Compliance Concerns Spike Over Huawei Trade Restrictions
The clamor for compliance answers isn't surprising considering Huawei's reach and the strict penalties that U.S. companies face for violating the export ban: $300,000 for each civil violation and a $1 million fine or up to 20 years in prison for each criminal violation.
May 21, 2019 at 04:55 PM
4 minute read
Companies in the U.S. are scrambling to understand their compliance responsibilities in the wake of the Commerce Department's announcement last week that it was adding Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and nearly 70 of its affiliates in 26 countries to a trade blacklist.
“We're fielding literally dozens of calls on the topic of compliance,” Rich Matheny, a partner in Goodwin Procter's Washington, D.C., office who heads the firm's global trade practice, said Tuesday.
The clamor for compliance answers isn't surprising considering Huawei's reach and the strict penalties that U.S. companies face for violating the export ban: $300,000 for each civil violation and a $1 million fine or up to 20 years in prison for each criminal violation.
There's also concern that the action against Huawei could spur other Chinese companies to sever their ties with stateside businesses, said Kevin Wolf, a partner in the international trade practice at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C., and former assistant secretary of commerce.
“There are foreign competitors that exist now or could exist soon,” Wolf said. “I'm not denying the national security issues here, but from an economic perspective this could motivate a move away from U.S. suppliers.”
While grappling with the implications of the restrictions on Huawei, which were announced May 16, stakeholders learned Monday that the U.S. had granted the Chinese telecom giant a temporary general license that carves out some exceptions in the export ban.
The license, which was slated to be published Wednesday and expire Aug. 19, lifts the ban on certain exports that Huawei needs to “maintain and support existing and currently fully operational networks and equipment.” The 90-day license also applies only to legally binding contracts that Huawei and third parties finalized on or before May 16.
At this point, companies need to stop exporting products to Huawei until they can determine whether what they're sending fits within the terms of the temporary license, according to Matheny.
Companies that decide to resume business with Huawei need to abide by the terms of the license, which requires, among other things, that exporters draft a certification explaining how their products qualify for the exception.
Matheny also advised companies to prepare for the eventuality of a full trade ban on Huawei rather than banking on the temporary license being renewed or a deal being reached.
As for Huawei, the company appears to be digging in its heels. Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei told Chinese state media that the firm was “fully prepared” for a conflict with the U.S. as it pursued its goal to “stand at the top of the world.”
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 AllLowenstein Hires Ex-FTX US General Counsel Ryne Miller to Lead Its Commodities, Derivatives Practice
3 minute readSustainable Packaging Company Packsize Finds New Legal Chief a Perfect Fit
2 minute readLockmaker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The American Lawyer Names Industry Award Winners
- 2Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 3Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 4Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 5USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
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