Myles Getlan comes to Pitt Law from Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP. There, Getlan’s practice focuses on international trade compliance and enforcement matters and trade and investment disputes arising under international agreements. In the international compliance arena, Mr. Getlan advises clients in customs, export controls and economic sanctions, and anti-corruption matters.
Mr. Getlan has significant experience litigating anti-dumping and countervailing duty disputes before US and foreign administrative agencies, US courts, and dispute settlement panels convened under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In both trade regulation and litigation, Mr. Getlan has represented foreign governments, trade associations, and multinational corporations in a variety of industries, including agriculture, metals, energy, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and wood products.
Mr. Getlan has been recognized by Who’s Who Legal as a leader in trade and customs law.
- “Risks in Using Transfer Pricing Studies in Customs Valuation,” Practical Trade & Customs Strategies, December 15, 2012 (Vol. 1, No. 7)
- “Importers to Face Significant Increased Costs with Free Trade Agreement Approvals,” North American Free Trade and Investment Report (Thomson Reuters), July 15, 2011
- “Assessing Ten Years of Dispute Settlement Under the Anti-Dumping Agreement: Does the WTO Provide Tangible Relief?,” chapter in Ten Years of WTO Dispute Settlement, International Bar Association (IBA); 2007 (co-author)
- “Trade Remedies and Preference Programs,” chapter in International Lawyer’s Deskbook, 2nd edition, American Bar Association (ABA); 2002, (co-author)
- “The Globalization of International Trade Litigation: AD/CVD Litigation — Which Forum and Which Law?” Brooklyn Journal of International Law; 2001 (Vol. 26, p. 893) (co-author)
- “WTO Dispute Settlement: Issues in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Law,” PLI; 1998 (speech and article)
- “TRIPs and the Future of Section 301: A Comparative Study in Trade Dispute Resolution,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law; 1995 (Vol. 34, p. 173)