International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 1
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.20.06
Inside this issue:
- CHINA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- DUTY RECOVERY : Many importers and manufacturers pay unnecessary duty on imported merchandise, either directly or as a cost of procured materials
- BILATERAL TRADE: The proposed U.S. – Korea FTA will be the most commercially significant FTA the U.S. has negotiated since NAFTA
- FOREIGN INVESTMENTS: New Indian investment rules allow foreign retailers to set up majority-owned stores in India – a high-growth market eyed by foreign retailers for years
- AIR TRANSPORT: Controversial U.S. DOT proposal to attract investment in the U.S. Airlines draws fire from both sides of the pond rather than hope for Open Skies
- SANCTIONS: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued an interim final rule outlining a new set of enforcement procedures
- NAFTA: NAFTA provisions on “regional value content” (RVC) calculation causes serious problems for related parties
- DUTY SUSPENSION: The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) may be more relevant to your business than it sounds - at least if you are an importer of products that American factories do not produce domestically
- INTERNATIONAL IP PROTECTION: Elements of India’s new patent law which took effect in 2005 have prevented Novartis from obtaining a patent for its cancer drug “Gleevec”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26


