Big Year for Washington DC Law Firm Covington & Burling Defending Morocco’s OCP Against The Mosaic Company and the Ukrainian Government Against the Russian Federation

• The Mosaic Company has Russia’s and Morocco’s phosphate fertilizer subsidies investigated for Countervailing Duties (CVD)
• The Mosaic Company was utilizing its strategic foresight abilities due to the current trends in the global fertilizer market facing Morocco’s OCP
• The fertilizer import and supply situation in USA reveal that the uncertainties facing the global fertilizer markets are susceptible to geopolitical forces outside of the USA
• Covington & Burling’s international legal case outcomes will have an impact on industry trends that are concurrently altered by geopolitical shocks such as the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Backstory: Crisis Response

In a move to possibly avert or manage disruption of the global fertilizer industry during the Covid-19 pandemic, The Mosaic Company initiated a petition to have Russia’s and Morocco’s phosphate fertilizer subsidies investigated for Countervailing Duties (CVD) that unfairly harm USA fertilizer industry producers, which was also judged based on factors that would substantially affect national security imperatives for food security and supply chain security. When the United States International Trade Court (USITC) ruled in favor of The Mosaic Company, an association of farmers published their disapproval of and objections to the ruling that would ultimately lead to higher tariffs on phosphate fertilizer imports to the USA from Morocco and Russia.

Transition: Assessing Global Market Factors

It’s probable that The Mosaic Company was utilizing its strategic foresight abilities and predetermined judgements due, but not limited, to three factors at play in the global fertilizer market: 1.) China would likely restrict exports due to domestic supply concerns during the Covid-19 outbreak; 2.) Russia would likely restrict exports due to domestic supply concerns during the Covid-19 outbreak and external geopolitical concerns during the conflict with Ukraine; and (3.) Morocco would likely continue to increase its presence in the USA phosphate fertilizer market regardless of the USITC ruling.

Transformation: A Shift in Production and Exports

It goes without saying that the global fertilizer markets are closely correlated with and subjected to the demand for energy commodities, particularly oil and gas. On the one hand, USA has been determined to detach itself from oil and gas import dependence from the Middle East, Russia and other global producers and exporters. On the other hand, USA’s emergence as a major oil and gas producer is favorable to USA’s domestic fertilizer production industry, and in ways that have and will contribute to unprecendented outcomes for The Mosaic Company and other domestic producers and exporters. Since the availability of reliable oil and gas resources in the USA have been improved and more easily distributed to domestic producers, this circumstance and trend has transformed how the USA fertilizer industry can operate, both domestically and abroad, which has led to more preferable outcomes for The Mosaic Company and other domestic producers and exporters.

Opportunity & Risk: The Supply Situation and Geopolitical Forces

Evidence in both the fertilizer import and supply situation in USA, and geopolitical forces causing the Russia-Ukraine conflict and NATO dilemma to escalate on February 24, 2022, reveal that not only was The Mosaic Company acting in a prescient way when considering the future of its industry, but that the uncertainties facing the global fertilizer markets were and are susceptible to geopolitical forces outside of the USA, affecting both the short-term outlook and long-term dynamics of global fertilizer supply and demand.

Explanation & Reasoning: Legal Analysis and Event Outcomes

On March 1–2, 2022, Ukraine initiated a call for trial against the Russian Federation at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and World Court, to argue against Russia’s alleged claims of “genocide” and “racial discrimination” towards people of the Donetsk and Luhansk territories of Ukraine. In defending their status and positions, Russia has went as far as declaring these Ukrainian territories as “The People’s Republic of Donetsk” and “The People’s Republic of Luhansk.” Not to mention the military ramifications of the invasion, these political implications carry masive weight for what Russia is achieving under its military invasion campaign.

That’s why the upcoming legal cases, for which Ukraine is being represented by Washington D.C.-based law firm Covington & Burling, means a great deal of significance for how this whole affair is going to play out, because now the stakes of the conflict have been raised to higher levels of international court systems. Moreover, on March 3, 2022, the International Criminal Court (ICC) began their investigation into the alleged war crimes committed by the Russian Federation against “civilians” or “civilian objects” in Ukraine. This implies that under the circumstances of Russia’s ongoing military invasion of Ukraine, that International Humanitarin Law shall apply to all actions committed in light of events dating back to Feburary 24, 2022, or the initial origin point of the invasion.

Covington & Burling is the same international law firm representing Morocco’s OCP in their trade dispute case (ostensibly to appeal the USITC ruling) filed against The Mosaic Company. This case is still in the courts, but the outcome of this case should determine whether OCP still has any chance to succeed in the American market for their phosphate fertilizer exports. In other words, this writing serves a purpose to explain how legal case outcomes at the international levels (i.e. USTIC and ICJ) affect industry trends that are concurrently altered by geopolitical forces. Both the cases of Mosaic vs. OCP and Ukraine vs. Russia equally demonstrate how legal case outcome scenarios could provide insights on future events.