Overview

Our team understands the international institutions, practices and precedents that govern the often complex international litigation and dispute settlement process. When negotiation and diplomacy fail to open markets or change unfair trade practices, Mayer Brown helps companies, governments and associations pursue effective international litigation and dispute settlement strategies. Our team understands the international institutions, practices and precedents that govern the often complex international litigation and dispute settlement process.

We adapt trial techniques for the effective presentation of fact-intensive controversies in venues that include:

  • WTO
  • ICC Court of International Arbitration
  • London Court of International Arbitration
  • International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
  • Court of Arbitration for Sport
  • Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
  • Singapore International Arbitration Centre
  • International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association
  • North American Free Trade Agreement
  • US Court of International Trade
  • US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Supreme Court of the US
  • European Court of First Instance
  • European Court of Justice

Praxis

  • Represented a large Japanese ball bearing manufacturer in the first appeal for annulment of a definitive anti-dumping duty ever heard by the European Court of First Instance, which resulted in the court invalidating the duty for manifest error in the assessment of injury.
  • Represented the US government in the first challenge of anti-dumping duties brought before the WTO. The appeal before the WTO’s Appellate Body resulted in numerous findings sought by the United States.
  • Represented several US producers of steel fittings and flanges in a successful challenge before the US Court of International Trade to alteration of country-of-origin marking regulations that would have effectively restricted foreign sourcing of certain intermediate materials.
  • Represented the Government of Korea before the WTO in a challenge by the EU alleging subsidization of the Korean shipbuilding industry. In a panel finding that largely rejected the EU’s allegations, the WTO found that the corporate restructuring carried out by Korea during the Asia crisis occurred on arm’s-length conditions and did not constitute subsidization. Additionally, we represented the Government of Korea before the WTO in a challenge of unilateral retaliation through subsidization of the EU shipbuilding industry. The WTO panel confirmed that the EU acted unilaterally in violation of WTO provisions by granting subsidies to EU shipbuilders without awaiting a WTO finding on the allegation of subsidization in Korea.
  • Represented a US manufacturer of printers in arbitration before the Conseil de Conciliation et d’Expertise Douanière (“CCED”) for dispute settle¬ment and customs expertise, which upheld our client’s views on the proper classification of a printer, terminating the dispute with French Customs.
  • Represented the largest exporter of Chinese crawfish tailmeat in a US Court of International Trade challenge of a US Department of Commerce anti-dumping ruling on issue of affiliation. We were successful in getting the court to overturn the US Department of Commerce’s decision and the client’s anti-dumping rate was lowered from the PRC-wide rate to less than 3 percent.
  • Represented a French distributor in arbitration before the CCED against the French Customs on the origin determination of bicycles, which resulted in our client’s views being upheld, but currently in litigation before the French courts upon an appeal by French Customs.
  • Ongoing litigation before German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Turkish customs and tax courts regarding the classification of plasma displays and camcorders.
  • Obtained a critically important stay, together with other complainants, of a limited exclusion order covering certain handheld wireless devices in a Section 337 action before the US International Trade Commission.
  • Persuaded the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to overturn a lower court decision precluding the US Department of Commerce from “collapsing” (i.e., treating affiliated companies as a single entity) for purposes of calculating an anti-dumping duty.
  • Represented US rice growers in a WTO challenge of Mexican anti-dumping duties. The challenge led to withdrawal of the duties by Mexico.
  • Ongoing representation of a Ukrainian manufacturer of seamless pipes and tubes before the European Court of First Instance in the appeal of a definitive anti-dumping duty.
  • Representation of one of the largest Canadian lumber companies before a NAFTA Chapter 19 Panel in the appeal of a final determination in a US anti-dumping duty investigation of softwood lumber from Canada.
  • Representation of a large Korean steel company in an appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of a decision by the US Court of International Trade that affirmed a finding of dumping with respect to certain cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel plate.
  • Represented the Government of Argentina before the WTO in a challenge of a Brazilian anti-dumping duty on PET resin that resulted in removal of the duty.