Photo of Reid Whitten

Reid is the Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office, practicing in international trade regulations and investigations.

The United States is engaging in a new form of warfare. Russia invaded Ukraine just over two months ago and, rather than join the fight directly by sending troops to defend Ukraine, the United States is fighting indirectly by engaging in unprecedented financial warfare against the Russian Federation. The initial export and sanctions actions were swift and severe – but somewhat expected. As the invasion persists, the U.S. Federal Government and individual States also have begun to leverage procurement policy to amplify the financial harm to Russia. This Guide will try to help make sense of the current efforts targeting Russia, the potential impact to government contractors, and proactive steps to mitigate risk.

Continue Reading The Government Contractor’s Guide to (Not) Doing Business with Russia

This week, you have likely heard about FIRRMA, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, the law that will expand CFIUS. We have written about a number of aspects of the new law as it was being made, including the following:

In this alert, we provide a quick overview of the major points of that law.
Continue Reading Expanding CFIUS: New Law Strengthens And Slows Investment Review

[Note, this article was originally posted on January 12 to the Global Trade Law Blog and has been updated to reflect recent events.]

President Trump is making moves to renegotiate NAFTA, but has indicated that if negotiations fail, the United States may give notice of its intent to withdraw from the Agreement. Once in office he reiterated his comments from the campaign trail, stating if Mexico and Canada do not agree to a sufficient renegotiation, then he would submit notice under Section 2205 of NAFTA that the U.S. would withdraw from the Agreement. While the President is capable of writing, signing, and sending (or possibly tweeting) such a notification, that notification alone would not have a legal significance because withdrawing from NAFTA, ab initio, is not a power accorded the President.

The Agreement and underlying laws propose a number of paths by which the President may effectuate withdrawal from NAFTA. However, each of those paths require congressional cooperation or an act by Canada or Mexico to which the President may respond. Negotiating (or renegotiating) the Agreement is squarely within President Trump’s authority, though Congress would then need to implement the terms of the new or amended agreement.

Continue Reading The Undoing Project – Why NAFTA Can’t Be Undone, But Can Be Re-Done

1. Final Rule Requiring Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors.

On November 25, 2013, the FAR Councils published a final rule that, inter alia, amended the FAR to require accelerated payments to small business subcontractors in certain circumstances.  The final rule adds a new FAR clause, 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors, which must be included in all subcontracts with small business concerns.  The new clause requires prime contractors to make accelerated payments to small business subcontractors “to the maximum extent practicable and prior to when such payment is otherwise required under the applicable contract or subcontract” once the Government has issued an accelerated payment to the prime contractor and once the small business subcontractor has submitted “a proper invoice and all other required documentation” for receipt of payment.  The final rule, which became effective on December 26, 2013, does not provide any new rights under the Prompt Payment Act.

Continue Reading Government Procurement: November and December 2013 and January 2014 Federal Register Update