投资者们翘首企盼的沪港通已于11月17日正式开通，在两地证监会正式批准启动沪港通的11月10日，沪市上涨超过2%，创近三年新高，这充分展现了市场对沪港通的热切期盼。面对投资者们高涨的投资热情，本文将在法律层面上就沪港通所涉及的股票代持模式、两市股票交收制度的差异及新股认购事宜作出相应分析，供投资者们参考。
股票代持模式
此次开通的沪港通使得大陆及香港的投资者们能够跨境投资上海证券交易所（以下简称“上交所”）或香港联合证券交易所（以下简称“联交所”）上市公司的股票，但这并不意味着投资者能够成为相关上市公司的直接股东。
根据中国证券登记结算有限责任公司（以下简称“中国结算”）发布的《沪港股票市场交易互联互通机制试点登记、存管、结算业务实施细则》（以下简称“《实施细则》”）第6条及第15条的规定，投资者们通过沪港通所买入的股票，将分别由香港中央结算有限公司（以下简称“香港结算公司”）与中国结算代投资者持有，并以香港结算公司与中国结算的名义登记在相关上市公司的股东名册中。
Continue Reading 沪港通若干法律风险管窥
By Xiong Jin King & Wood Mallesons’ Corporate Group
Since the global financial crisis in 2008, China has seen explosive growth in overseas investment. The Ministry of Commerce forecasts that the size of China’s outbound direct investment will exceed that of foreign capital utilization for the first time in 2015. [1] Australia is one of the earliest countries which Chinese companies have gone out for, and is the second largest target for China’s overseas investment, second only to the United States. Mining is undoubtedly the industry that has attracted most investment from China into Australia. Although there has been a decline in China’s investment into the Australian mining industry in recent years due to factors such as the falling market demand, carbon tax policy, the emergence of alternative countries with resources, the investment in the mining industry in Australia continues to account for the majority of the total investment value.
Continue Reading Factors for Successful Chinese Investment in the Australian Mining Industry: A Case Study of Baosteel Consortium’s Acquisition of Aquila
By Paul Schroder King and Wood Mallesons’ Sydney office
On November 17, 2014 China signed a declaration of intent with Australia concluding the first stage of bilateral negotiations on a free trade agreement (ChAFTA). Australia will reduce the tariffs on all Chinese products to zero eventually and China will reduce the tariffs on most of Australian products to zero. In the services sector, both sides promised to open their markets to each other’s service providers in a meaningful way. In the investment field, although the details have not yet been released, MOFCOM announced that both sides have agreed to grant each other “most favored nation status”.
They also agreed to significantly reduce the review thresholds for corporate investment, to increase market access opportunities, and improve the predictability and transparency for investment. The agreement will cover more than 10 areas, including trade in goods and services, investment and trade rules. It will also cover subjects such as e-commerce and government procurement. According to MOFCOM
“The China-Australia FTA negotiations have realized the goal of comprehensiveness, high quality and balance of interests. The signing of the agreement will allow the two countries to fully utilize their respective economic advantages, boost win-win cooperation, bring mutual benefits and promote the in-depth development of bilateral economic and trade ties.”
Continue Reading ChAFTA 2014: The winners, the thresholds and the opportunities
经过近10年、20多轮的谈判，2014年11月17日，中澳两国终于宣布就《中华人民共和国与澳大利亚自由贸易协定》（简称“中澳自贸协定”或“协定”）实质性结束谈判，并就协定签署签订了意向声明。预计未来两个月，两国将完成协定文本的最终定稿和协定签署，之后完成国内的批准程序使协定生效。
中国是澳洲最大的贸易伙伴，澳洲也是中国最主要的投资目标国之一，两国在自然资源、能源、农业等领域存在着天然的互补关系。中澳自贸协定涉及双边贸易和投资的广泛议题，协定生效后将在诸多方面降低壁垒，为两国之间的贸易和投资带来更大便利。
Continue Reading 中澳自贸协定签署在即，将为两国贸易投资带来便利
By Xu Ping, Yao Lijuan and Gao Wei King & Wood Mallesons’ M&A Group
On November 4, 2014, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) released the latest draft updating the current 2011 “Foreign Direct Investment Industries Guidance Catalogue (“2014 Draft”),” and called for public opinions on the draft until December 3, 2014.
The Foreign Direct Investment Industries Guidance Catalogue (“Catalogue”) is the central policy of the Chinese government that regulates the inflow of foreign investment in various Chinese industries. The Catalogue classifies foreign direct investments in the industrial sectors as “encouraged,” “restricted,” “permitted,” or “prohibited” and imposed restrictions on foreign investment forms and shareholdings on certain key industrial sectors. Since its inception in 1995, the Catalogue has been revised once every few years. The 2014 Draft, once takes into effect, will become the sixth revision and replaces the current 2011 Catalogue.
Continue Reading “China Welcomes Foreign Investment”——With Draft Revision of Foreign Direct Investment Industries Guidance Catalogue, China Plans Sweeping Foreign Investment Reforms
2014年10月2日，国务院发布《国务院关于加快发展体育产业促进体育消费的若干意见》（国发〔2014〕46号）（“46号文”）。业界认为，46号文的颁布标志着中国体育产业市场化发展黄金时代的全面到来。
与我国政府近年颁布的一系列促进体育产业发展的鼓励政策相比，46号文首次并列强调体育产业和体育消费，并将此定位为有利于保障和改善民生、扩大内需、增加新的经济增长点以及增强国家凝聚力和国家文化竞争力的绿色朝阳产业。46号文的内容贯穿“坚持改革创新”和“发挥市场作用”的基本原则和思路，进一步深化和细化了国务院办公厅在《关于加快发展体育产业的指导意见》（国办发〔2010〕22号）中所提出的相关重点工作任务和鼓励政策[1]。
值得注意的是，46号文推出了数项旨在改革现有行政监管体制和优化市场环境的突破性政策。新政策不仅释放了政府将大力培育扶持体育产业的明确信号，也对体育产业中未来值得社会资本参与投资的特定重点领域进行了提示。本文将主要就取消商业性和群众性体育赛事审批以及放宽赛事转播权限制等两项重要政策进行解读。
Continue Reading 中国体育产业迎来市场化发展的黄金时代
创新是当代中国律师发展的主题，中国律师事业经过三十年的快速发展，长期积累的问题使得持续发展难以为继，因此创新攸关生存。创新虽然是律师事业发展不竭的动力，但任何创新问题的提出，都有时代背景和个体含义。律所创新是自身持续发展的必要条件，但律所怎样领跑律师服务创新，以下两点至关重要。
提升律师学养和服务质量，重点放在内涵式发展
经济学上外延式发展，主要是通过增加生产要素投入，实现经营规模扩大和收入增长，内涵式发展则主要是通过技术进步和科学管理来提高生产要素的质量和使用效益，实现规模扩大和效益提高。过去三十年里，中国律师事业快速发展，在律所的发展初期，追求规模有利于实现战略布局，但主要发展特征仍是粗放型的特征，而未来发展，应向集约型发展转变。集约型发展的几个关键点需要抓住。
Continue Reading 创新型律所是什么
作者：金杜律师事务所
由国家工商行政管理总局批准、中华商标协会主办的2014中国国际商标·品牌节于2014年11月8日至10日在江苏省苏州市举行，来自全国各地以及部分国家的知识产权专业人员、以及各地工商局、国际商标协会代表等参加了会议。会前，金杜荣获“2012-2014优秀商标代理机构”奖，中华商标协会给包括金杜在内的五十家优秀商标代理机构颁发了奖牌。
Continue Reading 金杜蝉联“优秀商标代理机构”奖
2014年11月4日，国家发改委发布《外商投资产业指导目录》（“《投资目录》”）修订稿，公开征求意见。《投资目录》作为中国政府外商直接投资管制的核心文件，明确规定了鼓励类、限制类的外商投资项目以及禁止外商投资的领域，并就特别行业规定了外商投资的股比限制及其与中国企业的合作模式。自1995年颁布之后，《投资目录》每隔几年修订一次，此为《投资目录》的第六次修订，也是历次修订中修改规模较大的一次。
自2013年7月中美重启双边投资协定实质性问题谈判以来，进一步扩大中国对外投资开放领域、减少外商投资领域管制一直是双方的重要议题。在此国际环境下，上海自由贸易区率先参考国际通行的负面清单做法，制定《外商投资准入特别管理措施》（即负面清单）以取代《投资目录》，在负面清单中列明区内对外商投资项目采取的限制或禁止性措施。2013年负面清单初次发布之时，几乎涵盖了2011年《投资目录》中对外商投资的全部限制政策，在外国投资者对此略感失望之际，2014年7月上海自贸区再次修改负面清单，将限制类和禁止类的产业从190条减少至139条。但是由于放宽力度有限且负面清单仅适用于上海自贸区，市场一直期待外商投资准入领域会有更进一步的深度改革。
Continue Reading 外商投资政策新变化解读
By Susan Ning, Kate Peng, Sarah Eder and Gao Sibo
Introduction
A major concern for undertakings which are involved in international cartel cases is the possibility of receiving overlapping punishments for their cartel conduct by competition authorities in different jurisdictions.
Various jurisdictions, including China, recognize the concept of double jeopardy and have introduced provisions which attempt to prevent over-punishment in the context of national proceedings. Although there is no international standard to prevent double jeopardy in the context of antitrust enforcement of the same cartel by different jurisdictions, a number of competition authorities have taken the principle into account when imposing fines in international cartel cases, for example by excluding commerce or turnover attributable to certain sales or applying a reduction to the fine to take account of the fact that another jurisdiction has already imposed fines in respect of certain sales.
We recognize that double jeopardy is an important consideration for clients which are implicated in international cartels. The Chinese antitrust agencies have not yet expressed how they intend to address the issue. However, as they become more experienced in dealing with such cases, we hope that they will also become more aware of the issue and will clarify their approach to the issue of double jeopardy.
Continue Reading The Principle of “Double Jeopardy” in International Cartel Investigations
