More Tariffs, More Problems: GCs Seek Answers in the Fray
Trade lawyers say companies are coming to them for answers about how to cope with escalating U.S.-China trade tariffs. But a former automaker GC said at least one proposed solution—looking for sourcing from other countries—isn't easily done.
September 18, 2018 at 05:07 PM
4 minute read
As the U.S.-China trade war escalates, corporate legal departments are growing increasingly interested in finding ways to avoid getting dinged.
“The number of clients we have is going to multiply tenfold. There are going to be a lot of people looking to deal with this,” Ronald Oleynik, head of the international trade practice at Holland & Knight in Washington, D.C., predicted. He spoke with a reporter shortly after China clapped back Tuesday at President Donald Trump's proposal to impose a third round of tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports. If that happens, the U.S. will have imposed tariffs on about half of all imports from China.
China vowed that it would slap tariffs on another $60 billion in American products if Trump's proposal takes effect as planned on Sept. 24.
The initial round of tariffs applied to industrial and high-tech products from China as part of a reported effort to quell intellectual property theft. But the latest action casts an extremely broad net into an equally expansive pool of U.S. companies that are now seeking advice.
They primarily want to know how they can get the products they import from China excluded from the tariff list, Oleynik said. “Clients are asking, 'What are the criteria and do we have a case?'” he said.
“My answer is that the criteria are difficult. If you're the right U.S. company with the right facts—you're going to lose many employees, it's going to hurt the company … you can put in an application for an exception,” he added.
Instead of focusing solely on getting an exclusion, Oleynik has been advising companies to focus more on bringing down value-based duty rates. Those rates have been relatively low, about 2 percent to 2.5 percent on average, according to Oleynik. But he said it's now worthwhile to consider ways to reduce the value of imported goods for customs purposes, including reduced duty rates.
“You've got to do it legally and the rules are complicated,” he said. “But one way is, you don't have to declare the value of U.S. components.” For instance, if a company imported a speed boat from China that had a motor made in the U.S., it could deduct the value of that engine from the overall customs value of the boat, thereby bringing down the duty rate, according to Oleynik.
Companies are also getting more serious about the possibility of importing products from other countries, according to Oleynik and Judith Alison Lee, an international trade lawyer and co-chairwoman of the international trade group at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C.
“In the beginning, people were hesitant to look elsewhere. They thought this was going to blow over,” Lee said. “Now, they're looking at Vietnam and other countries for sourcing.”
But that's not always easy, according to former Chrysler general counsel and senior vice president Marjorie Loeb, now a partner at Mayer Brown's Chicago office.
“The ability to re-source in this kind of trade war takes a fair amount of time, as it does for most integrated components,” she said. “There's quite a bit of investment that has to come in to re-source. It takes time.”
Loeb added that companies should be “looking at this from a component-by-component basis.”
“Some of these components have been carefully engineered and tested,” she said. “You can't just plug in one widget for the next.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEx-Twitter Exec Sues for $20M, Says Musk Fired Her as 'Petty Retribution'
Old Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
In-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250