The United States and Colombia have historically maintained a strong bilateral partnership that has been the envy of much of Latin America. However, the bilateral relationship today is facing a test as U.S. and Colombian approaches to shared problems increasingly diverge. The next several months present milestones that will have
Continue Reading U.S.-Colombia Relations Facing Key Decision Points with Implications for Businesses
Proposed Revisions to the Federal Reserve’s LFI Rating System
On July 10, 2025, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”) issued a request for comment on proposed revisions to its large financial institution (“LFI”) supervisory rating system (the “LFI Framework”).
If finalized as proposed, the revisions would allow large depository institution holding companies with only one
Continue Reading Proposed Revisions to the Federal Reserve’s LFI Rating SystemTrump 2.0 Tariffs and Commercial Disputes: Key Questions to Consider
Introduction
The Trump Administration’s implementation of significant and widespread tariffs – and the potential for additional and farther-reaching tariffs – represents more than just a trade challenge. For companies engaged in international commerce, the uncertainty created by these measures increases the risk of commercial disputes. Among other things, tariffs can increase costs, reduce margins, and reveal contractual assumptions and ambiguities that lead to disputes throughout the supply chain: between buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, and in a variety of other business dealings.
Below we highlight four key questions for assessing and mitigating commercial dispute risks. Whether reviewing existing contracts or negotiating new ones, companies should take strategic steps to protect their interests and minimize potential disputes and supply chain disruptions.
Background: Tariffs Under the Trump Administration
Since the America First Trade Policy memorandum that President Trump signed on the first day of his second term, the current administration has imposed a variety of country- and product-specific tariffs, threatened additional tariffs, and promised other future actions. Importers, foreign producers, and U.S. purchasers of imported products all face a heightened risk that products that they have contracted to purchase or supply may be impacted by tariffs, at times potentially altering the fundamental bargain between the parties. The threat of retaliatory tariffs leads to even further uncertainty.
At the time of publication, the Trump Administration has imposed or threatened to impose a variety of tariffs under an array of different statutory authorities. For instance:
- Canada, Mexico, and China Tariffs: President Trump ordered 20% tariffs on products from China and 25% tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”).
- Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Separately, for the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, President Trump removed country-specific exemptions, is phasing out the product-specific exclusions and removing General Approved Exclusions, and is creating a petition process for the expansion of the tariffs to derivative steel and aluminum products not already covered.
- Reciprocal Tariffs: Meanwhile, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce are leading a broad review of foreign trade partners to determine whether they are imposing nonreciprocal tariffs and other trade restrictive measures, for the United States to respond in kind (possibly with higher tariffs of its own).
- Other Potential Tariffs: All the while, myriad agencies are reporting to the President in April on a variety of trade and tariff issues, which could serve as the foundation for additional, future tariff actions by the Trump Administration.
Continue Reading Trump 2.0 Tariffs and Commercial Disputes: Key Questions to Consider
Protecting Against Russia’s Asset Seizures: Investment Treaties May Provide a Remedy for Foreign Investors
On Sunday, July 16, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree putting shares of Danone Russia JSC, owned by French yogurt maker Danone, and of Baltika Brewing Company, owned by Danish brewer Carlsberg A/S, under “temporary management.”
The Kremlin has since reportedly appointed Yakub Zakriev, deputy prime minister and agriculture minister of Chechnya, as head of the Danone business.[1] Mr. Zakriev has been described as a close ally of Ramzan Kadyrov, the notorious leader of the Chechen Republic, and himself a close ally of President Putin.[2] Meanwhile, Taimuraz Bolloev, a longtime friend of Putin, has been installed as director of Carlsberg’s Baltika business.[3]
These recent seizures follow a decree Putin signed in April, laying the groundwork to expropriate, damage, or otherwise impair the investments of companies from “unfriendly” countries—including the U.S., UK, Canada, all EU member states, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.[4] This is the second time Russia has used the decree to seize assets. Previously, Russia took control of utilities owned by Finland’s Fortum Oyj and Germany’s Uniper SE.[5]
These Russian actions demonstrate the significant risks for foreign companies that continue to operate in Russia and signal further potential asset seizures, including the possible transfer of foreign assets to regime-friendly owners. Russia’s measures appear to constitute uncompensated expropriations, for which investors could seek redress under Russia’s network of bilateral investment treaties (BITs).[6]
In prior Covington alerts, we have discussed how foreign investors in Russia can protect their investments from Russian retaliatory measures by ensuring that they have access to international arbitration, including through BITs. We also have highlighted certain key protections available under BITs that may provide recourse to foreign investors affected by Russia’s recent measures. In this alert, we focus on those protections under Russian BITs of most direct relevance to foreign investors whose assets have been expropriated or that have had the management of that investment obstructed by Russia’s actions, present and future.
Key Protections in Russian BITs
Russia has BITs in force with over 60 countries, including many EU members (such as Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden) and countries such as Canada, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, the UK, and Ukraine. There is no BIT between Russia and the United States, but U.S. companies may nonetheless benefit from BIT protection if they hold their investments in Russia through a third country that does have a Russian BIT.
In its BITs, Russia has committed to, among other things, treat investors from the relevant countries in a fair and equitable manner, not to discriminate against such investors on the basis of nationality, not to expropriate their investments except under certain conditions and upon payment of adequate compensation, and to guarantee their right to freely transfer payments related to their investments out of Russia. All of these protections are relevant in the present context.Continue Reading Protecting Against Russia’s Asset Seizures: Investment Treaties May Provide a Remedy for Foreign Investors
The World Court Set to Become the Latest Venue for Climate Change Jurisprudence
UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change
On March 29, 2023, the UN General Assembly (“UNGA”) adopted by consensus a resolution (A/77/L.58) requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or “Court”) on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The resolution results from coordinated efforts by the Republic of Vanuatu, along with a “Core Group” of states, including Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, the Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Portugal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Uganda, and Viet Nam. The efforts of the Core Group drew on grassroots and civil society support, and the resolution was ultimately co-sponsored by more than 130 UN member states (although not the United States, Brazil, India, China, or Russia).
This marks the latest effort to ask international courts and tribunals to clarify the legal obligations of states in relation to climate change. In the last few months, similar requests for advisory opinions have been submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“IACHR”).
Questions in the UNGA Resolution
The UNGA resolution observes that “as temperatures rise, impacts from climate and weather extremes […] will pose an ever-greater social, cultural, economic and environmental threat.” It asks the ICJ to issue its opinion on the following questions:
a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations;Continue Reading The World Court Set to Become the Latest Venue for Climate Change Jurisprudence
Federal Banking Agencies and FinCEN Issue Joint Statement on Risk-Based Approach to Customer Due Diligence for Charities and Non-Profit Organizations
Three Takeaways from FinCEN’s Statement on Enforcement of BSA/AML Requirements
Continue Reading Three Takeaways from FinCEN’s Statement on Enforcement of BSA/AML Requirements
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Investment Chapter: Maintaining Important Protections for U.S. Investors Overseas
Note: This post is the second in a series of posts on the final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by Covington’s International and Public Policy lawyers. The final TPP text, which was released on November 5, 2015, is available here. TPP is not expected to enter into force
Continue Reading The Trans-Pacific Partnership Investment Chapter: Maintaining Important Protections for U.S. Investors Overseas
India’s Investment Treaties – Will the Government Reject a Core Standard of Investment Protection?
Almost all of the more than 3,000 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) in existence offer foreign investors the protection of “fair and equitable treatment” under international law. India’s new draft model BIT does not. In place of the well-established standard of protection, which has been interpreted and applied in hundreds of
Continue Reading India’s Investment Treaties – Will the Government Reject a Core Standard of Investment Protection?
Increased Investment in India?
One of the items at the top of President Obama’s agenda in India this week is the long-delayed U.S.-India bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Such a treaty was proposed by the President during his 2010 visit to India, but the proposal got little traction with the prior government. It is likely
Continue Reading Increased Investment in India?