Oman Fasteners Opens Malpractice Suit Against Perkins Coie for Mistakes in AD Proceedings

In the AD investigation, Perkins Coie attorneys didn't submit a fully translated surrogate financial statement from LSI, leading to the rejection of this submission and use of the statement from surrogate firm Hitech Fastener Manufacture (Thailand). Despite the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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.

Then, in the first review of the AD order, Perkins Coie attorneys missed a key filing deadline by 16 minutes, which led to a 154.33% total AFA antidumping duty rate for Oman Fasteners. However, the Federal Circuit eventually rejected this margin as an abuse of discretion (see 2501070084).

In filing a legal malpractice suit, Oman Fasteners, represented by trial firms Allegiant Law and Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, argued that throughout its representation of the exporter in AD proceedings, Perkins Coie made "a series of deadly mistakes." Oman Fasteners noted that Perkins Coie itself has said that the initial failure to submit the fully translated LSI statement directly accounted for the fact that Oman Fasteners received a non-de minimis AD rate.

The respondent said that over the next 10 years, "Perkins Coie assured Oman Fasteners that it could fix its mistake, and that the record could be re-opened to introduce the LSI statements and mitigate the damage caused to Oman Fasteners by the dumping order." But after two appeals to the Federal Circuit, "Perkins Coie failed," the brief said. "As a direct result, Oman Fasteners was forced to take part in expensive annual reviews to comply with the demanding dumping order, paying Perkins Coie millions of dollars to further defend it against Commerce’s demands and penalties resulting from the order that Perkins Coie’s failures had caused."

Oman Fasteners also contested the filing deadline mistake, which the company said was fatal to its business, leading to over $200 million in lost sales. While the high AD rate would eventually fall, "the damage it caused was irreversible," the complaint said. In addition, Oman Fasteners said the mistake was "completely avoidable," since all Perkins Coie had to do to avoid missing the deadline was to file an emergency extension request on the day the submission was due, which, if not granted, would have pushed the deadline to the start of the next business day.

"Instead, Perkins Coie let the clock count down and the filing was not complete until sixteen minutes after the deadline," the brief said.

Oman Fasteners said its "lawsuit seeks to make Oman Fasteners whole for the damages caused by Perkins Coie’s negligent representation and breaches of Oman Fasteners’ trust and confidence." The exporter is seeking compensatory damages, disgorgement of attorney fees and litigation expenses for bringing the malpractice claim.

After the complaint was filed, Judge Ketu Shah, who's presiding over the case, issued a case schedule, which sets the trial date for Nov. 16, 2026.