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.
I got an angry email yesterday in response to my having predicted a decline in manufacturing orders from China. The email accused me of “hating China” and wanting “to impede its peaceful” rise and of being “jealous of its progress.” All this because we have lately been writing how many of our law firm’s clients
In the past few months, our China lawyers have been seeing something new and troubling with China licensing agreements. Before I explain, let me step back and give a bit of history. This post is important so please stay with me. In a typical China licensing deal the foreign licensor grants the Chinese licensee the
Not surprisingly, our China lawyers are seeing a massive increase in foreign companies seeking to reduce or eliminate their China ties. Many are seeking to terminate their relationship with their Chinese suppliers and move production elsewhere (so far, it’s been mostly to Vietnam, Taiwan, Poland, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, India and Malaysia). The other day I
If I were to list the ten biggest/most common mistakes my law firm’s China lawyers see, not forming a China subsidiary when necessary and forming a China subsidiary when not unnecessary would both be on that list. We write constantly about the risks of doing business in China without a subisidiary. See Doing Business in
With the recent onslaught of tariffs, our international manufacturing lawyers are increasingly drafting manufacturing contracts for Asian countries beyond China. In the last few weeks alone, we’ve drafted manufacturing contracts for Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and India. We also have seen a noticeable uptick in our Mexico contracts as well. One of the issues our
I do mean to sound alarmist here. Almost since this blog’s inception, we have written about how if you are doing business in China you need a Chinese legal entity, be it a Wholly Foreign Owned Entity (WFOE), a Joint Venture (JV) or a Representative Office (RO). And pretty much each time, our writings on
Everything China comes in waves and China trademark “theft” is no different. When we first started this blog back in 2006, we would get a call just about every week from someone wanting to sue a Chinese company blocking the company’s product from leaving China. We hated those calls because most of the time our
China manufacturing contracts are very different from Western manufacturing contracts, for reasons which stem from differences in laws or differences in economics. This means our China manufacturing lawyers often must explain why they are doing something in China manufacturing so different from the way the client “always does it” in the West. One of the
Chinese companies (especially SOEs) increasingly require their contracts with foreign companies provide for disputes to be resolved by arbitration in China. Our China lawyers are seeing mostly CIETAC and BAC arbitration clauses. Many of our American and European clients are uncomfortable with arbitrating against a Chinese company in China as they are convinced they cannot “get a fair
A lawyer friend of mine emailed me a link the other day that had been sent to him by one of his clients. The link was to an article written nearly two years ago, China Supplier Vetting, Part 1: Background Checks, and he wanted my opinion on it. I responded by telling my friend that
