We have published our legal updates for the month of July, 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.
Previously (here and here), we discussed the Trump administration’s renegotiation of NAFTA and the steps the President has taken to promote Buy American and Hire American. Now the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce, together with the White House, are taking steps to ensure enforcement of Buy American Laws.
Take a simple fact pattern: A sells widgets to B, and B re-sells the widgets to C. Something goes wrong with the widgets and C needs to have them repaired or replaced, or has a claim for damages. Who does C claim against?
One concept that often comes up in negotiations and contracts is a so-called “pass through” warranty: the concept being that the reseller obtains a warranty from a supplier, and “passes” the benefit “through” to their customer. Even though this language sometimes shows up in final contracts, it can be legally ambiguous – there are several ways to accomplish this economic goal, and the precise method can end up having a big impact on the risk allocation between the parties. Before going into your next supply contract negotiation, consider your options in more detail: Continue Reading
Earlier this month, nationwide arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby settled with U.S. Department of Justice over allegations of smuggling cultural artifacts from Iraq. As part of the settlement, Hobby Lobby consented to forfeiture of the artifacts and payment of $3 million. Hobby Lobby also agreed to adopt internal policies and procedures governing its importation and purchase of cultural property and must submit quarterly reports to the government on any cultural property acquisitions for the next eighteen months.
Corporate Counsel examines what went wrong and the lessons to be learned for any in-house counsel dealing with supply-chain issues. Sarah Rathke provides comments on the importance of oversight, due diligence, and how companies can take advantage of the benefits of attorney-client privilege.
You can read the article here: 3 Key Lessons for Legal Departments From Hobby Lobby’s $3 Million Antiquities Settlement
Last week, we reported on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) in the EU, which took effect in 2006 and restricts the use of toxic chemicals in electronics products. Although RoHS is an EU directive, we discussed that it has extraterritorial impacts on global supply chains in that the legislation requires electronics manufacturers to compile comprehensive technical files on their products, and to share this information with importers and distributors – in effect, requiring effective cooperation both up and down the supply chain.
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: