Retaliation Concerns Swirl in Wake of Huawei Indictments
“China could easily pick any number of areas of its domestic laws to conveniently target U.S. citizens and businesses,” said an international trade lawyer who, like many of his colleagues, has been fielding calls from clients who want to know how the Huawei indictments might affect their companies.
January 29, 2019 at 05:19 PM
4 minute read
For global U.S. companies with ties to China, it's more imperative now than ever to ensure strict adherence to Chinese law, according to international trade lawyers.
The Justice Department unveiled indictments on Monday accusing Huawei Technologies Co. of fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and sanctions violations, pouring fuel on an already tense situation that threatens to sour renewed U.S.-China trade talks ahead of a March 1 deadline to negotiate a deal. If the talks crumble, the U.S. could raise tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent, affecting $200 billion of Chinese goods.
“It would begin a vicious circle that could lead to a global recession and political instability,” said Peter Quinter, a shareholder at GrayRobinson in Miami who chairs the firm's customs and international trade law group.
Federal prosecutors have accused Huawei of violating U.S. trade sanctions against Iran and stealing trade secrets from T-Mobile for a robot that quality tests cellphones.
Huawei asserted in a statement sent Tuesday to Corporate Counsel that federal prosecutors “rejected without explanation” the company's request to discuss the investigation, which led to the Dec. 1 arrest of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou in Canada at the request of U.S. authorities. The company also argued that the allegations at the center of the T-Mobile trade secret case “were already the subject of a civil suit that was settled by the parties after a Seattle jury found neither damages nor willful and malicious conduct on the trade secret claim.”
“The Company denies that it or its subsidiary or affiliate have committed any of the asserted violations of U.S. law set forth in each of the indictments, is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms. Meng, and believes the U.S. courts will ultimately reach the same conclusion,” Huawei added in its statement.
After the indictments against Huawei were unsealed, international trade lawyers said they began fielding calls from clients who wanted to know whether they could still do business with Huawei, a telecom giant and one of the most iconic companies in China.
“The answer is that the indictments have no specific legal impact on the ability to do business with Huawei,” said Richard Matheny, a litigation partner at Goodwin Procter in Washington, D.C., who heads the firm's global trade practice.
The possibility of retaliation is another widespread concern.
“China could easily pick any number of areas of its domestic laws to conveniently target U.S. citizens and businesses,” said Adams Lee, an international trade lawyer at Harris Bricken in Seattle who represents American and Chinese companies.
U.S. businesses that export food products could face heightened scrutiny over compliance with China's Food Safety Law, while other exported goods could be targeted for possible violations of consumer protection laws, Lee said. He added U.S. companies that have operations on the ground in China should make sure that they're following Chinese employment laws.
“You really should be worried about complying with the Chinese laws,” Lee said.
Telling clients to abide by the law seems like obvious advice, but Lee said that “in China you get a lot of pressure from local Chinese handlers who … recommend a looser way of doing business. They say, 'Don't worry. This is how we do business here. It's all about who you know. They'll turn a blind eye if you pay them some favors.'”
That might be true for Chinese companies, Lee warned, but not so much for foreign businesses, especially in the current climate.
Read More:
US Prosecutors Unveil Money Laundering, Fraud Charges Against Huawei
DOJ Hacking Indictments Against China Continue: What Do They Mean for Companies?
Huawei CFO's Arrest Could Spur More US Businesses to Exit China, Avoid Visits
Strains on US-China Relations Continue to Cloud Asia Outlook in 2019
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
© 2025 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 AllBig Tech Is Cozying Up to President Trump. Here's Why Their Lawyers Are Cautiously Optimistic
LinkedIn Suit Says Millions of Profiles Scraped by Singapore Firm’s Fake Accounts
5 minute readAre Firms and In-House Teams Courting Technological Debt With Ambitious Purchases?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Is It Time for Large UK Law Firms to Begin Taking Private Equity Investment?
- 2Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 3Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 4Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
- 5Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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