ACC Small Law Department Network Fall 2018 Newsletter
IN THIS ISSUE...
Message from the Chair  
Annual Meeting Update  
HOB NOB  
Upcoming Programs  
Wellness Focus  
SLD Contributions to The Docket  
From our Sponsor  
MICRO-NETWORK with your fellow SLD members!  
On the SLD Webpage  
All About You  
Have an Idea?  
Networks
Virtual Library
Renew Your Membership
Update Your Records
Upcoming ACC Programs
Search Back Issues

Webcasts
Updates from ACC Networks

Message from the Chair
Sherie Edwards

Hi there!

I hope this newsletter finds you happily enjoying Fall and the ubiquitous Pumpkin Spice flavor in just about everything.  I know I get excited for my first sip of the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte; last year my first sip was at Charles DeGaulle Airport in Paris and this year won’t be as much fun (most likely the Starbucks across the street from my office in Brentwood), but it does signal the beginning of Fall (along with football!).

September also brings me close to the end of my year as Chair of this amazing Network.  It has been my honor, alongside your Leadership Team, to bring you programming and resources that assist you in your daily in-house practice.  To use a football analogy, I am just the quarterback of the team, and a quarterback can’t win a game by herself.  So, please allow me this point of personal privilege to thank the amazing team that made me look semi-competent this year:

Kristin Chittenden: As Vice-Chair, Kristen has been the person behind our Legal Quick Hits every month.  She has worked with our great sponsor, Meritas, to line up topics that are timely and informative.  Kristen is already planning her year as Chair of SLD and I know she’ll do a fantastic job!

Gulam Zade: Gulam pulled double duty this year as both the Secretary and the main co-chair of Programs, and served on the Annual Meeting Advisory committee.  He was also the emcee of last year’s Hob Nob and did a fantastic job!  As he moves into his new role at Vice-Chair, I know he will work closely with Kristen to provide the great programming and resources SLD members need and expect.

Amy Cline:  Amy worked with Gulam to plan the Annual Meeting programs, helped me with the Quarterly Newsletter, and was a featured speaker at the ACC Mid-Year meeting.

Brian Campbell:  As our Membership Chair, Brian worked with me to reach out to new and potential members.  He has also been working with ACC leadership to plan the programming for ACC Xchange 2019.

Elyse Beidner: Elyse has been the Docket/Top Ten Chair for several years, and works with our members who want to become published authors in The Docket.  We’ve had a great slate of Docket articles written by SLD members this year, and also added new Top Tens to our network resources.

Jacquie Lindsay:  Jacquie is our On-Line Learning Chair and has done an incredible job planning webcasts and roundtables on hot topics.  She puts a great deal of time and effort into all that she does, and keeps up with the details so I don’t need to!

Sheri Fanaroff: SLD has the most active eGroup of any of the networks, and Sheri pours her heart into reading the posts, finding active thread topics that Jacquie turns into webcasts/roundtables or Kristen turns into LQHs, and lets me know each month of the ‘orphan’ questions that need an answer.

Stephanie Bortnyk: Through Stephanie’s work as Chapter Relations Chair, over 10 ACC Chapters have SLD groups. This is a great way to meet other SLD members in your geographic area.  Her enthusiasm for this project is contagious!

In addition to our incredible Leadership Team, I’ve been blessed to work with some outstanding staff at ACC.  My sincerest thanks to Irene Meroka, Keilon “KJ” Forest, LaToya Tapscott, Laura Cox, Maria Volpe-Viles, Rachel Okolski, and Victor Morales (who is now ‘one of us’ at Dish TV). I also could not have gotten through the year without my sounding board of former SLD Chairs: Jeff Wheeler, Maryrose Delahunty, and Nicolle Schippers.

Finally, but actually first in my heart, are all of you, our amazing SLD members.  You have been so active this year with ideas for programs, interaction on the eGroup board, and emails and phone calls of thanks and encouragement.  Knowing that you appreciate the efforts of the Leadership Team to provide you with a great Network experience makes being Chair a very humbling and satisfying experience.

I hope to see all of you at Annual Meeting, which will be here before we know it. Have a wonderful, blessed Fall, and we’ll ‘see you soon’.

All the Best,

Sherie


[ Return to Top ]


Annual Meeting Update

The Annual Meeting is October 21-24 in Austin, Texas and is always a great time for CLE, networking, and catching up with friends! SLD is sponsoring the following sessions:

Session 106: Insurance Basics and the Interplay between Insurance Requirements/Coverage and Indemnity Obligations in Vendor Contracts

Session 201: Crisis Response – How to Avoid Complete Chaos in the Midst of a Meltdown

Session 307: Small Law Department Metrics, Best Practices and Growing Pains in a Legal Department

Session 402: Creating and Implementing an Effective Cyber Security Table Top Exercise

Session 903: Advanced Contracting Workshop

Annual Meeting isn’t all about education—and SLD is at the forefront with networking opportunities!  Our Annual Hobnob is on Sunday, October 21 (see below), and Meritas will host a party on Tuesday, October 23 at 7:30 pm. Check the SLD website for more information. If you aren’t already registered, why are you waiting? Click here for details and to register!
[ Return to Top ]


HOB NOB

Hob Nob will be held on October 21 from 7:30-10:30 p.m. at Punchbowl Social in Austin, Texas.  There will be lots of food, drink, karaoke, bowling, billiards, and other fun activities. 

You should have already received your invitation; if not, contact Sherie Edwards at sheriee@svmic.com.

 


[ Return to Top ]


Upcoming Programs

September 12, 2018 at 2 p.m. ET: Webcast--Trade Secret Case from A-Z: Exploring the Stages of a Trade Secrets Case Through Hypotheticals, with Mindy Morton and Robert Sloss of Procopie, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP (a Meritas firm)

September 13, 2018 at 3 p.m. ET: LQH—Defending Your Company from the Effects of the Trade War, presented by Brian F. Walsh of Barnes and Richardson (a Meritas firm).

September 18, 2018 at 2 p.m. ET: Roundtable--Getting a Seat at the Table

October 22, 2018 at 12:30 CT: Annual SLD Business Lunch and Meeting in Austin, Texas

ICYMI: SLD had some great LQH presentations the past few months!  Past LQH (webcasts also) are archived on the SLD webpage.  Here are the links to the LQH from June, July and August:

June: The Pros and Cons of PTO http://webcasts.acc.com/detail.php?id=631476&go=1&_ga=2.98590238.1211066824.1535402924-809512549.1532981801(LQH)

July: Thoughts on Commercial Arbitration Clauseshttp://webcasts.acc.com/detail.php?id=566541&go=1&_ga=2.127678093.1211066824.1535402924-809512549.1532981801 (LQH)

August: Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection http://webcasts.acc.com/detail.php?id=160278&go=1&_ga=2.132249102.1211066824.1535402924-809512549.1532981801 (LQH, recording available soon)
[ Return to Top ]


Wellness Focus

As the temperatures start to cool, it’s natural to gravitate towards warm drinks like (yes, I’m excited) Pumpkin Spice Lattes!  Did you know that coffee is good for you? Coffee is being studied for its health impact on diseases such as Parkinson’s, Type 2 diabetes, and liver disease. Just watch out for the sweet drinks:  they can pack a bunch of sugar into a small cup. Here is a link to a helpful article in Eat This, Not That. There are several Pinterest boards with alternative ways to order your favorite coffee drink and make it a bit healthier (and drive your barista crazy in the process). My favorite substitution is almond milk and a half pump of the ‘sweet stuff’. But I always get the whipped cream!
[ Return to Top ]


SLD Contributions to The Docket

Are you a subject matter expert? Then why not share your expertise with your fellow SLD members? ACC staffers make it easy to be an author. For more information, please contact Elyse Beidner ebeidner@bssbank.com. Join these SLD members who had articles published in the June 2018 and July/August2018 issues of the ACC Docket:

 

June

Whitnie Wiley, Voices:  Another Birdie Flies

Jeffrey W. Wheeler, Voices:  Care and Feeding

Gregory Stern, Tech Toolbox:  Sharing the Right Data

 

July/August

Whitney Wiley, Voices, Succeeding at Failure

Maryrose Delahunty, Voices, Work-Life Imbalance

Greg Stern, Tech Toolbox, Invest in Your Career by Becoming More Tech Savvy

Elizabeth Ann Colombo, The Work-Life Balance Paradox

 


[ Return to Top ]


From our Sponsor
The following article is provided by Meritas

Seeking Shelter:  Contractual Considerations for Minimizing the Effects of a Trade War

By Brian F. Walsh of Barnes, Richardson & Colburn LLP and Gerald L. Jenkins of Goldberg Kohn Ltd.

We are in a period of historic disruption and unpredictability in international trade. Significant additional tariffs and retaliatory tariffs have been put into place in recent months and daily news reports regularly bring word of significant developments that may result in further additional duty liability and further disruption to supply chains. This paper recaps the current state of play regarding the duties in place, as well as those in the pipeline, and suggests contractual mechanisms to cope with the increased risk and to allocate costs in a clear and expected way.

232 Duties on Steel and Aluminum

On February 16th, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued reports in two investigations it conducted pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, finding that imports of

aluminum and steel posed a threat to domestic industry and, by extension, national security. https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/02/secretary-ross-releases-steel-and-aluminum-232-reports-coordination On March 8th, the President issued Proclamations announcing tariffs of 25% on imports of steel, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-steel-united-states/  and 10% on imports of aluminum. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-aluminum-united-states/  These duties are currently in place and have been assessed since March 23rd. https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summary/232-tariffs-aluminum-and-steel .[1]

On March 19th Commerce published a Federal Register notice, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-19/pdf/2018-05761.pdf , containing an interim final rule setting forth the procedure for requesting exemptions from the 232 duties. To date, more than twenty thousand exemption requests have been filed. Only a small percentage have been granted.

301 Duties – Lists 1, 2 and 3

On March 22nd, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a report under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 regarding Chinese intellectual property and data transfer policies.  The report recommended, among other actions, assessment of a 25% tariff on products likely to benefit from Chinese intellectual property policies. On June 20th, USTR published the list (List 1) of articles to be subject to 25% duties on imports valued at $34 billion, together with a second list of articles (List 2) valued at $16 billion on which 25% duties are also being considered, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-06-20/pdf/2018-13248.pdf. Duties of 25% went into effect on the articles covered by List 1 on July 6th, https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summary/section-301-trade-remedies-be-assessed-certain-products-china-effective-july-6-2018. Duties on this list went into effect List 2 went into effect on August 23, 2018.   On July 17th USTR published a 3rd list (List 3) covering $200 billion in imports upon which a 10% duty would potentially be assessed. On August 1, 2018, the President requested that the USTR consider increasing the proposed duties on List 3 articles from 10% to 25%. The agency is currently accepting comments and testimony on List 3. Publicly, the President has threatened additional duties on the rest of the $505 billion of goods that the U.S. imports from China.

On July 11th, USTR published a notice providing a procedure for the filing of requests for exclusion from the 25% duties which went into effect on July 6th. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/FRN%20exclusion%20process.pdf Requests must be filed prior to October 9th and, if granted, will be retroactive to July 6th.

232 on Auto Imports

Under the same authority used to authorize the current assessment of additional duties on imports of steel and aluminum, Commerce is currently investigating the effects on national security of imports of automobiles, including SUV’s, vans and light trucks and automotive parts. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/30/2018-11708/notice-of-request-for-public-comments-and-public-hearing-on-section-232-national-security. Should Commerce find sufficient negative effects on National Security, as it found in the case of aluminum and steel, the President will have broad authority to “adjust” such imports - presumably through the assessment of additional duties.  Commerce’s findings in this investigation are due to be finalized by mid-February of 2019.

201 Duties on Large Residential Washing Machines and Imported Solar Cells and Modules

On January 22, 2018, the USTR announced that the President had approved the USTR’s recommendations to impose safeguard tariffs on imported residential washing machines and solar cells and modules because of findings by the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) that imports of such products had increased dramatically and that such imports were a cause of serious injury to the concerned domestic industries. As a result, Tariff-rate quotas [2]were imposed on imports of washers and parts of washers, and additional duties were imposed on imports of solar cells and modules. The tariff rate quotas applicable to washers and parts provide for additional duties as high as 50% during year 1, 45% during year 2 and 40% during year three depending upon level of imports. Additional duties of 30% are being imposed on imports of solar cells and modules during the current, first year of relief, with additional duties staged downward by 5% per year to reach 15% in year four.

Retaliatory Duties Imposed by Trading Partners

In response to the imposition of 232 duties by the U.S., China, Canada, the EU, India, Mexico and Turkey are now imposing retaliatory duties.  The duties being imposed vary by HTS classification, though most are in the 10%-25% range. Of note, however, Turkey is currently assessing duties as high as 40%, while the EU has provided for the assessment of duties on US goods up to 50% should the US 232 duties remain in place until 2021.

In addition to assessing retaliatory duties on US goods in response to the imposition of 232 duties by the US, China is currently assessing retaliatory duties of 25% on a wide range of US products in response to the 301 duties which went into effect July 6th. Additional lists of US products have been prepared by China for the assessment of retaliatory duties should 301 duties be assessed by the US beyond those put into place on July 6th.

Free Trade Agreements

The renegotiation of the NAFTA continues, and the future status and configuration of the Agreement the Agreement has not been completely resolved. As such, there remains at least the outside possibility that preferential treatment at some point will be affected for some or all trade with Canada and/or Mexico. In addition, the administration has expressed interest in re-examining all Free Trade Agreements to which the United States is a party while exploring new arrangements, particularly bi-lateral arrangements, with partners with whom no Agreements are currently in place.

Operations-Level Actions

When faced with a dramatic increase in duty costs that can result from the circumstances described above, the initial question that should be asked is – “are we correctly within the scope of the increased duties?” The 232 and 301 duties discussed above, for instance, are assessed based upon classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In recent months, many importers have come to realize that the HTSUS classifications they have been using are incorrect – or at least should be re-examined given the much higher duty stakes which such classifications now carry with them. It is not an uncommon occurrence for a Customs lawyer to review the classification of a product assumed to be subject to 232 or 301 duties only to find that if the goods were classified properly, they would not be subject to such duties. Past incorrect classification of imported goods, however, raises its own problems, including the potential assessment of penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592. If making a change in classification, the effect of incorrect classification over the course of the past years should be kept in mind as well as the possibility of filing a prior disclosure pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1592 (c)(4) to protect the company from the assessment of penalties beyond interest on any underpayments of duties.

Product and sourcing alterations should also be considered. Is it possible to change the nature of the imported product in a commercially useful way to change classification of the product to a provision which is not subject to additional duties? Can sourcing be changed, for instance in the case of 301 duties, to an origin other than China? Given the current stakes, both questions must be addressed with great care. Classification and origin determinations must be supported by solid legal analysis and care must be taken to verify origin in situations where additional processing is undertaken in third countries incorporating content from China as it is foreseeable that origin verifications and transshipment investigations will ensue in coming months.

Also to be considered is the use of Temporary Importation Bond entries, Foreign Trade Zones or Drawback claims.  Each of these possibilities must be considered individually with knowledge of type of duty liability being faced and the circumstances of the importer. Customs, for instance, has taken the position that 232 duties may not be subject to drawback claims while 301 duties may be subject to such claims. Further, use of any of these mechanisms is subject to further restriction if shipments involve NAFTA partners. Accordingly, use of any of these mechanisms should be considered on a case by case basis.

Contractual Considerations

The imposition (and possible withdrawal and possible re-imposition ) of Section 232/301 tariffs and retaliatory tariffs; more focused treaty negotiations; the possibility of other protective steps (e.g., a decision by another country to make its raw materials unavailable to American companies); and the shortages and delivery delays that could crop up increases everyone's risk and makes contracts involving supply and distribution chains more complex and more risky. Unfortunately, a contract between participants in a chain seldom eliminate such risks. Someone in the chain must still bear those risks, but contracts between chain participants will determine which link in the chain will bear the cost.

An organization’s contracts can be divided into two groups—contracts that have already been signed and contracts that are now being negotiated (or will be negotiated in the future). Obviously, the strategies for the contracts that have already been signed are more limited (no opportunity to simply walk away), but there are a number of steps that can be taken:


Review each contract to determine how new tariffs, costs and possible benefits will be allocated among the parties to the contract.  Possible provisions include:

a. Shipping/delivery terms. For example, DAP (Incoterms 2010) imposes tariffs imposed by the destination country on the buyer, whereas DDP (Incoterms 2010) imposes those tariffs on the seller. Now that tariffs have become larger and broader in scope, these provisions are becoming relatively more important.

b. Pricing provisions. Is the price fixed? Is it a formula price? If it is a formula price, does the formula include adjustments for increased tariffs? If the formula is based on one or more indices, how do the indicies treat tariffs? Is the price cost-plus? If it is cost-plus, can tariffs be passed through as an additional cost? Is there a "not-to-exceed" clause?

c. Delivery schedules. The tariffs and the reactions to them will cause numerous delays, shortages and dislocations. In the relevant contract, is time of the essence? Who is responsible for delays, shortages and dislocations? Is the vendor liable for consequential damages based on shipments delayed or never made?  

d. Liability limitations. Many contracts limit the seller’s liability to the contract prices for the items that just shipped. As a technical matter, if a seller refuses to ship a product because it is not willing to absorb a tariff, it may be able to argue that it has no liability for its refusal to ship.  Similarly, a buyer may not have any liability if it chooses not to purchase.

e. Liquidated damages provisions. Such a provision can be costly to a customer or vendor if it chooses not to purchase or ship.

f. Termination provisions/evergreen clauses. If a buyer or seller determines that it is the one responsible for tariffs or other costs, it may be able to terminate at no penalty or at a modest penalty. A special emphasis should be placed on evergreen clauses. They often allow a party to terminate early but only if some relatively strict timing rules are met. Sometimes, missing a thirty-day deadline can cause to contract to extend for one or more years.

g. Force majeure clauses. A force majeure clause often allows a party that is confronted with an unforeseen adverse event to stop performing until the event has ended. Because force majeure clauses are not generally written with tariffs like the Section 232/301 tariffs in mind, frequently it will not be clear whether the clause can be invoked or not. 

                                                                                                                                                              

Because many force majeure clauses only apply to unforeseeable events, it may be necessary to determine when a tariff or other cost became foreseeable.  When Trump first talked about them?  When he actually imposed them?  When another country announced its response? For example, did China's retaliatory tariffs on soybeans become foreseeable when they were announced or at some earlier date (e.g., when Trump announced his tariffs)?

h. Hardship clause. If there is one, is it applicable to tariffs?

i.  Insolvency clauses. Though not common, sometimes a party’s own insolvency can allows it to excuse its own failure to perform.  Imposition of a new 25% tariff on a significant portion of an organization’s raw materials could immediately render it insolvent.

ii. “Change in applicable law” or “change is tax rates” or “changes in conditions” or “change in work” or “change in scope” clauses. A clause that allows a vendor to pass through costs based on certain changes might allow the vendor to pass a tariff onto its customer or might allow a customer to insist that a vendor to lower its prices to compensate the customer for its increased costs.

i. "Flow down” clauses. “Flow down” clauses generally subject subcontractors (and possibly vendors) to contractual provisions to which the prime contractor is subject. Such clauses could allow the prime contractor to imposes costs incurred by it onto its subcontractors and vendors.

j. Taxes. Because tariffs can be considered tax provisions, any provision that allocates taxes among the parties may effectively allocate tariffs.

k. Impossibility (or impracticability). This is a doctrine that could allow a party to avoid responsibility for tariff and related costs.

l. Frustration of purpose.  This is a second doctrine that could allow a party to avoid responsibility for tariff and related costs.

  1. Based on that review, determine the risks and prioritize the contracts based on the level of risk each presents.
  1. Develop strategies for each contract, focusing on the ones that present the greatest risk.
  1. Because some relief provisions can have short deadlines, conduct the review quickly.

For the contracts that are currently being negotiated, there are other approaches:

  1. Review provisions in future contracts from a more "tariff-aware" point of view.  For example:

a. Tariffs and possibly other risks should be explicitly addressed. A number of provisions and concepts in existing agreements depend on the fact that the new tariffs are of a size and scope that made them unanticipated or unforeseeable by both parties. That gave a party the ability to argue force majeure, hardship, impossibility (or impracticability) and frustration of purpose. Now that the tariffs are generally known, such arguments are no longer possible, certainly not for the U.S. tariffs themselves and possibly for reasonable countermeasures (e.g., retaliatory tariffs, decisions not to ship).

In addition, pricing and other provisions that have been considered sufficiently clear in the past (e.g., relying on the word "taxes" to cover tariffs, relying on "change in the law" to cover tariffs) need to be tightened given the increased likelihood of tariffs and the possible size of such tariffs.

Finally, current treaty negotiations could lead to reduced tariffs and fewer subsidies. Either could have a dramatic impact on the benefits or burdens of a contract depending on how the price formula works.  

b. Shorter term agreements should be considered. The imposition of the new tariffs, the possibility of eliminating old ones and the possibility of reduced or eliminated subsidies have increased uncertainly in general, which could lead to delays, strikes, shortages, windfalls, price gouging, punitive actions by a number of governments. In such circumstances, the risks of a long-term contract may begin to outweigh the benefits. 

c. Delivery schedules and impact of shortfalls. More attention needs to be paid to delivery schedules and how shortfalls will be addressed. 

d. RFPs and government contracts. It is likely that issuers of RFPs and governmental entities (probably including the federal government) will attempt to insulate themselves from the impact of the new tariffs, as well as any number of responses that other countries may choose to implement.  That will put the bidder in the unenviable position of choosing between accepting the risks or proposing changes that could render its bid noncompliant and causing it to be rejected ab initio.

Similarly, subcontractors and vendors to the prime contractor should watch out for "flow down" clauses that would subject them to the same risks.

e. Formula pricing.Most pricing formulas have long since covered inflation, foreign exchange risks, and raw materials costs.  A few have covered tariffs and customs risks, but by no means all.  Before agreeing to a pricing formula, it should be evaluated based on tariff risks, including likely responses to new tariffs and the possible outcomes of current treaty negotiations.

f. Liability limitations, indemnifications, disclaimers, liquidated damages. Each of these provisions should be read in view of the new tariffs, possible responses by other countries, on-going negotiations, etc. to ensure that they continue to meet the contracting parties' expectations in terms of risk and reward.

g. Shipping terms. Getting the wrong set of letters on shipping terms can now cost a purchaser or seller up to an additional 25%. It may be time to give everyone in the organization a refresher course on those terms and perhaps to only allow certain terms to be accepted with the GC's or CFO's approval.

h. Focus on not getting "caught in the middle." Everyone up and down the supply and distribution chain will want to avoid tariff and related risks. For everyone except the ones at either end of the chain, one way to manage that risk is to try to make sure that an organization requires its customers to take the same risk that its vendors require it to take. No one wants to the entity that accepts the risk but fails to pass it along.

i. Counterparties' risk management and creditworthiness. The new tariffs, possible responses and on-going discussions will claim some victims. The best contract in the world will not help if the other party to the contract files for bankruptcy and cannot meet its obligations. The best counterparty may be the one that is sophisticated and resilient rather than the one that is the easiest to push around.  That might mean that price will be less favorable and that the counterparty will not be willing to accept as much risk, but that may be superior to entering into an agreement with an entity that may not have the ability or net worth to survive expected problems.

  1. Consider hedging, profit sharing and other market-based solutions.  It may not be possible to convince all of an organization's counterparties to assume all of the risk.  For some commodities, it may be possible to establish an exchange-based or other hedge to impose the risk on someone who is being paid to take that risk.  Alternatively, it may be possible to share a risk that no single organization is willing to take on its own among multiple parties in a chain.
  1. Know when to walk away.  The cost of a single bad contract can sometimes undo the benefits of dozens of good ones.  This is more common when something is disruptive enough to cause established norms to become invalid.  Until the impact of the new tariffs settles down, avoiding bad contracts should be a priority for anyone who is asked to help manage risk (most everybody today).
  1. Understand the counterparty's concerns and point of view as everyone in the supply and distribution chains try to establish a "new normal."
  1. For the longer term, consider changing specifications to avoid the tariffs (e.g., things that are plentiful in the U.S., changing from steel (25%) to aluminum (10%).


[1] All countries of origin except Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Korea are subject to 232 duties on steel.  All countries of origin except Argentina and Australia are subject to 232 duties on aluminum.  Argentina, Brazil and South Korea are subject to 232 absolute quotas for steel and Argentina is subject to 232 absolute quotas for aluminum.

[2] This tariff rate quota provides for a two-tiered duty rate level.  As an example, during the first year the duties are in effect the201 rate will be 20% up to the level of imports of 1.2 million units of finished washers.  All subsequent imports of finished washers will be subject to a 50% 201 rate.  Year 2 and 3 will also be subject to bifurcated rates though the actual percentages differ.

 


[ Return to Top ]


MICRO-NETWORK with your fellow SLD members!

Blogging not your thing? Try meeting up with a few local SLD members to discuss issues frustrating your department. The smaller environment might foster an opportunity to have more candid conversation about great successes or obstacles you are experiencing. Please contact Stephanie.Bortnyk@FalconJet.com to find out if anyone is currently meeting in your area or how you can initiate a lunch near you.

 


[ Return to Top ]


On the SLD Webpage

The SLD webpage is a treasure trove of resources curated for you, the Small Law Department practitioner. On the webpage you’ll find information about recent eGroup threads (if you have a question about how to do something, chances are someone else has the same question and other members have sage advice to share), upcoming SLD Legal Quick Hits, and resources developed by and for the SLD committee. This is also where you will find links to archived resources such as Legal Quick Hits and Virtual Roundtables so that you can view them at a place and time convenient to you. If you can’t find what you’re looking for, let us know. That might lead to a new resource for all of us! You can find the webpage here: https://www.acc.com/committees/sldc/index.cfm.
[ Return to Top ]


All About You

Have you recently been promoted or changed jobs?  Have you been honored by a professional or civic organization?  Do you have a blog that other members would find interesting? Then let us know about it—this is your time to be in the spotlight! Contact us at sld@accglobal.com,sheriee@svmic.com, or clineamy@yahoo.com so we can share your news with other SLD members.  
[ Return to Top ]


Have an Idea?

Let us know what topics you’d like to see in our webcasts, Quick Hits and resources, tell us how we’re doing, and let us know if YOU want to become more active on the Committee. Email sld@accglobal.com; we want to hear from you!
[ Return to Top ]