In-House Leaders Can Find Opportunity in Chaotic Trade Landscape
Now is the time to analyze supply chains, including the supply chains of competitors that are publicly traded companies. It's also smart to scrutinize new trade deals happening outside the U.S.
February 28, 2019 at 04:03 PM
4 minute read
Common threads of chaos, turmoil and unpredictability are woven through most discussions about international trade. But what about opportunity?
In-house leaders at global companies who know how to look beyond the increasingly complex web of trade issues stand to gain a competitive advantage, former U.S. Deputy Trade Representative and Ambassador Robert Holleyman said in an interview Thursday.
“Even with the tariffs, particularly between the U.S. and China, we see more new trade agreements being negotiated than ever before. That presents an opportunity, particularly for global companies,” added Holleyman, now a Washington, D.C.-based partner in Crowell & Moring's international trade group.
The global law firm on Wednesday released its fifth annual report on regulatory trends for in-house counsel. Unsurprisingly, the report has an emphasis on trade.
The past year alone saw the U.S. reach an agreement with Mexico and Canada to renegotiate NAFTA; wave goodbye to the Trans-Pacific Partnership; and become embroiled in an ongoing trade war with China. If all that wasn't enough, global companies are preparing for Brexit and its related trade headaches. Meanwhile, the European Union reached an Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan and there was the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement among 11 countries. The deal replaces the Trans-Pacific Partnership and excludes the U.S.
“This is a time where I think speed is more important than ever,” Holleyman said. “A company shouldn't sit back and wait until these new trade agreements are in place to figure out what they should then do. That loss of time is a loss of financial benefits.”
Now is the time to analyze supply chains, including the supply chains of competitors that are publicly traded companies. It's also smart to scrutinize new trade deals happening outside the U.S.
“This is the tale of two worlds,” Holleyman said. “The U.S. has moved more into doing bilateral trade agreements or trilateral in the case of NAFTA. The rest of the world is doubling down on these broader regional agreements.”
Holleyman said his firm recently helped a global company and its legal department map out the various trade agreements that are being negotiated or are already in place to determine how the deals might affect the way the company moved products across borders. The map became a “key point” in the company's business decisions, he said.
“The smart, forward-looking companies are playing these things out in real time,” he added.
Aside from keeping pace with trade developments, companies should also continuously survey the regulatory landscape for potential openings. For instance, in 2017 when the U.S. was poised to slap tariffs on solar panel imports, some major stateside solar companies pre-ordered large quantities of panels to avoid getting dinged, according to Richard Lehfeldt, a partner in Crowell's Washington, D.C., office who represents energy companies.
“You look. You adjust. And you try to accommodate,” added Lehfeldt, a former in-house attorney in the energy sector. “Every last one of these micro and macro decisions is impacted by a regulatory climate that is in motion. You hedge. You stay informed. You make yourself nimble. And at key points you find ways to wade into the process, either at the level of the [U.S. Trade Representative] or in Congress or the agencies that have authority over tariff adjustments and waivers.”
He added, “It's multidimensional chess.”
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 AllNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Judge Rejects Meta’s Plea to Send FTC Antitrust Suit to Trash Heap
Republican Who Might Become FTC's Next Chair Blasts Democratic Commissioners' 'All Mergers Are Bad' Mindset
7 minute readCSX Joins Rest of Big Four Railroad Companies in Installing New Generation of Legal Leadership
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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