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:
US Businesses With Ties to Huawei Need to Prepare for Disruption
What Happens if Trump Intervenes in the DOJ's Case Against Huawei?
Huawei CFO's Arrest Could Spur More US Businesses to Exit China, Avoid Visits
Ex-Skadden Partner to Lead U.S. Trade Negotiations With China
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 AllAdvance Auto Parts Hires GC Who Climbed From Bottom to Top of Lowe's Legal Department
2 minute readCompliance With EU AI Act Lags Behind as First Provisions Take Effect
State AG Hammers Homebuilder That Put $2,000-Per-Day Non-Disparagement Penalty in Buyer Contracts
3 minute readNBA Players Association Finds Its New GC in Warriors Front Office
Trending Stories
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