King and Wood

Subscribe to King and Wood's Posts
Contact:Read more about King and Wood

By Susan Ning, Chai Zhifeng and Angie Ng

On June 2, 2011, Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) publicly announced the first conditional merger clearance in 2011. At its [2011] No. 33 Announcement, MOFCOM cleared Uralkali’s proposed acquisition of Silvinit (the Parties) (both potash producers based in Russia) with conditions.  This is the 7th conditional merger clearance since the enactment of the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) in 2008.   MOFCOM is obliged by statute to publish conditional clearances. 

The following are the salient points to note vis-à-vis this conditional clearance:Continue Reading The Russian Potash Deal – first conditional clearance of 2011

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: Susan Ning, Angie Ng and Shan Lining

Last week (between 26 to 27 May 2011), it was reported in the press that Unilever has raised the prices of specific products (including Lux and Hazeline branded shampoos and shower gels) by 10% in some cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou (Unilever’s price increases).  This was touted as a surprising move given that Unilever was recently fined by the price authority, the National Development Reform Commission (NDRC) in relation to conduct to do with its proposed price increases just earlier in the month (see below for more details to do with this fine) (Unilever’s price signaling conduct).

This article outlines details to do with Unilever’s price signaling conduct and subsequent price increases and examines whether or to what extent such conduct would be considered in breach of the Price Law and the Anti-Monopoly Law in China.Continue Reading Price signaling and price hikes – a breach of the Price Law or Anti-Monopoly Law?

By: Susan Ning, Shan Lining and Angie Ng

On 6 May 2011, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced that a manufacturer of household and personal care products (the Manufacturer) has been fined a total of RMB2 million for breaching the Price Law.  The NDRC also appeared to have made some Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) references in relation to this case.Continue Reading Price hikes and price signaling

By He Wei and Wang Yaxi of King & Wood Dispute Resolution Group

When a domain name is in conflict with the prior rights of others (e.g. the trademark rights, the rights of the company name, etc.), there are two approaches of settling the disputes: 1) the prior right holder may file a complaint to one of two domain name dispute resolution centers, or 2) the prior right holder may bring an action to the court or refer the dispute to arbitration. For the sake of efficiency and cost control, the prior right holder will typically seek a resolution from a domain name dispute resolution center(1)("DNDRC"), on the condition that the disputed domain name has been registered for less than two years.

Continue Reading Bridging DNDRC Decision and Judicial Judgment on Domain Name Dispute

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Angie Ng

On 25 April 2011, the Supreme People’s Court (the Court) published draft rules which govern Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) private actions (Draft Rules)1.   These Draft Rules are entitled "Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in relation to Trials of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases".  The Court will consult on these Draft Rules till 1 June 2011.

We note that these Draft Rules provide for applicants to file "joint" applications with others against respondents.  This article outlines what the Draft Rules say about joint applications and outlines how this interacts with the joint application regime pursuant to China’s Civil Procedure Law.

Continue Reading AML Class Actions and The Draft Litigation Rules

By Denning Jin, Helen Chen of King & Wood’ s Dispute Resolution Group and Shanghai Office

Background

A number of automobile design patent infringement cases have been brought to Chinese courts in recent years, such as Honda v. Hebei Shuanghuan, FIAT PANDA v. Great Wall PERI, Neoplan v. Beijing Zhongtong Xinghua Automobile Selling Co., Ltd., et al. The hallmarks of these cases are not only the high value of the damages claimed and the importance of the outcomes which are dispositive to the market structure, but also the malleability of rule of law in the field of design patent infringement determination.Continue Reading PRC Supreme People’s Court: Clarified Design Patent Infringement Determination

By Susan Ning, Shan Lining, Ji Kailun and Liu Jia

 

On 25 April 2011, the Supreme People’s Court (the Court) published draft rules which govern Anti-Monopoly Law private actions (Draft Rules).  These draft rules are entitled "Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in relation to Trials of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases".

 

This article outlines the salent provisions of, and points to some interesting features of, these Draft Rules.
Continue Reading A Further Look At The Draft Rules Governing AML Private Actions