集体诉讼[1]是美国联邦民事诉讼规则中一个非常重要也富有争议的法律制度。在传统的民事诉讼程序中，法院审理的是一个原告和一个被告之间的争议。在集体诉讼中，集体代表代表全体集体成员向法院提起诉讼。集体代表之外的缺席集体成员不是传统意义上的诉讼当事人，他们不参与诉讼程序。无论判决对集体成员是否有利或者不利，集体诉讼判决将约束所有集体成员。
在美国，集体诉讼比民事诉讼的任何其它领域更受到法院、立法机构、学术界和实务界的关注。集体诉讼涉及生活中受到广泛关注的各种问题，这些问题涉及石棉诉讼、飞机失事、证券欺诈、反垄断、消费者权益保护、环境保护、种族歧视、性别歧视、就业歧视、输血、烟草、公民权利保护、员工福利、产品责任等方面。同时，集体诉讼比民事诉讼的任何其他领域更有争议。赞成者主张，集体诉讼是美国“二十世纪程序法最重要的发展之一”。法院应更多地使用集体诉讼，以达到改良社会目的，同时为那些在经济上无法起诉的受害者提供救济。反对者认为，除了使公司破产、律师发财、法院积压案件外，集体诉讼一无是处。
Continue Reading...By Meg Utterback and Holly Blackwell King & Wood's Dispute Resolution Group
The concept of US discovery is very alien to the uninitiated litigant and particularly foreign to Chinese parties, because the Chinese litigation process is far different. China proceedings are conducted much like other civil code jurisdictions, with the parties proffering only evidence that supports the claims or defenses. US discovery is intended to uncover both supporting and damaging evidence. US discovery rules provide litigants liberal access to information possessed by opponents, and even third parties, such as internal company emails, documents, records, and policies. Disclosure of requested information may be required, even though such disclosure would be prohibited under PRC law. The Hague Convention provides one avenue of obtaining evidence located in China, but US courts are not always willing to require the use of the Hague Convention procedures where a party has submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court. Recent US cases demonstrate the challenges of requiring discovery from Chinese parties and the challenges that Chinese parties face in US courts.
Continue Reading...By King & Wood's Trademark Group
One reader puts forward some questions regarding tort liability of the on-line BBS owners:
I am interested in the court's decision in Wang Hai Yang case but do not read Chinese. I note that the case has been appealed and want to know the court's decision particularly on the tort liability law and the right to reputation and privacy. Since the Tort Liability Law came into effect, I want to know if there had been any changes to the court's interpretation to right to privacy and right to reputation after Wang Fei case.
For your questions, please see below our reply:
Continue Reading...By Guan Feng King & Wood's Finance Group
This article continues to discuss Insurance Benefits for Banks as Mortgagees. The first part of this article was published on Chinalawinsight on January 2012.
In practice, in order to insure the debt, the lender bank often signs an insurance assignment agreement with the borrower, in which the borrower will assign all insurance benefits(1) under the related property insurance policy(2) to the lender bank. The assignment of rights becomes effective at the moment when the assignment contract is signed, or when the borrower defaults on the loan. Meanwhile, the endorsement slip, in which the insured designates the bank as the "first beneficiary" under the insurance policy, confirms the rights of the bank. To evaluate the feasibility of the insurance assignment contract, the fundamental approach from an insurance law perspective is to assess the nature of the insurance benefits assigned.
Continue Reading...本文分两部分刊登， 2012年1月16日金杜法律博客(Chinalawinsight)刊登的了本文的第一部分。文章第二部分将继续对《文件名》进行解读。
从目前的行业惯例来看，为了保证借款人偿还贷款，银行往往会与借款人签订保险转让合同，约定借款人向银行转让相关财产保险单（1）项下的所有保险收益（2）。权利转让可能发生在转让合同签署之时，也有可能发生在借款人违约之时。与此同时，保险公司出具批单，以将银行列为保险单项下第一收益人（“first beneficial”）的方式，确认银行的权利。如果要判断这种转让保险收益行为的可行性，就必须从基础理论出发，了解保险收益转让的实质。
Continue Reading...By You Yang and Lin Kaiyi King & Wood's Real Estate Group
This article continues to discuss Risk Management for China's Real Estate Pooled Investment Funds. The first part of this article was published on Chinalawinsight on December 2011.
B. Inherent Risks of Real Estate Trust Products
Inherent risks are closely related to the characteristics of real estate trust products and thus ingrained in such products as follows:
a. Real estate pooled funds generate returns through specific assets
Real estate pooled funds generate and distribute returns by structuring the priority of beneficial interests: according to the financing agreement between trust companies and real estate developers, trust companies raise funds from the public for specific acquisition projects and guarantee investors' beneficial interests as a priority payment. The parent companies or actual controllers (usually real estate developers) of the specific acquisition project transfer shares to the trust companies to gain secondary beneficial interests. Therefore, real estate developer's interests are bound to the priority interests of investors and trust companies distribute returns to beneficiaries in a particular order.
Continue Reading...本文分两部分刊登， 2011年12月19日金杜法律博客(Chinalawinsight)刊登的了本文的第一部分。文章第二部分将继续对《浅论房地产集合资金信托产品的风险及控制》进行解读。
2、各类房地产信托产品的固有风险
尽管房地产信托产品种类繁多，但是各类信托产品都有其固有风险，这些风险与该类信托产品的特性紧密结合，根植于该类信托产品之中。例如：
(1) 以特定资产收益权为投资对象的信托计划
这类信托常与结构化信托相结合，典型的结构化特定资产收益权信托的模型是：信托公司与交易对手达成协议后，信托公司向公众募集资金并赋予其优先级受益权，并以募集来的资金收购项目公司的特定房地产项目的收益权。同时，项目公司的母公司或实际控制人将项目公司的股权转让与信托公司，并获得次级受益权，借此将房地产开发商的利益与优先级受益权人的利益进行绑定。在信托计划到期后，信托公司首先向优先级受益人分配信托利益，之后再向次级受益人分配剩余信托利益。
Continue Reading...By King & Wood's Trademark Group
A "geographic indication" is a sign used on a product that indicates a specific geographical origin and that the product possesses qualities or a reputation or other features that are associated with that place of origin. That is, the sign represents the geographical origin of the goods in a certain territory or area or region within the territory. The specific quality, reputation or other features of the goods are primarily related to the place of origin. Even if goods fall within the same category, they share a different quality and reputation due to the natural or cultural factors of different geographical origins.
The geographic indication is considered one of the most important symbols that distinguishes between goods of different origins. The protection of geographic indications can prompt economic development in a specific area or a country, and can also protect the legal interest of the manufacturer and consumers of the goods marked with the geographic indications. As such, the protection of geographic indications needs to be consolidated.
Continue Reading...作者：金杜律师事务所商标组
地理标志，是指标示某商品来源于某地区，该商品的特定质量、信誉或者其他特征，主要由该地区的自然因素或者人文因素所决定的标志。也就是说，地理标志代表了在某个特定区域或在某个特定区域内的地区的商品的原产地。而该商品的特定质量、信誉或其他特征在很大程度上与商品的原产地密切相关。即便是同种类的商品来自于不同的地区，由于自然因素或人文因素的不同导致商品的质量和信誉也不尽相同。
地理标志目前已经成为区分商品来源的最重要的标志之一。对于地理标志的保护不仅可以刺激某个特定地区或国家的经济发展，而且可以保护生产商和消费者的合法权益。因此，对于地理标志的保护是十分必要的。
Continue Reading...By Liu Cheng and Linda Davinson King & Wood's Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Group
A significant recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit temporarily concludes the U.S.-China tire wars in the case of GPX International Tire Corporation and Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd et al v. United States et al. The U.S. Federal Court held that existing U.S. countervailing duty law cannot be applied to non-market economy (NME) countries including China, affirming the U.S. International Trade Court's decision but on different grounds.
Shortly thereafter, China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) highlighted the U.S. Federal Court's decision by issuing a statement to the United States to not impose countervailing duties on Chinese imports because to do so would violate the rules of the World Trade Organization and prevailing U.S. law.
Continue Reading...长期以来，可变利益实体结构（即Variable Interest Entity，“VIE”结构）一直是外国投资者进入中国外商投资限制领域的常用模式。与此同时，VIE结构一直以来也是中国境内企业在境外资本市场实现上市的常用做法。
第一个通过VIE结构上市的著名案例便是新浪，其于2000在美国纳斯达克成功上市。实际上，VIE结构的另一种常用的说法就是“新浪模式”。新浪使用VIE结构成功绕开了中国电信增值产业对于外商投资的限制。从那以后，无论是外国投资者还是国内投资者在中国很多限制或禁止外商投资的领域开始复制使用VIE结构。
VIE结构实质上是指一种安排，根据该安排，在中国境内的一家全资或合资外商投资企业（“控股公司”）取得另一家实际运营公司（“运营公司”）的控制权，而该运营公司则持有必要的许可以在限制或禁止外商投资的领域内开展业务。由于这些产业被中国政府规定为限制或禁止外商投资的产业，所以外国投资无法直接向该运营公司进行投资。相应的，外国投资者会在控股公司和运营公司之间采取多种合同安排，以便使该控股公司获得对运营公司的运作和管理的实际控制权。该运营公司的利润也将流回控股公司，并其业绩将最终纳入控股公司。
作为世界第二大经济体，中国逐步出现在世界经济舞台的中心，中国的经济和法制也不断发生变化。随着中国国家知识产权保护体系的不断完善，专利投入快速增长，越来越显示出中国创新政策的优势，专利申请也出现了自己的特色。中国公司也创造了大量专有的知识产权，并对外国公司和中国当地的竞争对手提起侵权诉讼。中国第三次专利法修正案[1] （“新专利法”）也在很多方面改变了中国专利实务和程序。
这些新变化对所有中国境内开展的公司将产生深远的影响，特别是发展很大程度上依赖知识产权的公司。应对这些重要变化的最好的方式是什么呢？中国境内公司在设计其中国专利战略时，至少要考虑到下述几点要素。
Continue Reading...By Guan Feng King & Wood's Finance Group
Banks usually require a borrower to provide a mortgage on their property as security for the bank's loan. However, under China's laws, a mortgagee is not entitled to directly receive insurance benefits or indemnification relating to the mortgaged property. If the mortgagee cannot be directly indemnified when the mortgaged property suffers damage or loss, the mortgagee bears the risk of being under-secured on its loan since it does not have a priority right to the insurance proceeds. Although the mortgagee can seek indemnification from the borrower if the borrower has been reimbursed with insurance benefits, ideally the bank should directly receive indemnification for the loss in value of its security.
In practice, the lender bank usually requires the borrower to insure the mortgaged property and designate the bank as the "first beneficiary" in the property insurance contract. In this way, the bank can directly obtain indemnification if the mortgaged property suffers damage or loss due to insured incidents. However, under the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China ("Insurance Law"), the term "beneficiary" is only defined in life insurance rather than in property insurance. On September 23, 1992, the Department of Real Estate Credit of the Construction Bank of China promulgated the Interim Measures of Employees Mortgage, which defined the term of "first beneficiary". However, the Measures for the Administration of Individual Housing Loans promulgated by the People's Bank of China on May 9, 1998 phased out the "first beneficiary" concept. Thus, since there is no definition for "beneficiary" in property insurance under China's current laws, the question of whether such a "beneficiary" is entitled to any direct claim to indemnity remains a myth in the property insurance contract. In order to clarify this issue, the High Court of Shanghai, in its 2009 and 2010 White Paper on Trial Judgments in Financial Cases, instructed that a beneficiary can only be specified in a life insurance contract according to the relevant provisions of the Insurance Law and instructions of the Supreme Court of China.
Continue Reading...作者 宁宣凤、吉凯伦、尹冉冉
2011年12月30日，商务部发布了《未依法申报经营者集中调查处理暂行办法》（“暂行办法”），将于2012年2月1日正式实施。该暂行办法就达到申报标准但未依法申报的经营者集中，规定了调查处理程序。
根据暂行办法，任何单位和个人均有权向商务部举报涉嫌应报未报的经营者集中，商务部也可能通过其他途径获得相关信息。如果有初步事实和证据表明存在未依法申报嫌疑，商务部就应当立案，并书面通知被调查的经营者。
Continue Reading...在抵押贷款中，银行为了担保债权利益的实现，通常会要求借款人提供抵押物担保，但是，如果抵押物因客观原因发生毁损、灭失，由于法律没有赋予抵押权人直接扣押抵押物的保险金、补偿金等赔偿金的权利，因此，抵押权人在取得抵押物的赔偿金之前，存在不能就抵押物的赔偿金优先受偿的风险。为此，银行作为抵押权人希望直接受领抵押物的赔偿金，以实现其债权利益。
实践中，银行通常会要求借款人对抵押物投保，并在保险单中指定银行为“第一受益人”，以使银行在保险事故发生后，能直接受领抵押物的保险赔偿金。但是，在我国的《保险法》上，只在人身保险中规定了受益人，在财产保险中未规定。中国建设银行房地产信贷部在1992年9月23日颁布的《职工住房抵押贷款暂行办法》中曾出现过“第一受益人”的概念，但是中国人民银行于1998年5月9日颁发的《个人住房贷款管理办法》中已没有“第一受益人”的概念。因此，在我国目前的法律规定中，暂且没有关于财产保险中受益人的规定。财产保险中的受益人享有的是什么性质的权利，是否因此而取得了保险金请求权，在法律没有明确规定的情况下，都不甚明确。为此，上海市高院在2009年度和2010年度的《金融审判白皮书》中，也明确：根据保险法和最高法院有关规定，受益人仅可在人身保险合同中设置。并且建议保险公司对已签订的合同进行清理、批改，以保障投保人的信赖利益。
Continue Reading...By Susan Ning, Ji Kailun and Hazel Yin
On 30 December 2011, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") promulgated the Interim Measures on Investigation and Punishment of Failure to Duly Notify Concentrations of Undertakings (《未依法申报经营者集中调查处理暂行办法》, "Interim Measures"), effective from February 1, 2012.1 The Interim Measures set down the procedures for MOFCOM to investigate and penalize companies for failure to notify a notifiable transaction in violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML").
According to the Interim Measures, MOFCOM shall initiate an investigation ("case acceptance") if there is prima facie evidence, either presented by any third party or it obtains through other channels, indicating that a company fails to notify a notifiable transaction.
作者：金杜律师事务所金融组
2011年12月7日，商务部、中国银行业监督管理委员会、中国保险监督管理委员会颁布了《对外承包工程项目投标（议标）管理办法》(简称“投标管理办法”)。投标管理办法对之前适用的相关规定做出了较大的改动，对企业的要求更加明确和具体，同时也扩大了银行开展相关业务时的要求。当前，中资工程项目承包类企业在海外的业务日益壮大和发展，而在这一过程中中资银行提供的支持是极其重要的一环。因此，在业务开展中，企业和银行需要注意新的投标管理办法中的相关要求。投标管理办法将自2012年1月15日起施行。
投标管理办法提出的具体要求和对之前的规定作出调整的领域主要包括：
Continue Reading...By Richard W. Wigley of King & Wood's Dispute Resolution Group
Data privacy for internet users is a topic of concern the world over, with the P.R.C. being no exception. Internet information service providers (hereinafter also referred to as "IISPs"), such as commercial websites, regularly collect information from online visitors, sometimes with full knowledge of the visitors and sometimes unknown to the visitors. In addition, IISPs have been known to maliciously introduce software incompatible with the user's existing software, install certain software such as "spyware" onto users' computers/mobile devices and/or change users' browser configurations without permission, and it goes without saying that "pop up ads" are an ongoing online annoyance. As online users in the P.R.C. look for protections from such unwanted invasions of their privacy and restrictions upon user control of their online experience, the recently released "Several Provisions on Regulating the Market Order for Internet Information Services" (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions") provides needed rules and regulations in this regard.[1]
Continue Reading...By Richard W. Wigley and Xu Jing King & Wood's Dispute Resolution Group
The means available for effective enforcement of settlement agreements associated with litigation is an issue which is often raised by litigants in the P.R.C. Specifically, it is often asked, what is a party's recourse should the other party breach a private settlement agreement, but where the breach occurs after the Appeal in the litigation at issue has been withdrawn? As P.R.C. law is a civil law system based upon the statutory law, there is no equivalent to the case precedent system of common law countries, such as the United States, Australia, and the U.K. There is relevant statutory law as provided in the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C., but there exist certain legal issues which may require additional clarification beyond the statutory law. With this in mind, as per the Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Case Guidance ("Provisions"), the Supreme People's Court does on occasion publish what it sees as "indicative" cases, where the decisions reached in the cases are deemed to be used as guidelines in relevant judicial review by the lower courts.[1]
Continue Reading...By Jiao Hongbin King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group
In December 2011, the Deputy Director of the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C. expressed that China would in the near future promote amendments to the Patent Law, the Trademark Law and the Copyright Law of the P.R.C. as well as associated regulations, increase the amount of fines, and conduct research on applying punitive damage awards to profit-generating intentional infringement and counterfeiting acts. This suggests that punitive damage awards may be adopted into China's intellectual property (IP) protection framework.
Liability for infringement can be compensatory or punitive, depending on the purpose of the compensation to be granted. According to the current Patent Law, Trademark Law and Copyright Law of the P.R.C., the amount of compensation is determined by the basis of compensation and is calculated in accordance with the actual losses suffered by the rights owner or the benefits obtained by the infringer (and by reference to the reasonable multiples of the royalties in a patent infringement case), and while neither of the two elements could be determined, a People's Court can award a statutory compensation amount within the scope provided by the law.
Continue Reading...作者：矫鸿彬 金杜知识产权组
2011年12月，中国国家知识产权局副局长贺化在全国外商机构保护知识产权座谈会上表示，今后一段时期，中国将加快修订有关法律法规和规章，将推进专利法、商标法、著作权法等法律及配套法规的修改，提高罚款数额，研究引入对营利性故意侵权和假冒伪劣行为的惩罚性赔偿制度。这表明，惩罚性赔偿制度将有可能被引入中国的知识产权保护体系中。
从赔偿的目的来看，侵权赔偿责任可以分为补偿性责任和惩罚性责任。根据中国现行的专利法、商标法和著作权法的规定，侵权赔偿数额的确定是以补偿性为原则，按照权利人所受到的实际损失或者侵权人所获得的利益确定（专利侵权案件中还可以参照专利许可使用费的倍数合理确定），二者均难以确定的情况下，则由人民法院在法律规定的范围内确定法定赔偿数额。
Continue Reading...By Wu Wei and Su Shaohua King & Wood's Dispute Resolution Group
Under China's anti-bribery laws, the value of bribes in commercial bribery cases is calculated on a cumulative basis in the conviction and sentencing process. However, such calculations may yield varying results in practice. According to our experience, due to a lack of clarity in the law and various policy rationale for fighting corruption, cumulative calculations give rise to risks of criminal liability, whether seen as accepting or offering bribes.
A. Legislation
a. The second paragraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China(1) ("Criminal Law") provides:" Toward those who have committed repeated crimes of graft, all amounts of graft of unhandled cases are to be added in meting out punishment." Article 386 of Criminal Law provides:" whoever commits the crime of accepting bribes is to be punished on the basis of Article 383 of this law according to the amount of bribes and the circumstances. A heavier punishment shall be given where a bribe was specifically demanded."
Continue Reading...对贿赂犯罪定罪量刑时，行贿受贿数额在何种情形下会被累计计算，实务中的做法不统一。在司法实践经验中，由于法律规定不够明确、打击腐败的政策等原因， 无论是受贿还是行贿均存在被累计计算的法律风险。具体分析如下：
1、法律规定
（1）《中华人民共和国刑法》（1）（“《刑法》”）第三百八十三条第二款规定：“对多次贪污未经处理的，按照累计贪污数额处罚。”第三百八十六条规定：“对犯受贿罪的，根据受贿所得数额及情节，依照本法第三百八十三条的规定处罚。索贿的从重处罚。”
Continue Reading...by Feng Ai and Chen Xunan King & Wood's Finance Group
In the process of an Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), the issuer's intellectual property ("IP"), such as trademarks, patents, copyrights and know-how, is often directly related to the issuer's competitive advantage and long term profitability. The Examination and Verification Committee of the China Securities Regulatory Commission ("Examination and Verification Committee") often takes this fact into consideration.
This article focuses on IP rights from the perspective of A share public offerings, and particularly on trademark, patent, know-how and copyright issues that have caught the attention of the Examination and Verification Committee.
Continue Reading...A股首发上市（Initial Public Offerings，简称“IPO”）过程中，发行人的商标、专利、专有技术、版权等知识产权（Intellectual Property，简称“IP”），直接关系到发行人的核心竞争力、持续盈利能力等，历来为审核部门的关注重点。
本文侧重探讨的，系A股IPO法律规范框架内，被审核部门特别关注的商标、专利、专有技术、版权等广义的IP。
A股IPO法律规范框架内，与IP相关的核心规定主要散见于《首次公开发行股票并上市管理办法》、《首次公开发行股票并在创业板上市管理暂行办法》、《中国证券监督管理委员会股票发行审核委员会审核工作指导意见》等规范性文件。
Continue Reading...By Susan Ning, Liwei Wang and Hazel Yin
On 27 December 2011, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") made a press release on its major merger enforcement work in 2011.1 Mr. Shang Ming, Director General of MOFCOM's Anti-monopoly Bureau and Chairman of the General Office of the State Council's Anti-monopoly Commission, gave a briefing at the press release and responded to press inquiries.
According to Mr. Shang, from January to mid-December, 2011, MOFCOM received a total of 194 merger control filings, an increase of 43% compared to the same period last year. Among the received filings, 179 filings have been accepted and 160 filings have been reviewed and closed.
Of the 160 closed cases, 151 cases were granted unconditional approval (94%), 4 cases were granted conditional approval (3%), and 5 cases were withdrawn by the applicants after case acceptance (3%). A breakdown of the filings by the industrial classification for national economic activities is as follows:
Continue Reading...By Susan Ning and Yun Wang
On 29 December 2011, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology ("MIIT") finally promulgated the Various Provisions on Regulating the Order of Internet Information Service Market ("Rules"). Viewed by many as been driven by the QQ/360 disputes in late 2010, the Rules mainly set out the code of conducts for an internet information service provider ("IISP") vis-à-vis its competitors and consumers. The Rules also create a dispute resolution mechanism between IISPs.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.