China Law Insight : China Law Insight: China Commercial and Intellectual Property Lawyers and Attorneys, Full Service Law Firm: King & Wood

美国现代集体诉讼起源于英国衡平法法院规则，随着英国殖民活动传到美国并在美国生根发芽成为美国民事诉讼法中一个极为重要的制度。1842年，美国制定《衡平法规则》，首次以成文法的方式对集体诉讼制度做了规定。美国集体诉讼的基本模式一直没有变化，但是它的规则随着时间推移而发生了实质性的变化。为了让判决对缺席的集体成员产生约束力，美国多次修订集体诉讼的规则。目前，美国联邦集体诉讼制度的法律渊源主要是1966年《联邦民事诉讼规则》第23条（包括1998年和2003年的两次修订）和2005年《集体诉讼公平法》。

一、集体成员

集体诉讼本质上是代表诉讼，即一个集体代表可以代表其他集体成员以集体名义提起诉讼。但是集体代表并不是集体成员选举产生的，在他出任集体代表时，集体代表并没有事先征求其他集体成员的意见或者取得其他集体成员的同意。集体代表是自封的，在集体代表以集体名义提起集体诉讼时，其他集体成员并不知道集体诉讼，更不用说是同意了。法院受理集体诉讼时，也不问集体诉讼是否得到了全体集体成员的同意。这是集体诉讼的最大特点，一个人可以未经他人许可，以他人名义提起诉讼。这也是反对集体诉讼的一个重要理由。因为这种做法剥夺了其他集体成员所享有的要求法院审理其案件的个人权利。

对于这个问题，集体诉讼规则采取了四种方式予以平衡各方利益：

第一，集体代表提起的集体诉讼必须取得法院认可，才能作为集体诉讼进行。集体代表提起的集体诉讼并不自动成为集体诉讼，它必须得到法院确认。这是集体诉讼很重要的一个程序。如果法院拒绝确认集体诉讼，集体代表只能撤回集体诉讼，或者继续他个人的诉讼。决定是否进行集体诉讼的主体是法院，法院成为其他集体成员的监护人。这是集体诉讼规则保护其他集体成员的一个重要措施。

第二，法院确认集体诉讼后，集体代表应依法向所有其他集体成员发出集体诉讼确认通知。从理论上讲，集体成员在得到通知后方得知有人已经代表他提起诉讼，并且诉讼已经得到法院确认。这种先斩后奏的方式，与法律的正当程序精神不符。集体诉讼对此采取的补救措施是区分不同情况予以分别处理：不同意集体诉讼的人可以选择退出集体诉讼，要求参与诉讼的人可以通过律师到案，不表示的人视为追认集体代表作为其代表进行诉讼。

第三，集体诉讼的和解和撤诉应通知其他集体成员，并需要得到法院批准。集体成员指望集体代表尽力尽职起诉，以取得最佳诉讼结果。如果集体代表选择和解或者撤诉，集体代表应通知其他集体成员，此时集体成员有权提出异议，法院应在听证之后决定是否批准和解或者撤诉。不同意和解的集体成员还有权选择退出集体。

第四，除了从胜诉金额分担诉讼费用外，集体成员不承担包括律师费在内的诉讼费用。集体成员是被动地参加诉讼，除了出让诉权外，不应要求对不是自己提起的、也无法支配的诉讼承担费用。有关费用由提起诉讼的集体代表和集体律师承担。

在保护集体成员的诉讼权利同时，为了保障集体诉讼的有效进行，规则对集体成员的权利作了限制。集体成员的权利限于退出集体的权利和提起异议的权利。他没有否决权。无论诉讼结果是否对集体成员有利，选择不退出集体的集体成员受集体诉讼结果的约束。诉讼结果，将约束所有集体成员。这是法律程序的终局性所决定的。

二、集体代表

真正保护集体成员利益的人是集体代表。没有集体代表，就没有人为整个集体的利益对伤害集体成员利益的人提起诉讼。因此，法律需要保护他的积极性，但同时也要防止他的过激性。如果没有积极性，集体诉讼制度就会夭折；如果过于偏激，集体诉讼也会因惹是生非而受排挤。

为保护集体代表的积极性，规则采取了以下两个对策：第一，在程序上，集体代表可以未经其他集体成员同意，以集体名义提起集体诉讼，法院并不因为他未经其他集体成员同意起诉而直接驳回诉讼。第二，在经济上，集体诉讼败诉时，集体代表既不要承担对方律师费，也不需要承担集体的律师费；集体诉讼胜诉时，律师费从胜诉金额中由全体成员分担。美国律师费制度中独特的美国规则（即每一方诉讼当事人自己承担自己的律师费）、胜诉报酬（集体代表只在胜诉时才支付律师费；如果集体代表败诉，所有费用由集体律师自行承担）和共同受益（即律师费用由通过集体诉讼受益的集体成员从胜诉金额中支取）三个规则，免除了集体代表的后顾之忧，极大地促进了集体代表提起集体诉讼的积极性。

为防止集体代表采取过激行为，规则的对策是：第一，在程序上，集体代表提起的集体诉讼必须得到法院确认后，才可以集体诉讼继续进行；第二，在实体上，规则设置了集体诉讼确认必须满足的必要条件和充分条件。只有集体代表提起的集体诉讼同时满足这些条件，法院才会确认集体诉讼。集体诉讼中的必要条件是指，诉讼必须人数众多以至于通过诉讼合并方式进行诉讼是不可行时，不得不采取集体诉讼。充分条件是指，提起诉讼的集体代表必须能充分维护整个集体的利益。两个条件缺一不可。

三、集体律师

集体诉讼中的灵魂人物是集体律师。尽管集体代表是集体诉讼的启动者和主角，但是在本质上，集体代表只是一个影子，他的灵魂是集体律师。没有集体律师，集体代表将缺乏足够的经济动力提起集体诉讼。首先，集体代表个人的损失小，因此通过诉讼能得到的赔偿金额也小；其次，因为需要支付诉讼费用，在绝大多数情况下，集体代表的赔偿收入将入不敷出；最后，集体代表一般不愿意为他人分担费用，集体代表为整个集体所作的工作也没有得到补偿的保证。

集体律师才是集体诉讼最有力的推动者，也是集体诉讼的直接受益人。美国独特的律师费规则，极大地促进了律师参与和推动集体诉讼的积极性：第一，律师费的美国规则，消除了集体律师败诉时承担对方律师费的风险；第二，胜诉报酬协议，使集体律师可以按照百分比方式收取律师费，确保了高额律师费的收入；第三，共同受益理论，使集体律师能够从胜诉金额中，而不是集体代表个人处，取得报酬，这确保了律师费的收入来源。

集体律师的风险是，一旦集体诉讼败诉或者集体诉讼胜诉金额不足以支付律师费时，集体律师将不得不自担费用，而无权要求集体代表进行补偿。因此，集体诉讼成为了律师的风险投资。在这个风险投资中，律师自己寻找和发现集体诉讼机会，自负费用，自担风险进行集体诉讼，律师的投资回报是按照约定比例从胜诉金额或者和解金额中支取律师费。

集体律师通常采取的降低风险的方式是：第一，通过一系列集体诉讼，分散风险；第二，凭专业知识和经验降低风险。

四、被告

被告是集体诉讼的对方。没有集体诉讼，被告本可以逍遥法外。因为集体诉讼，被告才被绳之以法。集体诉讼对被告造成的后果是：第一，支付巨额赔偿，吐出不当得利；第二，被迫停止违法行为。

但是被告并不总是集体诉讼的“受害者”。被告有时也支持集体诉讼。因为通过集体诉讼，被告可以一了百了地通过一次诉讼解决他与所有集体成员之间的法律纠纷。被告不可能忽视集体诉讼这个副产品。对于被告而言，集体诉讼的好处是：第一，经济；第二，有效；第三，可以避免出现相互矛盾的判决。

对集体成员而言，被告的角色是双重的：一方面，被告的一些行为客观上达到了保护集体成员利益的目标。集体诉讼规则中保护集体成员的一个重要方法是确保集体诉讼符合规则。对于这个问题，只有法院和被告会对此提出质疑。为了避免承担本来可以避免的责任，被告一开始倾向于反对确认集体诉讼。被告对集体诉讼的质疑，客观上促使集体代表提出符合规则的集体诉讼，而只有符合规则的集体诉讼才足以保护集体成员的利益。但另一方面，也存在被告与集体代表串通的可能。被告可以通过收买集体律师的方式来减轻自己的责任。这时就需要一个中立的机构来维护集体成员的利益。

五、法院

法院在维护集体成员利益方面发挥了重要作用。在集体诉讼中，只有法院是中立的，只有法院才最有可能公平维护缺席集体成员的利益。为此，规则规定，集体诉讼的确认、通知、和解和撤诉均需要得到法院的批准；法院必须确保集体代表和集体律师的行为是公平合理的，没有损害集体成员的利益。为此，规则赋予法院许多管理诉讼的职能。

除了履行职责外，法院也从集体诉讼中获益：第一，通过集体诉讼，法院可以在一次诉讼中解决众多集体成员和被告之间的类似争议，从而节约了司法资源；第二，通过一次诉讼解决不同主体之间的类似争议，法院避免了产生相互矛盾判决的可能。

六、小结

美国集体诉讼规则，通过各种方式，试图平衡当事人之间的利益。美国集体诉讼四十多年的经验表明，集体诉讼总体而言是一种成功的法律制度，对于解决社会和经济生活中出现的各种新的问题，发挥了不可替代的作用。但是，从1966年修订至今，美国各界对集体诉讼的争论意见始终没有平息。其中提到最多的两点理由是，第一，对公民诉权被剥夺的担心；第二，对律师为赚取高额律师费而寻找机会制造诉讼的不满。这也反应了美国社会各阶层对集体诉讼的真实心态。

注释：

1. Class Action，本文译为“集体诉讼”，也有译为“集团诉讼”或者“群体诉讼”。

Overview of discovery in US litigation

The scope of discovery in China is far more restricted than in the US.  Under PRC procedural rules, a litigant must only present sufficient evidence to support its own claim or defense. In China, a party is rarely required to produce evidence to support the other's claim or defense, and third parties generally are under no obligation to provide any evidence for the litigation.  Judges and arbitrators can order the production of such evidence but obtaining it from the other side is often difficult. In contrast, the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Federal Rules") allow a litigant to collect from its opponent non-privileged evidence relevant to its own claim or defense, even if disclosure would be adverse to the producing party.[1] Common forms of evidence include documentary evidence produced in response to requests for production of documents, oral testimony through depositions, and written testimony through answers to interrogatories. 

PRC companies with a presence in the US are often surprised to learn that despite not being a party to the suit, they may be compelled to produce evidence for the litigation. Under the Federal Rules, if a party is within the court's jurisdiction, a court may order a third party, through a subpoena, to produce documents or submit to a deposition. A PRC party may be within the court's jurisdiction if it has assets, a branch office, or affiliate company in the US or if it conducts business in or travels to the US. PRC law, however, strictly prohibits US attorneys and agencies from taking depositions on PRC soil without approval from PRC authorities. Depositions of PRC individuals are often taken voluntarily in Hong Kong or other countries accessible to the deponent. Depositions may also be conducted at the US embassy or consulate, which is considered US soil.

Compliance with a discovery request or subpoena is mandatory. Failure to comply can result in civil and even criminal sanctions. A third party beyond the US court's jurisdiction is generally under no obligation to comply with a litigant's request for information. The failure of a party to litigation to respond to discovery will adversely affect that party's ability to prove its case. The court may take an adverse inference from the failure to produce, e.g. if the defendant refuses to produce an email that the other side contends demonstrates liability, the court may take the adverse inference that if the email had been properly produced it would have proven liability on that point. Thus, failing to produce and refusals to produce key documents may undermine counsel's ability to prosecute or defend the case. 

A major focus of discovery is looking for evidence that shows a weakness or inconsistency in the other side's case. As counsel, we look for inconsistencies to show the other side is not being truthful or candid with the court. A witness who testifies for example that an event did not occur might be cross examined with an email or document that confirms the event. As counsel, we can use such evidence to argue that if the witness is lying about this issue the court should find the witness' testimony on other issues equally unreliable. Litigants in US litigation quickly learn that a lie or half truth is easily discerned. 

Parties must also be conscious of issues of spoliation of evidence. At the start of litigation or threatened litigation, counsel will ask the company to issue a litigation hold notice. This is a notice to everyone in the company that physical and electronic documents have to be retained until the litigation is completed. If documentary evidence is lost or destroyed after litigation is threatened or commenced, the other side will use this as proof that the party destroyed evidence adverse to its case. Effectively creating and maintaining a litigation hold in China is difficult because so many companies have employees that may use non-company servers for emails exchanges. Similarly, employees tend to use SMS messaging rather than emails. Such messages are often irretrievable. Again this may give the opponent the chance to argue that supporting evidence of a claim never existed or that damaging evidence was destroyed or intentionally sent via text rather than email.  

Discovery of information located in China

Under US law, documents located abroad may be obtained pursuant to the Federal Rules or the Hague Convention. The US party will argue for discovery under the Federal Rules because it will be faster and result in broader disclosure of information. The PRC party will aim for discovery though the Hague Convention to limit the scope and avoid the risk of disclosing information in violation of PRC law. 

Discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules. If the Federal Rules are applied, all requested information must be produced unless there is a valid basis to object to disclosure. Parties commonly object to disclosure on the basis that information is a privileged communication between attorney and client, is attorney work product, or would be unreasonable and unduly burdensome to produce. The objecting party must have a good faith basis and specifically state its reasons for the objection. Importantly, a successful objection may narrow the scope of disclosure but may not fully defeat the request.  

A US branch office or affiliate of a PRC company may also be the conduit for obtaining documents located in China. Under the Federal Rules, all non-privileged documents within a party's possession, custody, or control must be produced, even if they are located in a separate offshore legal entity. The US entity may be deemed to have control over requested documents if it has the "practical ability" to obtain them.[2] 

Discovery pursuant to the Hague Convention. To obtain discovery under the Hague Convention, the US court must submit a Letter of Request to the PRC Ministry of Justice. The letter is forwarded to the PRC Supreme Court for review, which may take six to twelve months. Like many civil law countries which view US discovery as overly broad, the court will only order production of documents with a "direct and close connection with the subject matter of the litigation."[3] The court may also limit the scope of the request, or reject the request altogether, if disclosure would violate PRC law or state sovereignty, security, or public interest. If approved, the letter will be forwarded to a lower PRC court for execution.

Considerations for PRC litigants and third parties

Unless there is a compelling reason to apply the Hague Convention, discovery will be conducted under the Federal Rules. The party seeking application of the Hague Convention has the burden of persuading the court that it is the proper channel for discovery. A US court will consider a number of factors, including the importance of the information sought, the degree of specificity of the request, whether the information originated in the US, the viability of the Hague Convention as an alternative means to obtain the information, and the US and Chinese interests at stake.[4]  Historically, US courts have been reluctant to order discovery under the Hague Convention because they view it as time consuming, expensive, and ineffective. 

Though PRC law prohibits US litigants from obtaining evidence in China by any means other than the Hague Convention or diplomatic channels, this alone will not be enough to convince a US court to deviate from the Federal Rules.[5] The PRC party must demonstrate that disclosure of the information without consent from PRC authorities would result in a genuine threat, not just a mere possibility, of civil or criminal penalties. The PRC party will need to point to actual instances of enforcement when the type of information sought was disclosed in violation of PRC law. The US court must also be convinced that application of the Hague Convention will result in production of discoverable information and that China's interest in protecting the information outweighs the US interests at stake. At the onset of US litigation, PRC parties should consider the nature of information which may be requested, whether such information is protected by PRC law, and potential exposure to penalties if disclosed without approval. 

Seek application of the Hague Convention early in the proceedings.Foreign litigants often wait too late to object to requests for protected information. Under the Federal Rules, if a litigant or third party refuses to produce requested information, it must notify the requesting party of its reasons for doing so. If information is withheld without a valid objection, the requesting party may ask a court to compel production of such information. Waiting until the requesting party has involved the court is generally not a successful strategy for the objecting party, as the objection may be waived or viewed as a last ditch effort to delay or avoid discovery.[6]  Involving the court early in pre-trial proceedings may place a PRC party in a better position to narrow disclosure or persuade the court to order discovery under the Hague Convention. 

Consider whether the information sought is protected by PRC law. Before seeking application of the Hague Convention, a PRC party should consider whether the information sought is protected by PRC law.  State secrets, trade secrets, and bank secrets are common forms of protected information. In addition to establishing the paramount interests of China in protecting the information and a real exposure to liability for unlawful disclosure, the PRC party will also need to demonstrate it has undertaken measures to prevent disclosure of the protected information.[7]

State secrets.  SOE's and parties involved in sensitive industries such as telecommunications, banking, information technology, energy, and natural resources are particularly at risk for possessing state secrets.[8] The PRC Law on Guarding State Secrets prohibits a company or individual from disclosing information considered to be a state secret. PRC authorities take an expansive view of information deemed state secrets and even information relating to the internal policies and procedures of a SOE may be considered state secrets under PRC law. A PRC party in possession of potentially sensitive information may want to consult with PRC authorities in advance to determine if any of the information should be designated a state secret. This may reduce exposure to adverse consequences for unlawful disclosure and strengthen an objection to disclosure in US proceedings.

Trade secrets. Requested information often includes internal company emails, documents, and information containing confidential and proprietary company information. A PRC party should consider whether the information sought includes trade secrets owned by it or a third party. If owned by a third party, disclosure of trade secrets may be prohibited by PRC law and application of the Hague Convention may be appropriate. If owned by the PRC party, an objection to disclosure may also be raised. The information may still be discoverable if the requesting party can show the information is not privileged, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, and may not be obtained by other means. In such case, the PRC party may ask the court to issue a protective order to prohibit public disclosure of the information and use of the information for any purpose other than the litigation.  

Recent US cases

In two recent cases, the US branches of PRC banks were ordered to produce bank records of PRC defendants, the disclosure of which is prohibited by PRC law. These cases represent the uncertainty PRC parties face when subject to US discovery and the competing views US courts may take when asked to apply the Hague Convention.

In Tiffany v. Andrew, plaintiffs brought a trademark infringement suit against PRC defendants in the Southern District of New York and requested defendants' bank records from the New York branches of Bank of China, China Merchant's Bank, and ICBC.[9] The banks agreed to produce records located in New York but refused to produce records located in China because disclosure was prohibited by PRC law. The US branches also argued the records located in China were beyond their control. Though the court considered records held by the PRC headquarters to be within the control of the US branches, the banks were successful in persuading the court to apply the Hague Convention. In doing so, the court dismissed what it considered to be outdated notions that the Hague Convention was time consuming and unlikely to lead to discoverable information. Instead, it was persuaded by new evidence that PRC authorities have and are willing to execute Letters of Requests and viewed the Hague Convention as a viable means to obtain evidence in China. The court also viewed the PRC interests in protecting confidential bank records and existence of harsh penalties for violating PRC bank secrecy laws to outweigh the US interest in enforcing intellectual property rights.  The banks' status as third parties, not parties to the litigation, was also an important factor in favor of the banks' arguments.

Less than one month later, however, a judge in the same judicial district reached the opposite conclusion. In Gucci America, Inc. v. Weixing Li, also a trademark infringement action involving PRC defendants, Bank of China's New York branch was again asked to produce bank records located in China.[10]  Unlike the Tiffany case, the court was not persuaded the Hague Convention would lead to production of discoverable evidence. It was also unconvinced that Bank of China faced a real threat of liability for disclosing account records in violation of PRC law.  The court viewed the US interest in protecting intellectual property to be dominant to the PRC interest in protecting bank secrets and compelled production of the account records under the Federal Rules.

In a third recent matter, (US Securities and Exchange Commission v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., Miscellaneous Action No. 11-0512 GK/DAR (US DC DC January 4, 2012)), the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson has issued a show cause order to the Chinese entity Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., requiring that the defendant show cause as to why it has failed to produce certain evidence. Deloitte has sought the approval of the PRC authorities to release the information and the PRC authorities have apparently advised that such production would be in violation of PRC law. It remains to be seen what accommodation will ultimately be reached in this case where US and PRC interests are in clear opposition. 

Final remarks

As one can see, these discovery battles will continue to be fought on a case by case basis. US courts view discovery as a tool to "make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent."[11]   Accordingly, US judges are reluctant to limit the scope of discoverable information that a litigant or third party must produce. The likelihood of convincing a US court to narrow disclosure and apply the Hague Convention is uncertain and will depend on the circumstances of each case. Chinese litigants may find navigating the US discovery maze difficult. The key to success is understanding the challenges. We strongly recommend that if you are involved in litigation you train the employees handling the case regarding the US litigation and discovery process, the obligations and the risks. Only then can the team effectively deal with these issues in a proactive and successful way.

Furthermore, Article 7 of the Provisions notes that said indicative cases are released so that "People's Courts at all levels should refer to the indicative cases …. when reviewing similar  cases at trial".[2]   The Supreme People's Court, in a recent statement during a press conference noted that such "indicative" cases should be "refer[red] to" by the lower courts in "similar cases", but that it is not an absolute requirement that the lower courts cite the "indicative" or guideline case. [3]  In addition, during said press conference, the Supreme People's Court noted that High People's Courts may release "reference cases" which are "representative and instructive", but that "such cases should not be named as "indicative cases and should not be quoted in the verdict".[4]   Such establishes a hierarchy for case guidance to the lower courts, including the statutory law, the "indicative cases" of the Supreme People's Court, and "reference cases" of the High People's Courts.  Recently, the Supreme People's Court published an "indicative" or guideline case which provides the lower courts with guidance on the above-noted issue, as follows.

The case at issue involved a contract dispute whereas Plaintiff, Wu Mei (a scrap paper collection company) sued Defendant, Xicheng Paper Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xicheng") in the People's Court of Dongpo District, Meishan City (hereinafter referred to as the "First Instance Court") in Sichuan Province over contract breach of a sales/purchase contract between the parties, alleging that Xicheng had breached their contract by failing to provide payment for the scrap paper provided.[5]    The Defendant appealed to the Intermediate People's Court, but the Appeal was later withdrawn after the parties had reached a settlement privately, without the Appellate Court's mediation.  Subsequent to the settlement agreement being signed and the Appeal being withdrawn, Wu Mei alleged that Xicheng had breached the settlement agreement and, as such, Wu Mei applied to the First Instance Court for enforcement of the First Instance Judgment, but Xicheng applied to the Intermediate Court to challenge the enforcement of the Judgment.[6]   It was noted by the Appellate Court that the settlement agreement at issue was not reached through the Court's mediation, that this agreement established new rights and obligations upon the parties, and, also, that this agreement stipulated that the parties gave up the right of appeal.[7]

The key issue which was considered by the Appellate Court and which the Supreme People's Court believed warranted clarification is whether if one party does not fulfill its obligations under a private settlement agreement which includes a withdrawal of an Appeal, should the First Instance Court upon application enforce the First Instance decision?  Relevant law can be found in Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C. which states that "….[i]f one party fails to fulfill the settlement agreement, the People's Court may, at the request of the other party, resume the enforcement according to the original and effective legal document."[8]   It is worth noting, however, that the settlement agreement in Article 207 refers to a settlement agreement reached as part of the Court enforcement procedures and, therefore, it is not applicable to the case at issue, which involved a private settlement. However, as per the rationale prescribed in said Article, it can be deduced that breach of a private settlement agreement (i.e. a settlement reached without the Court's mediation) can be grounds for a First Instance court to enforce its decision which, in the absence of an Appeal, was a final and effective decision, as was the argument of the Plaintiff in this case. 

In addition, Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C. notes that "… [a]ll parties shall comply with a mediation agreement or other legal documents that are to be enforced by a People's Court.  If a party refuses to comply, the other party may apply to the People's Court for enforcement."[9]    Please note, however, in regards to Article 212, this only references a "mediation agreement or other legal documents that are to be enforced by a People's Court" and does not make specific reference to a private settlement agreement reached outside the auspices of the Court's mediation.

Two points stand out in the Appellate Court's ruling the guideline case.  Firstly, the Court was clear that this applied to cases, such as this, where there was no mediation by the Court in the settlement agreement and, secondly, this applied to cases, such as this, where the rights and obligations of the parties were changed relative to the original contract in dispute.  As stated by the Appellate Court (with Chinese language to English language translations provided herein):

"The party should have known the consequence of withdrawing the appeal in the Second Instance of Trial in that, upon the approval of withdrawal of the Appeal by the Second Instance Court, the judgment rendered by the First Instance Court is a final judgment and shall be binding and enforceable. Though the parties reached a settlement agreement, said agreement reached between parties without the People's Court's confirmation and issuance of the Court's mediation order.  As such, said private settlement agreement can not be the basis to request the Court to enforce. The party breaching this private settlement agreement violates the principal of acting in good faith. Therefore, the request of the breaching party of not enforcing the First Instance Judgment due to the conclusion of the private agreement shall not be supported by the Court.[10]

Such private settlement and changing of duties/obligations is not uncommon in contract dispute settlements between parties, but, when choosing to take such a course of action, parties should understand the associated consequences.   Consideration should be given in regards to the advantages/disadvantages of both private settlement negotiations and mediation by the Court, as well as the impact of the imposition of new duties and obligations upon the parties to the settlement agreement.  In regards to the former issue (i.e. court mediation), if a court-mediated settlement is reached, as per Article 212 noted above, a court could directly enforce the settlement agreement.  In cases such as the guideline case, private settlements outside of the court's mediation cannot be directly enforced by the court and will have to be dealt with as a separate contract dispute if breach should be claimed.   In regards to the latter issue of the imposition of new duties and obligations upon the parties in the settlement agreement, the Appellate Court is making clear that the Court is not in a position to enforce a settlement agreement where new duties/obligations beyond the scope of those described in the contract in dispute are imposed upon the parties as said agreement is "not relevant to the litigation" .[11]  

As such, parties must weigh the certain advantages of settlement agreements reached through the mediation of a dispute by the court (including but not limited to the direct enforceability of a settlement agreement) with the possible limitations of scope of rights and obligations which may apply to a potential settlement agreement.   The Supreme People's Court, by providing the above "indicative" or guideline case, is making clear its position on the matter and, as such, relevant contract dispute settlements under P.R.C. law will be expected to comply with the associated guidelines.

Note: this publication is for informational purposes only and it does not in any way constitute a legal opinion.

[1] Art. 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Case Guidance Work (released November 26, 2010), found at http://vip.chinalawinfo.com/newlaw2002/slc/slc.asp?db=chl&gid=143870 (last visited on January 6, 2012) (English language Translation).

[2] Id. at Art. 7.

[3] Law-star.com, posted December 22, 2011, referencing statements made on December 20, 2011, found at http://www.law-star.com/cacnew/201112/1545074371.htm (last visited on January 6, 2012) (English language translation).

[4] Id.

[5] Wu Mei v. Xicheng Paper Co., Ltd.  Fa(2011)No. 354    法〔2011〕354号
Found at http://www.chinacourt.org/html/article/201112/21/472159.shtml (last visited on December 27, 2011) (English language translation).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Art. 207 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, promulgated and effective on April 9, 1991, Amended on October 28, 2007 (English language translation).

[9] Id. at Art. 212.

[10] Supra at 5.

[11] Id.

一、 概述

有新法的支持者认为：目前越来越多的企业依靠信息技术改善其经营管理及提高生产效率。在某些行业内，信息技术产品和服务的采购成本甚至可能占到其总资本开支的绝大部分。但是，当这些企业必须同一些使用非法的信息技术产品的公司进行竞争时，就可能因为采购合法信息技术产品所导致的相对较高成本而处于竞争劣势。该新法或可帮助在华盛顿州销售或许诺销售产品的制造企业解决这样的不正当竞争问题，改善竞争环境。

根据该新法规定，满足以下条件就将构成产品制造商（不论是否位于美国境内）的不正当竞争：（1）产品制造商在经营活动中使用了未经授权的软件或硬件（产品以下或称“IT产品”）；（2）所生产的产品（或包含所生产部件的最终组装产品）有在华盛顿州售卖或者许诺销售行为（以下简称“涉案产品”）；（3）且和在同一州内售卖或许诺销售的同类产品存在商业竞争关系。

根据该法规定，IT产品的范畴相当广泛，凡是企业在生产经营中所利用到的所有软件或硬件信息技术产品，都可能落入其范畴，具体包括各类计算机软件（操作系统、应用软件、办公软件、服务器软件、管理软件、财务软件等）、服务器、网络设备等等。而所谓涉案产品，因为涵盖了所有成品和将该制造商制造的产品作为组成部分的最终产品（有些种类的产品被排除在外），也使得其范围变得非常广泛。

此外，值得注意的是，不仅在生产经营过程中直接使用未经授权的软件或硬件制造产品会触及新法，该法还把“使用”范围扩展到经销、物流、仓储、及市场推广环节。例如，如果一家公司在市场推广时使用某未经授权的软件制作宣传广告，或在销售后使用盗版软件进行会计入帐，该等行为皆可构成新法所禁止的不正当竞争。

根据该新法的规定，两类主体可以针对以上不正当竞争行为提起诉讼，一是华盛顿州的司法总长，二是符合一定条件、受不正当竞争行为影响而蒙受一定经济损失的同业生产商。

如果胜诉，新法提供了多种法律救济手段，包括禁止销售令、对涉案产品的扣押令，承担胜诉方的诉讼及律师费用，经济赔偿（包括最高可达三倍于正常损害赔偿的惩罚性赔偿）。

此外，因为预见到多数侵权制造商不在美国直接经营，在美国也没有可供执行的资产，新法还规定可以追加州内销售涉案产品的第三人为共同被告，并向该第三人追偿。但是新法对追加第三人有一定的条件限制，其中包括该第三人和侵权制造商有直接合同关系、且年经营总额在5000万美元以上。另外，该第三人还受新法下的“安全港条款”保护，可以通过证明其已采取了合理的防范措施来免除法律责任，例如以合同形式要求其上游供货商不得使用未经授权的软件或硬件，并存在确实的合规审查机制。

新法在美国零售界和IT界都引起了不小的反响。不仅是华盛顿州，类似的新法在路易斯安娜州也已经通过。不排除会有更多的州陆续采纳类似法案。如果有更多的州实行这类新法，则将会对包括中国制造商在内的全球制造类企业产生更为广泛的影响。

二、 对中国制造企业的影响之分析

虽然目前该新法颁布不久，且尚未发生任何依据此法提起的诉讼。但是，根据该法案的内容，可以预见该法案将产生多方面的影响。详述如下：

1. 法案为合法IT产品提供商提供了有利机会

虽然新法明文规定，一般情况下IT产品的知识产权人不得作为原告直接提起诉讼，但是，由于该新法的内容，在客观上导致众多IT产品提供商获得了有利的推动制造类企业使用真品和正版产品的机会。

根据该新法规定，在起诉人提出诉讼之前，有关IT产品的权利人必须向侵权制造商发出符合规定的通知书，收到该通知后制造商可在90天内进行合法化。只有在超过时效仍未纠正的情况下，该制造商才可以被起诉。

因此，IT产品权利人的行动事实上起着至关重要的作用。如果IT产品的权利人没有发送符合要求的通知，并给予该等制造商90天的宽限期，诉讼就会因缺少前提条件而难以启动。相反，如果制造商能够获得由IT产品权利人出具的的足够的购买凭证和正版证明，也能使制造商免于卷入相关诉讼。

2. 中国制造商的全球竞争对手将可能伺机而动

对于视中国的制造企业为主要竞争对手的其他国家的制造企业，包括来自发达国家和其他新兴市场国家的竞争者，很可能会充分利用该新法的规定，伺机提起诉讼案件，阻却竞争者的商品在实施此类法律的州销售，抢占市场份额。

3. 在美国的上游进口商及分销商将设法转嫁法律风险

根据新法的规定，虽然原告一方可以在诉讼中追加州内销售涉案产品的第三人为共同被告，并向该第三人追偿，但是该等第三人享有“安全港”保护。也就是说，在满足以下条件的情况下，该等第三人可以免于被诉：

（1） 其在自己的企业行为规范或与制造商之间签订的其它书面文件中，要求该等制造商遵守相关法律、并禁止其在制造过程中使用盗版或非法的信息技术产品，并且在IT产品权利人发送通知后或诉讼程序中积极行动，从制造商处获得正版化的证明或停止向其采购；

（2） 对于新法实施前180天就已经与制造商签署协议的，虽然协议中没有以上禁止制造商使用盗版或非法信息技术的内容，但也在IT产品权利人发送通知后积极行动，获得制造商正版化证明或停止向其采购；

（3） 通过其它措施要求向其供货的制造商遵守新法，如定期进行审计、或要求第三方对制造商进行审计、将违反新法列为违约情形等等。 以上规定事实上是要求销售商提高对其供应商的控制和要求，促使供应商采取行动符合新法的要求。因此，在美国的进口方及分销商可能根据此规定向其制造商施压、或停止采购、或在与制造商的协议谈判中提出新的要求，转嫁自身的法律风险。

4. 重要国际客户将可能提高对供应商的考核和控制

目前很多大型国际客户都有完备的供应商行为准则，对其供应商的行为进行细致地规范和控制，如劳工保护或者环境保护方面的要求，确保其符合美国的相关法律的规定，并确保其不会因供应商的行为而导致自身的法律风险。

新法实施后，可以预见将有更多的大型采购、销售企业会相应调整和修改其针对供应商的行为准则，将使用合法的信息技术作为其合格供应商的条件之一，并可能有针对性地设立供货商IT产品合规审查机制（"software license compliance audits”），聘用第三方IT顾问公司对上游供货商进行软件和硬件许可完备性的审查。

5. 某些特定行业的中国制造企业可能具有更高的风险

如本文所介绍，根据新法的规定，除海外制造商的同业竞争者外，华盛顿州的司法总长也可能代表政府针对海外制造商提起诉讼。这就意味着，对于某些特定行业，如果国际间的行业竞争处于异常激烈的状况，或在以美国为主要出口销售市场的同行业者遭受到异常严重的竞争威胁以至于引起政府关注时，都可能率先爆发该新法下的诉讼。这些行业内的制造商将可能面临比其它行业更高的法律风险。

6．新法也给做好自身合规工作的中国制造企业提供了保护和扩大市场份额的机遇

新法并没有对能够提起诉讼的企业有任何地域限制，也不要求其在美国有实体或者直接的经营活动，但是要求只有自身在使用IT产品方面完全合规的企业才有资格起诉。所以如果中国制造企业能够确信其使用的IT产品完全合法，并且由于其他竞争对手仍存在使用非法IT产品的行为而在实施新法的州处于不利的竞争地位（特别是产品价格方面），此类中国制造企业完全可以拿起法律武器，在这些州发起诉讼，维护自身合法权益，保卫甚至积极主动的利用法律手段扩大其市场份额。

三、 建议

中国经济已经处于全面转型的时期，从而逐渐摆脱完全依赖低成本低附加值的外向型经济的发展模式。中国的制造企业也有必要在发展过程中加强对国际市场政策法律环境的了解，并采取行动适应日趋严格的要求。

鉴于此次美国华盛顿州新法所带来的法律风险，中国的出口产品制造商可能需要考虑进行定期的内部IT合规审查，对公司的软件和硬件产品的使用和许可的完备性作全面检查。由于新法不要求起诉方证明制造商有主观故意，所以因公司内控不严而使用盗版软件或假冒硬件也会产生法律责任。如果存在主观故意，更可能会承担一般民事赔偿数额三倍的惩罚性赔偿。

公司内部的IT合规审查并不是一个简单的从上而下的工作检查。公司管理层可以建立一个反馈机制，通过和雇员的交流，了解审查的执行情况，吸收改进意见。由于公司IT软硬件使用会随经营模式和产品类型而改变，持续且完善的反馈机制能让公司更快的对IT合规审查作出必要的调整。在定期审查的同时，对基层雇员的IT合规培训也必不可少。在生产和经营工作第一线的员工因为直接和各类IT软硬件接触，能及时提供第一手的相关信息。培训方式不一定只是传统的讲座，平时不定期的向全公司发送“小贴士”电子邮件能及时地向员工提供最新的合规咨讯。

如果公司在审查中发现使用的某些IT软硬件产品没有足够的许可或超出了许可范围（如违反许可使用面向个人用户的家庭版软件或者超出许可数量在额外的计算机设备上装载购买的商业软件产品），在补充购买合适的许可或产品以补足差额的同时，也要做好购买凭证的保存工作，同时对审查的方式、结果、以及纠正的过程要作全面的内部纪录。如果日后收到知识产权权利人基于新法发出的通知书，公司能够及时提供充足的真实书面证据来证明自己已有合法且足够的IT许可。

此外，公司可以考虑任命专门的中层管理人员兼职负责IT合规审查和培训，并将企业的IT软硬件采购并入到合规负责人的日常审查工作中，确保在购买IT产品时做到完全合规，并且确保及时更新和续展有使用期限的IT产品的使用许可或采购新的合法产品。

如果公司收到IT产品权利人基于新法发出的通知书，应当重视并认真对待，尽量能快速准确地在新法要求的时间内做出有效的回复，并积极与权利人进行有效的沟通。

结语

对中国企业来说，因违反美国法律在美国遭遇法律诉讼已不再陌生。从早些时候的联邦贸易委员会337程序调查，到今年年初爆发的中国在美上市公司的集体被诉，这些前车之鉴都给积极进取中的中国企业以警示。对于中国企业来说，为实现国际化和市场的扩展，遵从和符合目的地国法律已经成为一项不得不直面和重视的问题。另外，中国企业也应当更多的学会利用国际或者当地的法律和保护机制积极主动地维护自身的合法权益和市场份额，不应对竞争对手的非法活动置之不理或者纵容默许。从积极的方面看，这也必将促使中国的优质企业在压力和动力的双重作用下以更快的速度完成国际化进程，熟悉国际贸易中的游戏规则，并熟练参与其中，并逐渐形成低成本之外的核心竞争优势并积极维权，从被动挨打到主动出击。

Article 5 of the Draft Rules state that AML private actions may be filed in three forms: (a) by way of a "separate" or individual applications; (b) by way of "joint" applications and (c) by way of "combined" applications.  The term "joint applications" refer to situations where there are multiple applicants who wish to file joint suits for common causes of action.  The term "combined applications" refer to a situation where applicants file a suit against a common respondent (or common respondents) in different courts.  In this situation, the courts (which have been designated by the Supreme Court as possessing jurisdiction to hear AML applications) would have the power to "combine" or consolidate these applications.

China's Civil Procedure Law also provides for a joint application regime.  The following are the salient points to note in relation what China's Civil Procedure Law says about joint applications:

• applicants may apply to courts jointly, if they have a common cause of action or if their action belongs to the same "category".  This right to file joint applications is contingent upon the court approving such a joint action and contingent upon the applicants agreeing to file such an action together; 
• in a situation where there are numerous applicants (within a joint application), representatives may be selected by the applicants.  Actions undertaken by such representatives will be effective in relation to all joint applicants – save for certain situations including confirmations, modifications and waiver of claims of actions;
• the court possesses the right to issue a public notice – which states the particulars and claims (in respect of joint applications), instructing other potential applicants to file with the court within a certain time; and 
• judgments or orders rendered by the court are effective for all joint applicants. The same judgments or orders are binding on applicants who have not filed with the court but instituted legal proceedings within the court's time limit mentioned above.

Thus far (and as far as we are aware), there haven't been any public joint AML applications before the courts in China.  This is despite the fact that there have been a significant number of AML actions to date.  According to the Supreme Court, between 1 August 2008 to 2010, approximately 29 AML actions have been concluded, among the total 43 AML actions accepted by courts in China. 

It remains to be seen to what extent AML litigants in China would take up the "joint action" route.  Such joint actions are akin to the US class action regime.  We expect such joint applications to consist of mostly small to medium enterprises – as such actions provide the opportunity to pool resources.
 

¹For a holistic and detailed introduction of the salient provisions within these Draft Rules, please refer to our articles entitled "Supreme People’s Court Issues Draft Rules Governing Private Actions under the Anti-Monopoly Law" and "A Further Look At The Draft Rules Governing AML Private Actions".

The recent upsurge in IP cases highlighted the need to create a more efficient process to handle IP-related cases. Through various reforms and improvements, the P.R.C courts have become more adept in handling their ever-growing caseloads. As disclosed by Hon. Justice Su Zelin, Vice President of the Supreme People's Court of P.R.China 'the fulfillment of the following specific contents of judicial reform have improved the judicial efficiency significantly: enlarging the application scope of the summary procedure to civil cases; widening the scope of mediation to cases to dissolve problems timely and to enhance the trial efficiency; optimizing the allot of judicial resources to improve the effective of judicial expenditure security and to make full use of the money". ² In this regard, the improved efficiency of the P.R.C courts has led to reducing the average time to process a foreign-related lawsuit from 233days to 172 days (2006-2010). ³

The protection of intellectual property rights is no doubt a key factor in the growth of the Chinese economy. In this regard, foreign companies must feel confident that IP-related lawsuits in the P.R.C. will be handled fairly and efficiently. The recent improvements in the efficiency of the P.R.C. with regards to adjudicating IP lawsuits point to an environment of improved intellectual property rights protection, which benefits both domestic and foreign companies alike.

^{1 http://www.chinaipmagazine.com/en/journal-show.asp?id=585}

^{2 http://jrn21.judiciary.gov.ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_China%20%28Su%20Zelin%29.pdf}

^{3 http://www.chinacourt.org/html/article/201012/02/438221.shtml}

In 2006, however, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court heard the patent infringement case of Yuan Lizhong v. Yangzhou City Tongfa Air-Raise Actuator Factory & Yangzhong City Tongfa Industry Co. Ltd. This case was the first counter-suit for damages action brought as a reaction to malicious litigation. In March, 2009, the Supreme People's Court promulgated the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Regarding the Implementation of the National Intellectual Property Rights Strategy ( Fafa [2009] No. 16) ("Opinion") which provides that: "The courts shall accept where appropriate and adjudicate cases that seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and litigations that seek counter-suit for damages in claim of malicious litigations.”

The Opinion provides practical guidance to the people's courts in counter-suit for damages actions if in the face of malicious litigation.

Definition of Malicious Litigation and How to Determine "Malice"
When a party initiates litigation in the PRC, it must adhere to the "Honest and Credit" principle. Otherwise, the party will be considered to be abusing its right to litigate under the Chinese law. Based on this principle and general understandings described in academic research papers, we believe the definition for malicious litigation refers to "a groundless civil action filed without a violation of substantive rights or without factual basis and other justifiable reasons to pursue litigation and which will result in damages to the interests of the alleged parties". Among the elements referred to above, the key element is to determine if the party that initiated the groundless civil litigation is acting with "malice" towards the other party.

Counter-Suit for Damages Actions
Although the Opinion issued by the Supreme People's Court allows counter-suits for damages, it did not specify details on the application of such a practice. Since the counter-suit for a damages action is a type of litigation where a plaintiff prays for compensation for damages suffered from a malicious litigation, the proceeding at its core is a civil suit regarding infringement of rights and with the corresponding remedy for compensation.

Legal Trends for Counter-Suit for Damages Actions
Though there are not yet explicit provisions regarding malicious litigation in Chinese law, a basic legal mechanism for preventing malicious litigation is now being formed, particularly in the field of intellectual property. It is foreseeable that the people's courts will set stricter criteria for accepting such cases and impose tighter controls over granting interim injunctive measures.

Evasion or Negative Response
Regardless of the size of the dispute or the size of the Chinese company involved, some take an evasive attitude when confronted by overseas disputes, either failing to respond at all or hiring cheap and inexperienced foreign lawyers. This can put the Chinese parties at a severe disadvantage and it was a common situation at the beginning of the reform of investment laws in China. Now it occurs less frequently.

Instructing a foreign law firm to form the legal team
Currently, when dealing with complicated international disputes, many Chinese companies instruct large international firms as their key legal advisors. These firms in turn hire well-known local lawyers in third countries as and when needed. The advantage of doing things this way is that the legal team has enough experience and, when fully prepared, may have the power to persuade foreign courts and arbitrators, increasing the success rate of the Chinese companies involved.
However, this strategy leads to two common problems. First, fees are relatively high. Lawyers in foreign law firms generally charge high rates. Second, communication can be an issue. While there are no obstacles to communication between foreign firms and the corresponding foreign courts and arbitrators, communication between foreign firms and their Chinese clients may not be so effective. Different legal cultures and dispute resolution practices sometimes make it difficult for Chinese clients and foreign lawyers to fully understand one another.

Normally litigation lawyers at foreign firms do not understand Chinese and are often not very well acquainted with the commercial practices of Chinese companies. Chinese lawyers hired by international firms do not face language obstacles, but they may lack experience in complex international arbitration procedure. Because of this, Chinese clients often encounter difficulties establishing truly effective communication with their foreign counsel.

Hiring a Chinese law firm with experience in international litigation and arbitration to create an international legal team
This is a new combination whereby a Chinese company involved in an international litigation or arbitration proceeding hires, a Chinese law firm with experience in international litigation and arbitration to be responsible for building a global legal team. The advantages of this new strategy are the efficient use of fees and the increased efficiency of lawyer/client communications. As Chinese lawyers with international experience can read Chinese and directly draft in English, this saves on document translation costs. In addition, as Chinese lawyers understand the thoughts and concerns of Chinese clients, they can more effectively communicate with their Chinese clients. Moreover, key Chinese litigation lawyers with international experience are based in China rather than abroad. This makes meetings and day-to day communication with Chinese clients easier.
When facing commercial disputes abroad, particularly in the areas of foreign investment or production, hiring an internationally experienced firm of Chinese lawyers to lead foreign counsel and build an effective global team can be an excellent choice for Chinese clients.
 

Certainly, when clients choose a team led by Chinese lawyers, the lawyer’s understanding of English is not enough. The Chinese lawyer should:
 

• Have a depth of experience in foreign litigation and arbitration
• Understand the workings of international firms
• Understand the needs and concerns of Chinese clients
• Have a sizable team of its own in order to cope with a large number of tasks in a short period of time and in a variety of urgent situations

For an example of King & Wood’s experience leading a global team in complex multijurisdictional litigation, follow this link.

如何解决海外投资引起的跨国商业纠纷

近年来，中国企业的海外投资业务快速增长，尤以能源矿产、银行业、IT业和制造业等行业表现突出。2009年8月18日，中国石油化工集团公司宣布以约合72.4亿美元的价格成功收购总部位于瑞士的Addax石油公司，这是迄今为止我国公司进行海外资产收购最大的一笔成功交易。在此前的几年，中石油也进行了几次大的海外并购交易。例如，中国石油于2009年5月收购新加坡石油公司约45.51％的股份，交易对价约合10.2亿美元。另外，中国五矿集团公司、中国有色集团、宝钢集团、中国工商银行等企业也在对外投资方面大有作为。

随着中国企业对外投资的不断增长，商业争议时有发生。根据我们的经验，中国企业在应对海外争议案件方面大致存在以下几种模式：

一、逃避或消极应对

无论大小案件，也无论中国公司的规模大小，有些中国公司在应对海外商业争议案件时会采取逃避态度，不出庭或者找经验不足但收费低的外国律师去应对。这种做法通常都使得作为案件当事人的中国公司处于极为不利的境地。这种情况在对外开放的早期比较常见，近年来已经不常出现。

二、聘用境外事务所，由该外国所组建律师团

目前有不少的中国企业在应对复杂的海外争议案件时，倾向于聘用国际大型律师事务所作为其首席律师，再由该事务所视案件需要选聘其他国家的律师，组建律师团。这种模式的好处在于，这样的律师团通常具备足够的经验，而且如果准备充分，有能力去说服外国的法官或外国仲裁员，加大了中国公司在海外争议案件中胜诉的机会。

但实践证明，这种模式常存在两个方面的问题：第一是费用高昂。境外国际性律所事务所的律师费普遍比较高；第二是沟通问题，即尽管境外律师组成的律师团与境外的法院或境外仲裁机构的沟通没有障碍，他们与中国客户之间的沟通却往往不尽如人意。由于法律文化和争议解决途径方面的差异，中国客户与其聘请的境外律师有时候难以进行有效的沟通。

通常，境外律师事务所的有诉讼经验的律师不懂中文，对中国公司的商业做法也了解不多，而受聘于国际所的中国律师在语言上虽无障碍，却又往往欠缺海外诉讼仲裁程序的经验，因此中国客户常常感到与自己聘的境外律师进行有效的沟通比较困难。

三、聘用有国际诉讼仲裁经验的中国律师事务所，由该中国所组建律师团

这是一种新的组合方式，即中国企业在涉及境外的诉讼或仲裁程序时，聘请具有国际诉讼仲裁经验的中国律师事务所，再由该中国所根据案件的需要组建律师团。这一模式的优点是可以节约成本，并提高客户与律师间的沟通效率。因为有国际诉讼仲裁经验的中国律师可以阅读中文文件，并可以直接草拟英文文件，这样就节约了相当的法律文件的翻译成本。另外，中国律师比较了解中国客户的想法和担心，因而可以高效地跟客户进行沟通。并且，中国的有国际经验的诉讼律师就在国内，比远在外国的国际诉讼律师更方便与中国客户沟通。

因此，对中国公司而言，在面对跨境商业争议（尤其是海外投资、生产引起的商业争议）时，聘请有丰富国际诉讼仲裁经验的中国律师，由这样的中国律师负责组建并引领包括境外律师在内的律师团，不失为一种理想的选择。

当然，如中国客户拟遵循本模式，聘请中国律师来组建律师团，则这样的中国律师仅仅懂英文是远远不够的。能够胜任本模式下角色的中国律师必须：

• 拥有丰富国际诉讼仲裁经验；
• 了解境外律师事务所的运作；
• 了解中国客户的需求和担心；
• 有相当规模的团队，能够应对短时间内的大量任务以及各种突发情况。

请点击本链接，以了解金杜在引领国际律师团队解决复杂的跨司法区域争议方面的案例。

However, if the downloading process is not conducted properly, the evidence won’t be recognized as authentic, even if the downloading has been witnessed by a notary public. 

In the NuCom Online (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. ChinaNetwork Communications Corporation Limited, Zigong Branch case, the Supreme People’s Court emphasized, in its (2008) Min Shen Zi No.926 Civil Ruling, the necessity of examining the origin of web-based information , as said origins are fundamental  to deciding whether the notarized evidence can be used as the basis for a court’s judgment. If the notary public cannot gain access to the computer or mobile hard drive before the notarization procedure and if the notarization itself does not  include a record of the state of the computer or mobile hard drive with respect to the integrity of said computer/mobile hard drive prior to the downloading, the Supreme People’s Court deems that the notarization can prove that the act of downloading occurred before a notary public, but it cannot prove that the data at issue was actually downloaded from a specific location on the Internet.

The Supreme People’s Court’s above judgment is based on the nature of  web technology. Electronic data stored in a web sever can also be stored or cached in a local computer. Under certain scenarios, when you use a local computer to visit a target website, the web pages displayed are actually those stored or cached in the local computer, rather than web pages downloaded from a remote website.   Therefore, the actual origin of the evidence cannot be guaranteed merely by having a notary public witnessing the downloading process, as that “downloading” may be simply pulling up the web page from the cache in the local computer.

The Supreme People’s Court’s opinion noted above is not only guidance for the courts when examining  notarized web page evidence, but also an important instruction for those parties seeking to gather evidence in support of judicial proceedings in China. To ensure proper authentication of web-based evidence, parties should conduct notarized web page downloads at the notary public office using the notary public’s computer and, also, request that the notary public record the condition of the computer prior to the notarization process. If the downloading must be done on another computer, the party should initiatively request the notary public to delete all relevant files from the caches of the computer by appropriate procedures before downloading the requested web pages and record all of the detailed steps in the notarization process. 

Given China's resilience to the financial crisis, it seemed a good place to meet redemptions and liquidity needs by selling positions. However, it was much easier to get money into China than to get it out.

Beijing has long been wary of foreign investors, imposing strict controls on FDI and offshore loans. Unable to resist GDP growth, renminbi appreciation and real estate expansion, investors wanted in – keen to avoid regulatory processes and wanting exit strategies. Offshore structuring appeared as a solution, but this was conceived against the bubbling real estate market – where much of the foreign money was headed.

I warned investors that 1 billion square feet of residential and commercial projects were underway in Beijing alone. But local banks and foreign funds provided cash; developers continued to build. The government tried to rein in a runaway market. The lending spigot at local banks ended, interest rates and down payment requirements increased and anti-speculation taxes were imposed. The bubble began to burst, with markets in south China suffering first. Developers, undeterred, bought more land and continued building. Their ambitions finally caught up with them last year.

China's listed real estate developers have seen their share prices fall by 80% from November 2007. Despite government efforts to revive the residential market, buyers are only responding to price cuts. Many of these developers are hemorrhaging cash, turning to non-banks and gray market lenders.

The unlisted firms have caused the most trouble. An IPO promised riches and so these developers expanded aggressively. They needed capital; foreign investors acquiesced. Investments were structured offshore and the money came onshore via preferred equities and convertible bonds issued by offshore companies with real estate holding companies in China.

Many large developers missed IPO deadlines, facing disgruntled investors. Alternative investment managers now face redemptions from investors and busted covenants and debt defaults from Chinese developers.

It seems, from the offer¬ing circulars, that few of the investors or developers knew what they were getting into. The developers gave guarantees, pledged unlisted shares, issued “no-IPO put options”. They agreed to pay punitive escalating internal rates of return, going from 30% to 70%, if the IPO was delayed by 18- 30 months.

The alternative investment managers who relied on “contractual” guarantees to protect their interests overlooked the clause in the circulars which states that offshore creditor rights are not enforceable in Chinese courts. Neither are judgments in foreign courts binding on Chinese corporations or citizens.

Many of the international law firms that developed these structures are now advising clients not to enter Chinese litigation. Yet they recognize that by the time the offshore judicial process concludes, Chinese developers would have transferred assets with any unencumbered value, or allowed onshore creditors to slap asset preservation orders on any remaining assets.
The international law firms are too pessimistic. Foreign investors can use the Chinese legal system to enforce their offshore creditor rights, seize collateral, freeze assets to keep them from disappearing, enforce guarantees and bring Chinese entrepreneurs to negotiate.

Most Chinese real estate developers sleep soundly yet foreigners remain engrossed in inconclusive meetings trying to answer their investors’ questions:
• What is the status of my investment in China and what is the condition of the Chinese partner?
• Is the original investment strategy still viable in the present climate?
• Should I continue to hold, sell or invest additional capital and if so is there a realistic business plan I can evaluate?
• If I continue to hold or invest is there a way to get closer to the company and its assets onshore to remedy some defects inherent in offshore structures?
• How do I limit my liability and is there a plan to get my capital out of China?
• Are my interests and those of the alternative investment manager still aligned?

My advice to foreign investors is: act now. Chinese business partners will inevitably satisfy local creditors first, unhesitatingly encumbering a foreign investor's secured assets. Investors must rectify the defects in their offshore structures so they can use local courts and rely on Chinese litigation to settle with local partners.

The end game is to develop a capital preservation and exit strategy, leading to an informed decision to invest, sell or stay the course.