2015年7月10日，香港立法会同意把现时适用于离岸基金的利得税豁免延伸至私募基金。新豁免载于《2015年税务（修订）条例（草案）》（草案）中，将于草案刊登宪报后生效，并将适用于2015年4月1日后进行的交易。
为了打消离岸私募股权基金的顾虑，提升香港作为资产管理中心的地位，上述修订草案扩大了现有利得税的豁免范围，将香港境外成立的某些私人公司的证券交易纳入其中，对“适格基金”取消了通过证券及期货条例项下持牌主体进行交易的要求，并将适用范围扩大至特殊目的公司。
私募股权基金在现有豁免框架下面临的障碍
一般来说，根据香港《税务条例》，凡在香港境内开展证券处置业务的，如果该处置行为属于香港境内交易、业务或经营的一部分，一律对由此产生的利润予以征税。这可能导致在港经营的离岸基金须缴纳利得税。
Continue Reading 香港利得税豁免新政惠及私募股权基金
By Fernando Badenes, King & Wood Mallesons’ Madrid Office
The last step of the reform of the electricity sector carried out by the Spanish Government has been the final straw. That step was the enactment of a Ministerial Order that has set the parameters of remuneration for different renewable energy technologies. This regulatory change supposes the retrenchment of the profitability that the Spanish state had promised and stimulated and which had been the reason for fresh private equity funds in the sector. This change of regime was initiated some years ago by the Spanish Government with the aim of reducing the tariff deficit of the system and has triggered foreign alarms to investors who had invested in the renewal energy sector relying on the Government’s promises on keeping premium fees throughout the lifetime of the plants. These investors have now initiated arbitration proceedings under the protection of the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”) to claim from the Spanish State fees lost as a result of this change of regulation.
Continue Reading Energy Charter Treaty: The umbrella for international arbitration against Spanish energy renewal
作者：Fernando Badenes 金杜律师事务所马德里办公室
西班牙政府对电力行业改革实施的最后举措成为了“最终一击”。政府制定了行政命令，并在命令中规定了不同可再生能源技术的补贴参数。此次监管变革预示着西班牙政府曾经承诺并鼓励的盈利能力将有所减退，并导致该行业出现新的私募股权基金。西班牙政府数年前发起了该项制度变革，旨在降低这一制度的关税赤字，对于依赖政府做出的在工厂运转期间保持溢价收费不变的承诺，并已投资可再生能源行业的投资者来说，这一变革也引起了他们的恐慌。这些投资者目前已经根据《能源宪政条约》（“ECT”）的保护提起了仲裁程序，以向西班牙政府主张由于监管变革而损失的费用。
Continue Reading 《能源宪章条约》：国际仲裁用以对抗西班牙能源革新的保护伞
By Mark Hoyle, King & Wood Mallesons’ Dubai Office
Public policy, as any student of English law knows, is “an unruly horse” which, depending on the rider, can either turn out to be one of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or a shining knight. After the issue of an award, just as a tribunal or the successful party feels that it is safe to relax and exit the psychological bunker that often shadows arbitrations in the UAE, the ace in the pack, high of course, is played and the immortal words “public policy” send a shiver through the process.
Once upon a time the arbitrators could sign at the end of the Award and breathe a sigh of relief that their job was done. But gradually, and with creeping vigour, the drums beat and the Tribunal is told that additional requirements must be fulfilled, such as initialling each page of the award in order for it to be valid. Nobody is able to point to a real legal basis of course, but never mind. Then, as if there is enough unpaid work for a tribunal, the watch phrase is “sign on each page” of the Award. At last, some might say – surely that is the end of it! But no, the latest wheeze is that each page of the award and the appendices must also be signed. No Court decision of course, no legal ruling, no change of the law.
Continue Reading Public policy, arbitration in the UAE & challenges to the norm
作者：Mark Hoyle 金杜律师事务所迪拜办公室
任何一个学过英国法的学生都知道：公共政策是一匹“不羁的骏马”，能否驯服它，全凭马背上的人是末日使者还是正义骑士。在阿联酋，当仲裁裁决作出后，仲裁庭以及获胜一方终于能松一口气，心中的石头终于落地。“公共政策”就是那块石头，悬在仲裁程序的结束。
以前，仲裁员只需在仲裁裁决的末尾签个名，他们所要做的工作已经完成了。但是逐渐地，对仲裁庭的要求越来越多：为了让裁决生效，仲裁员必须在裁决书每一页上签字。当然，没人指出这样做真正的法律依据，但这并不妨碍执行。之后，就像仲裁庭的无偿工作还不够繁重一样，每份裁决都注有“每页需签字”字样。有人觉得到这一步也不会再有新的要求了。但最新的苛求是仲裁裁决以及附件上的每一页都要有签字。当然，这项不成文的规定并不是出自法庭判决，也没有相应法规出台，没有修订法律。
Continue Reading 公共政策、阿联酋仲裁及对规范的挑战
By Stuart Fuller Paul Schroder, King & Wood Mallesons’ s Sydney Office
Today the China Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) was signed and tabled in the Australian Parliament following a decade of negotiations and seven months of document review and finalisation. Good things come to those who wait (and persevere). This historic milestone will boost trade and economic growth in both countries for years to come.
The formal agreement and ancillary arrangements are consistent with the summary material released by DFAT in November. The key issues are now well-traversed: investment protections and facilitation, reduction or removal of tariffs, and increased access for services businesses. We’re excited about this historic next chapter in the Australia-China relationship and we think you should be too. We’ve spent the past seven months thinking about and engaging with our clients on what this means for them. We set out below some headline thoughts on where the biggest opportunities are.
Read full article, please click here.Continue Reading ChAFTA is here – are you ready?
作者：Paul Schroder 金杜律师事务所悉尼办公室
备受期待的中国-澳大利亚自由贸易协定（“中澳自贸协定”）于2014年11月17日宣布签署。中澳自贸协定将确保澳大利亚在其最大贸易合作伙伴市场上的具有竞争力的地位，并奠定了两国间更深入有力的长期战略合作伙伴关系的基础。
中澳自贸协定传递了一个明确而有力的信息，即中澳就其相互间承诺发展经济性、政治性和社会方面的更深入关系，已向前迈出重大一步。
这是中国与发达经济体达成的首个全面自由贸易协定。
中澳自贸协定的达成，前所未有地为澳大利亚企业开放了世界增长最快的市场，开启了数十亿美元的出口和投资机会。同样地，中国企业也将因中澳自贸协定获益良多。
虽然中澳自贸协定可能未覆盖部分行业和产品，但重要的是着眼于大局，并牢记中澳自贸协定并非终点，而是为构筑后续关系而搭建的一个基础。
Continue Reading 中澳自由贸易协定：两国跨境投资增长机遇
作者：David Bateson[1] Matthew Howlett 金杜律师事务所香港办公室
紧急仲裁员程序的形成是为了填补仲裁规则的一项空白，那就是在正式提交仲裁或仲裁庭成立之前，或在做出临时或最终裁决之前，没有提供紧急救济或保护措施。在引入紧急仲裁员程序之前，当事方通常有三种选择，但这些选择均不理想：在仲裁庭成立之前，寻求地方法院的紧急救济；仲裁庭一旦成立，立即申请临时裁决；或按照一定的规则（例如国际商会规则）进行提交前程序。
然而，在提交仲裁或仲裁庭成立之前，没有适用于紧急情况的申请程序。如果必须申请或执行临时或禁令救济，而所在司法辖区法院系统通常不授予该等救济，那么这一问题就会尤为突出。新的紧急仲裁员程序引入了特定的制度规则，提供了一项机制，即由仲裁庭独立任命的紧急仲裁员在紧急情况下做出临时的紧急仲裁员裁决或命令，以补救这些问题。因此，紧急仲裁员程序可以限制对法院系统的依赖性。
Continue Reading 紧急仲裁程序
作者：Paul Stothard 与Alexis Namdar 金杜律师事务所伦敦办公室
围绕国际争议解决首选机构展开的竞争激烈且持久。为了争取优势，迪拜国际金融中心[1]（“DIFC”）和拟建中的新加坡商事法庭（“SICC”）正在探索将国际仲裁与国内法院诉讼中最吸引人的特点相结合的可能性。这两种争议解决途径各有广为人知的优缺点。[2]
Continue Reading 兼取两者之长？——DIFC和SICC的新方案在诉讼与仲裁两者优势之间寻求平衡
By Sharon Henrick, King & Wood Mallesons’ Sydney Office
Australia’s competition policy framework and laws are currently undergoing a wide-ranging review – the first comprehensive independent review of Australia’s competition framework since 2003. We explain the key developments and recommendations to date.
Background
In its 2013 election campaign, the Coalition of Australia’s Liberal and National political parties proposed a ‘root and branch’ review of competition laws in Australia within its first 100 days of government.
Continue Reading Reforming Australia’s competition landscape
