Articles Tagged with China

Published on:

By and

Following President Trump’s direction in connection with the Section 301 investigation into China’s acts, policies and practices related to intellectual property (discussed here), on June 15, 2018, the Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced a 25% tariff increase on Chinese products valued at approximately $34 billion in 2018 trade values, with more tariff increases to come. Below, we describe USTR’s action and China’s response.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

There are several legislative proposals pending in Congress targeting trade and investment involving China. If enacted, the proposals would prevent Chinese entities from acquiring certain U.S. technologies, prohibit U.S. government procurement from ZTE and Huawei, and limit U.S. issuers from receiving investments from Chinese parties.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Recent reports suggest that the Administration may declare an emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to grant the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) authority to review transactions involving the transfer of U.S. technology and intellectual property (IP) to foreign entities, even where there is no transfer of “control” as currently required under existing CFIUS regulations.  This executive action would follow a memorandum issued by President Trump directing the U.S. Government to propose possible restrictions on Chinese investment in U.S. companies due to concerns outlined by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in connection with its Section 301 investigation.  The potential CFIUS review of U.S. technology transfers to foreign entities would mirror one aspect of the pending Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017 (FIRRMA).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Yesterday, President Trump issued a memorandum (“Memorandum”) directing his Administration to take several actions related to the investigation by the Office of U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) into China’s acts, policies, and practices (“APPs”) related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”). The actions include restrictions on Chinese investment in the United States and the imposition of higher customs duties on imports from China. At the signing ceremony, President Trump called this action “the first of many” against Chinese practices. USTR Ambassador Lighthizer echoed the President at a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee today, noting that the Administration “expects to bring additional [actions] in other areas where the [United States does not] have reciprocal response.”

Below we describe these actions and USTR’s findings in the Section 301 investigation.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Further to our alert published on November 13, 2017 regarding whether acts, policies, and practices (APPs) of China related to transfer of technology, intellectual property, and innovation are actionable under Section 301(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), it is anticipated that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will make affirmative findings and remedy recommendations well ahead of the August 2018 statutory deadline, potentially as early as January 2018. USTR is authorized to take specified actions (noted below), “subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action[s]” and is authorized to take “all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct USTR to take.”

According to USTR officials, if the United States makes an affirmative determination, the next steps will likely proceed in two tracks: (1) the United States may elect to initiate a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute regarding the APPs, if they are considered to be in violation of WTO commitments, and/or (2) the United States may take unilateral retaliatory action.  Below, we comment briefly on both tracks.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

President Trump issued an Executive Order prohibiting the proposed acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor (Lattice) by a Chinese consortium known as Canyon Bridge. Lattice is a semiconductor company primarily manufacturing programmable logic devices.  The Executive Order prohibits the proposed acquisition and any substantially equivalent transaction, and requires the parties to permanently abandon the proposed transaction in 30 days. The Executive Order follows a lengthy review process with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This is only the fourth time since the enactment of the Exon-Florio Amendment in 1988 that a transaction has been formally blocked.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Recent public reports indicate Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate Democratic Leader, has authored a letter to President Trump requesting the President order the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to suspend the approval of all covered transactions by Chinese entities.  Sen. Schumer explains that such action would place severe economic pressure on China and force the country to take more stringent action against North Korea.  While President Trump has publicly expressed “disappointment” with China over its perceived lack of response to recent North Korean missile tests, it is unclear what actions, if any, the President might take to spur action from China.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

On June 29, 2017, the U.S. Treasury Department announced new steps applying pressure on North Korea in relation to its proliferation activities.  Specifically, this involved (1) sanctions designations against Chinese shipping company Dalian Global Unity Shipping Co., Ltd. and two Chinese individuals; and (2) anti-money laundering special measures against China’s Bank of Dandong.  All were involved in business with North Korea according to the Treasury Department’s announcement.

The Special Measures for Bank of Dandong under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act prohibit U.S. financial institutions from maintaining correspondent accounts for, or on behalf of, that bank.  This would prevent access to the U.S. banking system for dollar transactions or wiring services.

None of the sanctioned parties appear to be systemically important companies for China, but the sanctions may be intended, or viewed, as an effort by the Trump Administration to pressure China into doing more to restrain North Korea’s nuclear activities.