作者：胡梅 Holly Blackwell 金杜律师事务所争议解决组 上海分所
美国的诉讼证据开示制度对于缺乏美国诉讼经验的当事人来说非常陌生，对于中方当事人来说更是如此，因为中国诉讼程序与其大相径庭。中国法下的诉讼程序与其他大陆法系国家类似，双方当事人只须提供支持己方诉求或抗辩的相关证据既可。美国证据开示制度则不仅要求当事人提供对己方有利的证据，也要求当事人提供对其不利的证据。美国证据开示规则能使诉讼当事人较容易地得到对方、甚至是第三方的信息，例如公司内部电子邮件、文件、记录和规章。即使此类信息的披露会违反中国法律规定，一方也可以要求对方披露所需信息。尽管海牙公约提供了一条取得中国境内证据的途径，但当一方当事人在美国法庭提起诉讼时，美国法庭并不总倾向于适用《海牙公约》[i]的程序。从近期的一些美国案例中，我们不难看出要求中方当事人出示证据的困难性，以及中方当事人就此问题在美国诉讼中面临的挑战。Continue Reading 在中国境内为美国诉讼取证
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 Obtaining Discovery in China for Use in US Litigation
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breach a private settlement agreement, but where the breach occurs after the Appeal in the litigation at issue has been withdrawn?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 Supreme People’s Court provides a Guideline Case for Court Enforcement of Settlement Agreements
作者：Richard W. Wigley 徐静 金杜律师事务所争议解决组
在中国的民事诉讼中，如何有效地执行和解协议经常会成为诉讼参与人关注的焦点。尤其是当上诉人撤回上诉请求后，而另一方当事人不执行庭外和解协议，另一方当事人的权利如何得到救济？中国是一个以成文法为基础的大陆法系国家，没有美国、澳大利亚、英国等英美法系国家一样的判例制度。虽然中国有相应的成文法，如《民事诉讼法》，但司法实践中存在大量法律问题需要在成文法之外予以释明。基于上述原因，最高人民法院在《关于关于案例指导工作的规定》的第一条中，明确说明了“指导性”案例的价值，即作为对全国法院审判、执行工作提供指导作用[i]。Continue Reading 最高人民法院为各级法院执行和解协议提供指导性案例
在仲裁中，仲裁庭作出终局的仲裁裁决，意味着双方当事人提交仲裁处理的实体法律关系有了最终的、具有约束力的判断，一般也意味着纠纷中有了赢家和输家。在这种情况下，当事人还愿意通过和解解决争议的，少之又少。但在争议标的金额巨大，双方当事人仍有合作的需要和愿望的情况下，达成和解对双方当事人都是非常明智的选择。在2011年，我们就成功办理了两起在境外仲裁裁决作出后，双方当事人通过自愿协商达成和解的案件。
两起案件的基本情况如下：Continue Reading 境外仲裁裁决作出后的和解
By Zhang Shouzhi Hu Ke and Xu Beibei King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resoution Group
A final arbitral award is the final and binding conclusion of the substantial dispute submitted to arbitration by the parties. It defines the winner and the loser of the game. In few occasions would the parties be willing to settle their disputes after an award has been rendered. However, settlement is still a wise choice when the disputed amount is huge, and the parties still have the will.
In 2011, we assisted 2 separate clients in negotiating amicable settlements after the arbitral awards were rendered in offshore arbitrations. We provide below a brief description of the two cases:Continue Reading Post-Award Settlement for International Arbitration
By James Rowland King & Wood Mallesons Dispute Resolution Group
I. Background
The Claimants were three Singaporean companies which had been set up to hold shares in a number of sino-foreign joint ventures established under JV contracts governed by PRC law (the “JVs”). The fourth claimant was the parent company of the first three claimants, and had entered into a Services Agreement with the general manager of the JVs (the “Services Agreement”). He was in turn the chairman and legal representative of each of the JVs and of each of their Chinese shareholders. The Service Agreement was governed for the most part by PRC law, although it contained a non-competition clause governed by English law.
The Defendants were the BVI shareholders in a number of Chinese enterprises (the “Non-JVs”) which had been gradually assimilated into the JVs’ manufacturing supply-chain. After many years both the JVs and Non-JVs were operating as an integrated manufacturing and sales business.Continue Reading Freezing China Assets through the BVI Courts–A British Virgin Islands (BVI) case demonstrates some of the difficulty of obtaining interim relief in arbitration as well as in parallel civil litigation
一、 背景
在达能亚洲诉金朝有限公司案中，原告为三家新加坡公司，设立这三家公司的目的是为了通过其进而持有多家中外合资公司的股份，这些中外合资公司依照中国法律签订中外合资合同而设立（“合资公司”）。第四位原告是上述三家公司的母公司，其与合资公司的总经理签订立了“服务协议”。协议签订后，该总经理同时担任各家合资公司及其中方股东的董事长及法人代表。服务协议中除了竟业禁止条款适用英国法，其它大部分内容仍适用中国法。
被告为多家中国公司（“非合资公司”）的英属维京群岛（British Virgin Islands，“BVI”）的股东， 这些非合资公司逐渐被合资公司的制造供应链吸收，多年来这些合资公司与非合资公司一直以生产销售一体化的方式运营。Continue Reading 通过BVI法院冻结中国资产–以BVI案件为例解析在境外仲裁及平行民事诉讼中寻求申请临时令救济禁令的风险
By He Wei King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group
I. Introduction
Although Chinese enterprises are often engaged in disputes arising out of international fertilizer transactions, generally a large number of these enterprises are struggling, since they are unacquainted with international dispute resolution mechanisms, and the numerous highly technical issues that are involved in relevant international sale contracts. However, in January 2009, a Chinese fertilizer company obtained the first ever victory in offshore arbitration, in which expert witnesses played an important role.Continue Reading The First Victory for PRC Fertilizer Enterprises in Offshore Arbitration
一、 前言
由于不熟悉国际贸易争议解决机制，并且国际化肥买卖合同中往往涉及诸多专业性较强的技术问题，很多中国企业在解决此类国际贸易纠纷时举步维艰。然而，2009年1月，中国某化肥类企业首次在境外仲裁中取得胜诉。在该案中，专家证人的证言成为决定性因素。Continue Reading 首例中国化肥业”走出去”案件在境外仲裁中取得胜诉