It is the policy of MiTek Industries, Inc. and its subsidiary companies (collectively referred to as the “Company”) to comply with all laws applicable to their operations. An important corollary of this policy is our commitment to strictly obey the antitrust laws. Violations of the antitrust laws can result in enormous damage to the resources and reputation of the Company and of the individuals involved. Given the The following policy (or in the case of Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries with unique anti-corruption risk or economic and trade sanctions and embargo compliance risk profiles, a variation of the following policy tailored to the assessed anti-corruption and economic and trade sanctions risks profiles of each subsidiary, as applicable) shall be adopted by each Berkshire Hathaway (“Berkshire”) subsidiary to address compliance risks arising from such subsidiary’s operations, and shall be placed in each subsidiary’s policy and procedure manual or otherwise appropriately incorporated into the subsidiary’s code of conduct or written policies and procedures. Each Berkshire subsidiary shall distribute the policy (translated into the applicable languages of the regions in which it operates) to its Senior Management and other individuals who manage the risk areas or are likely to be faced with the compliance risks discussed in this document. Each Berkshire Subsidiary is directed to foster a culture of ethics and compliance at all levels of the company.

The attached Guidelines, which update the Company’s long-standing policy, are designed to educate you about the requirements of U.S. This policy is not intended to supplant more restrictive, detailed or specific policies which may already be in place at, or may hereafter be adopted by, a Berkshire subsidiary. Except to the extent modified to comply with foreign laws as discussed below in the instructions to Sections III and IV of this policy or as otherwise permitted by Section III of this policy, this policy sets forth the minimum standard with which all Berkshire subsidiaries must comply. Each subsidiary shall regularly assess and periodically review its individual operations and compliance risks and document a risk assessment that captures the compliance risk areas discussed in this document and that are applicable to the subsidiary as a result of the unique nature of its business operations, its size, industry, geographic footprint, anti-corruption and sanctions compliance risks and other factors that might impact its anti-corruption, trade and sanctions compliance program. Subsidiaries shall update that risk assessment as the risk profile of the subsidiary changes and adopt additional policies and procedures as appropriate so that it maintains an effectively designed compliance policy that is tailored to the unique compliance risks the subsidiary faces. For example, subsidiaries that face a significant level of anti-corruption compliance risk because of the areas or industries within which they operate, their workforce’s exposure to foreign government officials, traditional local practices or other reasons, shall implement a more robust and detailed anti-corruption compliance policy that provides their employees with additional guidance, more detailed policies relating to limits on gifts and entertainment and also on third-party due diligence requirements, as well as a detailed framework for requiring documented approvals in the area of third-party due diligence, gifts and entertainment, and anti-corruption compliance as well as certifications of compliance from relevant managers, employees and third-party agents, consultants or intermediaries. These subsidiaries with higher assessed anti-corruption compliance risk should seek the guidance of experienced anti-corruption and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance professionals to ensure their compliance program is sufficient to address the higher level of assessed risk and shall devote sufficient resources to ensure an appropriate level of supervision of the compliance program. Each subsidiary is required, based upon an examination of its risk assessment and the history of the operation of its compliance program (including the detection of compliance policy violations), to devote sufficient resources to administer its compliance program, including this policy, and is required to appoint a high level executive to be responsible to administer its compliance program. Subsidiaries are required to periodically assess and monitor the effectiveness of their compliance program, including examining instances where violations of compliance policies have been detected, and where possible, implement improvements designed to prevent such violations in the future. Compliance assessments and testing should integrate data analytics capabilities wherever possible. Each subsidiary should also incorporate into this periodic assessment lessons learned from what is publicly known of the successes and failures of peers in their industry or geographic region relating to anti-corruption, trade and sanctions compliance and compliance practices and policies. In performing this assessment, subsidiaries or their outside counsel shall consider the U.S. Department of Justice’s Guidance Document on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/download and also evaluate the program in light of the following three fundamental questions: (1) Is the anti-corruption and sanctions compliance program well designed?; (2) Is the program adequately resourced and empowered to function effectively?; (3) Does the program work in practice? In addition, each subsidiary shall devote sufficient resources to train effectively personnel and third-party agents and intermediaries on the requirements of its compliance program and this policy and ensure that personnel and third-party agents and intermediaries have access to the subsidiary’s anti- corruption, trade and sanctions compliance policies. Each subsidiary shall also ensure that policies are updated on a regular basis and that those charged with day to day operational responsibility for the anti-corruption, trade and sanctions compliance programs have sufficient resources, autonomy and direct access to governing authorities of the subsidiary to function effectively. Each subsidiary shall also ensure that there exists a mechanism for the timely and thorough investigation of any concerns of misconduct by the subsidiary, its employees or third-party agents, including the use of outside counsel where appropriate, and that any violation is appropriately remediated after a root cause analysis is performed—including with appropriate employee discipline.

===============================================================================================

It is the policy of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and its subsidiaries to strictly comply with all laws and regulations that apply to any of their activities and operations, or that may give rise to the risk of liability for Berkshire, its subsidiaries or persons employed by any of them.

I want to reaffirm that it is the obligation of every Company officer and employee to adhere to this Policy and the Guidelines. Moreover, each This Prohibited Business Practices Policy (“Policy”) applies to all officers, directors and employees of Berkshire and each of its subsidiaries. The requirements set forth in this Policy also apply to any agent, consultant, representative, sales agent, reseller, distributor, joint venture partner, customs/import broker, freight forwarder, contractor, or other parties as they conduct business on behalf of or for the benefit of Berkshire or any of its subsidiaries (“Intermediaries”). Using a risk-based approach, each subsidiary shall develop a procedure to communicate the requirements of this Policy to Intermediaries. Each person shall comply with this Policy, strictly abide by all applicable laws and regulations, and exercise great care not to take or authorize any actions that may create even the appearance of illegal conduct or other impropriety. Persons who violate this Policy shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action up to, and including, termination. Berkshire and its subsidiaries will not undertake, authorize or tolerate any business practice that does not comply with this Policy.

I. COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH U.S. AND FOREIGN ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW IS REQUIRED

The purpose of this Policy is to set forth Berkshire’s position against bribery and corruption and to describe the minimum procedures that must be followed to ensure compliance with this Policy and anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws. This Policy (1) identifies certain specific laws and regulations that may apply to a Berkshire subsidiary’s operations, and (2) sets forth the minimum standards that must be followed to ensure compliance with those laws and regulations. The applicable laws and regulations include not only federal, state and local laws and regulations of the U.S., but also laws and regulations of any foreign countries in which a Berkshire subsidiary does business, such as the United Kingdom’s Bribery Act of 2010 and the Brazil Clean Company Act of 2014. Because the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (“FCPA”), is the anti-corruption law which most broadly affects international business, this Policy uses that statute as a framework for setting forth Berkshire’s Policy. However, the Policy uses the term “government official” in most places where the FCPA uses the term “foreign official” to make it clear that Berkshire’s Policy applies to interactions with all government officials worldwide, and that adherence to the principles and procedures set forth within this Policy will ensure compliance with all nations’ anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws.

This Policy is not exhaustive, and there may be additional laws and regulations that apply to a Berkshire subsidiary’s operations that are not discussed here. Even if a particular law or regulation is not discussed here, it is the policy of Berkshire that each of its subsidiaries ensure compliance with that law or regulation as applicable and adopt additional policies as necessary to address compliance with that law or regulation.

Any Berkshire subsidiary employee who has a question about whether particular conduct might be illegal or involve any unethical or improper act or violate this Policy must promptly report his or her concerns. Each Berkshire subsidiary, or in the case of a group of Berkshire companies, the Berkshire subsidiary that is the “parent” of such group, shall designate a Compliance Officer to receive and investigate such reports and to implement this Policy. Employees may also report their concerns to their supervisors or managers. If permitted by local law, anonymous reports can be made via the Berkshire Ethics and Compliance Hotline (800-261-8651) or Berkshire’s web reporting site, which is located at www.brk-hotline.com.

If in doubt as to the lawfulness or propriety of particular conduct by a Berkshire subsidiary or Berkshire subsidiary employee, a report of the matter should be made so that the issue can be investigated. The Berkshire companies prohibit retaliation of any kind for making such a report in good faith, even if it turns out that the conduct being reported is not illegal or improper.

II. PROHIBITED OFFERS OR PAYMENTS

Each Berkshire subsidiary must strictly comply with the U.S. law known as the FCPA and all other applicable anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws. The FCPA prohibits bribes, kickbacks and favors to government officials to obtain an improper advantage or benefit, such as, among other examples, the awarding of business or a government contract, obtaining a tax benefit or reduction of VAT or corporate income taxes, or obtaining a permit or license.

Prohibited Purposes. To ensure compliance with the FCPA, no Berkshire subsidiary or its agents or Intermediaries acting on behalf of or for the benefit of such Berkshire subsidiary may corruptly provide, authorize, promise or offer to provide anything of value to a government official for any of the following purposes:

Similarly, no Berkshire subsidiary, its employees or Intermediaries may authorize a third-party to corruptly offer or promise to provide something of value to a government official for any of the purposes listed above.

“Corrupt” Payments. The FCPA prohibits promising, providing, offering to provide, or authorizing the provision of things of value to a government official if done “corruptly.” This means that the payer has an intent or desire to improperly influence the recipient and to get something in return, i.e., a quid pro quo. The word “corruptly” is used in the FCPA to make clear that the offer, payment, promise or gift must be intended to induce the official to misuse his or her official position in order to assist the giver in obtaining a business advantage.

Government Officials. The prohibition of improper payments found in the FCPA applies to more than just individuals actively serving in governments. Under the FCPA, a government official is:

It is important to note that employees of state-owned or controlled entities (whether partially or completely state-owned or controlled) are considered government officials under the FCPA regardless of their rank, nationality or classification under local law. Some individuals, who may not be considered government officials in their own country, are considered government officials under the FCPA. In addition, a company may be under government control even if it is publicly traded, and even if some of its stock is not owned by the government. In some countries, government control of publicly traded companies is common. Similarly, in some countries, entities like oil companies and hospitals are state-owned, which makes all of their employees, regardless of their rank, nationality or classification under local law, government officials under the FCPA. This Policy prohibits promising, authorizing, providing or offering to provide anything of value to employees or agents of state-owned or controlled companies for any of the prohibited purposes described above, even if those companies are engaged in purely commercial businesses.

For purposes of this Policy, close family members of government officials (i.e., brother, sister, mother, father, husband, wife or child) are treated as government officials to whom a Berkshire subsidiary, its officers, employees or Intermediaries acting on behalf of or for the benefit of such Berkshire subsidiary shall not corruptly promise, offer, authorize or provide anything of value. Similarly, for purposes of this Policy, the Policy’s prohibitions also apply with regard to former government officials in cases where the former government official retains some sort of quasi-official status.

Indirect and Direct Payments. The prohibition against improper payments or gifts under the FCPA applies not only to direct payments or offers of payment, but also to indirect offers or payments made through any Intermediaries or agents. Care must be taken to ensure that third-party representatives and Intermediaries of a Berkshire subsidiary, such as sales representatives, consultants, advisors, lobbyists, resellers, distributors, joint venture partners, customs/import brokers, freight forwarders or other contractors do not authorize, promise, offer or provide anything of value to a government official for any of the prohibited purposes described above.

Anything of Value. The term “anything of value” is construed very broadly under the FCPA and includes far more than just monetary gifts. Each of the following, among other things, could constitute a “thing of value:”

The term also applies to intangible benefits such as contributions to an official’s favorite charity, offers of employment for an official’s friends or family, assisting an official’s family member or friend in gaining admittance to a school, or other kinds of help or assistance to officials or their friends and family. This Policy applies equally to offers of payment and things of value to relatives and family members of government officials, as to the government officials themselves.

Nominal Gifts and Entertainment. There are circumstances under which providing inexpensive items to a government official may be permissible under the FCPA. For instance, providing gifts of nominal value such as pens or mugs with the Berkshire subsidiary logo, without any intent to influence the official, is not unlawful. Before providing even nominal gifts or entertainment to a government official, Berkshire subsidiary employees or the subsidiary must confirm that doing so is permitted by local law by consulting with a local lawyer. Some countries prohibit providing anything of value to government officials, even gifts or entertainment of nominal value; in those countries, this Policy prohibits providing gifts or entertainment of any kind to government officials. Where permitted by local law, gifts or entertainment to government officials may be made under this Policy only when they are (1) made to promote general goodwill and not as a quid pro quo for any official action, (2) of very modest value (in determining whether the value is modest, the value of all previous gifts or entertainment for the same official in the same year should be added together), (3) not in the form of cash, (4) customary in type and value in the country where made, (5) given openly and not secretly, (6) not intended to improperly influence the government official, and (7) accurately reflected in the applicable Berkshire subsidiary’s books and records.

Willful Blindness Is Not A Defense. The FCPA imposes liability on companies and individuals, even if they have no actual knowledge of an improper payment to a government official, in circumstances where they should have known there was a high probability that an intermediary intended to make or was likely to make an improper payment. Accordingly, subsidiaries and subsidiary employees must not be willfully blind to facts which suggest improper payments, gifts, or promises or offers of payments or gifts of something of value to a government official. Liability for an FCPA violation cannot be avoided by attempting to ignore or “not see” the warning signs or indications of improper conduct. Employees who suspect or see indications that corrupt payments or offers of payment might be under consideration or might have been made on a Berkshire subsidiary’s behalf must not “look the other way” or ignore the indications or “red flags.” For instance, if an employee becomes aware that a sales agent may intend to or may have improperly provided money to a government official, he or she must immediately report that concern. Similarly, each employee should be alert to, and promptly report, concerns that other employees may be involved in or intend such payments.

Bona Fide and Reasonable Business Expenses. The FCPA permits paying bona fide and reasonable travel and lodging expenses for government officials if the expenses relate directly to (1) the promotion, demonstration or explanation of products or services, (2) the execution or performance of a contract, or (3) other legitimate charitable or educational programs. To ensure compliance with the FCPA, this Policy permits paying such expenses only upon the advance written approval of the applicable Berkshire subsidiary’s Compliance Officer and only where to do so would be legal under local law and where the official’s government or government entity is aware of, and approves of in writing, the expenditures contemplated. Such expenses must only be approved by the Compliance Officer where they are (1) directly related to the promotion, demonstration or explanation of the Berkshire subsidiary’s products or services or the execution or performance of a contract or legitimate charitable or educational programs, (2) not intended to improperly influence the official, and (3) are in compliance with the requirements of the Prohibited Business Practices Policy. Such expenses must be reasonable (not lavish) and limited to travel and accommodation expenses that were incurred for an official’s direct travel to and from the location of the Berkshire subsidiary event or location. The expenses paid must not include expenses for any “side trip” taken to other cities or countries. Lodging expenses should include only reasonable accommodation costs, including reasonable expenditures for meals actually incurred in or incidental to lodging in business-class hotels, and only during the period of the particular meeting, facility visit, seminar, or event, or end route to such activities. Where such expenses are approved for payment, any payment should be made to the third-party provider (for instance, an airline or hotel) rather than to the government official whenever practicable, and any such payments must be supported by receipts and be properly documented and recorded in the applicable Berkshire subsidiary’s books and records. Under no circumstances shall per diem payments or allowances be provided to a government official, nor shall a Berkshire subsidiary pay for any portion of expenses incurred by any spouse or other family member of a government official.

Facilitating Payments. The FCPA permits a “facilitating or expediting payment” that is small in amount and made in furtherance of a routine governmental action. Examples of “routine governmental action” include processing visas or Customs forms. Routine governmental action does not include discretionary acts such as a decision to award new business or to continue business with a particular party. Routine governmental action also does not include an agreement by a government official to ignore or allow the payer to evade a government rule or regulation. Thus, paying a government official a small amount to have the power turned on at a factory might be a facilitating payment under the FCPA, but paying an inspector to ignore the fact that the company does not have a valid permit to operate the factory would not be. Some countries have more restrictive rules regarding facilitating payments; for example, facilitating payments are not permissible in the United Kingdom and in Canada. In fact, the United States is in the minority of countries that tolerate facilitating payments. Most countries have embraced the regulations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”), which describes facilitating payments as “corrosive” and recommend that member countries “encourage companies to prohibit or discourage the use of facilitation payments.” Therefore, before providing any facilitating or expediting payments, Berkshire subsidiary employees must confirm through a local attorney that doing so is permitted by local law. Where permitted by local law, this Policy permits facilitating or expediting payments only when nominal in value and designed merely to expedite routine governmental action that the Berkshire subsidiary is entitled to receive. Any doubts as to whether a facilitating or expediting payment may be made should be raised promptly, and where possible in advance, with the applicable Berkshire subsidiary’s Compliance Officer or other appointed representative such as the subsidiary’s Legal Department. If a facilitating payment is made, it must be accurately reflected in the applicable subsidiary’s books and records.

Political Contributions: Any political contribution made must be consistent with local law and in compliance with the FCPA, and cannot be made to obtain or retain business, direct business to another person or entity, or to obtain an improper advantage. No political contribution should be made outside of the United States without: (1) the receipt of a written legal advice by local counsel concerning the legality of the contribution under local law, (2) the receipt of written legal advice from U.S. counsel concerning the legality of the contribution under the FCPA, and (3) prior written approval of the applicable Berkshire subsidiary’s Compliance Officer or other appointed representative such as the subsidiary’s Legal Department.

Charitable and Educational Contributions: Any charitable or educational contribution, including expenses for travel, lodging and meals, must be consistent with local law and in compliance with the FCPA, and cannot be made to obtain or retain business, direct business to another person or entity, or to obtain an improper advantage.

The FCPA’s Accounting and Internal Control Provisions. The FCPA imposes strict accounting and recordkeeping requirements on Berkshire and its majority-owned subsidiaries. These accounting provisions have two primary components, the books and records provision and the internal controls provision.

Books and Records
The accounting provisions require Berkshire and its subsidiaries to maintain books and records which accurately and in reasonable detail fairly reflect transactions and the disposition of assets. This requirement extends not only to the general ledgers but also to all documents that describe business transactions and dispositions of assets such as invoices, receipts, expense reports, purchase orders and shipping documents. False, misleading or incomplete entries in Berkshire subsidiary records are prohibited. This Policy also prohibits the maintenance of undisclosed or unrecorded funds or accounts. Because the books and records provision does not include a materiality requirement, any false record, no matter what the amount, can give rise to an FCPA violation. Therefore, all personnel must take responsibility for compliance with the books and records requirements of the FCPA. No employee should assume that accurate books and records is the responsibility of just those in finance and accounting.

Internal Controls
The internal controls provision of the FCPA requires Berkshire and its subsidiaries to devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that: (1) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; (2) transactions are recorded as necessary to: (a) permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements and (b) maintain accountability of assets; (3) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; and (4) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences It is the policy of each Berkshire subsidiary that all transactions be recorded in a timely, consistent and accurate manner in terms of amount, accounting period, purpose and accounting classification. Furthermore, each Berkshire subsidiary must abide by the following rules:

Any individual who has reason to believe that a violation of the foregoing rules may have occurred at any Berkshire subsidiary (including that a payment to a government official was mischaracterized in a Berkshire subsidiary’s books and records) must promptly report that concern to his or her supervisor or Compliance Officer, or through the Berkshire Ethics & Compliance Hotline. Any inquiry from the internal or independent auditors of a Berkshire subsidiary must be responded to fully, accurately and promptly.

When requested, every employee is required to cooperate with any effort by Berkshire or outside counsel hired by Berkshire to investigate whether a violation of any compliance policy of Berkshire or any Berkshire subsidiary has occurred. Such cooperation includes providing information that is requested and participating in interviews, investigations and audits when requested.

Penalties
A violation of the FCPA can result in serious consequence for a Berkshire subsidiary and for the individuals involved. Criminal penalties for individuals include fines up to $250,000 per violation and imprisonment of up to five years for anti-bribery violations and fines up to $5,000,000 per violation and imprisonment of up to twenty years for violations of the accounting provisions. Individual officers, directors and employees may be prosecuted even if the company for which they work is not. Fines assessed against individuals may not be reimbursed by Berkshire or any Berkshire subsidiary.

The FCPA criminal provisions establish that companies may be fined up to $2,000,000 for an anti-bribery violation and up to $25,000,000 for each violation of the accounting provisions. Under alternative sentencing provisions, these fines can be even higher. The FCPA also allows a civil action for a fine of up to $10,000 against any company or person that violates the FCPA, although that sum also can increase substantially depending upon the circumstances.

All Improper Payments Prohibited. While the FCPA applies to bribes and kickbacks paid to government officials, improper payments to other persons may violate other U.S. laws or the local law of the country in which such payments are made. This Policy expressly prohibits the promise, authorization, offering or payment of bribes or kickbacks to any person under any circumstances in order to influence their actions or gain some improper business advantage, whether the recipient is domestic or foreign and whether or not the recipient is a government official. For example, Berkshire subsidiary employees must not offer or pay anything of value to managers, employees or agents of customers or prospective customers to induce them to award business to a Berkshire subsidiary, to influence their actions or to obtain any other improper advantage. Berkshire subsidiary employees must exercise care when providing meals, gifts or other business courtesies. Providing business courtesies in a commercial setting to create goodwill may be permissible, but providing or offering business courtesies with the intent or expectation of obtaining more favorable business terms or opportunities than would not otherwise be available is prohibited. Berkshire subsidiaries, subsidiary employees and Intermediaries are prohibited from directly or indirectly engaging in commercial bribery. They also must not receive such payments from any person or company in return for providing an improper advantage such as awarding business to such person or company.

===============================================================================================

Instructions to Sections III and IV:

This policy is primarily focused on U.S. laws and regulations. Because conflicts may exist between U.S. laws and the laws of other countries in which a subsidiary operates, each Berkshire subsidiary organized outside of the U.S. or with operations outside of the U.S. should undertake an analysis prior to adopting Sections III and IV of this policy to confirm that no aspect of those Sections violates any non-U.S. laws applicable to it. If a subsidiary determines that implementation of the policies in Sections III and IV would violate local law, the subsidiary must consult with the Berkshire Chief Financial Officer to receive additional guidance on potential modifications of the policies below.

===============================================================================================

III. PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS WITH CERTAIN COUNTRIES/REGIONS AND PERSONS

Each Berkshire subsidiary and its employees must strictly comply with all applicable economic and trade sanctions and embargo programs under U.S. law, United Nations resolutions and foreign laws and regulations. Compliance requires careful monitoring of, and sometimes prohibitions on, transactions involving target countries and regimes and target individuals, entities, vessels, and aircraft (for example, terrorists, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and narcotics traffickers). In most cases, violations can result in criminal penalties of up to 20 years in jail, a $1 million fine, or both, and civil penalties per violation in the amount of the greater of $307,922 or twice the value of the transaction involved. However, depending on the type of violation and the statutory regime implicated, the applicable penalties can be higher.

The trade restrictions described below apply to “U.S. persons,” which include all (i) companies organized in the U.S. together with their foreign branches, (ii) companies and persons located in the U.S. or otherwise subject to U.S. jurisdiction (e.g., through utilization of the U.S. banking system) and (iii) U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens wherever located (including U.S. persons acting on behalf of foreign persons). For purposes of the U.S. embargo of Cuba and the sanctions applicable to Iran, as described below, foreign entities owned or controlled by U.S. persons are also covered.

The policies set forth in this Section III must be adopted by all Berkshire subsidiaries that are organized in the U.S. or that have U.S. operations. Any Berkshire subsidiary that is organized outside of the U.S. and does not have U.S. operations should carefully evaluate its legal obligations with respect to these trade restrictions, taking into account such factors as its ownership, the citizenship of its employees, the nature and location of its operations and whether it utilizes or sells goods, services, or technology subject to U.S. export controls, and shall adopt all portions of this Policy that are applicable to its operations, or are otherwise prudent, to the extent consistent with local law. Any potential conflict between local law and the trade restrictions described below should be addressed by the Compliance Officer of the affected Berkshire subsidiary in consultation with legal counsel and the Chief Financial Officer of Berkshire or other person designated by the Chief Financial Officer of Berkshire.

Below is more specific information regarding certain country or activity-specific sanction programs:

Transactions with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the Crimea Region of Ukraine. The U.S. has instituted comprehensive embargoes against the following countries/geographical regions:

These sanctions programs embargo or prohibit, with certain exceptions, U.S. persons from engaging in trade, commercial, or financial transactions involving the above countries/regions. Some non-exhaustive examples of dealings that may be restricted include:

The embargo programs are subject to frequent changes. Detailed information regarding these embargoes, including “FAQs” and other guidance, can be obtained from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) website at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-country-information, and compliance officials at Berkshire subsidiaries are encouraged to consult the OFAC website regularly and to sign up to receive email announcements from OFAC when changes occur or new information or guidance becomes available.

Transactions with Venezuela. Due to ongoing and increasing concerns of the U.S. government regarding political and social developments in Venezuela, OFAC and other federal agencies have developed and implemented sanction programs relative to a variety of specific industries, government agencies and individuals, and specifically identified individuals and entities. The various sanction programs, when considered in their breadth and complexity, make this a de facto embargo on Venezuela. As a consequence, Berkshire has a policy of not doing business with or in Venezuela, or with individuals or entities that constitute the government of Venezuela.

To ensure compliance with the foregoing laws and sanction programs no Berkshire subsidiary to which this Section III applies may engage in any transactions or conduct of the type described above that is known to, directly or indirectly, involve Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela or the Crimea Region of Ukraine, without prior consultation with the Compliance Officer of the affected Berkshire subsidiary in consultation with legal counsel and the Chief Financial Officer of Berkshire or other person designated by the Chief Financial Officer of Berkshire.

Russian Sectoral Sanctions. Executive Order 13662 authorizes sectoral sanctions, pursuant to which OFAC has designated entities determined to be operating in three designated sectors of the Russian economy (defense, energy, and financial services) for inclusion on the Sectoral Sanctions Identification List (“SSI List”). The prohibitions are set forth in four OFAC “Directives.” Directives 1 (banking), 2 (energy) and 3 (defense) generally prohibit U.S. persons or those in the U.S. from dealing in “new debt” of the SSI entities designated under the applicable Directive (also in “new equity” for the banks under Directive 1). Directive 4 (energy) prohibits U.S. persons or those in the U.S. from providing goods, services (except for financial services), or technology to any SSI entity designated under Directive 4 in support of oil exploration/production projects of three types — deep water, Arctic offshore, or shale — that have the potential to produce oil in the Russian Federation or its claimed maritime area. In addition, for projects initiated on or after January 29, 2018, Directive 4 was expanded to cover deep water, Artic offshore, and shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in any location (not just within the Russian Federation) in which an SSI designated under Directive 4 holds a 33% or greater interest, directly or indirectly. In addition, for all Directives, if an entity that does not appear on the SSI List is owned directly or indirectly by one or more SSIs designated under the same Directive, then the entity will be subject to that Directive even if it is not itself listed on the SSI List. Therefore, it is important to conduct ownership due diligence of prospective trading partners, as well as screening against the SSI List and other applicable lists. Prior to doing any business involving these Russian sectors, Berkshire subsidiaries must adopt detailed written operating policies and procedures regarding how business will be conducted in strict compliance with these regulations and submit such policies and procedures for the prior approval of the Chief Financial Officer of Berkshire or other person designated by the Chief Financial Officer.

Transactions with China. China is the recent target of significant U.S. economic sanctions and export control measures that prohibit or place license requirements on certain U.S. exports and re-exports. OFAC’s SDN and BIS’ Entity lists have been updated to include government entities and officials and electronics manufacturer Huawei and its subsidiaries and affiliates. A change to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations’ end-use controls applies an export and re-export license requirement (with a policy of denial) for certain commercial items when shipped to companies in China that also manufacturer and support defense articles for use by the Chinese military. The U.S. government also changed its approach with regard to treatment of Hong Kong, removing separate export licensing rules and permissions and requiring imported goods to reflect Chinese, rather than Hong Kong, origin. Recent human rights laws are also focused on forced labor in China, resulting in an import ban into the U.S. of several products produced in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, including agricultural products, automobiles, and electronics. These and other restrictions are developing quickly. Berkshire subsidiaries that do business with and in China are encouraged to review new developments on a regular basis and make sure that their policies and procedures align with current economic sanction, export, and import requirements.

Transactions with Certain Blocked Individuals, Entities and Groups. The U.S. has also instituted economic and trade sanctions programs prohibiting U.S. persons, including companies located outside the U.S. who are owned by a U.S. parent, from engaging in unlicensed transactions of almost any nature with designated individuals, entities, vessels, and aircraft. The U.S. Government identifies such individuals, entities, vessels, and aircraft by putting their names on various sanctions lists. The largest and most restrictive of these lists is the list of “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” (the “SDN List”) maintained by OFAC. Other lists of parties with which various transactions are restricted or off-limits include the Entity List, the Denied Persons List, and the Unverified List, each as maintained by the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security; and the Debarred Parties List, as maintained by the U.S. Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.

The SDN List includes entities that have engaged in conduct that is inimical to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, such as “Transnational Criminal Organizations,” “Narcotics Traffickers,” “Terrorist Organizations,” “Proliferators of Weapons of Mass Destruction” and other conduct such as cyber-related crime, election interference, and corruption and human rights violations. Others on the list include persons and entities from the embargoed countries and regions described above (i.e., Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Crimea), as well as others from certain specified countries or regions, including, but not limited to, the Balkans, Belarus, Burundi, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Hong Kong, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Darfur, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

The SDN List is updated frequently (sometimes, as often as several times a week) and is available on the Internet at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/specially-designated-nationals-and-blocked-persons-list-sdn-human-readable-lists.¹

Persons subject to OFAC sanctions include not only persons named on the SDN and SSI lists but also persons that are directly or indirectly 50% or more owned in the aggregate by one or more entity on the SDN or SSI lists (independently, not cumulatively across the two lists). These are blocked or designated parties by operation of OFAC’s 50% rule. Thus, it is important to know the ownership structure of companies with which transactions are conducted to determine whether the company, though perhaps itself not an SDN, is an SDN by application of the 50% rule. This analysis often includes an understanding of the companies’ owners’ owners. In addition to all persons explicitly named on the SDN List or that are SDNs by application of the 50% rule, blocking requirements apply to the Governments of Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria; as well as most Cuban individuals and entities and all Iranian financial institutions.

_¹The OFAC website also offers a search engine for the SDN List and other lists maintained by OFAC at http://sdnsearch.ofac.treas.gov/.

In addition to being prohibited from engaging in transactions with SDNs, U.S. persons who come into possession or control of any property in which an SDN has any interest, must “block” or “freeze” such property (e.g., by placing blocked funds in a blocked account) and reporting the blocking to OFAC within 10 business days. This is most often relevant in a banking context but may be a reason why a seller (located anywhere in the world) is unable to be paid for services previously rendered or goods already delivered.

Before entering into any transaction and shipping goods, each Berkshire subsidiary should conduct applicable screening of parties (including vendors and customers) and, when applicable, their owners against the SDN and other restricted party lists, including the SSI List, to identify any applicable restrictions that may prohibit or restrict the transaction. The U.S. government has aggregated U.S. lists into the Consolidated Screening List which is available at https://legacy.export.gov/csl-search. In lieu of manual screening, there are a variety of third-party software vendors that can provide automated screening tools. Berkshire subsidiaries are encouraged, as part of their risk assessments, to consider whether acquiring such a screening tool would be appropriate given the volume and nature of its transactions. Each Berkshire subsidiary that adopts a screening tool should ensure that it covers all applicable U.S. lists and all applicable lists of other countries in or with which the subsidiary does business.

Each subsidiary should develop a risk-based procedure to screen transactions and ensure compliance with any applicable prohibitions, sanctions, and embargoes. Subsidiaries should monitor compliance with this section.

No Berkshire subsidiary or employee to which this Section III applies may engage in any transactions, or conduct any activities with, any person, entity, vessel or aircraft on the SDN List (or any person who is otherwise blocked), whether directly, or indirectly, and any prospective dealings with persons on, or suspected to be on, the SDN List must be immediately reported to the applicable Berkshire subsidiary’s Compliance Officer.

Ransom Payments. OFAC has issued an advisory regarding the payment of ransom in connection with malware attacks. Persons associated with several types of malware have been added to the SDN List, including persons associated with Triton, Cryptolocker, SamSam, WannaCry 2.0 and Dridex. As discussed above, U.S. persons are prohibited from dealing with persons on the SDN List and entities directly or indirectly 50% or more owned in the aggregate by one or more SDNs and OFAC has stated that applications for licenses allowing ransom payments to SDNs are subject to a policy of denial. Berkshire subsidiaries who face ransom demands from malicious cyber actors, or who provide insurance or reinsurance covering cyber ransom demands or payments, should undertake due diligence to ensure that the party demanding a ransom payment is not an SDN or otherwise subject to trade sanctions. Ransom payments, where a Berkshire subsidiary is the victim, should only be made by the subsidiary when approved by that Berkshire subsidiary’s Compliance Officer. In cases where the Berkshire subsidiary provided insurance or reinsurance covering cyber ransom demands, such (re)insurance claims should only be paid after compliance with the applicable written cyber ransom due diligence procedures that have been approved by that subsidiary’s Compliance Officer. OFAC also strongly recommends prompt reporting of such demands to law enforcement.

Facilitation. No Berkshire subsidiary or employee, wherever located, will facilitate any transaction with any embargoed country or individual, to include any SDN, without appropriate license or other authorization having been issued. “Facilitation” is “any unlicensed action by a U.S. person that assists or supports trading activity with [a sanctions target] by any person,” with certain narrow exceptions (e.g., activities of a “purely clerical” nature, or of a “reporting nature that does not further trade or financial transactions”).

Secondary Sanctions. The U.S. government also maintains “secondary sanctions” programs, in many cases mandated by legislation, under which sanctions can or must be imposed on foreign persons who engage in dealings with SDNs or other activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy. Secondary sanctions seek to regulate the business of foreign companies that have no nexus to the United States by imposing consequences for engaging in such activities. Secondary sanctions are particularly prevalent in the context of the Iran and Russia sanctions programs, but many other sanctions programs also have secondary sanctions elements. Under secondary sanctions, foreign companies that do business with SDNs and embargoed countries can be subject to certain consequences that may affect their ability to do business with the United States, including denial of access to the U.S. financial system and/or designation of the foreign person as an SDN.

Disclosure of Iran-Related Activities. Section 13 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires that certain issuers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including Berkshire, disclose in their public filings and in separate reports to the SEC if the issuer or any of its affiliates has knowingly engaged in certain specified activities related to Iran. For these issuers, quarterly and annual reports must include disclosure on all of the reportable activities that occurred during the period covered by the report (e.g., for an annual report, during the fiscal year). Disclosure is required regarding the activities of each of Berkshire’s subsidiaries, which are considered affiliates under the law.

A broad range of activities is reportable, including those relating to Iran’s energy sector, military capabilities, suppression of human rights, or involving certain financial transactions; or Iranian SDNs. Reportable activities include, among others:

In addition, the law requires that issuers disclose any transactions or dealings with any person or entity designated as a global terrorist or proliferator of weapons of mass destruction on the SDN List (whether or not relating to Iran).

The required report must include detailed information such as the nature and extent of the activity, gross revenues and net profits (if any) attributable to the activity, and whether the company intends to continue the activity. Such information is made available to the public and may result in an investigation or imposition of sanctions by the U.S. Government.

If any employee of a Berkshire subsidiary has reason to believe that any potentially reportable activity has occurred, he or she must promptly report the matter to the Chief Financial Officer of Berkshire, so that a determination may be made as to whether the activity is of the type required to be disclosed under U.S. law. Because there is no materiality threshold for transactions subject to the disclosure requirement, it is important that Berkshire be made aware of any and all such activities, even those that may seem minor or incidental.

Ongoing Compliance. As anti-terrorism and foreign policy programs evolve and related rules change, the nature and extent of permitted and prohibited activities could change; for instance, additional countries or persons could become subject to embargoes or sanctions programs, or existing embargoes could be lifted or sanctions programs relaxed. Also, additional or different requirements may be applicable to Berkshire companies that are not U.S. persons or that are doing business outside of the U.S. Each Berkshire subsidiary should monitor applicable sanctions programs and other trade restrictions to ensure that its policies remain current. Berkshire subsidiary employees should consult with their Compliance Officer to confirm compliance with applicable requirements before entering into any contractual or business relationship with persons or involving countries implicating potential embargoes or sanctions programs.

Guidance regarding OFAC’s expectations regarding risk assessments and compliance is available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/framework_ofac_cc.pdf.

IV. PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS WITH CERTAIN COUNTRIES/REGIONS AND PERSONS

U.S. Anti-Boycott Laws. U.S. anti-boycott laws prohibit U.S. companies and their “controlled in fact” foreign affiliates, to the extent U.S. commerce is involved, from participating in foreign boycotts that the U.S. does not sanction. Moreover, if a boycott-related request is received, it must be reported to the Commerce Department within 30 days of the end of the calendar quarter in which it was received. Participating in an unsanctioned foreign boycott can also have negative tax consequences.

Although the anti-boycott laws apply to all non-U.S.-sanctioned boycotts imposed by foreign countries, the Arab League’s boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott covered. While the Treasury Department has identified Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen as boycotting countries, other countries may be sources of boycott requests, as well.

It is the policy of each Berkshire subsidiary to comply fully with all applicable U.S. anti-boycott laws. No Berkshire subsidiary or its employees may take any action that, directly or indirectly, supports the boycott of Israel or any other foreign boycott not sanctioned by the U.S. Any employee with concerns as to whether a transaction implicates U.S. anti-boycott rules, or the boycott or anti-boycott laws of any other country, should consult with his or her Compliance Officer and not proceed with the transaction until advised. Moreover, if an employee receives a boycott-related request, he/she must promptly notify his or her Compliance Officer.

Export and Import Compliance. Through various statutes and regulations including, but not limited to, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), the Export Administration Regulation (“EAR”), the Importation of Arms, Ammunition and Implements of War regulations, and U.S. Customs laws and regulations (collectively “U.S. Import and Export Control Laws”), the U.S. Government controls the import (permanent and temporary) into and the export (temporary and permanent) directly from the U.S., or indirectly from or through a foreign country, of products, software and technology/technical data; and the provision of related defense services to foreign persons/nationals. In addition, the ITAR includes registration requirements for U.S. manufacturers (including processors) and brokers of defense articles subject to the ITAR, even if those companies do not export from the U.S. The ITAR and EAR prohibit exports/re-exports of all commodities subject to their respective controls, as well as exports of covered technology/technical data and software, and the provision of defense services and certain brokering services (even by companies organized abroad), without an applicable export license or approval having been issued, or an applicable exemption or exception being available. The EAR and ITAR also prohibit any unauthorized release of controlled technical information to a foreign national; even when the transfer occurs in the U.S., the regulations “deem” the release an export to the individual’s country or countries of nationality (this is often called a “deemed export”). It is the policy of each Berkshire subsidiary to comply fully with U.S. Import and Export Control Laws, as well as applicable local export and import laws. Each Berkshire subsidiary should evaluate its operations to determine whether it is subject to these regulations and, if so, develop appropriate procedures to address its individual compliance risks.

V. RETENTION OF THIRD-PARTY SERVICES

Prior to engaging third-party agents or intermediaries, each Berkshire subsidiary shall conduct appropriate and thorough due diligence documented in writing concerning intermediaries, which include agents, resellers, distributors, lobbyists, joint venture partners, customs brokers, freight forwarders or other contractors. Each Berkshire subsidiary employing the services of such Intermediaries shall develop and maintain documented due diligence procedures appropriate to the risks presented which allows the subsidiary’s compliance personnel to evaluate and consider the business rationale for needing the third- party’s assistance as well as the compliance risks posed by the third-party partners, including the third-party partners’ reputations and relationships, if any, with foreign officials or the family members of foreign officials and any compliance risk “red flags.” Each Berkshire subsidiary shall engage in monitoring, assessing and managing the compliance risks associated with the use of Intermediaries throughout the lifetime of the relationship and not just during the onboarding process by periodically updating the due diligence on Intermediaries. Due diligence performed on Intermediaries shall include, at a minimum, a documented evaluation of the third-party’s owners and management to determine if any are listed on any U.S. prohibited parties lists, such as the SDN List, as well as whether any qualify as foreign officials under the FCPA, and an evaluation of the third-party’s character, qualifications, experience, reputation for integrity and proven ability to provide the service for which it is being retained. Factors against retention of a third-party include, but are not limited to, any unusual requests for compensation and any unusual payment, shipment or destination terms as well as the discovery of any facts, circumstances or “red flags” that might suggest that use of the Intermediary might create an increased FCPA, trade or sanctions compliance risk. The following are examples of some common red flags that are associated with an increased FCPA compliance risk:

For any Intermediary regarding whom there is an appreciable risk that the Intermediary may interact with government officials or present an FCPA, trade or sanctions compliance risk, Berkshire subsidiaries are required to have a written agreement with anti-corruption/trade compliance contract terms appropriate to the risks presented, including audit rights, and must require the Intermediary to execute an appropriate annual certification of compliance with trade and/or anti-corruption laws, including the FCPA. Such certifications of compliance shall be annually updated and maintained by the subsidiary.

VI. MERGERS AND ACQUISITION DUE DILIGENCE

Where a merger or acquisition is consummated, efforts shall be taken to ensure that the Prohibited Business Practices Policy and any additional policies of the acquiring Berkshire entity are implemented as quickly as is practicable to the newly the acquired business; and anti-corruption compliance training is conducted in accordance with this Policy for the directors, officers, and relevant employees of the newly acquired business. In addition, following the acquisition, the acquiring Berkshire subsidiary shall ensure that a thorough and documented assessment of the acquired company’s individual operations and compliance risks is performed that captures the compliance risk areas discussed in this document and that are applicable to the acquired company as a result of the unique nature of its business operations and its geographic location. Based upon this documented risk assessment, the acquiring Berkshire subsidiary shall require the acquire to implement and adopt additional policies and procedures as appropriate so that it maintains an effectively designed compliance policy that is tailored to the unique compliance risks the subsidiary faces.

Distribution. Each general manager of a Berkshire subsidiary is responsible for the enforcement of and compliance with this Policy within his or her area of responsibility, including distribution of this Policy to Senior Management reporting to him or her, and other individuals that manage the risk areas discussed in this document, including each employee, agent or manager who is likely to communicate, interact or have business dealings with government officials or manage persons likely to communicate, interact or have business dealings with government officials. Berkshire subsidiaries should, when possible, make anti-corruption, trade and sanctions compliance policies accessible to employees electronically in their native languages in an easily searchable and accessible format that can also be easily and regularly updated. Berkshire subsidiaries should consider based upon assessed risk whether to employ data analytics to understand which compliance policies are being accessed most frequently. Berkshire subsidiaries shall ensure that compliance personnel charged with administering the anti-corruption, sanctions and trade compliance program receive specialized training to enable them to effectively perform their roles.

Training. This Policy and any related documentation (as well as any subsidiary policy that is more robust) must be included in all employee manuals for each Berkshire subsidiary, shall be provided to each member of Senior Management of each Berkshire subsidiary, and shall be available to all employees of the Berkshire companies in English and the local languages applicable to each subsidiary. Review and explanation of this Policy and any related documentation (including any more robust anti-corruption, export controls or sanctions policy) shall be made a part of the training for each manager of a Berkshire subsidiary and for: (i) each employee or manager who is likely to communicate, interact or have business dealings with government officials or manage persons likely to communicate, interact or have business dealings with government officials; and (ii) employees whose activities impact trade compliance. Periodic training must be provided to these personnel to ensure that they have the knowledge and tools they need to conduct business effectively and in compliance with the FCPA and applicable anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws as well as export control, sanctions, anti-boycott and customs laws. For Intermediaries who may have direct or indirect dealings with government officials on a Berkshire subsidiary’s behalf, each Berkshire subsidiary must confirm through due diligence that such Intermediary has an adequate training program in place or it must adopt a procedure to provide anti-bribery and anti-corruption training to the Intermediary using a risk-based approach. The procedure should include periodic refresher training for such Intermediaries. Where appropriate, the training for employees and Intermediaries will be conducted in the audience’s native language; otherwise, training will be provided in English with translation as necessary. Training shall be performed in a manner that is tailored to an audience’s size, sophistication and subject matter expertise, and where possible should provide a means for trainees to ask questions. Training should also be designed to adequately cover any prior compliance incidents and lessons learned from what is publicly known of the successes and failures of peers in the subsidiary’s industry or geographic region relating to anti-corruption compliance practices and policies, should include discussion of real-world scenarios based upon the subsidiary’s risk assessment, and each subsidiary shall regularly evaluate the effectiveness of its training programs.

Resources: This Policy discusses a variety of statutes, regulations, and U.S. government agencies. Each agency offers helpful guidelines and resources on its webpage. The following are some U.S. government websites that you may find helpful as you review and apply the compliance areas discussed in this Policy: