Former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and Ambassador Robert Holleyman, now a partner with Crowell & Moring and president of Crowell & Moring International, left, and Richard Lehfeldt, a partner with Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C., office. Courtesy photos.

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:

In Contentious International Climate, Trade Law Isn't Just for the Specialists

Trump's Trade Policies – A Broad Perspective

Initial Response to NAFTA 2.0 From US Companies Appears Largely Positive