Dan Harris is a founding member of Harris Sliwoski, an international law firm where he mostly represents companies doing business in emerging market countries. Most of his time is spent helping American and European companies navigate foreign countries by working with the international lawyers at his firm in setting up companies overseas (WFOEs, Subsidiaries, Rep Offices and Joint Ventures), drafting international contracts, protecting IP, and overseeing M&A transactions.
In addition, Dan writes and speaks extensively on international law, with a focus on protecting foreign businesses in their overseas operations. He is also a prolific and widely-followed blogger, writing as the co-author of the award-winning China Law Blog.
Your leverage is usually strongest before your China factory knows you are leaving and before your plans in the new country become obvious to everyone else. That window does not stay open for long. Once it closes, fixing trademark gaps, tooling problems, and bad contracts becomes slower, more expensive, and much more difficult. Sometimes it does not just make the exit harder. Sometimes it makes the exit fail.
Doing Business Internationally: Why Your International Lawyer Should Handle Your Domestic Work Too There are times when you absolutely need a local specialist. A real estate lawyer who knows Oregon title issues, a New York tax lawyer, a California employment litigator. Some legal work is local, and it is a mistake to pretend otherwise. But
International Arbitration in Cross-Border Contracts: What Companies Get Wrong An industrial pump company signs a supply agreement with an overseas supplier, receives eight million dollars’ worth of defective goods, and does what seems logical: it sues in the supplier’s home court. Five years later, it has spent more on legal fees than the amount in
How to Negotiate with Your Chinese Manufacturers Most American companies hear the line “That’s not how we do it in China” and immediately start retreating. They soften their tone, over-explain, and offer compromises before they have identified what matters. They treat the phrase like a cultural law that cannot be questioned, instead of what it
Why Demand Letters to China Suppliers Often Backfire Sending a quick demand letter to a China supplier can destroy your leverage. Twice last week, I had to explain that to companies that were not clients. Both wanted me to immediately send a demand letter to their China suppliers to force shipment of long-delayed product. I
China Exit Bans for Foreign Executives: The Commercial Dispute Risk Nobody Plans For You are at the airport with a boarding pass in hand, heading home after meetings. The China immigration officer scans your passport, pauses, types, and asks you to step aside. A few minutes later you are told you cannot leave China. No
Foreign companies often lose U.S. distribution opportunities for a simple reason: their factory can’t deliver what their distributor contract promised. The fix isn’t complicated, but it’s often ignored--your U.S. distribution agreement and your China manufacturing contract have to be drafted as one integrated system.
Cambodia vs. Guatemala for Manufacturing For U.S. companies making labor-intensive products and looking to exit China, Cambodia and Guatemala come up repeatedly as lower-cost alternatives. I am bullish on Guatemala, but cautious on Cambodia. This is not because Cambodia cannot manufacture. It can. The issue is control. Cambodia’s risk profile is harder to manage and
China NNN Agreements fail when they only block disclosure, ignore WeChat/CAD files, name the wrong company, or require enforcement you cannot afford. This blog post explains when you need an NDA vs an NNN agreement, common China traps (language, company chop, Hong Kong clauses), and what to send for a fast review.
After the Wall Street Journal Calls: Why Tariff Reduction Is Not a One-Hour Fix When the Wall Street Journal profiled our firm’s approach to tariff reduction, we expected calls. What we did not expect was how many companies would read “aboveboard playbook” and assume it meant we could diagnose their tariff exposure in an hour
