Perkins Coie Denies Negligence Claims in Malpractice Suit Regarding AD Proceedings
Perkins Coie offered its initial defense in a malpractice suit against the firm relating to its representation of exporter Oman Fasteners in various antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In a Jan. 2 brief filed in Washington state court, Perkins Coie said the firm and its attorneys "acted consistent with its and their professional, ethical, and legal obligations as members of the Bar, and did not breach any fiduciary duty or duty of loyalty to" Oman Fasteners. The firm said any loss or damage suffered by the company was due to violations of law by the Commerce Department that were rectified by the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Oman Fasteners initially filed the malpractice suit in November 2025, centering its claim on two alleged negligent actions taken by the firm (see 2511170071).
One alleged action concerned Perkins Coie attorneys missing a filing deadline by 16 minutes in a review of the AD order on Omani steel nails, which led to a 154.33% total adverse facts available AD rate for Oman Fasteners. However, the Federal Circuit eventually rejected this margin as an abuse of discretion (see 2501070084).
In defense of its actions, Perkins Coie said that any supposed damage suffered by Oman Fasteners was due to Commerce's abuse of discretion in rejecting the filing, adding that the courts "identified and corrected" this error. The decisions from the trade court and CAFC "establish conclusively that Commerce acted contrary to law, engaging in what the CIT described as 'the very definition of abuse of discretion,'" the brief said.
The firm said that it used Commerce's "Check File" feature, which supposedly checks files for any potential errors, prior to submitting the document, and the feature said the file was ready to submit. However, upon submission, the agency's ACCESS system rejected the file and that led to the late filing.
In any event, the mishap only resulted in Oman Fasteners having to post AD cash deposits for 55 days before the firm got CIT to issue an injunction against the posting of cash deposits, the firm said. Perkins Coie said that, contrary to the exporter's claims, this 55-day period didn't cause the company any harm, nor did it cause the company to lose customers. In fact, "the CEO of Oman Fasteners’ largest customer testified under oath that the customer would need to develop other sources of supply if Commerce’s 154.33% duty rate was not enjoined within a few additional weeks," the brief said. "Only days later, the duties were enjoined."
The second alleged negligent action taken by Perkins Coie stemmed from the firm's failure to submit a fully translated surrogate financial statement from company LSI during the underlying AD investigation, leading to the rejection of this submission and use of the statement from surrogate firm Hitech Fastener Manufacturer (Thailand). Despite the Federal Circuit's rejection of the Hitech statement, Commerce went with a surrogate financial statement from Indian producer Sundram.
Perkins Coie attorneys again appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit, and, in January 2025, the court rejected the firm's claims. In both of its decisions, the appellate court rejected Perkins Coie's arguments that Commerce should have relied on the "partially translated LSI financial statement or reopened the record to accept the fully translated LSI financial statement." The result was a 4.22% AD rate for Oman Fasteners. The exporter said Perkins Coie's negligence led to the company being subject to the order itself and administrative reviews every year after.
In response, Perkins Coie first noted that Oman Fasteners "unearth[s] an allegation -- 11 years after the fact." However, the firm said the record of the past proceedings shows that "only four months before Perkins' 2014 filing at issue, Commerce had, in another matter, accepted and relied upon these same LSI financial statements in exactly the partially translated format that Perkins submitted on behalf of Oman Fasteners."
The firm said Perkins included the LSI statements to "corroborate the reasonableness of the arguments Perkins made on behalf of Oman Fasteners." The firm said it "was acting prudently in submitting the exact evidence in the exact format Commerce already had accepted and relied upon in another proceeding." The agency "simply reversed itself on the same document," the brief said.
"Regardless, even if the LSI financial statements had been fully translated, Oman Fasteners cannot show that the outcome before Commerce would have been different, as Commerce itself explained in a 2015 decision," the firm said.