Resources

In a historic move, President Trump has issued the first-ever Executive Order aimed at modernizing the U.S. foreign military sales system—streamlining approvals, expediting deals, and strengthening strategic alliances.

On March 21, 2025, FinCEN of the U.S. Department of Treasury issued a new interim final rule significantly limiting the scope of reporting required under the Corporate Transparency Act. Domestic reporting companies are exempt from reporting beneficial ownership information. Instead, reporting companies are limited to those entities previously defined as foreign reporting companies.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Final Rule restricting transfers of bulk sensitive personal data and U.S. government-related data has taken effect, implementing former President Biden’s Executive Order 14117 - Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern. The Final Rule aims to protect U.S. national security by restricting certain data transactions with covered persons or countries of concern, which currently include Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and China (including Hong Kong and Macau). U.S. businesses must work now to ensure compliance and avoid significant penalties for violations.

Sometimes an expected result is still newsworthy. On March 27, 2025, in Kircher v Boyne USA, Inc., the Michigan Supreme Court held that there is no independent cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in contracts.

As trade tensions rise, retaliatory tariffs are disrupting global supply chains—particularly in the automotive industry and other manufacturing sectors. These unexpected costs are sparking disputes over who should bear the financial burden under cross-border contracts. International arbitration is increasingly seen as the forum of choice for resolving these conflicts.

Arbitration agreements often seem straightforward—until they unexpectedly bind parties who never signed them. A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision underscores the reach of arbitration clauses and the courts’ willingness to enforce them against third parties. This case highlights how third-party beneficiaries—and their insurers—can be required to arbitrate disputes, even though they were not signatories to the contract. The ruling is a good reminder for businesses, insurers, and legal practitioners to carefully consider the third-party implications of arbitration clauses when drafting, reviewing, and enforcing international commercial agreements.

On March 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Education to undertake all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education. For local school districts and charter schools, the order introduces a range of practical and strategic considerations.

For midsized companies engaged in cross-border trade—whether selling overseas or purchasing from foreign suppliers—the ability to enforce contracts is critical. After all, if a contract cannot be enforced, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. But the unfortunate truth is that relying on courts to enforce cross-border contracts can cost significant time and money. It is therefore all the more important for midsize companies to reduce the risks associated with their cross-border transactions where possible. One potential tool for doing so is international arbitration.

Smith v. Commissioner, a pending research credit case in the United States Tax Court, presents an issue of first impression: Is a partner’s self-employment income in a partnership allowable as a qualified research expense only to the extent that the amount is reasonable within the meaning of former IRC Section 174(e)? The case should interest partners in partnerships and self-employed individuals who perform technological research.     

Starting on March 17, 2025, new U.S. regulations impose sweeping restrictions on the importation and sale of connected vehicles (CV) and related components with ties to China and Russia. Issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Connected Vehicles Rule (CV Rule) aims to curb potential national security threats posed by foreign-made vehicle connectivity and automated driving systems. These restrictions, which will be phased in over the coming years, require businesses to conduct rigorous supply chain assessments and file compliance declarations. Importers and manufacturers must act now to ensure compliance and avoid steep penalties for violations.