The Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) (2002/95/EC and 2011/65/EU) was adopted by the European Union in February 2002, and took effect July 1, 2006, yet many in the electronics industry are still uncertain as to its scope and requirements. Sometimes called the “lead-free directive,” the purpose of RoHS is to reduce toxic electronic waste by setting maximum permitted concentrations of materials used in electronics known to be most toxic. Although it applies only to those offering electronic products for sale in EU countries, RoHS’ supply chain requirements extends RoHS’ reach to electronics manufacturers around the globe.
The following is a guest post from Joe Jones providing insight on drafting dispute resolution clauses in supply chain contracts and determining which provisions will work best for you. This will be the first of many blog posts by Joe where he will discuss topics related to drafting and negotiating supply chain contracts. Joe is based in our Washington D.C. office where he specializes in cross-border corporate transactions, antitrust/competition review, foreign investment clearance procedures and other regulatory matters.
What’s in Your Dispute Resolution Clause? Six Ways Dispute Resolution Clauses Impact Supply Chain Contracts
This time around, manufacturers have not yet meaningfully weighed in on the proposal. There can be no doubt, however, that privatizing air-traffic control could fundamentally change the system in ways that will impact supply chains. Obviously, in a “user pays” system, which is essentially what is being proposed, the direct costs of air transportation increase, though proponents of the change argue that privatization will result in decreased air costs overall – so what the financial impact will be is unclear. (Indeed, there is not even agreement among experts whether Canada’s privatization increased or decreased the cost of air transport.)
Previously, we discussed the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) seven major food safety rules mandated by the Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”). (See previous posts here, here, and here.) Of the seven, the rule for Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (“FSVP”) for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals will have the biggest impact on importers of food into the United States. The FSVP is a program that requires food importers to verify that their foreign suppliers are producing food that meets appropriate safety regulations and ensure the food is not adultered or misbranded with respect to allergen labeling.
May 30, 2017 marked the first major compliance date under FSVP where the FDA is now checking to ensure food importers are performing certain risk-based activities to verify imported food meets U.S. safety standards. Continue Reading
Following up on our previous post regarding the SEC Conflict Minerals rule, the Conflict Minerals Law Blog discusses the upcoming Form SD filing deadline and the consequences of the April 7, 2017 Statement. Click below to read more:
Rosemary Coates and Sarah Rathke (authors of Legal Blacksmith: How to Avoid and Defend Supply Chain Disputes) posted an article on International Association for Contract & Commercial Management (IACCM) about Industry 4.0 and its impact on supply chain contracts. The exchange of information and integration of machines is creating sophisticated needs, not to mention leaving an audit trail that will need to be reviewed should a dispute arise and driving up costs. Rosemary and Sarah discuss how governing contracts must change to accommodate and protect.
You can read the article here: Big data, big benefits – and a ton of risk for your supply chain contracts?
We have published our legal updates for the month of April, highlighting some key commercial and intellectual property developments across Mainland China, Hong Kong, and the US. The update can be accessed by clicking on the document below.
Following up on our previous post on the Trump administration’s renegotiation of NAFTA, the President has taken further steps towards his campaign theme of promoting American industry. On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed the “Buy American, Hire American” executive order. The White House release states the order was promulgated in response to a February 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report “suggest[ing] the United States is not getting its fair share of the global government procurement market through the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA).” Further, the release contends, “companies routinely abuse the H-1B visa program by replacing American workers with lower paid foreign workers.”
Now that the matter has been remanded to the Commission, Acting Chairman Piwowar and the SEC Division of Corporation Finance have both issued public statements on the D.C. Court of Appeals decision reaffirming its prior holding that the Conflict Minerals rule “violate[s] the First Amendment to the extent the statute and rule require regulated entities to report to the Commission and to state on their website that any of their products have “not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free.'”” The Commission is now tasked with determining how to address the decision and how that affects the overall implementation of the Conflict Minerals rule. Read the full update on our Conflict Minerals Law Blog below:
The European Council has approved the conflict minerals regulation, marking the final procedural step before publication. Read the latest update and what to expect next on our Conflict Minerals Law Blog.