BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Wednesday, June 7, 2023

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will discuss what U.S. businesses that manufacture overseas must do from the beginning to ensure that their contracts with overseas manufacturers are enforceable, that the overseas manufacturer complies with negotiated terms, and that U.S. companies are indemnified for injuries incurred by the product's end users. The program will then discuss how plaintiffs that wish to recover from non-domestic defendants for product liability or other personal injuries can best position themselves for successful recovery when the defendant has no assets or presence in the U.S.

Faculty

Dan Harris
Founder
Harris Bricken

Mr. Harris is internationally regarded as a leading authority on legal matters related to doing business in China and in other emerging economies in Asia. His China law services include company formation, bilingual contracts and intellectual property protection. Mr. Harris writes and speaks extensively on Chinese law with a focus on protecting foreign businesses in their China operations.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Kenneth M. Krys
Executive Chairman & Founder
KRyS Global

Mr. Krys' diverse experience, including a stint as the head of enforcement for the local financial services regulator, gives him a unique perspective in pursuing assets and untangling the web that can arise from complex offshore structures and limited information. His efforts have resulted in many precedents and new case law in the areas of cross-border recognition, asset recovery and international litigation.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Many products sold by U.S. businesses are made thousands of miles away by a company that has no presence or assets within the United States. If that finished product or a component in that product causes personal injury or property damage due to a defect or failure to warn, both the injured party and the U.S. seller may wish to recover damages from the overseas producer either directly or by way of indemnification.

Before contracting with overseas producers, and in particular those in China, businesses must carefully negotiate and meticulously document their arrangements.

U.S. plaintiffs--whether businesses or individuals--seeking redress from manufacturing defendants that have no, or intentionally superficial, presence within the U.S. must first identify recoverable assets before they attempt to file suit in the U.S. or another jurisdiction.

Listen as this experienced panel first guides counsel through the negotiation, due diligence, and contracting process and then discusses best practices for recovering compensation from overseas manufacturers for damages caused by defective products or components.

Outline

  1. Protections for businesses outsourcing production
    1. Structural protection
    2. Due diligence
    3. Contracts
  2. Identifying and recovering assets in non-U.S. jurisdictions
    1. Procedural and jurisdictional hurdles
    2. Importance of local contacts

Benefits

The panel will review these and other relevant matters:

  • How does a business manufacturing overseas protect itself on the front end?
  • Can injured plaintiffs leverage the agreements between the U.S. company and its non-U.S. manufacturer to obtain recovery?
  • What should be considered before filing suit in the U.S. against a non-U.S. company?
  • Will a U.S. judgment be enforceable outside the U.S.?
  • What are the important issues with products made in key places like Mexico or China?
  • Are the issues different with Canadian companies?