By: Mark Schaub and Luo Bin, King & Wood’s Corporate Group and Shanghai Office
On December 14, 2010, the State Administration of Taxation (“SAT”) promulgated an Announcement on Issues Concerning the Verification of Taxation Basis of Individual Income Tax Payable on Equity Transfer Income (“Announcement”). The Announcement will come into effect on January 14, 2010.Continue Reading PRC Tax Authorities Take a Closer Look at Low Share Transaction Prices
By Susan Ning, Zheng Ziqing and Angie Ng
At the brink of the New Year, it is timely to take stock of the antitrust merger control work we’ve undertaken for our clients and provide some observations re the merger control regime in China:Continue Reading Observations re the merger control regime in China
By Susan Ning and Ding Liang
On 29 December 2010, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) issued rules entitled Procedural Rules on Administrative Enforcement of Anti-price Monopoly (procedural rules). These procedural rules provide further guidance as to how Chapter 6 of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), entitled "Investigation of Alleged Monopoly Acts" operate. Chapter 6 of the AML outlines the investigation powers of the antimonopoly authorities.
This is the first time that the NDRC has issued any procedural rules in respect of the AML.Continue Reading Procedural Rules re Administrative Enforcement of Anti-Price Monopoly – effective 1 February 2011
By Susan Ning, Ding Liang, Shan Lining and Angie Ng
On 29 December 2010, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) issued rules entitled "Rules on Anti-Price Monopoly"(rules). These are the first rules to provide further guidance in relation to the price-related prohibitions of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML). [Note: The NDRC issued these rules in draft form for the first time in September 2009.] The rules will be effective as of 1 February 2011.
Broadly, the rules expand on and provide further guidance to the prohibitions against anticompetitive agreements and against an abuse of dominance within the AML.
Continue Reading Rules on Anti-Price Monopoly – effective 1 February 2011
By Susan Ning, Huang Jing and Angie Ng
We often receive queries from clients in relation to whether group restructures need to be notified to the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) for antitrust merger control clearance.
This article provides some general guidance as to when a group restructure needs to be notified to MOFCOM for antitrust merger control clearance.Continue Reading When do group restructures need to be notified?
By: Richard Wigley ofKing & Wood ‘s Intellectual Property Group
Perceptions (and Misperceptions) of IPR Lawsuits in the P.R.C.
There is no question that many foreign companies operating in the People’s Republic of China struggle with the protection of their intellectual property rights ("IPR"). The concerns of companies with protecting their valuable IPR in a developing country such as the P.R.C. are legitimate and serious. Though many of the executives and attorneys of these companies may view themselves as "old China hands" and have many years of experience in fighting to protect their IPR in the P.R.C., many more are relative newcomers to China and their views of IPR protection are shaped by not only their own experience, but by the perceptions of others, which may or may not be valid. For instance, some overseas business executives or legal counsel on occasion may voice their view that pursuing litigation as a foreign firm against a P.R.C. company over an alleged infringement in a P.R.C. court is a waste of time and money, as either they have little chance of prevailing, or, if they should prevail, the damages awarded will be so small as to not provide any substantive deterrent. Though every alleged infringement is case-specific, it is, however, useful to separate the perceptions (and misperceptions) from the realities of foreign-related IPR litigations in the P.R.C.Continue Reading Challenging Perceptions: New Statistics from the Supreme People’s Court on IPR Lawsuits in the PRC
1. 介绍
英国《2010年反腐败法案》（c.23）（以下称“《法案》”）于2010年4月8日获得御准并将于2011年4月生效。[1]
《法案》规定的两项一般性罪名取代了普通法项下以及之前英国成文法项下的腐败相关罪名[2]（这些法律规定因缺乏明晰性并且使用术语不一致而广受诟病[3]）。第一项罪名包括在诱导或者酬谢不当行为的意图下提供、许诺或者给予好处[4]（行贿罪），第二项罪名涉及要求、同意接受或者接受不正当的好处或者不当行为的引诱或酬谢[5]（受贿罪）。《法案》同时创设了一项独立的罪名——贿赂外国公职人员罪以及另一项新的罪名，即商业机构未能预防贿赂罪。[6]《法案》确保反贿赂法律平等适用于任职于公共机构以及被选出的私人机构的人员的贿赂行为，且不在两者间存在任何歧视待遇。[7]Continue Reading 2010年反腐败法案（英国）以及中国相关反腐败成文法的遵守
By: Ariel Ye and James Rowland
I. Introduction
The UK Bribery Act 2010 (c.23) (the “Act”) received royal assent on 8 April 2010 and will come into force in April 2011.[1]
The Act replaces the offences of bribery at common law and under earlier UK statutes[2] (which received much criticism for their lack of clarity and use of inconsistent terminology[3]) with two general offences. The first covers the offering, promising or giving of an advantage with an intention to induce or reward improper conduct [4] (active bribery) and the second deals with the requesting, agreeing to receive or accepting of an advantage that is improper or is an inducement or reward for improper conduct[5] (passive bribery). The Act also creates a discrete offence of bribery of a foreign public official and a new offence where a commercial organization fails to prevent bribery.[6] The Act ensures that the law against bribery applies equally to the bribery of persons exercising public and selected private functions without discriminating between the two.[7]Continue Reading The Bribery Act 2010 (United Kingdom) and Compliance with the Written Laws Against Bribery in China
背景：
在中国，较高的知识产权侵权率在近些年越来越受到中国境内外知识产权权利人的关注。尽管中国仍然是一个发展中国家，但是如此高的侵权率还是在一定程度上反映了中国经济体制存在的问题，这些侵权现象恰恰是中国经济发展的绊脚石。Continue Reading 全国范围内打击知识产权侵权专项行动：通过改进知识产权保护机制实现经济发展
By Richard Wigley of King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group
Background on the Campaign
High rates of intellectual property rights (“IPRs”) infringement in China have in recent years been of increasing concern to foreign and domestic rights holders alike. Though, as China is a developing country, such high rates of infringement are, arguably, to some extent an economic structural issue, these infringements are seen as an impediment to China’s economic growth prospects. Furthermore, China has an obligation as a signatory of TRIPs (Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) to maintain an effective regime for the protection of IPRs.Continue Reading National Campaign to “Crack Down” on Intellectual Property Rights (“IPRs”) Violations: Economic Development through Improved IPR Enforcement