Shariah’s Black Box

[251] Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. 654 (2003); see also  supra notes 140-142 and accompanying text.

[252] Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27Cal. 4th 939, 946 (2002).

[253] This is assisted by the burgeoning use of Internet sites which provide legal rulings (fatawa) to the Shariah faithful anywhere in the world. See, e.g., IslamOnLine.net, https://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml (last visited Jan. 31, 2008).

[254] Alexiev, supra note 18, at n.43. The number 20-25 was derived by developing a list of names of Shariah authorities which appear in SEC filings and the major SCF Internet sites. If one includes Shariah authorities who deal almost exclusively in Pakistan, Malaysia, or the GCC states, the number is probably closer to 60. See generally Islamic Banking and Finance Issue #3 Summary, https://islamicbankingandfinance.com/summary3.html (last visited Jan. 31, 2008) (summarizing an issue of the London-based journal Islamic Banking and Finance, which discusses this “bottleneck”).

[255] See supra notes 216-218 and accompanying text.

[256] 50 U.S.C. app. § 1 (2007).

[257] 50 U.S.C.S. §§ 1701-1706 (2007).

[258] See, e.g., Notice of March 8, 2007–Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect toIran, 72 Fed. Reg. 47 (March 12, 2007).

[259] See Halliburton Company, Form 10K for the Fiscal Year Ended Dec. 31, 2006, at 58, available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000004501207000072/ed10k2006_final.htm (last visited Jan. 31, 2008):

Operations in Iran

We received and responded to an inquiry in mid-2001 from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Treasury Department with respect to operations inIranby a Halliburton subsidiary incorporated in theCayman Islands. The OFAC inquiry requested information with respect to compliance with the Iranian Transaction Regulations. These regulations prohibitUnited Statescitizens, includingUnited Statescorporations and otherUnited Statesbusiness organizations, from engaging in commercial, financial, or trade transactions withIran, unless authorized by OFAC or exempted by statute. Our 2001 written response to OFAC stated that we believed that we were in compliance with applicable sanction regulations. In the first quarter of 2004, we responded to a follow-up letter from OFAC requesting additional information. We understand this matter has now been referred by OFAC to the DOJ. In July 2004, we received a grand jury subpoena from an Assistant United States District Attorney requesting the production of documents. We are cooperating with the government’s investigation and responded to the subpoena by producing documents in September 2004.

Separate from the OFAC inquiry, we completed a study in 2003 of our activities inIranduring 2002 and 2003 and concluded that these activities were in compliance with applicable sanction regulations. These sanction regulations require isolation of entities that conduct activities inIranfrom contact withUnited Statescitizens or managers ofUnited Statescompanies. Notwithstanding our conclusions that our activities inIranwere not in violation ofUnited Stateslaws and regulations, we announced that, after fulfilling our current contractual obligations withinIran, we intend to cease operations within that country and withdraw from further activities there.

[260] See Lau, supra note 196, at 418-19.