Baker McKenzie Tapped as FedEx Sues Commerce Department Over Huawei Blacklist
FedEx is facing government investigations in China after it failed to carry out two deliveries involving Huawei products.
June 25, 2019 at 12:05 PM
4 minute read
FedEx Corp. has tapped longtime counsel Baker McKenzie to represent it in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Commerce—the second high-profile suit filed in four days against the government over its trading ban of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
On Monday, the company filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of the Commerce Department and its Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) enforcement of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The company argued that the regulations create a substantial burden that deprives FedEx of substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit came as FedEx has been caught in the crossfire of the Trump administration's series of enforcement actions against Huawei, and as the U.S. company is facing possible retaliation actions from the Chinese government.
Baker McKenzie's Washington, D.C. partners Maurice Bellan and Kenneth Quinn and Dallas partner Kimberly Rich are representing FedEx. Bellan is the vice-chair of the firm's North America litigation and government enforcement practice. Quinn is a specialist in aviation and transportation law. He led the firmwide practice for Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman before joining Baker McKenzie in 2017.
FedEx's lawsuit did not name Huawei, but the filing comes as the U.S. courier failed to make two deliveries involving the Chinese telecom company's products after the Commerce Department banned Huawei from trading with U.S. businesses in May.
Immediately after Huawei's addition to the so-called Entity List, two FedEx packages destined for Huawei's Chinese addresses were "rerouted" to the United States, and two additional packages destined for the company's other Asian addresses were about to be rerouted when discovered. FedEx later apologised and said the redirecting was an error.
But the incident did not sit well with the Chinese government, which has launched a formal investigation into FedEx's delivery failure. Meanwhile, China also said it will start to compile its own "Unreliable Entities List" of foreign companies and individuals deemed damaging to Chinese interests. The list is not yet published, but China has threatened to put FedEx at the top of that list.
A second failed delivery happened just last week, when a package containing a Huawei smartphone destined for a non-Huawei address in New York was returned to a sender in London due to what FedEx called a "U.S. government issue". FedEx later again called the returning a mistake.
In its lawsuit, FedEx said that despite a sophisticated process screening senders' and receivers' names and address, it is practically impossible to comply with the BIS's Entity List, which imposes an "overbroad and disproportionate" burden on FedEx.
FedEx said the majority of packages are pre-sealed and the EAR essentially want FedEx to police the contents of the millions of packages it ships everyday. "Doing so is a virtually impossible task, logistically, economically and, in many cases, legally," and that it is not a reasonable ask of a transporter for the public, it said.
FedEx said the export regulations, as they stand now, give the company two options: "Continue to operate under threat of imminent enforcement actions, or cease operations that may conceivably lead to enforcement and face possible legal consequences from customers and foreign governments."
"The language of the EAR imposes a constitutionally unsupportable choice for FedEx," the company said, adding that it's certain to find itself in violation of the EAR.
The Fifth Amendment provides that "no person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". FedEx said the EAR deprive it of liberty and property by "arbitrarily and irrationally precluding [the company] from carrying out the basic functions of its business as a common carrier".
FedEx asked the district court to declare the BIS's enforcement of the EAR on the courier unlawful and order the government to cease enforcement actions.
In addition to Huawei, on June 21 the BIS added five more Chinese supercomputer and microchip designers and manufacturers to the Entity List.
The FedEx case follows Huawei's lawsuit, filed on June 21 in the same court, against the Commerce Department. The Chinese company is seeking a resolution of a shipment of equipment detained by the BIS in 2017 prior to its addition to the Entity List.
|Related Stories:
Sidley Austin Represents Huawei in Lawsuit Against Commerce Department
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 AllAshurst Beijing Chief Representative Leaves for New York Boutique Sterlington
Baker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Axiom-Ince: SFO Charges Five, Including Former Head, Following Investigation
3 minute readSDT Upholds SLAPP Claim Against Osborne Clarke Partner Advising Nadhim Zahawi
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Remembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
- 2Attorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
- 3Suspended NY Judge Who Threatened to Shoot Black Party Crashers Says She Won't Fight Removal
- 4Kelly Hart Secures $27M Trade Secrets Misappropriation Final Judgment in Fort Worth Trial
- 5How Legal Research And Analytics Changed in 2024
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