OUR SERVICES
If the administrative process has stalled and OFAC is not responding, filing suit in federal court may be the decisive step.
Recent experience makes this clear: SDN list removal through litigation is not a last resort in the literal sense — it is the second, often necessary stage of a unified strategy. It is precisely the pressure of litigation that frequently moves a years-long administrative deadlock into genuine negotiation and produces results.
If your OFAC petition is going nowhere, contact us. We will assess the situation and advise whether grounds for filing suit exist.
SDN List Removal Through Litigation
- The two-stage model: why litigation is often unavoidable
- The lawsuit as a pressure tool: cases rarely reach a court ruling
- When the moment to file arrives
- What determines when the parties reach a settlement
- Precedents: Golikov and Titova, Buriko, Zadornov
- Statute of Limitations: Why Early Engagement of Counsel Matters
- Why clients choose us for litigation against OFAC
- Frequently asked questions
We will assess the litigation path and decide together with you whether to file suit
We will prepare the complaint and represent your interests in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
We will conduct negotiations with OFAC throughout the litigation
We will guide you from the administrative petition through to removal from the SDN List
SDN List removal is, as a rule, a two-stage process. The first stage: an administrative reconsideration petition to OFAC is mandatory and critically important, but often insufficient on its own. The second stage: the federal court is not an admission that the administrative process failed. It is a continuation of the strategy by other means. This is exactly how, between 2023 and 2026, several Russian nationals were removed from the SDN List after their administrative petitions had produced no result for years.
If your situation has reached a dead end, contact us. We will quickly assess whether grounds for a lawsuit exist.
The two-stage model: why litigation is often unavoidable
SDN list removal through litigation rarely begins in court. A well-constructed strategy always starts with an administrative reconsideration petition to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (OFAC): it is the petition that builds the evidentiary record, establishes the client’s position, and creates the procedural foundation for everything that follows. Experience shows, however, that the administrative route alone is frequently not enough.
OFAC is not bound by rigid procedural deadlines. The agency can review a petition for years without issuing a substantive decision, request additional materials without explaining the delay, or issue a denial without adequate legal justification. In such circumstances, filing suit in U.S. federal court is not a measure of desperation; it is the logical and necessary next step.
This is why SDN list removal through litigation has, in recent years, become an established two-stage model: administrative petition — federal lawsuit — settlement and removal from the list.
Want to understand where your matter stands? Contact us.
The lawsuit as a pressure tool: cases rarely reach a court ruling
A defining characteristic of litigation against OFAC is that cases rarely reach a court ruling. This is not a weakness of the strategy; it is its natural outcome.
Filing a complaint creates a fundamentally different procedural reality for OFAC. The agency is compelled to actively engage with the matter, assign responsible personnel, coordinate all of its actions with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), respond with DOJ counsel to court requests within defined deadlines, and publicly defend its position. It is precisely this pressure that frequently revives the negotiating process, one that had been completely stalled before the lawsuit was filed.
In practice, SDN list removal through litigation most often comes not from a court ruling but from a settlement: OFAC agrees to remove the individual from the SDN List, and the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the case. Such a settlement is not a defeat for either side: OFAC preserves its institutional standing, and the client achieves what they sought. Notably, the terms of a settlement, unlike a court ruling, are not made public, an outcome that suits OFAC well, given that the agency has obvious reasons not to advertise successful litigation against it.
When the moment to file arrives
There is no universal answer: every matter is unique. Experience does, however, allow for the identification of the most typical circumstances in which SDN list removal through litigation becomes the warranted and necessary step:
- The petition has been on file for six months or more with no substantive response from OFAC, despite repeated follow-up by counsel.
- OFAC requested additional materials, received them, and then went silent again without explanation.
- OFAC denied the petition without adequate legal justification or based on a factual error.
- The circumstances that served as the basis for designation have changed materially, yet the agency has not taken this into account.
- Comparable individuals in analogous situations have been removed from the SDN List without litigation, while the administrative process in the client’s matter continues to drag.
It is important to understand: the threat of a lawsuit can itself shift OFAC’s position, sometimes immediately after the complaint is filed.
What determines when the parties reach a settlement
One of the most frequently asked questions: how soon after filing can a result be expected? There is no single answer, but there are factors that govern the dynamics of the process and help orient the client within it.
A settlement can be reached at different stages:
Within weeks or months of filing. If OFAC concludes that there is no basis for continued resistance, negotiations resume immediately. This is exactly what happened in the Golikov and Titova cases: sanctions were lifted approximately one month after the complaints were filed.
After the initial scheduling conference. The court and the parties agree on the procedural calendar: deadlines for submissions, motions, and so forth.
After a status conference. The court reviews the progress of the case, poses questions to the parties, and signals its expectations, which frequently pushes OFAC toward dialogue.
At the motions stage. When the real legal risks facing each side become clear, OFAC’s negotiating position often shifts.
At any other point in the proceedings. Under the influence of new factual or legal developments, or shifts in political conditions, agency priorities, or the positions of specific officials.
The speed and character of any resolution depend on: the strength of the legal grounds and evidentiary record, the quality of the procedural arguments, the degree of political sensitivity of the matter, the current priorities of OFAC, DOJ, and the State Department, and broader developments in the sanctions landscape.
This is precisely why SDN list removal through litigation requires not just knowledge of the regulatory framework but genuine experience handling OFAC matters in a litigation context.
Precedents: Golikov and Titova, Buriko, Zadornov
Below are three real cases that concluded with the removal of Russian nationals from the SDN List following the filing of a federal lawsuit. All three fall within the same category: senior executives and board members of sanctioned Russian state-owned banks, designated under Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021.
Andrey Golikov and Elena Titova: removed from the SDN List in July 2023
Mr. Golikov and Ms. Titova, members of the supervisory board of FC Otkritie Bank, were placed on the SDN List in April 2022, despite the fact that both had resigned from their positions before the designation took effect. Administrative petitions filed in May 2022 produced no result: OFAC stalled the process, issuing repeated information requests without rendering a decision.
On June 16, 2023, each filed a separate complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, invoking the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and arguing the absence of any factual basis for maintaining the designations. Approximately one month later, on July 20, 2023, OFAC removed both from the SDN List. The parties filed notices of voluntary dismissal. The cases never reached a merits review.
Alexandra Buriko: removed from the SDN List in December 2025
Ms. Buriko, former CFO of Sberbank, was placed on the SDN List in May 2022. Following the designation, she left the bank. An administrative petition produced no result: OFAC delayed the process without issuing a substantive decision. In December 2024, Ms. Buriko filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C. Throughout 2025, the parties conducted negotiations reflected in court filings. On December 30, 2025, OFAC removed Ms. Buriko from the SDN List.
Mikhail Zadornov: removed from the SDN List in April 2026
Mr. Zadornov, former Chairman of the Board of FC Otkritie Bank and former Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation, was placed on the SDN List in April 2022. In December 2023, he submitted an administrative reconsideration petition to OFAC. Receiving no substantive response, he filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in July 2024 (Case No. 1:24-cv-02239, Zadornov v. Blinken et al.). After more than a year and a half of negotiations in the course of the litigation, OFAC officially announced Zadornov’s removal from the SDN List on April 3, 2026.
Taken together, the three cases show the following
- In all three instances, administrative petitions produced no result: OFAC stalled the process.
- It was the filing of a federal lawsuit that moved each situation from deadlock into genuine negotiation.
- None of the three cases reached a court ruling: all concluded through a settlement and administrative removal from the SDN List.
- The time to resolution varied considerably: from several weeks (Golikov and Titova) to more than a year and a half (Zadornov), depending on the complexity of the matter and the negotiating dynamics.
Statute of Limitations: Why Early Engagement of Counsel Matters
The right to challenge OFAC actions in court does not last forever. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), a civil action against a federal agency must be filed within six years from the time the right of action first accrues. Six years may sound generous at first glance. In practice, it is not.
Consider a simple example. A client is added to the SDN List in 2022. By 2026, only about two years remain before the limitations period runs. From there, the realistic timeline begins. Identifying suitable U.S. sanctions counsel and signing an Engagement Agreement typically takes two to three months, sometimes as long as six. Developing a strategy, gathering supporting documentation, and preparing an administrative delisting petition adds another three to six months, depending on counsel’s bandwidth. That leaves the client with roughly a year for filing the petition and managing the proceedings that follow. And that is the ordinary course, assuming no additional steps need to be taken before filing.
There is a further point that is often overlooked. Filing a delisting petition with OFAC does not toll the statute of limitations; only filing suit in federal court does. That means the remaining year is the entirety of your real timing buffer. It has to accommodate both the wait for OFAC’s response to the petition and, if no meaningful response is forthcoming, the prompt preparation and filing of a federal court action. In this configuration, time is tight. Every stage has to be planned with precision to meet the deadline.
If, in addition, you need to divest a corporate stake, restructure a company, step down from a position, or take other comparable steps before filing, even less time remains. Each of those actions takes months: corporate procedures, coordination with partners and counterparties, and legal documentation. If those steps are started late, the limitations window may already have closed by the time the petition is ready.
A practical conclusion follows. Filing the petition itself should not be delayed. The sooner it is filed, the better the chance of obtaining a substantive response from OFAC before the six-year period from the date of designation expires. And if OFAC issues a denial, that denial is itself a new final agency action, opening an independent six-year window for judicial review. A late-filed petition narrows that resource considerably, and in the worst case eliminates it altogether.
Engaging counsel early accomplishes several things at once:
- Correctly identifying when the limitations clock starts running. In some situations the starting point is not the date of designation but the date of a petition denial or another procedural event. Pinning that down requires legal analysis.
- Preserving every procedural option. The earlier counsel is involved, the broader the range of available actions: from pre-litigation engagement with OFAC to filing suit at the strategically optimal moment.
- Building a strong evidentiary record. Documents establishing resignation, severance of business ties, or other material changes in circumstances often become harder to locate over time. Early collection and preservation meaningfully strengthen the case.
- Preparing a sound and well-supported petition with the litigation phase in mind. The framing and positions taken in an administrative petition shape the boundaries of judicial argument later on. The quality of the initial filing carries strategic weight.
If you or your company are on the SDN List, do not postpone the consultation. Contact us: we will assess where things stand, calculate the applicable deadlines, and propose an optimal plan of action.
Why clients choose us for litigation against OFAC
We do not simply know sanctions law; we understand how OFAC behaves under the pressure of litigation. This is what sets us apart from attorneys whose practice is confined to the administrative track.
- We follow the case law in suits against OFAC from its earliest development and know which arguments prevail and which courts reject.
- We understand at which stage of the litigation OFAC typically shifts its position and enters genuine negotiations, and we build our strategy around that dynamic.
- We handle matters from the first petition through to removal from the list: the administrative and litigation stages are, for us, a single process with one objective — securing the client’s removal from the SDN List.
- We work in both English and Russian and can walk the client through every step of the process in their native language.
Contact us: we will conduct an initial assessment and propose a concrete plan of action.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:
Because the OFAC administrative process has no binding procedural deadlines, the agency can review a petition for years without issuing a decision. Filing suit creates a fundamentally different dynamic: OFAC is compelled to actively engage and respond to court requests within defined timeframes. Under the sweeping Russia-related sanctions, this pressure has often proved decisive.
Technically, no. Though in practice, courts generally expect the administrative channel to have been used. Moreover, a well-prepared petition builds the evidentiary record that strengthens the litigation position. This is why the administrative and litigation stages are treated as a single integrated strategy rather than as alternatives.
The clearest indicator is OFAC inaction: a year or more without a substantive response after filing the petition or providing requested materials. Every situation is different; however, where there is an obvious procedural error or deliberate delay, a suit may be warranted earlier. The threat of litigation can itself change OFAC’s position before a complaint is ever filed.
There is no fixed statutory threshold. The practical benchmark is about a year from the date of the petition or the last substantive OFAC response. It’s generally enough for a court to characterize the agency’s silence as unreasonable delay under the APA. That said, each case is individual, and the decision on timing is made by counsel together with the client following a thorough analysis of the specific circumstances.
As a rule, no. Experience shows that SDN list removal through litigation rarely results from a court ruling. The parties usually settle: OFAC removes the individual from the SDN List, and the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the case. The act of filing suit is itself frequently sufficient to bring OFAC actively into the negotiating process.
There is no consistent pattern. Settlement may follow within weeks of filing, as in the Golikov and Titova cases, or after the initial scheduling conference, after a status conference, at the motions stage, or considerably later. In the Zadornov case, negotiations extended over eighteen months. The determining factors are the strength of the legal grounds, the political sensitivity of the case, and OFAC’s current priorities.
After the complaint is filed, the government typically has 60 days to respond. The court schedules an initial conference and establishes the procedural calendar. In parallel, counsel maintains contact with DOJ attorneys handling the matter on OFAC’s behalf, and it is often in these exchanges that a settlement takes shape. If the case proceeds to merits review, the court will require the production of the administrative record and set a briefing schedule.
Suits against OFAC are typically filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — the standard venue for challenging federal agency action. All three cases described above were filed in that court.
The primary instrument is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 7), which authorizes a court to set aside agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Claims of OFAC inaction invoke the unreasonable delay standard (5 U.S.C. § 706(1)). An additional basis may be the violation of constitutional due process guarantees.
Yes, but with an important qualification. The court does not ask how it would have decided the question itself; it asks whether OFAC had a rational, factual, and legal basis for its decision. In matters touching on national security and foreign policy, courts afford considerable deference to the executive branch. That said, where there are clear errors, inadequate justification, or material changes in circumstances, a court may set aside OFAC’s decision.
The most effective grounds: mistaken identification or the absence of a factual nexus to the criteria of the applicable sanctions program; material change in circumstances — most commonly, the loss of the position or severance of the ties that served as the basis for designation; unreasonable delay in adjudicating the petition; unlawful delegation of OFAC’s authority to another agency, most notably the State Department; and OFAC inconsistency, where comparable individuals have been removed from the list without litigation.
Under the general rule of federal law (28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)), a suit against a federal agency must be filed within six years of the date on which the right to challenge the action accrued. As applied to OFAC decisions, this means six years from the date of designation or the date of denial of a reconsideration petition. Missing this deadline results in the loss of the right to judicial review. That is why timely consultation with counsel is critical.
A denial of an administrative petition is not a dead end. If the decision was issued without adequate legal justification or on the basis of a factual error, it may be challenged in court under the APA. Where new circumstances have emerged, a renewed petition is also an option. What matters is that the original petition be drafted in a way that does not foreclose these subsequent steps. That is why the quality of that initial submission carries strategic importance.
Litigating against a federal agency is a resource-intensive undertaking. The cost depends on the complexity of the matter, the volume of procedural activity required, and the stage at which a resolution is reached. Cases that settle shortly after filing are considerably less costly than those that proceed toward a merits review. We discuss fee arrangements individually and aim to structure them in a way that fits the client’s objectives. Contact us for an initial consultation.
