If you missed our eDiscovery Solutions team’s presentations last year in St. Louis and Kansas City—Five Things Every GC Should Know about their IT Environment—fear not, we have the recap for you here.
Continue Reading ICYMI: 5 Things Every GC Should Know about their IT Environment
After President Trump announced steel and aluminum tariffs on several of the country’s allies in March 2018, a number of EU countries, Mexico, and Canada immediately announced retaliatory tariffs against American products. Other trade partners and allies have also made plans to seek remedies through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). With the impending widespread business impact of these retaliatory actions, companies should look closely at their supply chain to determine risk management considerations.
To elaborate on these recent changes, Husch Blackwell is pleased to team up with The Knowledge Group to offer complimentary passes to the first 30 registrants for a timely upcoming webinar: “Retaliatory Actions Against Trump’s Tariffs: What Businesses Should Do When Allies Hit Back.”
The webinar will provide insights on Trump’s tariffs, industry reactions, risk mitigation strategies and an outlook on what lies ahead. The program will take place on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 from 1:00 p.m.- 2:00 p.m. (ET) The webinar is led by Husch Blackwell Partner, Nithya Nagarajan and John Peterson, Partner at Neville Peterson LLP.
On August 8, 2018, Petitioners Dexstar Wheel a Division of Americana Development, Inc. filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on imports of Certain Steel Wheels 12-16.5 Inches in Diameter from the People’s Republic of China. Continue Reading Petition Summary: Certain Steel Wheels 12-16.5 Inches in Diameter from China
On August 7, 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative announced the second list of products that will be subject to an additional 25 percent tariff when imported from China. After a public hearing and comment period, USTR ultimately only removed 5 tariff lines from the list proposed in its notice of June 20, 2018.
The final list can be found here. The additional tariff will go into effect on August 23. USTR will publish a Federal Register notice shortly which will include a process by which parties can request exclusions for particular products. This product exclusion process is expected to be similar to the process announced after the first round of tariff increases. See our blog post here.
For additional information, please contact Robert Stang, Stephen Brophy, Nithya Nagarajan, Beau Jackson, or Jeffrey S. Neeley.
As previously reported, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice proposing an additional 10 percent tariff on approximately 6,000 8-digit tariff codes estimated to cover approximately $200 billion worth of imports from China. Our blog post can be found here and the list of products can be found here.
On August 1, 2018, the President directed USTR to consider increasing the proposed tariff rate from 10 percent to 25 percent for products on the proposed list. As a result, USTR extended the timeline for public comment on the proposed product list:
The hearing is still scheduled to take place from August 20-23, 2018.
For additional information, please contact Robert Stang, Stephen Brophy, Nithya Nagarajan, or Jeffrey S. Neeley.
President Trump signed a new Executive Order on August 6, 2018, titled “Reimposing Certain Sanctions with Respect to Iran”. The Executive Order was timed to coincide with the last day of the 90-day wind-down period established for activities associated with certain sanctions relief authorized by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”). As a result, the first round of sanctions against Iran will become effective at 12:01 a.m. on August 7, 2018. Continue Reading United States Announces Re-imposition of First Round of Nuclear Sanctions on Iran
Are your online trademark enforcements efforts being thwarted by inaccurate or inaccessible Whois data? If so, make your voices heard!
Problems with the accuracy and completeness of the Whois global database of domain name registrants are probably not a new thing for your company. We have all been there. You obtain the Whois record for an infringing domain name just to find out it is either registered under a privacy/proxy service or contains blatantly false contact information. If it makes you feel any better, know that you are not alone. The Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) reported that inaccurate Whois complaints accounted for over 60% of informal complaints filed with Registrars between June 2017 and June 2018. If you have experienced the frustration of encountering inaccurate Whois data, be sure to report it to ICANN via its Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form, which can be found here. All complaints are forwarded to the sponsoring registrar, who must take reasonable steps to investigate and correct the inaccurate data.
Continue Reading Watch Out for Inaccurate Whois Data When Protecting Your Trademarks
| July 25, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editor: Natalie Holden |
| New Developments |
| Delaware Supreme Court holds that Both Manufacturers and Employers can be Liable for Take-Home Exposure By Jackson Otto In Ramsey v. Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center, et al., C.A. No. N14C-01-287 ASB, Delaware’s Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court granting summary judgment to manufacturers of asbestos-containing products in a take-home exposure case. Plaintiffs alleged that Elizabeth Ramsey, wife of Robert Ramsey, was the person who did the family’s laundry and regularly washed her husband’s asbestos covered uniform. Mrs. Ramsey died from lung cancer in 2015. [Continue Reading] |
| Arizona Affirms that Employers Owe No Duty of Care to Nonemployees By Natalie Holden and Anna Choi In its recent decision, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Reynolds Metal Company (“Reynolds”), holding that under the State’s laws an employer owed no duty of care to protect an employee’s family from secondary asbestos exposure. [Continue Reading] |
| Toxic Tort Monitor Archive |
June 2018
Read the full Toxic Tort Monitor Archive |
| Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube |
| Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation Toxic Tort Litigation Practice Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information] |
WHEN? The Federal Maritime Commission by Final Rule issued July 19, 2018 took final rules to simplify freight pricing requirements for Non-vessel Operating Common Carriers (“NVOCCs”) by establishing changes to Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs) and NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs). These new Rules become effective August 22, 2018. Continue Reading New FMC Regulations Effective August 22, 2018
The U.S. Trade Representative is proposing an additional 10 percent tariff on approximately 6,000 8-digit tariff codes estimated to be about $200 billion worth of imports. The USTR has now set a third set of hearing and written submissions for those affected by this new set of proposed tariffs. The schedule is as follows:
July 27: Deadline for filing notice of appearance to testify at hearing
August 17: Written Comments Due
August 20-23: Public Hearings Scheduled
August 30: Post-Hearing Comments Due
Senior government officials said a decision on the tariffs will be made sometime after August 30.
The notice posted at USTR after close of business July 10 says that staff took into account impacts on consumers, and analysts removed some tariff lines because they were “likely to cause disruptions to the U.S. economy, as well as tariff lines subject to legal or administrative constraints.” Food, chemicals, pesticides, minerals, fabrics, construction materials, handbags, luggage, car parts, appliances, machines, televisions, items made from steel and aluminum, batteries, semiconductor assemblies, furniture and more were on the list. Pharmaceuticals of Chapter 30, and apparel and footwear of Chapters 61-64, were not.
USTR is proposing the tariffs because China has not acquiesced to U.S. demands after initial Section 301 tariffs set at 25 percent on $34 billion in Chinese goods.
For additional information, please contact Stephen Brophy, Nithya Nagarajan, or Jeffrey S. Neeley.