July 10, 2018
Talking Trade: 301 & 232 – What’s New
In this video blog, MSK Partner & International Trade Practice Chair Susan Kohn Ross covers what’s new with the 301 & 232 tariffs, including exclusions, the timeline, the 232 process, alternate sourcing, and more.
July 11, 2018
Talking Trade: China 301 – List 3 is Here
In this video, Su Ross provides the update that the new List 3 is now a reality and further explores what this new List entails. For more information on List 3, see this alert.
Photo credit: iStock.com/wildpixel
By Susan Kohn Ross
Late on July 10, 2018, U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer released a list of the next Chinese-made products targeted for additional duties, this time at a 10% rate and worth about $200 billion. The statement in support of this action can be found here, and the list of affected products here. As before, the list of products is released in Federal Register pre-publication format.
The dates to keep in mind are as follows… (more…)
In this video blog, MSK Partner & International Trade Practice Chair Susan Kohn Ross discusses the latest developments surrounding the 232 tariffs on steel & aluminum products, automobiles and auto parts, the 301 trade dispute with China, and reviews best practices.
Photo credit: iStock.com/ANNECORDON
By Susan Kohn Ross
The U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) issued a press release on July 6, 2018 in which the process companies can use to seek exclusion from the 25% tariff imposed on the same day on goods from China was announced. The timeline requires all original exclusion requests to be filed by October 9, 2018. Each will be reviewed to insure completeness and will then be posted for public review, and 14 days from the date of any posting, all objections are due. No more than 7 days later, any applicant may file its reply. All such submissions are filed through regulations.gov and must reference Docket No. USTR-2018-0025. (more…)
By Susan Kohn Ross and Aaron Wais
In a compromise to avoid a ballot measure, at the very last moment on the very last day, just before the stroke of midnight, on June 29, 2018, the California legislature passed and Governor Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “Act”), which takes effect on January 1, 2020. Many of its provisions are similar to the General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”), which took effect in Europe at the end of May, and required companies to institute new internal data privacy regimes. So, while those companies which prepared for the GDPR are well on their way to gaining compliance with this new law, there is still much to be done by them and especially those companies which were not impacted by the GDPR. (more…)
By Erica Parks
On June 6, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Office of the General Counsel issued Memorandum 18-04, titled “Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing.” In it, the NLRB’s General Counsel (GC), provided guidance to the NLRB’s regional offices regarding how to analyze the legality of common employer policies in light of the NLRB’s decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (December 14, 2017). The Boeing decision and the GC’s memo represent a pro-employer shift away from the NLRB’s decidedly more pro-employee positions during the Obama administration.
By Susan Kohn Ross
In the current tit for tat environment that overhangs international trade, below is an update regarding the 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, the 301 tariffs related to China’s intellectual property rights and other business practices, and the 232 tariffs threatened on automobiles and parts.
Steel and Aluminum Tariffs:
As everyone by now knows, effective March 23, 2018, the U.S. imposed a 25% tariff on selected steel products and a 10% tariff on selected aluminum products. The basis for this action was a finding by the Dept. of Commerce that foreign competition had essentially undermined U.S. steel and aluminum production capabilities and so triggered national security concerns. In this context national security equates to economic security. The shorthand reference in this context is 232, the section of the law -The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 – under which the Administration acted. (more…)
By Samantha Becker
Recently, in Curry v. Equilon Enterprises LLC, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a wage and hour class action against Shell Oil could not proceed because the service station manager bringing the suit was not a Shell employee. Rather, the manager was employed by ARS, the company that contracted with Shell to operate the station.
Similar to a franchisor-franchisee relationship, ARS had a contract with Shell to operate multiple gas stations. The plaintiff managed two locations. She was hired by ARS, trained by ARS employees, reported to ARS employees, and supervised ARS employees. ARS paid plaintiff and made all disciplinary and promotional decisions regarding her employment. Plaintiff brought a class-action suit against ARS and Shell, claiming she and other managers were misclassified as exempt employees, denied overtime pay and denied meal and rest breaks. The plaintiff also claimed that ARS and Shell were joint employers. (more…)
In this fourth video blog in an ongoing series, MSK Partner Charles Kolstad explains how tax code section 451(c) may come to the rescue, and reviews applicable financial statements.
In this third video blog on CVCs, Hard Forks, ICOs and other related issues, MSK Partner Charles Kolstad speaks to the tax consequences of investing in an ICO, allocations, and the distribution of shares.