative employment” and “suitable work” in Subsection 89(3) are the following:
“Alternative employment” means employment that is comparable to the worker’s pre-injury work in nature, earnings, qualifications, opportunities and other aspects.
“Suitable work” means work which the worker has the necessary skills to perform, is medically able to perform and which does not pose a health or safety hazard to the worker or any coworkers.
However, only “suitable work” is used in Section 89A and not “alternative employment.” So, based on Subclause 89A(1)(b) the employer only needs to attempt to provide work which the worker has the necessary skills to perform, is medically able to perform, and does not pose a health or safety hazard to the worker or others, but does not need to be comparable to the worker’s pre-injury work.
Both employers and employees must follow Section 89A, or else the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia can issue penalties against them. If an employer runs into issues where an employee is not communicating while recovering from their injuries or is not assisting in finding suitable work, it could remind the employee of his or her obligations under Subsection 89A(2) and that the Board could suspend, reduce, terminate, or withhold the employee’s compensation.
Changes Coming in September 2025
The act’s amendments to the OHSA focus on physical and psychological health and safety, and preventing harassment in the workplace. These changes come into effect on September 1, 2025.
The first change is that the act adds the definition of “health and safety” to Section 3 of the OHSA, which includes both physical and psychological health and safety. This could have significant impacts throughout the OHSA, as every mention of “health and safety” now includes psychological health and safety. For example, Section 13(1)(a) and Section 17(1)(a) state that employers and employees respectively shall take every precaution that is reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the health and safety of persons or themselves at or near the workplace, which now includes psychological health and safety.
The second change by the act adds Subsection (4) to Section 13 to the OHSA. Section 13 prescribes the employer’s precautions and duties, and Subsection (4) will add the following:
(4) Every employer shall, in accordance with the regulations, establish and implement a policy respecting the prevention of harassment in the workplace.
While it is not yet clear what employers need to include in this policy, we anticipate the Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Division releasing the regulations and a companion guide by mid-summer 2025, to be in force by September 1, 2025.
We further anticipate the definition of harassment in the regulation to be similar to the language in the Workers’ Compensation General Regulations, which states,
“workplace harassment or bullying” means a single significant occurrence or a course of repeated occurrences of objectionable or unwelcome conduct, comment or action in the workplace that, whether intended or not, degrades, intimidates or threatens, and includes all of the following, but does not include any action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of a worker or the workplace:
(i) workplace harassment or bullying that is based on any personal characteristic, including, but not limited to, a characteristic referred to in clauses 5(1)(h) to (v) of the Human Rights Act,
(ii) inappropriate sexual conduct, including, but not limited to, sexual solicitation or advances, sexually suggestive remarks or gestures, circulating or sharing inappropriate images or unwanted physical contact.
Employers with comprehensive harassment policies may not need to make any changes until the regulations are out; however, if they do not have such policies yet, they may want to begin drafting them.
Impact of These Changes
Employers may want to consider what impact the Stronger Workplaces for Nova Scotia Act will have on their workplaces and review their current harassment, occupational health and safety, and safe return to work policies, especially because the Nova Scotian government is taking harassment and psychological harm in the workplace seriously.
Big Law Redefined: Immigration Insights Episode 14 | Transferring Employees to Canada – What Corporate Employers Need to Know [Podcast]
In this episode of the Immigration Insights series on Greenberg Traurig’s Big Law Redefined podcast, host Kate Kalmykov, co-chair of GT’s Global Immigration & Compliance Practice, is joined by Canadian immigration attorney Sergio Karas to discuss the basics and complexities of corporate immigration to Canada.
They address the do’s and don’ts of cross-border work, key visa categories, business visitor vs. work permit rules, and common mistakes companies make.
Kate and Sergio emphasize the need for careful planning, accurate documentation, and understanding the differences between US and Canadian immigration systems.
If your business is involved with Canadian immigration, you won’t want to miss this discussion!
Supreme Court Stays Order That Had Paused Termination of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans
On May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an unsigned order granting the Trump administration’s application to stay a lower court’s order temporarily halting the rescission of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuela. The Supreme Court’s order allows the administration to resume implementation of rescission actions while court challenges continue through the appeals process.
Quick Hits
The Supreme Court’s stay of a district court order has permitted the Trump administration to resume rescission of the TPS designation for Venezuela, as outlined in Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s previous determinations.
Benefits under the 2023 TPS designation for Venezuela may now be subject to revocation, affecting work authorization and protection from removal for Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries; protections under the 2021 TPS designation will remain in place until September 10, 2025.
Although the Supreme Court’s order reinstates the rescission actions, it leaves open the possibility of further legal challenges regarding the validity of immigration documents (i.e., EADs, Forms I-797, Notices of Action, and Forms I-94) issued with October 2, 2026, expiration dates.
Background
The TPS designation provides temporary status to foreign nationals in the United States who are unable to return to their home countries due to an event or circumstance present in those countries. The secretary of homeland security may designate a foreign country for TPS due to temporary conditions such as ongoing armed conflicts, environmental disasters, epidemics, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent nationals from safely returning to their countries. During the designated TPS period, TPS beneficiaries are protected from removal and may apply for work and travel authorization.
In 2021, Venezuela was initially designated for TPS, and in October 2023, Venezuela was redesignated for TPS—an expansion of the program that provided additional relief for citizens of Venezuela who met qualifying criteria. The 2021 and 2023 designations were most recently extended by the Biden administration for eighteen months, to October 2, 2026.
On January 28, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem cancelled the extension of the 2021 and 2023 TPS designations for Venezuela. On February 3, 2025, Secretary Noem terminated the 2023 TPS designation entirely, ending temporary legal protections for beneficiaries under the 2023 designation on April 7, 2025.
On March 31, 2025, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a nationwide order postponing Secretary Noem’s cancellation of the eighteen-month extension for the 2021 and 2023 TPS designations and the termination of the 2023 TPS designation, pending a final decision on the merits in the case. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected applications by the Trump administration to stay this temporary order.
Analysis and Impact
The Supreme Court’s order is narrow in scope in that it effectively reverses the lower court’s temporary pause on the rescission of TPS for Venezuela and does not address the merits of the TPS rescission itself.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may now proceed with its revocation of TPS for Venezuela, as outlined in Secretary Noem’s previous determinations. However, legal challenges to these actions will continue to proceed through the courts and may again reach the Supreme Court to directly decide on the legality of DHS’s actions.
Immediate impacts for TPS Venezuela beneficiaries include the following:
Beneficiaries under the 2023 designation may now be subject to revocation of TPS benefits and removal from the United States.
EADs under the 2023 designation with expiration dates of April 2, 2025, may no longer be valid as proof of work authorization.
Beneficiaries under the 2021 designation continue to have TPS benefits in place through September 10, 2025.
Only EADs under the 2021 designation with expiration dates of September 10, 2025, March 10, 2024, or September 9, 2022, are automatically extended through September 10, 2025.
To the extent that Secretary Noem’s rescission of TPS designation purports to invalidate immigration documents, including EADs, already issued to TPS Venezuela beneficiaries with validity until October 2, 2026, the Supreme Court’s order expressly states that such a purported invalidation remains subject to legal challenge. However, absent further court decisions or DHS policy changes, the prior rescissions of TPS designation for Venezuela are reinstated, and any EADs or other documents with a validity expiration date of October 2, 2026, may no longer be valid.
We expect DHS to provide further clarification as to how it intends to proceed with the implementation of its revocation of TPS for Venezuela, including updated guidance related to I-9 verification.
Federal Court Halts Broad Swath of Tariffs, Ruling Trump Lacks Authority Under IEEPA
On May 28, 2025 the little-known federal Court of International Trade issued its ruling in two challenges — one brought by 12 states attorneys general and one by private companies — to President Trump’s authority to issue tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
No prior president has used IEEPA to support tariffs, as IEEPA has historically been viewed as only a sanctions authority. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the three-judge panel of the court invalidated using IEEPA to support tariffs under Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 and 3 of the Constitution, which assign to Congress “the exclusive powers to ‘lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises’ and to ‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.’”
After an extensive review of Congress’ delegation of trade authorities dating back to 1916, the court quotes IEEPA’s provision that its “authorities ‘may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared… and may not be exercised for any other purpose.’” The court held that IEEPA does not delegate Congress’ power to the President “in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.”
Concluding that IEEPA does not authorize any of the “Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders,” the court found that narrowly tailored relief was inappropriate as “if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all.”
As a result, the challenged orders were permanently enjoined nationwide, allowing 10 calendar days for orders to be issued. The Trump Administration immediately filed for a motion to stay and appealed the order to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The ruling halts the collection of the duties that were based on IEEPA under Executive Orders 14193, 14194, 14195 (the “Trafficking Tariffs”), and 14257 (the “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs”) and all their amendments.
The “Trafficking Tariffs” are those imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China and the “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs” are the global 10% ad valorem and the “reciprocal” global tariff schedule. It also reinstates de minimis treatment for shipments valued at less than $800. The ruling may also require refunding tariffs already paid.
Tariffs based on other authorities, including Section 232 tariffs on automobiles, aluminum, and steel, and Section 301 tariffs on China, remain in effect.
The ruling will likely throw a wrench into ongoing trade negotiations with dozens of countries, even while it is under appeal. In addition to the substantive ruling on IEEPA authority, both the nationwide injunction and the request for a stay pending appeal could make their way swiftly to the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket” for emergency relief.
In addition, Congress may seek to ratify the tariffs, or the administration may seek to reinstate the tariffs using other delegated authorities. The ruling is unlikely to bring an end to the volatility that has surrounded the tariffs since they were imposed in April, and long-term planning around tariffs will continue to be challenging.
UK Cross-Government Review of Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement
On 15 May 2025, the UK government published a policy paper summarising findings from a cross-government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office led the review in collaboration with insights from external sanctions experts, as well as key sanctions departments and agencies, including HM Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Transport, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the National Crime Agency.
Anyone involved in advising on or implementing sanctions programs should take note of the content of these findings, as they illustrate where the United Kingdom’s sanctions implementation agencies will be focusing over the next few years.
The aim of the review was to identify further steps to improve and facilitate compliance, increase the deterrent effect of enforcement and invigorate the cross-government toolkit. The UK government has committed to implementing the review conclusions summarised below in the financial year 2025–2026:
Compliance
Targeted Guidance and Enhanced Outreach
The UK government will create additional guidance for, and increase engagement with, sectors with lower levels of sanctions awareness.
Engagement sessions conducted during the review highlighted variable levels of sanctions awareness within different sectors, with smaller businesses less able to access specialist advice.
Clearer and More Accessible Guidance
Sanctions guidance will be better organised, modern and searchable, with read across clearly signposted by posting comprehensive updates to sanctions pages and statutory guidance on GOV.UK.
Single Sanctions List
A single sanctions list incorporating the UK Sanctions List and the Consolidated List of Financial Sanctions Targets will be created. The list will aid industry in screening for designated persons, especially those targeted with non-financial designations, ensuring vital notifications do not go missed.
Ownership and Control
Guidance will be created to further clarify ownership and control obligations. Industry input highlighted the complexities of ownership and control determinations, involving complex due diligence and significant legal costs. Alignment with international partners on ownership will also be an area the UK government will focus on building.
Deterrence
Publication of Enforcement Information
It is vital that the consequences of sanction breaches are clear for effective deterrence. Sanctions enforcement actions will be published regularly for “teachable moments.”
Sanctions Enforcement Strategy
A government-wide sanctions enforcement strategy will be published to detail the range of enforcement outcomes available for non-compliance.
Penalty Settlement System
Currently, the United Kingdom does not have powers to agree to early settlements for sanctions cases beyond HMRC’s compound penalties. The UK government has committed to developing an early civil settlement scheme for breaches of financial sanctions.
Fast-Track Penalties
An accelerated civil penalty process for certain financial sanctions breaches will be developed to allow more resources and time to be given to the most complex, serious and deliberate of breaches.
Toolkit
Making It Easier to Report Suspected Breaches
Moving forward, reporting requirements will become clearer, with the potential for a single reporting point for suspected breaches. The aim is to avoid confusing reporting and potentially misdirected information.
Whistle-Blower Protections
Currently, to qualify for whistle-blower protection, a worker would need to make a disclosure to an employer, a legal advisor or a “prescribed person” under the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014 (the Order). The UK government is committed to updating the Order to prescribe relevant government departments in relation to financial, transport and certain trade sanctions.
Future Commitments
The UK government has committed to exploring other areas to go further and deeper to improve sanctions enforcement and implementation depending on resourcing and emerging priorities.
Conclusion
These efforts aim to ensure the United Kingdom’s sanctions are robust, clear and effectively support foreign policy and national security goals.