US Businesses With Ties to Huawei Need to Prepare for Disruption
U.S. banks and companies that do business with Huawei need to “understand where their pressure points would be in the relationship with Huawei,” which means examining flows of goods and services, data and money.
March 12, 2019 at 03:21 PM
4 minute read
Stateside companies that are suppliers for Huawei Technologies Co. or buyers of products and services from the Chinese telecom giant should be preparing for the possibility of the U.S. government meddling with that business relationship, according to trade lawyers.
The Trump administration has yet to sanction Huawei or issue an executive order barring the company from doing business in the United States. But the government's ban last year against Chinese telecom ZTE Corp. showed that sweeping enforcement action “can happen overnight,” said Alexis Early, a senior associate in King & Spalding's international trade group in Washington, D.C.
“So it's important to know the status of your company's engagements with Huawei so you're not scrambling to find the information at the same time you're scrambling to implement mitigating activities in case Huawei is subject to some type of enforcement action,” Early said.
She added companies need to “understand where their pressure points would be in the relationship with Huawei,” which means examining flows of goods and services, data and money.
“At this point it's just important to be gathering information and assessing the situation without jumping to conclusions until the process plays out—understanding that there are also larger geopolitical forces at play,” Early said.
As U.S.-China trade talks continue, federal prosecutors have accused Huawei of duping U.S. banks into circumventing U.S. sanctions on Iran and are pursuing related money laundering and fraud charges against the company in the Eastern District of New York. Federal prosecutors in the Western District of Washington in Seattle also have accused Huawei of stealing trade secrets for T-Mobile USA's robotic phone-testing system.
Considering the ongoing criminal cases against Huawei, Adams Lee, an international trade lawyer at Harris Bricken in Seattle, said he believed that “companies dealing with Huawei are only in trouble to the extent that they're helping Huawei deal with Iran.”
“It's the indirect implication of violating U.S. export controls against dealing with Iran,” he said. “The export controls are just really broad and so you have to be sensitive and know your customer and who they're dealing with.”
But that can be difficult, especially in light of the allegations at the center of the sanctions fraud case unfolding in New York. Early said the U.S. Department of Justice apparently “believes that Huawei makes misrepresentations to its counterparties, which in my mind as a trade lawyer immediately triggers questions of how much due diligence the U.S. government expects counterparties to do when transacting with Huawei if the U.S. government says you can't believe them at face value.”
Huawei and the U.S. also are butting heads over a law that bans U.S. government agencies from buying or using Huawei's goods or services. Huawei argues in a federal lawsuit that the ban is unconstitutional.
If the court strikes down the law, the Trump administration would likely feel increased pressure to take executive action against Huawei, said Ronald Cheng, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles and Hong Kong.
“What seems to be implicit [in Huawei's suit] is if there's going to be a way to do it that would be by executive action,” he said.
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 AllElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Datasite's Ethics and Compliance Team Drives Transformation
SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
Trending Stories
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