Global supply chains in the first quarter of 2026 are being shaped by a convergence of geopolitical tension, trade policy volatility, and regulatory expansion.
What distinguishes the current environment is not isolated disruption, but the increasing normalisation of multi-layered, overlapping risks – where conflict, tariffs, and compliance obligations interact simultaneously.
For legal teams, supply-chain risk is now firmly embedded as a core business and legal priority.
The US‑Israeli strikes on Iran and swift regional retaliation has triggered significant instability across global energy and shipping markets. Prices are climbing, key routes are compromised, and one of the world’s most strategically important waterways has faced temporary closure. With such extensive disruption, many businesses are asking an inevitable question: do these events trigger force majeure or material adverse change rights under their contracts?
Force Majeure: The Essentials
Under English law, the term is simply a label for a type of contractual provision designed to address unexpected, disruptive events.
Please contact: Tim Flamank or Francesco Liberatore with any questions.
Supply chain disruption remains a key risk in the semiconductor industry. Recent events have shown that even beyond high-tech corners of the sector, supply and demand dynamics over critical components, expertise and end products can change quickly and dramatically. The consequences for the automotive industry are potentially stark. In this alert, we consider some current trends in the semiconductor industry and suggest legal best practices arising from these. We show practical ways in which understanding and anticipating the legal risks of disruption can be a game-changer in mitigating its impact.
Export controls affecting key components
Export controls are the (if not one of the most) prominent topic of concern across international semiconductor supply chains at the beginning of 2026. Increasingly muscular government intervention across many major parts of the supply chain—from rare earths and advanced manufacturing machinery all the way through to finished chips—has given rise to disruption and uncertainty. Moreover, export control measures are no longer confined to the most advanced, AI-focused chips, with policies becoming increasingly inconsistent and difficult to predict. Many manufacturers are being forced to consider how government intervention might impact their operations and contractual arrangements.
Please contact: Sam B. Ballingrud, D. Michael Kaye, Ludmilla L. Kasulke, Jeremy W. Dutra, Christopher J. Duncan, or Keith Bradley with any questions.
On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections on President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs, and we expect the court will issue a decision by the end of the year. Several justices appeared skeptical that IEEPA allows the President to impose tariffs. Importers should prepare to preserve their rights to obtain refunds if the court’s majority overturns the tariffs.
Please contact D. Michael Kaye, Jeremy W. Dutra, Keith Bradley, and Anya Bharat Ram with any questions.
On November 5, 2025, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear the Trump administration’s appeal of lower court decisions holding the president’s imposition of the “fentanyl” and “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)1 unlawful.
Given the importance of the issue and that the stay of the lower court decisions has allowed the US to continue collecting IEEPA duties, we expect the court to issue its decision expeditiously, most likely before the end of 2025.
Our industry experts have come together for our recent podcast series, Supply Chain Reaction, to explore the latest issues facing supply chains worldwide, including risk management, new regulations, supply chain strategy and how to manage different types of contracts. Join our panel of lawyers from a variety of practices as they discuss a specific topic or case study each episode. Episodes include:
BACKGROUND
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) was enacted on December 23, 2021, and implemented on June 22, 2022. The UFLPA was designed to prevent the importation of goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labor in China. The multi-agency Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) monitors and develops the UFLPA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces its regulations. The UFLPA relies on a rebuttable presumption that any goods, wares, articles, or merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, or produced by an entity on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, were made with forced labor and as such, are prohibited from entering the United States. Since its implementation, CBP has examined more than 16,000 shipments, valued at almost $3.7 billion.
The product liability law of the United Arab Emirates is still relatively new. It was first introduced in 2006 as Federal Law No. 24/2006. This law has been superseded by a more comprehensive legal regime in 2020, the Federal Law No. 15/2020, as amended by Federal Decree-Law No. 5/2023 (“Consumer Protection Law”).[1] The existing legal framework was further developed through the Cabinet Decision No. 66/2023 (“Executive Regulation”).[2]
Please contact Kate Kim Tuma, Francesco Liberatore, Rodney E. Slater, or Daniel F. Roules with any questions.
As the automotive and transportation industry continues to evolve, legal departments are navigating complex challenges around technology, regulation and globalization. This updated list highlights 10 key legal and policy issues currently shaping the industry and expected to remain critical through the rest of 2025.
After 40 years, the European Union has finally replaced the “old” law on liability for defective products, Council Directive 85/374/EEC, by a “new” Product Liability Directive 2024/2853 (PLD). The PLD harmonizes and increases the level of protection of natural persons within the internal market and provides for a much-needed adaptation of the law to the technological advancements and new business models.
The new law will apply to products placed on the market or put into service after December 9, 2026.[1] By the same date, the Member States are required to transpose the directive into their national laws.[2] In departure from the minimum harmonization principle applicable under the old law, the Member States are not allowed to introduce provisions that are more or less stringent than those laid down in the PLD when doing so.[3]
Against this background, companies operating within the European Union are strongly recommended to proactively prepare before the PLD becomes effective. The following contribution summarizes the most significant changes to the existing legal framework and maps out practical steps to prepare the liable parties for the potentially increased liability risk under the new law.
