作者:张保生、周伟 金杜律师事务所争议解决

自2002年最高人民法院颁布关于审理证券市场虚假陈述民事赔偿纠纷的司法解释(1)后,中国证监会的行政处罚决定或者人民法院的刑事判决一旦认定上市公司构成虚假陈述,往往引发大批投资者对上市公司提起民事赔偿诉讼。但如果上市公司应对得当,并非必然赔偿投资者的投资损失。近日,中电广通股份有限公司(“中电广通”)应对股民提起的证券虚假陈述民事赔偿案(2),法院最终判决驳回股民全部赔偿请求。Continue Reading 上市公司因虚假陈述被行政处罚是否必然承担民事赔偿责任?—-刘某诉中电广通案评析

By Zhang Baosheng and Zhou Wei of King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

Since the Supreme People’s Court released interpretations regarding civil liability arising from false statements in securities markets in 2002, (1) a large number of investors have filed lawsuits against listed companies as soon as an administrative penalty decision is issued by China Securities Regulatory Commission ("CSRC"), or a criminal conviction is confirmed by the People’s Court for false statements. Under such circumstances, should the listed companies successfully utilize correct legal tactics, they do not necessarily have to bear the burden of civil compensation to the investors. In a recent case, Liu vs. CEC CoreCast Corporation Limited., the People’s Court dismissed all claims filed by the investor for compensation on the grounds of false statements against CEC CoreCast Corporation Limited.(2 )Continue Reading Will Public Companies Administratively Sanctioned for Misrepresentation be Inevitably Made to Bear Civil Liability? — A Case Analysis on Liu vs.CEC CoreCast Corporation Limited.

作者:黄滔、戴月 金杜律师事务所争议解决

由于对中国司法制度和仲裁制度的陌生或偏见,外国公司在订立合同时对争议解决条款的关注大大高于其它条款。而在争议解决条款中,它们最为关心的问题之一则是仲裁机构和仲裁规则的选择。在决定选择恰当的仲裁机构及仲裁规则前,外国公司应考虑下列法律问题。Continue Reading 无涉外因素合同中仲裁机构和仲裁规则的选择

By Huang Tao and Dai Yue of King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

Lacking knowledge of and exposure to China’s judicial and arbitrational system, foreign companies usually worry about dispute resolution clauses more than any other clause in a contract. Deciding which arbitration tribunal and what arbitration rules to specify becomes a sensitive and important aspect of contract negotiations for wholly foreign owned entities ("WOFE") and cooperative joint ventures ("CJV").

Continue Reading Forum Shopping in China: CIETAC vs. UNCITRAL

作者:张保生 金杜律师事务所争议解决组合伙人

2005年修订的《中华人民共和国公司法》(1)(下称“《公司法》”),对我国公司法律制度作出较大调整和完善,增加了公司纠纷的可诉性。但由于《公司法》的一些规定过于概括性、原则性甚至宣示性,司法实践中对公司诉讼案件同案不同判的现象比较常见。为解决《公司法》理解和适用的统一问题,指导司法实践和公司相关主体的商事活动,最高人民法院此前先后对《公司法》做出两个司法解释(2),重点明确《公司法》适用的一些基本原则和公司解散、清算问题。2011年2月16日,最高人民法院颁布《关于适用<中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定(三)》(下称“司法解释(三)”),对公司成立前债务承担、出资和股权确认等实践中争议较大的问题作出解释。本文试从实务角度对司法解释(三)进行解读。Continue Reading 《最高人民法院关于适用若干问题的规定(三)》实务解读

By Zhang Baosheng, a partner of King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

In 2005, China amended its Company Law(1)and made substantial adjustments to the State’s company law system and strengthened the justiciability of company related disputes. However, some provisions of the amended Company Law are overly general, conceptual and declaratory, and as a result it is not uncommon to find disparate outcomes in similarly situated cases. In order to ensure uniform understanding and application of the Company Law and provide guidance for judicial practice and commercial activities, the Supreme People’s Court (the "Supreme Court") issued two judicial interpretations of the Company Law(2), mainly clarifying certain fundamental principles of applying the Company Law and specific matters like dissolution and liquidation of companies.Continue Reading The Supreme People’s Court and the Company Law: Presumptions and Gap-filling Round Three

By Jeff Lane of King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

"Combating bribery is about common sense …….." – UK Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke

On 1st July, 2011, the long awaited Bribery Act will come into force. The Act, together with its Guidance Notes represents a major overhaul of the UK’s anti bribery legislation and creates one of the most comprehensive anti-corruption regimes anywhere in the world.Continue Reading The UK Bribery Act of 2010 Will Have Widespread Implications for Global Companies

By Richard W. Wigley and Xu Jing of King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group

Among the most frequent questions posed by overseas corporate counsel overseeing litigation involving their companies in P.R.C. courts are those questions relating to evidence collection. For the attorneys from the United States, those questions will often focus upon the "discovery" practices of P.R.C. courts. As they come from a litigation environment which often has liberal discovery options, it often comes as a surprise to foreign attorneys – especially U.S. attorneys – that the P.R.C. legal system has no direct equivalent to U.S.-style discovery practices. Collecting the required evidence in support of litigation in the P.R.C. is subject to very different guidelines from those guidelines of many foreign jurisdictions. This article will take a very brief look at evidence collection practices in the P.R.C. and offer some potential alternatives in the P.R.C. to "discovery" practices.Continue Reading Evidence Collection and Alternatives to “Discovery” in P.R.C. Litigation

By Ariel Ye, James Rowland and Richard  Wigley  of King & Wood ‘s Dispute Resolution Group and Intectual Property Group

Introduction

By asserting rights which Motorola and Nokia Siemens Networks undoubtedly consider legitimate, and relevant to the protection of their interests in the wireless infrastructure market, Huawei has taken a meaningful step towards the successful resolution of its differences with Motorola over the sale of its wireless network assets to one of Huawei’s competitors. If Huawei had not taken this step before the US Federal District Court, then Huawei and Motorola may have spent years in private commercial arbitration of this issue, achieving no meaningful outcome.Continue Reading Assertion of Huawei’s IP Rights: A lesson for China-outbound Investors

作者:叶渌罗必成韦理察    金杜争议解决组知识产权组

简介

虽然在摩托罗拉和诺基亚西门子网络有限公司(下称“NSN”)看来,华为所主张的权利应是他们的合法权利,并且事关两者对基础无线网络领域利益的保护,但是华为采取的这种方式,是解决其与摩托罗拉之间关于向NSN(华为的竞争对手)转让无线网络资产的分歧的有效步骤。倘若华为不向美国联邦地区法院提起申请的话,华为和摩托罗拉可能要为此在保密的商业仲裁程序上耗费几年时间,并且毫无结果。Continue Reading 华为在美国联邦州法院主张其知识产权:为中国境外投资企业上了一课