US hits China's ZTE with export ban over false statements
US takes action against China telecoms giant amid security concerns
April 17, 2018 at 02:13 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
US regulators have slapped Chinese telecom ZTE with what could be a stunning penalty - a seven-year ban on buying and exporting parts and technology from U.S. companies, after it was discovered the firm violated the terms of a 2017 settlement.
US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced the ban on Monday (16 April). His statement said the US government had discovered that ZTE made false statements in 2016 during settlement negotiations as well as in 2017 during its probation regarding discipline taken against senior employees involved in misconduct.
ZTE's March 2017 settlement was reached after the company pleaded guilty to three counts of illegally shipping telecoms and surveillance equipment to Iran and North Korea in violation of US export controls, making false statements and obstructing justice.
In the plea deal with the US Department of Justice, ZTE agreed to a combined civil and criminal penalty of up to $1.2bn. It also agreed to accept a corporate monitor; and, in a side settlement with the US Department of Commerce, it accepted the seven-year export ban.
But part of the financial penalty and the ban were suspended, so long as the company abided by the terms of its plea deal and the settlement. Ross reinstated the ban on Monday, issuing a denial order that prohibits the company, through its two Chinese subsidiaries, from exporting parts from the US.
ZTE, which did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment, issued this statement: "ZTE is aware of the denial order activated by the United States Department of Commerce. At present, the company is assessing the full range of potential implications that this event has on the company and is communicating with relevant parties proactively in order to respond accordingly."
Wendy Wysong, CC's Asia Pacific anti-corruption and trade controls head, represented ZTE during the plea deal and settlement. She declined to comment on her role.
Wysong, who splits her time between CC's Washington DC and Hong Kong offices, has been at the magic circle firm since 2007, when she joined from the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security.
Ross' statement said ZTE covered up the fact that the company, contrary to settlement terms, had paid full bonuses to employees that had engaged in illegal conduct, and failed to issue letters of reprimand.
"ZTE misled the Department of Commerce. Instead of reprimanding ZTE staff and senior management, ZTE rewarded them. This egregious behavior cannot be ignored," Ross said.
It is not clear how severely the ban could impact the company's sales or whether it can negotiate its way out of the ban again by meeting the terms of the settlement. When the ban originated last year, experts claimed it could cripple the company if not suspended.
ZTE, which also has a subsidiary in Richardson, Texas, is the fourth-largest supplier of mobile phones in the US and the second-largest provider of prepaid phones, according to its website. It makes other smart devices, such as watches and projectors, as well as routers and other internet technology.
Its main US suppliers included Intel, Microsoft and Qualcomm, which furnished its processors.
The prosecution of ZTE last year came after its former US general counsel, Ashley Yablon, agreed to be a whistleblower for the US attorney. Yablon has since joined another company as in-house counsel.
The ban comes at a tumultuous time for US-China trade relations, as President Donald Trump last month enacted tariffs on Chinese imports.
Other major law firms to have worked with ZTE in the past include Hogan Lovells, which has advised the company on its efforts to comply with its settlement with the US Government. The firm has also been advising the company on its long-running patent battle with telecoms operator Huawei.
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 AllEx-Spies Reveal How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
5 minute readUN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Is Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
German Court Finds Facebook Must Pay Users for Data Breach, But Less Than Expected
Trending Stories
- 1As Political Extremism Rises, is Voter Data the Next Privacy Frontier?
- 2So You Want to be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
- 3US District Judge in North Carolina Will Take Senior Status
- 4From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
- 5Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Why Jurors in California Failed to Reach Verdict Over Zantac, Bankruptcy Judge Tables Sanctions Against Beasley Allen Attorney
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