How do United States (US) tariffs and Canadian countermeasures affect Canadian businesses, and what can family enterprises do to prepare? In this timely episode of Beyond Succession, host Leah Tolton sits down with leading international trade lawyer Jessica Horwitz to explore strategies for navigating an uncertain trade environment.
The discussion delves into the latest US tariff policies, unpacking their economic and legal implications for family enterprises in Canada. From supply chain disruptions to workforce impacts and recessionary concerns, the episode highlights practical steps to mitigate these challenges. Topics include adapting contracts, market diversification and capitalizing on free trade agreements outside the US.
This insightful conversation provides valuable guidance for businesses looking to safeguard their operations and stay resilient in an evolving trade landscape.
Transcript
Jessica Horwitz: [00:00:00] I've seen some industry representatives saying that it could cause mass layoffs in certain sectors within a week of the tariffs coming into effect. So for example, the auto industry has heavily integrated supply chains that require tariff reduction to be financially viable and representatives of that industry have mentioned that layoffs are a possibility.
I've also seen reports from economists predicting that it could cause a recession in Canada. So the implications, I think, are extremely broad.
Leah Tolton: [00:00:37] Welcome to Beyond Succession, a podcast series within the Bennett Jones Business Law Talks podcast that discusses topics around navigating the complexities of the family enterprise. I'm Leah Tolton, partner at Bennett Jones LLP, and I'm a family enterprise and corporate lawyer, passionate about helping family enterprise businesses navigate the complexities of governance, succession, and growth.
Before we begin this podcast, please note that anything said or discussed on this podcast does not constitute legal advice. Always seek proper advice from your legal advisor as every situation is different and outcomes can vary.
Today we look at the implications of US tariffs on Canadian exports, an ongoing issue with the new US administration that could significantly disrupt trade, disrupt pricing, and market stability. Our guest is Jessica Horwitz, a leading international trade lawyer with expertise in customs law, economic sanctions, and trade regulations. With Canada exporting billions of dollars worth of goods to the US, including agricultural products, manufacturing goods, and more, new tariffs could reshape trade relationships and business strategies. We'll examine what these proposed tariffs mean, how family enterprises should prepare, and whether Canada has legal or strategic options to counter them. Jessica, welcome to the podcast.
Jessica Horwitz: [00:02:11] Thanks for having me, Leah.
Leah Tolton: [00:02:13] So just to paint the picture for you, Jessica, when I think about a family enterprise, I think about an organization that may include a number of components that are ultimately owned by at least some members of the family. So I'm typically looking at an organization that includes an operating company, maybe a company that includes some real estate, uh, maybe some kind of entity that invests money in other operations or investments. Uh, maybe something has some deferred assets or some heirloom assets, things that are going to be inherited and maybe some philanthropic assets. So that's what I think about when I talk about family enterprises. And I'm hoping that you can help us understand how these new tariff and trade rules that we're hearing all about these days might impact on those enterprises.
So let's start with understanding what do we know so far about the specific tariffs that President Trump has proposed and most recently put on hold on Canadian exports?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:03:10] Well, Leah, it's been a bit of a roller coaster week in the trade world, as many of your listeners probably are already aware. These tariffs are something that President Trump has been threatening for some time.
He talked about it in his presidential campaign. He was talking about it even before that, before he was nominated as the Republican candidate. And so I think to a certain extent, it's possible to use this as fulfilling a campaign promise. What happens is, uh, the initial campaign promise was that he would impose tariffs against Canada and Mexico on day one when he is inaugurated. That did not happen. What he did on inauguration day was he, he issued a memo from the White House requesting that the US trade representative and some other federal agencies conduct a review into the, uh, trade impact of, uh, the US trade relationship with Canada, Mexico, and China, which are the United States three largest trading partners, with a deadline of April 1st.
Now, in addition to that, he then, a few days later, it actually might have been, I think, on the same day, uh, in a press conference when he was signing some executive orders on Inauguration Day, a reporter asked, well, when are the tariffs going to come into effect? And he said, Maybe February 1st. So on February 1st, he issued an executive order that announced the imposition of a 25 percent tariff on imports of all Canadian products, except for energy products, which is defined broadly to include, you know, oil and gas, um, but also other types of critical minerals, um, electricity, other types of energy products, which, uh, he said are going to be subject to a 10 percent tariff instead of 25, but everything of Canadian origin was going to be impacted. So this was not a targeted tariff the way that, um, he proceeded in, in 2018, which we can talk about a little bit later, that was targeting just a particular category of products. It was steel and aluminum in that case. This one is across the board, putting up a tariff wall. And so the government of Canada announced retaliatory countermeasures on the same day in the form of surtaxes, which is an essentially an import tariff as well, on imports of specific categories of US origin goods as specified in a list that the government released. And there are, continue to be, uh, two lists under consideration. Um, the first tranche list was going to affect about 30 billion worth of Canadian dollars worth of imports of goods of US origin. The second tranche, which was going to be brought into effect three weeks later, would cover another 125 billion. We have a copy of the first list because that was actually published in the form of a surtax order was registered. It actually was brought into, it was registered. It had legal effects.
Um, it was going to take effect on February 4th at the same time that the US tariffs took effect, except that at the 11th hour, Mr. Trump and Mr. Trudeau had a phone call in which they agreed to defer the tariffs for another 30 days until March 1st so that they could continue conversations about addressing some of the national security concerns that the US had raised as the justification for these tariffs, including illegal immigration and, uh, and fentanyl imports. So, that’s where we stand. We are on hold. So it's a, it's a temporary reprieve, but it's not a guaranteed permanent reprieve. We have knowledge of what the first tranche of Canadian countermeasures are going to be, but we still do not have the second list.
Leah Tolton: [00:07:00] So there's a lot going on here. There's a lot at stake here. There's a lot of uncertainty here. I'd like to pick on two particular sectors that I'd be interested in your comments on. Wonder if you can talk generally about potential tariffs on industries like agriculture and manufacturing, you know, what concerns are there when it comes to the tariffs imposed on those industries?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:07:24] The way that the tariffs are going to be structured according to the executive order that Mr. Trump released on Saturday, is they will apply to products of Canadian origin. So that does not mean all products that are exported from or sold by a Canadian company. It means products that meet the applicable rules of origin for customs purposes of having been effectively produced in Canada or manufactured in Canada.
And so the federal register noticed that, that the US released in connection with the executive order specified that the applicable rules of origin will be either the marking rules under the USMCA or as we call it here in Canada, the CUSMA. Um, which are more or less the preferential rules that apply when you wanna claim tariff, uh, preference. So, so tariff reduction under the USMCA or the substantial transformation rule, which is the US’s default origin rule when you're not claiming a free trade agreement, uh, that is a much lower test to meet. So it's a low threshold.
What this means though, is that industries that produce goods in Canada, so whether it's growing something out of the ground like agriculture or transforming other raw materials through manufacturing, are going to be more impacted than, for example, businesses that might be operating in the retail or distribution sectors that might be trading in goods that were manufactured in a country other than Canada. It also will, uh, will not impact industries that are providing services, for example, because the tariffs apply only to goods.
Leah Tolton: [00:08:59] That's a helpful distinction to understand. So obviously, you know, this creates, you know, significant burdens for any Canadian business that is selling goods into the US from whatever sector.
Are there broader economic consequences beyond the transaction of goods that we need to keep in mind here? Things like price volatility or currency fluctuations. What, what can you predict in that regard?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:09:27] Sure, well, I mean, any changes to policy that are going to affect the underpinning economic conditions of either the US or the Canadian economies will, will have the effect of roiling markets. Investors, uh, and currency, the currencies will also fluctuate because investors are speculating on what might happen. So, for example, on Monday, the Canadian dollar dropped to a 20 year low. I think it went below 0.68 US, um, but then later in the day it rebounded when the, uh, the 30 day delay was announced.
And so there's a lot of short term volatility. Hopefully, once we have more clarity on what policies will be going forward, which I'm not sure how long it will take to get us that certainty, the volatility will abate. But if tariffs are in fact imposed for any meaningful length of time on Canada on goods of Canadian origin accessing the US market, then I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it could represent a tectonic shift in Canada's economic fundamental circumstances. I've seen some industry representatives saying that it could cause mass layoffs in certain sectors within a week of the tariffs coming into effect.
So, for example, the, the auto industry has heavily integrated supply chains that require tariff reduction to be financially viable, and representatives of that industry have mentioned that layoffs are a possibility. I've also seen reports from economists predicting that it could cause a recession in Canada. So the implications, I think, are extremely broad. But again, we don't know for sure if this is going to actually happen.
I think a lot will depend on the diplomatic efforts of 30 days.
Leah Tolton: [00:11:11] So let's move from discussion of those broad economic consequences to talk about trade and legal implications. You know, you've mentioned CUSMA in your remarks. Um, how do these tariffs align or conflict with the existing CUSMA agreement? Will, they conflict with it?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:11:31] Um, the fundamental principle of free trade agreements are free trade. Um, and, and tariff reduction and market access for goods is the cornerstone of any free trade agreement. So the imposition of not only the resumption or the withdrawal of the preferential tariff treatment that would be available under the CUSMA, but moreover, the imposition of an even higher tariff and level of import duties that don't apply to the US's other trading partners. It's in direct conflict with both the CUSMA and also the World Trade Organization, a general agreement on tariffs and trade. So it really does contravene fundamental international trade rules and principles.
Leah Tolton: [00:12:17] So what can we do about that? Are there legal avenues that Canada could take under WTO rules or the CUSMA dispute resolution mechanisms? What can we do about it?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:12:29] So the short answer is yes, there are mechanisms under these systems, but any kind of dispute resolution mechanism requires that the parties be willing to comply with the result.
Um, otherwise it can be a bit of an exercise in form over substance. Um, and, and there might be value in that as well. Um, for example, the United States did go ahead and 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods on Tuesday. Um, that had been announced at the same time as the, the Mexico and Canada tariffs, but China was not able to secure itself a 30 day deferral, um, and China has already filed a complaint at the WTO and requested consultations to vocalize its formal objection to the US action. You know, you can argue and trade lawyers and, you know, policy wonks can, can argue about the legality of the measures. There are exceptions under the various free trade agreements and WTO agreements for things like national security, uh, interests. Right. So if a measure is necessary to protect a member's essential national security interests, it might be permissible, even if it is contrary to the other rules in the agreements.
You know, so you could debate what arguments are available on either side. But I think fundamentally, the United States and even in the last administration under President Biden, the United States was very clear that it does not have an interest in engaging at the WTO, and now it appears that President Trump is, you know, doesn't view himself as particularly bound by the free trade agreement that he negotiated only a few years ago.
So, you know, pursuing some kind of a formal dispute resolution or arbitration mechanism might not be a good use of time.
Leah Tolton: [00:14:15] Okay. And any dispute resolution process or complaint like that really takes place at a very high level. And so, you know, I think even if that did take place, it would take time. It would take, you know, some political will and effort.
Meanwhile, we have Canadian producers who are having to deal with the facts that confront them. I'd also like to ask a question before I move on to the next point. I've heard you mention in your remarks here that perhaps some producers are facing additional burdens because not only are they subject to tariffs, but they're subject to other non tariff barriers, such as stricter regulations or inspections or duties as well. Can you, can you just flesh that out for me a bit?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:14:56] So the measures that have been formally announced, uh, on both the US and the Canadian side so far have really been focused on tariffs, so tariff measures. But you're absolutely right that non tariff barriers are another way that countries can restrict access to their markets to goods exported by other trading partners. And so the WTO agreements. And most of Canada's free trade agreements have chapters or sections that address the reduction of non tariff barriers. Because in a free trade zone, the idea is that reducing non tariff barriers will improve efficiency for everybody. It'll make it easier to do business, there won't be as much red tape, there's, you know, fewer conflicting regulatory hurdles that need to be passed.
But if you are withdrawing tariff preference there's nothing really stopping a party from also designing measures that represent non tariff barriers to trade. So things like quantitative restrictions. So, you know, restricting quantity of imports and exports of particular goods. You could have regulatory barriers, so ceasing to provide necessary certifications, phytosanitary certifications for food products, for example.
You could have other taxes on various different economic activities, like service taxes, which are not tariffs because, you know, tariffs apply to goods, but, you know, there are mechanisms in place, or available to governments, if they wish to design them, that could be a represent further leverage or further, I guess, weapons in the trade war for, um, the lack of a better term.
Um, but we have not actually heard any politicians confirming that definitively that those types of measures are on the table, right?
So I have to imagine that, uh, that there's some brainstorming going on, but, uh, so far we have not, uh, we've not gone there.
Leah Tolton: [00:16:59] You mentioned in an earlier comment that the tariffs do not apply to services, they apply to goods.
And so I'd like to ask you if services like digital streaming or cloud computing or software for both companies are not affected by tariffs, could this provide an avenue for retaliation or a potential push for diversification in what Canada produces and exports?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:17:27] I'd say potentially yes to both. So as I just mentioned, a tax measure on services would not represent a tariff.
That would be some other kind of tax measure. Um, but it is possible. So for example, an example of this is Canada's digital services tax, uh, which has been quite controversial in particular with respect to the United States. So, you know, query of maybe that this is one of the, uh, the points of concern that the United States has, but it's interesting because the United States actually enjoys a pretty significant trade surplus with Canada in services. And this is mostly travel and tourism. So think about how many snowbirds from Canada go down to the United States, spend money there. But also things that you mentioned like technology services, entertainment, and digital streaming.
And so meaning that Canadians buy more services from the United States than Americans buy services from Canada. So if you were to actually look at trade holistically, including both goods and services, Canada has an overall trade deficit with the United States, according to Statistics Canada. So it's certainly an area that, like I said, I have to imagine policymakers are thinking about, but taxes on services are much more difficult to design and administer and enforce because it's easy to stop a container at the border and see what's inside it, but it's more difficult to monitor who's sending an email or who's having a Zoom call with somebody else in another jurisdiction.
Leah Tolton: [00:18:50] Alright, let's bring this down to family enterprises, you know, my organizations with an operating company, maybe some real estate, maybe some other money to invest and things that they're trying to accomplish. How should Canadian family enterprises who manufacture goods in Canada and export to the US prepare in the face of all of this uncertainty and potential disruption?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:19:13] Well, Leah, at the risk of sounding trite, I think probably the best thing companies can do is to make sure that they have strong fundamentals and then to expect the unexpected because there isn't necessarily always going to be a silver bullet exemption or some kind of legal loophole that companies can exploit to avoid the impact of these policies if a government policy is specifically designed to cause economic damage. The people that design these policies will know, you know, what the loopholes are, and they will design the policy to avoid those. And so, it’s limited in terms of what companies can do to fully 100 percent insulate themselves from risk short of, of course, not trading internationally at all.
Um, but you know, Canada is a trading country and we have a relatively small domestic demands and population. And so that's not really a viable option for a lot of companies if they want to grow. And so what can companies do to prepare the best that they can and position themselves to be able to adapt and pivot quickly when new measures are announced.
The first thing I would say is review your contracts. Know what your exposure is and know who bears the tariff liability. And for that, it's very important to understand what the delivery terms of, if you're selling goods, for example, where are you obliged to deliver them? Who are you delivering them on a duty cleared basis into the United States, for example, or are you delivering them somewhere else and your customer is importing them and then the customer bears liability.
So understanding who's responsible for what and who bears liability is the first step. Second step is that if you think about what mechanisms exist in the United States, in your contracts to give you an escape hatch, to give you an exit strategy in the event that there's a fundamental change in the conditions affecting, uh, your ability to perform under the contract going forward.
Think about updating contracts to share the risk exposure, the parties so that you know, one doesn't disproportionately bear the risk. I would say also on supply chains, it's really important for companies to have a complete picture and an up-to-date picture of where its materials come from and where its customer markets are.
You have to know where everything is coming from and going to. And not only that, you need to know what the countries of origin of all of those products are because the location of the vendor that is selling it to you is not always determinative of the country in which that product was manufactured.
There's a lot of suppliers that will source materials or source products from other countries and then resell them as distributors, right? So understanding whether a product, for example, is a product of the United States that might be impacted by the Canadian countermeasures versus a product of some other country that would not be affected by the surtax is very important to understand. And then similarly on the outbound side, you have to understand what actions are being performed on the products in Canada and does that confer Canadian origin for purposes of the US inbound tariffs.
And so understanding all of that, which can be very technical questions that are not always intuitive. It's not always something that you can just assume is the case because it really depends. It said the rules of origin vary from product to product. I would also say, think about duty deferral programs. So things like, at least on the Canadian import side, we have a customs bonded warehouse program, uh, which allows for manufacturing operations to be performed in Canada on imported materials without having to pay duties on those materials if the finished products are going to be re-exported. And so it's sort of an inward processing program. You have duties relief program, which operates in a similar way. You have drawback programs, which is that you can get a refund on duties paid on imports if you re-export goods.
So leveraging programs like this that can reduce duties, they may or may not be available because the executive order that President Trump issued specifically said that on the US side drawbacks would not be available for that category at tariff, which is pretty surprising. Um, and a, a deviation from previous US trade policies.
So, but it is important to explore the opportunities, I would say. Can you stockpile right. If you have 30 days, if you have a critical source of raw materials, for example, that is coming from the United States, can you stock up before the tariffs come into effect. Now, obviously that's going to represent inventory risk, um, and it's, uh, additional, uh, cash, finance risk, storage risk, yeah, all sorts of things. So you know, you have to weigh the pros and cons, but that's something to think about. Remissions. So at least on the Canadian side, I can't speak to the US, I'm not a US lawyer, but on the Canadian side, the Department of Finance has announced a process for Canadian companies to apply for remissions of the countermeasure surtaxes.
The grounds for remission is, basically, if there's short supply, so you can't get that material to critical material for you can't get it anywhere else, and it's not available domestically, or the economic impact is, uh, disproportionately unfair or burdensome to the Canadian economy, you can apply for a remission. Those are discretionary remedies issued by the Department of Finance.
Leah Tolton: [00:24:34] So, your comments in response to that question related in large measure to existing arrangements, you know, existing contracts, existing commitments, you know, finding ways to fulfill existing commitments that you may have made. Are there any viable strategies for family enterprises to diversify beyond what the existing scenario is?
Are there ways that they could explore other markets? Are there other treaties or favorable agreements that, you know, they might want to consider as a way to, to diversify beyond interest in the United States?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:25:04] I think that's a great question, Leah, and it's funny because we published a blog a couple weeks ago now that essentially, which it's available for any of your listeners on the Bennett Jones website.
We have a little toolkit that companies can download to try and diagnose their tariff preparedness. So some of the, you know, scoping assessment points that I just mentioned are on there. You can download that as a bit of a internal checklist or discussion document, but we were preparing that and we were thinking, well, you know, should we put diversification in there as a recommendation?
Because it seems so obvious that it's almost goes without saying, but at the same time, this is kind of why we're in this situation in the first place is that Canada has perhaps, it's taken the relationship with the United States a little bit for granted, and obviously the United States is a very easy market to access.
It's very close. It's cheap to transport to. There are no language barriers, and it's a wealthy country. It's a great market, right? And so I think a lot of businesses and the Canadian economy as a whole has not diversified as much as we perhaps could have because we were taking the low hanging fruit. But if low hanging fruit is no longer available, then it forces you out of your comfort zone, um, and forces you to look at other options.
So I think over the, the sort of medium to longer term, absolutely companies should be looking at diversifying both their supply chains for sourcing, as well as their customer markets to make sure that they are less exposed to a disruption with the trade relationship. In being too dependent on one particular partner.
So ways that you can do this. Canada has lots of other free trade agreements aside from CUSMA. We have a free trade agreement with the European Union called CETA. We have a free trade agreement with a large group of major Asian economies and Pacific Rim economies called the CPTPP.
These include some really major markets and really large economies that are Trading partners that, uh, enjoy tariff reference, market access, uh, all of the, the typical protections that you have under a free trade agreement when the parties are actually following it.
The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service is a department of Global Affairs Canada that's mission is to help Canadian companies export and access foreign markets. And so the Canadian government does have resources available to help companies, um, make introductions, for example, set up business to business networking meetings with potential business partners in foreign markets.
The, the consular, uh, services of Global Affairs Canada can also help make those types of connections. Export Development Canada offers insurance products that can help companies to reduce export risks, such as buying export credit insurance that can protect your cash flow if a foreign customer doesn't pay on time, for example.
Thinking about finding partners is another option too. If your company isn't positioned to handle international logistics or to make connections with, uh, partners in foreign markets, consider partnering with a trading company, maybe another Canadian business that specializes in selling to foreign markets that can act as an intermediary or that can provide a service to help you access those, uh, those markets.
And then another thing, which is, you know, contrary to the diversification that I just mentioned is think about the Canadian market as well. Uh, we've heard a lot of talk in the, uh, in the last few days, particularly from the provincial premiers, about how Canada needs to reduce its internal barriers between provinces and, and improve our trading across provinces.
A big part of this, of course, is infrastructure challenges. Canada is a very big country. It's difficult to transport goods, um, over land across the country. It's sometimes easier to put something on a boat to go somewhere else to Asia or to the US, uh, you know East or West Coast or the Gulf, uh, than it is to bring something over land in Canada.
But, uh, certainly domestic markets, there are opportunities particular in region to region that perhaps are not being exploited to their fullest by Canadian companies.
Leah Tolton: [00:29:09] So lots to think about and I, I appreciate that answer. It makes it feel like it's a little less hopeless. Like we're a little less at the mercy of the US although perhaps I'm reading too much into that. But I do feel like there are some glimmers of hope there and some really concrete suggestions that could be helpful. You know, taking a look at the bigger picture and looking ahead from this point, you know, could these tariffs unintentionally hurt US businesses and customers?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:29:34] So I'm not an economist, um, so I caveat my comments by saying this is my opinion, but you know, I took some, uh, some economics courses in university, and I think it's fair to say that a basic principle of economics is that the cost of tariffs are, one way or another, always borne by the end consumer, because when cost of materials go, and labor go up, companies raise prices, and it gets flowed down over time.
The chain, the theory behind globalization in the first place is that it allows countries to specialize in the areas that they are more efficient in. And so that, in principle, reduces the cost of materials and labor for everybody and grows the pie. At least that's the sort of economic theory.
And so, if you are going to build tariff walls to promote, you know, a return of domestic manufacturing, I think it's important to keep in mind that that is also going to have the impact of raising costs of input materials for example, US domestic manufacturers. So, you know, I'm, I'm not going to express an opinion on the wisdom of the tariffs. I think your listeners can draw their own conclusions about that and I'll leave that to the politicians to debate. But, uh, there certainly is a very high risk that tariffs will have a negative impact on domestic US businesses and consumers in addition to trading partners.
Leah Tolton: [00:30:56] And so what do you think the long term effects that this trade tension could have on Canada US relations?
Jessica Horwitz: [00:31:04] I think, if nothing else, it probably serves as a wake up call for Canada in realizing just how dependent and closely connected we are to the US market. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing because it's a very strong relationship. It has been a strong relationship historically. But I think it is fair to say that we shouldn't take that relationship for granted. And I think that Canada might be maybe a little bit more cautious going forward in diversifying, you know, its diplomatic relations in the same way that the companies might think about diversifying its trading relationships.
Leah Tolton: [00:31:40] Right. So, to summarize what I've heard you say. While you've been making your comments, US tariffs present significant challenges, but they also highlight opportunities for Canadian family enterprises to adapt, to innovate, and to diversify. And I'm hearing that a key takeaway for our listeners is to be proactive, explore alternative markets, leverage existing trade agreements with other parties other than the US, make strategic adjustments before new tariffs take full effect.
Jessica Horwitz: [00:32:13] Great summary.
Leah Tolton: [00:32:14] Jessica, this has been a terrific conversation and I know that you are uh, very occupied by responding to the many inquiries that you're receiving from people on this topic. I really appreciate you making time to appear on the podcast. Thank you so much.
Jessica Horwitz: [00:32:29] It was my pleasure. Thank you.
Leah Tolton: [00:32:31] Thanks for joining me on this episode of Beyond Succession, a series within the Bennett Jones Business Law Talks podcast. Make sure to hit the follow button on whatever platform you are listening from so you get notified whenever we release new episodes.
Also, don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions about challenges or issues that you are facing in your family enterprise. Take care. I'll catch you in our next episode.
Please be advised this episode was recorded the week of February 3, 2025, and information is subject to change based on current events.
Please note that this publication presents an overview of notable legal trends and related updates. It is intended for informational purposes and not as a replacement for detailed legal advice. If you need guidance tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact one of the authors to explore how we can help you navigate your legal needs.
For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com.
Bennett Jones
