By: Reid Whitten On April, 30, 2013, Raytheon Company, a major military electronics and weapons manufacturer, agreed with the U.S. Department of State to pay $8 million in civil penalties and remedial expenditures to settle alleged violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The size of the penalty catches the eye, but beyond… Continue Reading
By: Reid Whitten
The European Union and United States comprise 40% of global economic output and the trade relationship between them is the largest in the world. Tariffs between the two partners are already low (only 4% on average) and the long-lived peaceful commerce across the Atlantic has held on through boom and bust. So if trade agreements aim to free up the flow of trade between regions and increase economic activity and wealth on both sides, what policy change could promise potential gains of nearly $200 billion shared between the two economies?
Since 2011, President Barack Obama’s administration has actively pursued export control reform designed to reduce the regulatory burdens on U.S. companies and enhance U.S. national security (as reported here). On March 7, 2013, the Administration notified Congress of the first in a series of amendments to the U.S. Munitions List. The next day, March 8, 2013, the White House released Executive Order 13637 to update delegations of presidential authority over the administration of export and import controls. Also on March 8, the White House issued a fact sheet on the implementation of export control reform. These steps, though small, mark clear progress in the President’s Export Reform Initiative.
How did five of the most prominent freight forwarders shipping goods subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), suddenly become ineligible as carriers for ITAR exporters? The answer begins with a Sherman Antitrust action by the U.S. Department of Justice and ends, for the moment, with a major gap in logistics, supply chain, and transport for companies manufacturing, trading, or exporting ITAR-controlled products.
By: Reid Whitten
Since 2005, the scourge of sea piracy has resurfaced with a vengeance. The old pursuit has taken new life, advanced by modern navigation and weapons technology. This article examines emerging practical and legal guidelines for private marine security providers and the shippers, insurers, and vessels they protect.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), Pub. L. 111-203, signed into law on July 21, 2010, requires the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement regulations under which issuers attest to aspects of the origin of certain “conflict minerals” used in their products, if those products derive from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or neighboring countries. Under the SEC’s Proposed Rule, “conflict minerals” would include cassiterite (a source for tin), columbite-tantalite (used to manufacture electronic capacitors), gold, wolframite (a main source of the metal tungsten), or their derivatives, or any other minerals or their derivatives determined by the U.S. Secretary of State to finance conflict in DRC countries. Proposed Rule on Conflict Minerals on December 23, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 80,948 (Dec. 23, 2010) at 80,950 (Proposed Rule). Thus, if the products you sell include these substances, at any level, the new regulations must be considered.