Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Jeffrey J. White provides counseling and dispute resolution advice for manufacturers and distributors throughout the United States and globally. He leads our firm's Manufacturing Industry team, which has been described by media outlets as ”one of the top manufacturing law practices” in the United States, as well as the Aerospace Supply Chain team.

Jeff is a leader within the manufacturing community and has been invited to speak at The White House, U.S. Department of Commerce events, and manufacturing industry events across North America. He has been appointed to committees supporting U.S. commerce by both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations. In 2022, Jeff was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to serve on the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Aerospace Equipment. He has offered legal commentary for publications such as Politco, IndustryWeek, and Aviation Week, among others.

In 2013, Jeff created and launched the widely read Manufacturing Law Blog, which was the first blog in the country to address legal issues facing manufacturers and distributors.

Jeff was recognized in the 2020-2024 Editions of CHAMBERS USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, which is based on objective research and extensive confidential interviews with clients. Jeff is described in the 2020 Edition as wonderful and always available.”

Corporate Compliance / Outside General Counsel / International

Jeff serves as outside general counsel for several privately held manufacturers, including family-owned businesses and many industrial B2B suppliers. Drawing upon his industry knowledge and experience, he develops solutions for businesses that operate within global supply chains and often lack commercial leverage. Jeff has assisted manufacturers with contract review and management, developing solutions for a litany of global compliance challenges, and resolving disputes of all kinds between OEMs, suppliers, and the like. As evidence of Jeff’s commitment to help his clients grow, Robinson+Cole received the President’s E-Award for Exports in 2019, a recognition given to persons, firms, or organizations that contribute significantly in the effort to increase United States exports.

Jeff also counsels international companies that have operations in the United States, including manufacturers headquartered in the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Australia, among other countries. He navigates the cross-cultural differences that can exist within global companies and has been invited by his clients to conduct trainings throughout Europe and Asia. Jeff supports the work of economic development agencies that support direct foreign investment into the United States. He was selected by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s SelectUSA program to co-author a chapter in its Investor Guide for companies interested in making investments in the U.S.

Manufacturing Business to Business Dispute Resolution / Litigation

Jeff also represents several Fortune 500 manufacturers, including in the aerospace, chemicals and consumer products markets. His dispute resolution/litigation experience includes product-related class actions, product liability prevention and litigation, and supply chain disputes (including with long-term agreements (LTAs) that range from hundreds of thousands of dollars to several billion dollars). He often serves as lead counsel for manufacturers facing substantial liability in disputes across the United States. Jeff routinely uses his litigation and business experience to counsel companies that wish to assess and/or resolve business-to-business disputes with suppliers, vendors, and other business partners, without resorting to litigation.

High-Stakes Litigation

In addition to his experience with manufacturers, Jeff has served as lead counsel in high-stakes litigation matters for a variety of clients facing significant exposure. He has represented educational institutions, Native American tribes, and municipalities, among other clients. In one such case, he successfully argued before the Connecticut Supreme Court in an antitrust case arising out of a proposed $1 billion waterfront project. Jeff is past chair of our firm’s Appellate practice group and has been involved in more than 50 appeals and has argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the state appellate courts in Connecticut, New York, and Maryland.

Prior to joining Robinson+Cole, Jeff clerked for the late Honorable Ellen Ash Peters, former Connecticut Supreme Court chief justice. 

  • University of Connecticut School of Law (Juris Doctor, with honors)
  • College of the Holy Cross (Bachelors)
    • B.A., Political Science

  • State of Connecticut
  • State of New York
  • State of Texas
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of New York

Ranked in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business in the State of Connecticut in the area of Litigation: General Commercial since 2020

Selected to the 2019 New England Trailblazers list by Law.com and the Connecticut Law Tribune

Winner of the 2012 United States District Court Pro Bono Award for the District of Connecticut (as voted on by the federal judges)

Winner of the 2011 Judge Maxwell Heiman Memorial Award, presented by the Hartford County Bar Association

Selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the area of Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions-Defendants since 2018 and in the area of Commercial Litigation since 2021

Selected to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2013 to 2025

Selected to the "Top 50 Connecticut Super Lawyers list for 2018, 2019 and from 2021 to 2025

Connecticut Magazine, "40 Under Forty," in 2013

Recipient of the Connecticut District Export Council 2020 Ambassador Award

International Trade Administration
Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Aerospace Equipment (ITAC 1) (2022 - 2026)

Women in Manufacturing® Association (WiM)
National Board of Directors (2021 - Present)
Executive Committee Member  (2023)

U.S. Department of Commerce District Export Council
Connecticut (2020 - Present)

Connecticut Business & Industry Association
Board of Directors (2022 - 2025)
Emeritus Board Member (2025 - Present)

Connecticut Business & Industry Association Foundation
Board of Advisors (2022 - Present)

ManufactureCT
Board of Directors (2021 - Present)

American Bar Association
Co-chair, Business Law Section, Middle Market and Small Business Committee, International Business Transactions Subcommittee (2022 - Present)

American Bar Foundation
Fellow (2013 - Present)

Connecticut Bar Association
Officer (2011 - 2012)
Council of Bar Presidents (2009 - 2010)

Connecticut Bar Foundation
Fellow (2014 - Present)

New England Air Museum
Board of Directors (2011-2024)

University of Connecticut
Invited Lecturer, School of Business

The Bushnell Performing Arts Center
Board of Trustees

Mark Twain House and Museum
Ambassador

Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center Foundation
Ambassador

Connecticut Supreme Court Historical Society
Vice President; Board of Directors

Connecticut Supreme Court 200th Anniversary Planning Committee
Member (along with four attorneys and three Supreme Court Justices)

Experience


Aerospace: Outside Supplier Counsel

Serve as the primary outside counsel for several Tier 1 and Tier 2 aerospace suppliers.

Aerospace: Wrongful Death + Contribution/Indemnification

Successfully represented a worldwide helicopter manufacturer in litigation that lasted over six years and arose out of a double fatality heli-logging accident in British Columbia. The first phase of the litigation, which was filed in Connecticut, was a wrongful death case involving multiple defendants. In the second phase of the litigation, which was filed in Oregon, Robinson + Cole represented the manufacturer in a contribution/indemnification action brought against the owner/operator of the helicopter. The Oregon action involved novel questions of law, including the application of the British Columbia workers’ compensation bar and Lanham Act claims. As a direct result of R+C’s litigation strategy, favorable settlements were reached for our client.

Read More

Aerospace: Helicopter Crash in Turkey

Obtained a dismissal on behalf of a major OEM engine manufacturer in a federal court lawsuit arising out the deaths of three passengers involved in a crash of a McDonnell Douglas helicopter in Turkey.



Publications


Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
November 14, 2024

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

March 14, 2024

Male Allyship Helps Women Succeed In Manufacturing

Industry Today

Currently, the manufacturing industry is projected to have over two million vacant positions over the next decade. The representation of women to men in the industry is 30/70% respectively. In their article, Jen and Jeff discuss how male allies can help promote the advancement of women and help close the significant employment gap. Understanding the hurdles women face and creating a more supportive and flexible work environment are just two ways men can help in the hiring and retention of women in the industry. Read the article.

January 8, 2024

PFAS will be increasing concern for manufacturers in year ahead

Hartford Business Journal

Published as part of the Hartford Business Journal's 2024 Economic Forecast issue, the article highlights the increased scrutiny heaved on perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); improved efforts by manufacturers to engage in training, coaching, hosting town halls, and increasing dialogue on diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives; and corporate compliance efforts that manufacturers are pursuing to become more proficient. To read the article, click here.

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
November 14, 2024

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

March 14, 2024

Male Allyship Helps Women Succeed In Manufacturing

Industry Today

Currently, the manufacturing industry is projected to have over two million vacant positions over the next decade. The representation of women to men in the industry is 30/70% respectively. In their article, Jen and Jeff discuss how male allies can help promote the advancement of women and help close the significant employment gap. Understanding the hurdles women face and creating a more supportive and flexible work environment are just two ways men can help in the hiring and retention of women in the industry. Read the article.

January 8, 2024

PFAS will be increasing concern for manufacturers in year ahead

Hartford Business Journal

Published as part of the Hartford Business Journal's 2024 Economic Forecast issue, the article highlights the increased scrutiny heaved on perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); improved efforts by manufacturers to engage in training, coaching, hosting town halls, and increasing dialogue on diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives; and corporate compliance efforts that manufacturers are pursuing to become more proficient. To read the article, click here.

October 2, 2023

Dispelling misconceptions about ‘Buy American,’ other related laws

Hartford Business Journal

In the “Experts Corner” article, Jeff highlights the distinctions between the familiar terms “Buy America,” “Buy American,” “Made in the USA,” and “Made in America,” and the types of economic opportunities each term presents. The “Buy American” law was passed by Congress in 1933 and signed by President Hoover during his last day in office. It applies to all goods purchased by the U.S. federal government, valued at more than $10,000, with the requirement that these goods be “produced in the U.S.” Jeff reminds readers to “not confuse these laws with “Made in the USA” or “Made in America” laws,” which relate to claims from manufacturers and marketers regarding the amount of U.S. content in a product. View the article.

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
July 21, 2023

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

Legal Update: New Round of Sanctions Relevant to Manufacturers Are Launched on the First Anniversary of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine teaser
March 14, 2023

Legal Update: New Round of Sanctions Relevant to Manufacturers Are Launched on the First Anniversary of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

June 2022

Business Structure

SelectUSA’s 2022 Investor Guide

The Investor Guide is a first-step resource for companies interested in making business investments in the U.S. Each chapter is authored by highly-qualified professionals who regularly advise foreign investors. The Business Structure chapter offers an overview of common business structures for foreign investors. SelectUSA is the Department of Commerce program dedicated to facilitating and promoting high-impact business investment into the United States. View the chapter here.

Manufacturing Industry Group Outlook: 2022 teaser
February 2022

Manufacturing Industry Group Outlook: 2022

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
January 4, 2022

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About



October 2, 2023

Dispelling misconceptions about ‘Buy American,’ other related laws

Hartford Business Journal

In the “Experts Corner” article, Jeff highlights the distinctions between the familiar terms “Buy America,” “Buy American,” “Made in the USA,” and “Made in America,” and the types of economic opportunities each term presents. The “Buy American” law was passed by Congress in 1933 and signed by President Hoover during his last day in office. It applies to all goods purchased by the U.S. federal government, valued at more than $10,000, with the requirement that these goods be “produced in the U.S.” Jeff reminds readers to “not confuse these laws with “Made in the USA” or “Made in America” laws,” which relate to claims from manufacturers and marketers regarding the amount of U.S. content in a product. View the article.

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
July 21, 2023

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

Legal Update: New Round of Sanctions Relevant to Manufacturers Are Launched on the First Anniversary of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine teaser
March 14, 2023

Legal Update: New Round of Sanctions Relevant to Manufacturers Are Launched on the First Anniversary of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

June 2022

Business Structure

SelectUSA’s 2022 Investor Guide

The Investor Guide is a first-step resource for companies interested in making business investments in the U.S. Each chapter is authored by highly-qualified professionals who regularly advise foreign investors. The Business Structure chapter offers an overview of common business structures for foreign investors. SelectUSA is the Department of Commerce program dedicated to facilitating and promoting high-impact business investment into the United States. View the chapter here.

Manufacturing Industry Group Outlook: 2022 teaser
February 2022

Manufacturing Industry Group Outlook: 2022

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
January 4, 2022

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About


News


June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
February 13, 2026

Jeff White Shares Legal and Commercial Trends for Manufacturing Industry in 2026

Aerospace Manufacturing and Design
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
February 13, 2026

Jeff White Shares Legal and Commercial Trends for Manufacturing Industry in 2026

Aerospace Manufacturing and Design
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
September 10, 2025

Jeff White Discusses Tariff Implications and Supply Chains Under Stress on Industry Today Podcast

Industry Insights
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
April 24, 2025

Jeff White Quoted Extensively on Use of Force Majeure as Tariff Strategy

Aviation Week
January 15, 2025

Jeff White Quoted in the Hartford Business Journal on Tariffs Impact in CT Manufacturing Industry

Hartford Business Journal
January 14, 2025

Jeff White Discusses Male Allyship and How the Manufacturing Industry Can Close the Gender Gap on Women in Manufacturing Podcast

Hear Her Story

September 10, 2025

Jeff White Discusses Tariff Implications and Supply Chains Under Stress on Industry Today Podcast

Industry Insights
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
April 24, 2025

Jeff White Quoted Extensively on Use of Force Majeure as Tariff Strategy

Aviation Week
January 15, 2025

Jeff White Quoted in the Hartford Business Journal on Tariffs Impact in CT Manufacturing Industry

Hartford Business Journal
January 14, 2025

Jeff White Discusses Male Allyship and How the Manufacturing Industry Can Close the Gender Gap on Women in Manufacturing Podcast

Hear Her Story

Events


Past

Navigating Legal Essentials in Distributor Agreements & IP Protection

May 6 2026
U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration's Mastering International Distributor Success Seminar
Past

Navigating Legal Essentials in Distributor Agreements & IP Protection

Oct 22 2025
U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration Mastering International Distributor Success Seminar
Past

Navigating Legal Essentials in Distributor Agreements & IP Protection

May 6 2026
U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration's Mastering International Distributor Success Seminar
Past

Navigating Legal Essentials in Distributor Agreements & IP Protection

Oct 22 2025
U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration Mastering International Distributor Success Seminar
Past

Legal Updates on Supply Chain Trends Impacting Company

Oct 14 2025
Aerospace Components Manufacturers Business Development Meeting
Past

Regulatory Changes, Supply Chain Risks, and Sanctions: Rightsizing Your Compliance Program

May 8 2025
Manufacturers Alliance Webinar, underwritten by Dow Jones Risk & Compliance
Past

Dealing with Change and Building a Sustainable Culture

May 6 2025
CBIZ Manufacturing Forum
Past

Accelerate Business Growth: Strategies for Raising Capital and Increasing Enterprise Value

Apr 10 2025
ManufactureCT's 2025 Growth Strategies
Past

Legal Updates on Supply Chain Trends Impacting Company

Oct 14 2025
Aerospace Components Manufacturers Business Development Meeting
Past

Regulatory Changes, Supply Chain Risks, and Sanctions: Rightsizing Your Compliance Program

May 8 2025
Manufacturers Alliance Webinar, underwritten by Dow Jones Risk & Compliance
Past

Dealing with Change and Building a Sustainable Culture

May 6 2025
CBIZ Manufacturing Forum
Past

Accelerate Business Growth: Strategies for Raising Capital and Increasing Enterprise Value

Apr 10 2025
ManufactureCT's 2025 Growth Strategies

Manufacturing Law Blog


Below is an excerpt of Manufacturing Law Blog posts authored by Jeffrey.

2026 Corporate Compliance & Litigation Outlook for Manufacturers

In late 2012, we created the Manufacturing Law Blog with the goal of providing our manufacturing clients with a holistic approach to the unique issues they face in their global operations.  Starting in 2016, we began a tradition of dedicating our first three posts of the year to a yearly outlook from different vantage points. Here are corporate compliance and litigation issues that manufacturers might expect to face in 2026: Tariffs are here to stay: We are all waiting to see how the United States Supreme Court rules on the legality of the “reciprocal tariffs.” There is a significant amount of activity regarding the “what ifs” surrounding the ruling, including whether companies will be able to seek refunds. What is more certain, however, is that there is no indication that the administration will return to a “low tariff” environment. The manufacturing industry will continue to be impacted by the steel and aluminum (232 tariffs) as well as other similar tariffs developed over time. We have worked with many manufacturers to mitigate their tariff exposure through various means, which will continue in 2026. M&A Activity will continue to be hot for manufacturers of all sizes: In 2025, our group handled over 15 transactions; some were for corporate buyers and others were for private equity; some were acquisitions and others were sales; and some were very large in terms of transaction size and others were small. The M&A market for small to medium sized manufacturers will remain hot. The key for all businesses is to be prepared and have your advisory team in place—the competition for deals remains fierce.   Business to business disputes are becoming more prevalent: Everyone always talks about lawsuits that make the news. But for many manufacturers, there are disputes that never make the headlines and, frankly, never make it to court. We are always advising companies behind the scenes as they try to enforce contractual rights or defend against them with sensitivity for business issues. Too often, lawyers forget that disputes can be opportunities to keep and expand business—just as much as it may destroy relationships. Further, if you are going to get into a contract dispute with someone, the key is to learn from it and improve the contractual language moving forward. Too many manufacturers are relying on templates and that can burn companies when enforcement is required.   

Visit Blog

Thriving in Disruption: The Future of Manufacturing

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Susan Poeton, Editor of Industry Today, one of the leading U.S. manufacturing industry trade publications, for its “Industry Insights” podcast. During the episode, Susan and I focused on three primary issues impacting manufacturing now and likely into 2026: Implications of tariffs, Supply chains under stress, and How technology is transforming how manufacturing companies operate Drawn from my experience with clients around the globe, I share insights on how manufacturers can adapt to shifts in workforce, embrace innovation and stay competitive in a changing landscape. Listen here:

Visit Blog

Using Force Majeure as Tariff Strategy

Recently, I shared insights about the use of force majeure with Aviation Week Executive Editor Michael Bruno for his story, “Aerospace Industry Mulls Force Majeure In Wake Of Tariffs.” In light of anticipated tariffs this year, aerospace suppliers are searching for strategies to account for higher prices in their operations and financial plans. Reviewing their contracts, they may be disappointed that force majeure may not provide the hoped for protection against a sudden spike in prices. “The aerospace and defense community just needs to recognize that this is not the first time that somebody has tried to claim force majeure because of a tariff,” I said. “It’s not the panacea.” I indicated that not only does the application of force majeure depend on which country you are in, but in the U.S., it depends on the state that is the venue for legal disputes. Some states take a restrictive approach and require a triggering event cited for invoking force majeure that typically includes destructive fires, labor strikes, acts of God, etc. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, I added that the industry has learned to make sure the words “pandemic” and “epidemic” are listed in their contracts and that future force majeure clauses in supplier contracts will include “tariff.” Industry seemed to be headed for a wave of force majeure invocations during COVID-19, but the wave never arrived. “In COVID-19, a lot of aerospace and defense companies did not formally send those letters in the traditional way, which was, ‘I declare force majeure, I trigger the contract provision, and I’m basically starting the clock,’” I pointed out. “They sent letters that said, ‘We might declare force majeure, and we just want to give you a heads-up warning.’ I think, just like in COVID-19, there are going to be winners and losers with respect to the ability to have those negotiations and how productive those negotiations are.” Read the article.

Visit Blog

2025 Corporate Compliance & Litigation Outlook for Manufacturers

This week’s post includes insight shared for the article “How will potential tariffs impact CT manufacturers/supply chains? It’s a key issue in 2025,” published in the Hartford Business Journal’s Economic Forecast issue on January 13, 2025. In late 2012, we created the Manufacturing Law Blog with the goal of providing our manufacturing clients with a holistic approach to the unique issues they face in their global operations. Starting in 2016, we began a tradition of dedicating our first three posts of the year to a yearly outlook from our different vantage points. Here are corporate compliance and litigation issues that manufacturers might expect to face in 2025: 1.   Everyone wants to talk about the “T” word – Tariffs.  We will be monitoring these developments closely, including on the raw material side. Do not lose sight of the impact of tariffs on foreign companies who already have operations in the United States. Several of our clients who have subsidiaries based in the United States are discussing whether to expand their manufacturing operations. The potential expansion is related to tariffs, but also to maintain flexibility in their operations throughout the world.  2.  The transformational trilateral trade agreement between the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom (AUKUS) is a hot topic heading into 2025. A lot of commentators are trying to predict whether the Trump Administration will walk away from the deal or re-negotiate it.  Significantly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made positive comments about AUKUS during his confirmation hearing. Connecticut and its manufacturing industrial base have invested a lot of time and effort promoting AUKUS and developing the infrastructure for companies to do business here. We have seen a significant uptick of activity from Australian companies in Connecticut as one example. Whether this momentum continues in 2025 will be something I will be watching carefully. 3.  Collaboration remains key amongst manufacturers. Several manufacturers are “teaming” together to develop products, including as part of government contracting bids (both in the United States and abroad). There are pros and cons to such collaborative efforts and we have been advising clients how to avoid the major pitfalls with sharing your intellectual property with other companies, including competitors. In 2025, I expect these collaborative efforts to continue.

Visit Blog

Multiples, Multiples, Multiples! Why Manufacturing Companies Should Look Beyond EBIDTA Multiples

What are you hearing? What do the “multiples” look like in my [insert sub-industry] in manufacturing?  These are two common questions that I get asked a lot by owners and executives at manufacturing companies. Granted, we are involved in many M&A transactions – particularly in the lower middle market. We represent buyers and sellers, and over the past five years, we have been involved in a lot of transactions.  For buyers, our clients tend to be “strategics” or “corporates” that are looking to acquire other manufacturing companies for a various reasons. Sometimes, strategics are looking to diversify their product lines or expand their customer base. In the past few years, sometimes it is simply to obtain “talent” at both the executive and non-executive levels. A number of companies were flush with cash on their balance sheets after COVID-19 and are looking to deploy capital.  We also have clients that are “financial sponsors,” including private equity firms. There is no shortage of PEs that are looking to acquire (typically at least a majority interest) of manufacturers in certain industries. The hottest industry for PEs typically is aerospace and defense although be careful not to generalize that interest as PEs focus on certain sub-sectors of A&D companies to acquire based on the market. For sellers, we typically represent small to mid-size privately held manufacturers – many of which are family-owned and operated. Sometimes, the sellers hire investment bankers to aid in that process – sometimes not. Sometimes, there are “auctions” where several potential suitors are brought in to bid and other times there are so-called “proprietary” transactions where one lucky buyer has exclusive rights to negotiate with the seller.  One theme throughout all of these transactions is the never-ending search for a proper business valuation. The short-hand way that many companies get there is through a “multiple” that compares the total value of a company’s operations relative to its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. There are a number of people out there who write countless articles about whether EBIDTA multiples make sense or not. This is not the point of this post. Rather, when manufacturers call me to ask what other companies in their sector are getting for “multiples’ they likely want to just multiple that “X” (e.g., 5X, 8X, 12X) times their EBIDTA (typically over the trailing twelve months, as may be adjusted) to get a sense of the enterprise value if they were to sell.  Oftentimes, they may not want to sell. Sometimes they do.  As one of my CEO clients tells me, “multiples are NOT a random force on value. There are many factors driving it.” As an example, the ultimate transaction price is often driven by customer contracts, margins, a track record, sound management, etc. And, it is not coincidence that higher multiples come down the pike when a company’s EBIDTA is higher.  What is my main message when I get those calls? Just be careful not to distill your business down to one number. A manufacturing business is a complex, living, breathing organism and there are lot of factors that go into valuation. We can help with the legal aspects of the acquisition or sales process obviously – just go into it with an open mind about the potential outcomes.

Visit Blog

Buy American and Buy European

This week’s post was co-authored by Robinson+Cole Business Litigation Group lawyer Sabrina M. Galli. The Buy American Act was originally passed by Congress in 1933 and has undergone numerous changes across several presidential administrations. While the core of the Act has essentially remained the same, requiring the U.S. government to purchase goods produced in the U.S. in certain circumstances, the domestic preference requirements have changed over the years. While the Buy American Act applies to direct government purchases, the separate (but similarly named) Buy America Act passed in 1982 imposes similar U.S. content requirements for certain federally funded infrastructure projects. Generally, the Buy American Act’s “produced in the U.S.” requirement ensures that federal government purchases of goods valued at more than $10,000 are 100% manufactured in the U.S. with a set percentage of the cost of components coming from the U.S. As of 2024, that set percentage has been increased to 65%. Therefore, the cost of domestic components must be at least 65% of the total cost of components to comply with the rule. Under the existing rules, the threshold will increase to 75% in 2029. These planned changes are consistent with the trend of increasing preferences for domestic goods over time (a trend that has continued across administrations from both sides of the political spectrum). Unsurprisingly, protectionist policies favoring American production can produce similar protectionist measures enacted by foreign countries. The European Union’s (EU) European Green Deal Industrial Plan (sometimes referred to as the Buy European Act), which includes the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), were both formally adopted within the last few months. The NZIA, which was agreed upon in February, is aimed at the manufacture of clean technologies in Europe and sets two benchmarks for such manufacturing in the EU: (1) that 40% of the production needed to cover the EU will be domestic by 2030; and (2) that the EU’s production will account for at least 15% of the world’s production by 2040. The NZIA contains a list of net-zero technologies, including wind and heat pumps, battery and energy storage, hydropower, and solar technologies. The CRMA, adopted on March 18, sets forth objectives for the EU’s consumption of raw materials by 2030: that 10% come from local extractions; 40% to be processed in the EU; and 25% come from recycled materials. The CRMA also provides that “not more than 65% of the Union’s annual consumption of each strategic raw material at any relevant stage of processing from a single third country.”[1] While Europe’s new acts are perhaps more geared towards raw materials and clean technology, the U.S. and Europe’s concerted efforts to focus on domestic production will be something to watch for years to come. In particular, it is worth watching whether the recent EU measures generate a response from U.S. lawmakers. If so, it could accelerate the already increasing stringency of Buy American and Buy America requirements. [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-industrial-policy/

Visit Blog

Why The Secrecy?  U.S. Privately Held Manufacturers Can Benefit From Revealing More Information On Their Websites

Stop me if you have seen this before. You visit the website of a U.S. privately held manufacturer, and you click on the “About Us” page (if one exists) to find only generic information that could describe any manufacturing business in the United States. There often is no listing of who runs the business – let alone who owns it – and sometimes, there is no information as to how big the facility is or how many employees work there. Often, there is no information as to when the business was founded or its history.  Contrast that with many international privately held businesses – including in Europe. The websites often have a listing of the executive team, ownership information, employee headcount, and most importantly the top line revenue of the business (and perhaps even its profitability).  Why the difference? Why are international businesses more transparent?  The answer to these questions is not readily obvious, but at least in part, the “secrecy” that U.S. businesses have as to the ownership and or revenue information is baked into U.S. corporate law. Up until the time of the passage of the Corporate Transparency Act, lawyers would always talk about the fact that forming in Delaware (as an example) was straightforward and that much of the company’s underlying information would not need to be disclosed. Often, our international clients are surprised by this, as the disclosure rules outside the United States can be extreme, including the disclosure of passports as an example. I have represented a lot of privately held manufacturers and I understand why certain companies do not want to disclose information. However, I would maintain that U.S. privately held businesses should consider more disclosure – not less – for a few reasons. First, in an era where manufacturers are desperate to find employees, transparency can only help. Knowing who owns the company, who runs it, how big it is, how many employees work there, and the history (i.e., stability) of the organization can be an effective recruiting tool. Second, this information can also help potential customers as they conduct diligence on whether to do business with you. There are other reasons as well. At the very least, U.S. privately held manufacturers should think about whether maintaining secrecy of all information is actually helping them in any way or just serving as a barrier for growth.

Visit Blog

2024 Corporate Compliance & Litigation Outlook for Manufacturers

This week’s post includes an excerpt from our co-authored article “PFAS will be increasing concern for manufacturers in year ahead,” published in the Hartford Business Journal’s Economic Forecast issue on January 8, 2024. There are a lot of trends that we could identify for corporate compliance / litigation, but the one that stands out for me relates to contracts – the lifeblood for many of our clients.  COVID-19 exposed the weaknesses in our global supply chains and in the business-to-business contracts that drive the entire system. Manufacturers need to review their long-term agreements or standard terms and conditions if they sell “purchase order to purchase order.” Most manufacturers are on high alert for business and/or legal terms that can significantly impact their margins, legal rights, etc. What has changed in the past few years that will only increase in 2024? The rise in the use of contractual templates. Companies — big and small — are looking for ways to make their contracting process more “efficient,” and thus, everyone is pulling out a template that has been approved up the chain of command. These templates are filled with contractual clauses — some that make sense and others that do not. These templates also contain clauses that often have no relevance to the actual contractual negotiation that is going on. Templates have made contracts longer in length — not shorter. And, because of all the extraneous language and clauses that are included to make the template effective, the negotiations are dragging on for months. Time will tell if the manufacturing industry moves away from the templates to get deals done quicker in 2024 and beyond.

Visit Blog

Unraveling the Confusion: Buy America, Buy American, Made in USA – Part 2

Last month, I offered the first in a series of blog posts that attempt to simplify the various laws that are often described as a single law: “Buy America,” “Buy American,” “Made in the USA,” “Made in America,” and “Build Back Better.”  First, I want to return to the cliffhanger from the last post:  Did you know that George Washington wore a brown suit to his inauguration? Washington did not want to wear a military uniform. He also did not want to wear a civilian suit that was made anywhere but the United States.  Question:  Where do you find a suit in 1789?  Answer:  You ask Henry Knox, your Secretary of War, to get it for you of course.  Question:  Where did Knox get the suit from? Answer:  The Hartford Woolen Manufactury after Washington wrote to Knox on January 29, 1789, and suggested he go to Hartford, Connecticut, “where I perceive a Manufactury of them is established.” Economic nationalism has existed since the founding of the country. Two of the more well-known nationalist policies are “Buy American” and “Buy America.”  Yes, these are two different laws that have different requirements. “Buy American” was passed by Congress in 1933 and signed by President Hoover during his last day of office.  It applies to all purchases of goods by the U.S. federal government valued at more than $10,000. The law requires that such goods purchased be produced in the U.S. although the requirement may be waived under certain circumstances.  “Produced in the U.S.” = 100% manufactured in the U.S. with a set percentage of the cost of components coming from the U.S. Historically, the set percentage of cost of components was 50%, but things have changed over time:  Raised to 55% in 2021 Raised to 60% in October 2022 Set to increase to 65% in 2024 and 75% by 2029 In contrast, the “Buy America” Act was a provision of Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.  It relates to mass transit related procurements that are funded at least in part by federal programs. The Buy America Act bars the award of federal financial assistance for infrastructure unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the U.S. For Iron and Steel Products: “Produced in the U.S.” = All manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States. For Manufactured Products: “Produced in the U.S.” = (1) the product was manufactured in the United States; and (2) the cost of the product’s components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States exceeds the required percentage of the total cost of the product’s component. Got it straight?  In our next post, we will discuss the Biden’s Administration “Build America, Buy America (BABA) law,” along with the important topic of seeking waiver of its requirements.

Visit Blog

Unraveling the Confusion: Buy America, Buy American, Made in USA – Part 1

There is massive confusion both in the manufacturing community and the popular press. Even some of the well-respected industry publications have had a hard time getting it right.  We see and hear the terms all the time:  “Buy America,” “Buy American,” “Made in the USA,” “Made in America,” “Build Back Better.” While all of these terms have a tinge of economic nationalism, very few manufacturers can unravel not only what each of the terms means but what type of economic opportunity might exist. This is the first in a series of posts that attempts to simplify (if possible) the various laws that exist and how they may be relevant for manufacturers. First, let’s get the misconceptions out of the way: “Buy American” and “Buy America” are the same thing. They are the same thing as “Made in America” and “Made in the USA.” These are new laws passed by the Biden administration. All these laws are controlled by one agency. All of these statements are wrong.  Second, a history lesson. Economic nationalism or “protectionist” policies have been around since the United States was founded.  Did you know that George Washington wore a brown suit to his inauguration? Washington did not want to wear a military uniform. He also did not want to wear a civilian suit that was made anywhere but the United States.  Question:  Where do you find a suit in 1789?  Answer:  You ask Henry Knox, your Secretary of War, to get it for you of course.  Question:  Where did Knox get the suit from? Answer:  Wait until our next blog post!  We will answer that question and also begin by explaining the differences between “Buy American” and “Buy America.” Yes, amazingly, they are different laws. 

Visit Blog