On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) blocked President Trump’s tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).[1] The CIT held that the IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariffs for trafficking or for worldwide/retaliatory purposes.[2] A day later, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Latest from Global Supply Chain Law Blog
Supply Savvy Podcast Series – Episode 4: Exiting Contracts and Handling Suppliers in Distress
In this final episode of Supply Savvy, our podcast series with the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), partners Nicola Smith, Simon Jones and Victoria Callicott and director Ollie Ward-Jones cover strategies for exiting contracts and dealing with supplier insolvency. The hosts discuss termination clauses, risks of incorrect termination, due diligence, contingency plans and red
Supply Savvy Podcast Series – Episode 3: Navigating Regulatory Compliance Issues: A Case Study of Products Contaminated With Peanuts
This latest episode of our podcast series with the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), Supply Savvy, focuses on handling regulatory compliance issues, using a case study of peanut contamination in products. Partner Nicola Smith leads the discussion with partner Simon Jones, partner Victoria Callicott and director Ollie Ward-Jones on immediate actions, communication with stakeholders,
Germany’s Supply Chain Law at a Crossroads: the Implications of the Proposed Shift to the CSDDD
Please contact Andreas Fillmann with any questions.
In April 2025, CDU, CSU, and SPD – the coalition parties almost certainly forming Germany’s next federal government – announced their intention to repeal the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz (LkSG)) as part of a broader initiative to reduce administrative and economic burdens. According
Understanding Force Majeure in an Uncertain World
Please contact Max Rockall and Tim Flamank with any questions.
Over the years, we’ve encountered numerous supply chain challenges, and one recurring issue is the incorrect application of force majeure of contract. Often, suppliers attempt to invoke these clauses to escape their contractual obligations when the contract becomes unprofitable or too costly due to rising
Cross-Post from The Trade Practitioner – On March 14, 2025, the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) announced the initiation of a nonadjudicatory investigation into transit constraints at international maritime “chokepoints.”
This is a cross-post from The Trade Practitioner. Please contact D. Michael Kaye, Katie Pritchard, Ruaridh Guy, Joel Cockerell, Michael J. Wray with any questions.
The Federal Register notice initiating the investigation identified the following seven global maritime passageways that may be subject to such constraints: (1) the English
Territorial Supply Constraints
Please contact Will Sparks, Gerard McElwee, and Oliver Geiss with any questions
Territorial Supply Constraints (TSCs) refer to a range of practices used by brands and manufacturers that limit where retailers, wholesalers and distributors source their products – for example, preventing them from buying products from outside the country where they operate.
EU
Copper Crisis? The Economic Impacts of a Copper Import Tariff
On February 25, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce to investigate an alleged national security threat to the copper supply chain under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and to report his findings and remediation recommendations.[1]
Why Copper?
Copper is crucial for defense, infrastructure, electronics, and emerging
Cross-Post from Trade Practitioner – Final Rule Implementing ICTS Supply Chain Executive Order 13873 In Effect
This is a Cross-Post from the Trade Practitioner Blog.
On May 15, 2019, President Trump issued Executive Order 13873 – Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain (“EO” or “EO 13873”). After taking comments on a proposed implementing rule, the Department of Commerce (“DOC” or “Secretary”), on the very eve of the
AirBoss II: Michigan Court Awards Automotive Supplier $3.5 Million Based On “Unjust Enrichment”
On December 13, 2024, an Oakland County, Michigan trial court awarded AirBoss Flexible Products Co. nearly $3.5 million dollars on an unjust enrichment counterclaim asserted against MSSC, Inc., a tier one U.S. automotive supplier.[1] The ruling is the latest in a protracted battle between the two companies, which reached its well-known apex in