King and Wood

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

By Susan Ning and Ding Liang

On November 14, the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC") announced its decision to fine two private pharmaceutical companies nearly RMB 7 million for violating the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) (please see our previous article entitled NDRC Fined Two Pharmaceutical Companies for Abusive Conducts).  The NDRC’s news release did not clearly indicate which article(s) of the AML the two companies have violated and the method the NDRC adopted to calculate the fine. 

On December 16, Mr. Zhou Zhigao, an official from the NDRC’s Price Supervision, Inspection and Anti-monopoly Bureau discussed the reasoning behind this case in a seminar.  According to Mr. Zhou, the two pharmaceutical companies were fined under Article 17(3) of the AML because they abused their dominance by refusing to deal with reserpine manufacturers.  He also discussed the method used in that case to calculate the fine.Continue Reading NDRC Official Speaks on the Pharmaceutical Case

By You Yang and Lin Kaiyi King & Wood’s Real Estate Group

A real estate pooled investment fund ("RE Pooled Fund") is where trust companies raise funds from investors (who act as both "settlors" and "beneficiaries" in the trust) and work with real estate developers to provide beneficiaries with profits in return. RE Pooled Funds generate returns through specific assets, equity investments, loans, or a hybrid thereof.

With housing purchase restrictions being implemented in China’s major cities, real estate developers working with trust companies are facing serious cash flow pressure and some of them have even experienced operating difficulties. When real estate developers are unable to provide trust companies with high investment returns on schedule, and investors continue to hold expectations of high returns regardless of investment risk, trust companies are inclined to pay investors at their own expense and solve investment return problems with real estate developers internally rather than disclose investment risk to the investors. This is partly because trust companies value their reputation and the reputation of their investment products and want to avoid upsetting trustees and commercial banks who engage in selling the trust company’s products. Trust companies may also be concerned about the potential for class-action lawsuits by investors. However, such trust companies may one day be unable or unwilling to pay investors out of their own pockets, or investors may no longer be satisfied with being paid investment returns, leading to a very unsustainable situation.Continue Reading Risk Management for China’s Real Estate Pooled Investment Funds (Part I of II)

作者：尤杨 蔺楷毅 金杜律师事物所争议解决组

房地产集合资金信托产品是指信托公司从多个委托人（也是“投资人”，相对于单一信托而言）处募集资金，用于与房地产公司合作开发房地产项目，获得收益后支付给委托人作为投资回报的信托计划，常见形式有特定资产收益型、股权投资型、贷款型以及复合型等。

伴随近期全国各主要城市商品房限购政策的出台和执行，不少处于信托计划中的房地产开发商面临着非常严峻的现金流压力，部分公司已经陷入经营困境。当这类房地产开发商没有能力向信托公司按期支付高额投资回报时，投资人却不愿面对投资风险，执着的向信托公司讨要预期回报，信托公司虽然有苦难言，却又不愿公开披露风险，惟恐得罪投资人和代理销售信托产品的商业银行，更不愿酿成集体诉讼，断了将来继续发行信托产品的信誉和财路，只能自己掏腰包堵上投资人的窟窿，再内部消化与房地产开发商的那些理不清的纠葛。试想一下，如果有一天信托公司再也没有能力或者不想堵投资人的窟窿，又或者投资人的风险意识、维权意识觉醒，不再满足于被敷衍的支付投资回报，转而追究事实真相和责任，事态将会如何发展？这样的平静还能继续维持吗？Continue Reading 信托实务专题之（三）：浅论房地产集合资金信托产品的风险及控制（1）

金杜律师事务所外商直接投资组

继上海、北京、重庆出台外商投资股权投资企业试点文件后，天津的QFLP(合格境外有限合伙人)试点工作也已展开。2011年11月15日，天津市发展和改革委员会、天津市人民政府金融服务办公室、天津市商务委员会、天津市工商行政管理局联合发布《关于本市开展外商投资股权投资企业及其管理机构试点工作的暂行办法》("《办法》")及其实施细则。 《办法》对由外商投资的股权投资基金和股权投资基金管理企业的设立、资金募集和投资、风险控制、信息披露、备案管理等方面进行详细规范，同时鼓励该试点在天津滨海新区先行先试。Continue Reading 天津启动QFLP试点 率先给予外资PE国民待遇

金杜律师事务所知识产权组

历时三年之久的麒麟协和食品株式会社与陈某某、王某商标权转让合同纠纷一案日前终于一审审理终结。原告麒麟协和食品株式会社是“可得然”中文商标的商标权人，由上海欧卡内实业有限公司（“欧卡内公司”）代理其在中国销售可得然胶。2006年3月，被告欧卡内公司法定代表人陈某某向国家商标局抢先申请注册“可得然”的英文译音“CURDLAN”商标。双方于2007年签订《商标权转让合同》，约定被告将“CURDLAN”商标以2000美元的价格转让给原告。2008年5月，国家商标局以“转让人使用的签字与以前在商标局办理商标事宜时使用的签字明显不符”为由，要求原告补充提供转让人的身份证件（复印件）以及经公证的转让人同意转让的声明，因被告一直未予提供，导致商标局对“CURDLAN”商标转让不予核准，原告诉诸法院。Continue Reading 麒麟协和食品株式会社商标权转让合同纠纷一案

By Liu Xinyu and Gao Xiaorui King & Wood’s International Trade Group

Improper commodity classification in customs declaration may cause different legal liabilities. This article will begin the analysis with two cases.

Case 1: A large-scale foreign-investment enterprise ("Enterprise A") imported 72.6 tons of ethylene powder from Germany, and made a customs declaration in the name of ethylene powder with a commodity code ("HS code") of 29,012,100. Later, the customs office extracted samples from the declared goods for inspection. The laboratory identification report issued by the customs laboratory center revealed that the materials were actually a type of polymer with the main ingredient being vinyl acetate, and the proper corresponding HS code was 39052900. Through further investigation, the customs office found that Enterprise A had imported the same materials as "ethylene powder" three times. The customs office finally determined that Enterprise A’s acts constituted false declarations, and imposed administrative penalties on Enterprise A in accordance with relevant laws.

Case 2: According to a news report, the merchandiser of a well-known foreign-funded enterprise ("Enterprise B"), when scrutinizing Enterprise B’s former declaration materials for imported raw materials, found that the beginning of the HS code on the commercial invoice was 3302 rather than 1302, the correct beginning of HS code for the imported raw materials. Imported materials with HS codes 1302 and 3302 were levied different customs duties of 20% and 15%, respectively. HS code 1302 was the correct coding for imported materials by Enterprise B and the merchandiser was aware of the fact. However, Enterprise B continued to use the original commodity code when filing customs declaration for the imported materials, and carried out this misconduct for the next 30 months. Finally, the customs anti-smuggling department discovered Enterprise B’s acts and determined Enterprise B had evaded customs duties amounted to over RMB 1 million. Finally, a lawsuit was instituted by the competent procuratorate before the courts.Continue Reading Legal Liabilities from Improper Product Classification in Customs Declarations

作者：刘新宇 高晓瑞 金杜律师事务所国际贸易组

报关商品归类错误可能会引起不同的法律责任，这里先举两个案例:

案例一：某大型外商投资企业（“A公司”）从德国进口72.6吨乙烯胶粉。A公司在向海关申报该批货物的名称为乙烯胶粉、货物商品编码（“HS编码”）为29012100。此后，受理申报的海关提取了该票乙烯胶粉的样品送检，经海关化验中心出具的化验鉴定书显示，该批货物为以醋酸乙烯为主要成分的聚合物，归类参考意见为HS编码：39052900。同时，经海关调查A公司此前曾以同样方式进口乙烯胶粉合计三票。最终海关认定A公司的行为构成申报不实，根据相关规定对A公司给予行政处罚。

案例二：据有关媒体报道，某知名外资企业（“B公司”）的采购人员在审查本公司向海关申报进口原料的有关文件时，发现了国外供应商提供的商业发票中HS编码为1302开头，这一编码当时对应的税率为20%，而B公司进口时向海关申报所用的HS编码为3302开头，该编码当时对应税率为15%。据海关认定，虽然采购人员知道以1302开头的HS编码才是B公司实际进口货物的正确编码，但B公司仍继续使用原来的商品编码向海关伪报这批货物，并在此后的近30个月的时间里沿用了这一错报HS编码。最终，查获该行为的海关缉私部门认定B公司偷逃应缴税款总计100多万元，涉嫌构成走私普通货物罪，并由检察院向法院提起公诉。Continue Reading 因报关商品归类错误可能引起的法律责任

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming, Liu Jia and Yin Ranran

On December 13, it was reported that the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) asked China Telecom to submit more detailed "rectification proposal" in relation to its pledge for suspension of antitrust probe1.   Earlier on December 2, China Telecom and China Unicom announced that they have applied to the NDRC for suspension of its antitrust investigation into their internet access pricing practices, by promising to adjust the internet access prices and overhaul their broadband services (see our article entitled "China Telecom and China Unicom Seek to Settle Antitrust Probe").Continue Reading NDRC Demands More Concrete Pledges from China Telecom

By King & Wood’s Labor & Employment Group

The State Administration of Work Safety passed the Decision on the Amendment to the Interim Punishment Rules for the Regulations on Reporting and Investigating Work Safety Accidents (hereinafter the "Decision") on August 29th, 2011. The Decision will be effective as of November 1st, 2011.Continue Reading Penalty for Lying about or Concealing Work Safety Accidents Up to RMB 5 Million

By Susan Ning, Ding Liang, Liu Jia and Sun Yiming

On November 14, the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC") announced its decision to fine two private pharmaceutical companies nearly RMB 7 million for violating the Anti-monopoly Law ("AML")1. The penalty decision was released right after the NDRC publicly confirmed its investigation over China Telecom and China Union for alleged abuse of dominance in the broadband market. It seemed that the NDRC could not wait to show its determination to enforce the AML with another striking case.Continue Reading NDRC Fined Two Pharmaceutical Companies for Abusive Conducts