2014年8月21日，中国证券监督管理委员会(以下简称“证监会”)颁布了《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》(中国证券监督管理委员会令第105号，以下简称“105号令”), 105号令将自颁布之日起施行。
105号令的颁布,，标志着证监会对于以非公开方式向投资者募集资金设立投资基金(以下简称“资管业务”)这一业务模式终于构建了基本的、统一的监管标准。此前，证监会监管下的资管业务并无统一的监管标准，证券公司、基金公司、私募股权投资机构等遵循着完全不同的监管政策各自为战。
Continue Reading 私募基金新规迎来资管业务新格局
随着我国跨境技术贸易的活跃发展，与知识产权有关的涉外合同纠纷也日益增多。由于仲裁具有私密性和可以跨境执行的特点，许多从事国际商事活动的当事人倾向于选择仲裁作为争端解决方式。实践中，有大量的涉外技术合同都订立有仲裁条款，当事人约定将与合同有关的知识产权争议提交仲裁解决。知识产权仲裁中，常见的纠纷有被许可方超出许可范围使用、被许可方披露或允许第三人使用许可方的技术等。知识产权作为无形财产，其权能体现为对构成权利客体的技术或商业资源的专有使用权，因此对权利人而言，限制他人的非法使用是实现其权利的必要内容。在这个意义上，禁令在知识产权案件中具有十分重要的作用。相关知识产权法已经确立了“诉前禁令”和“诉中禁令”制度，在诉讼前及诉讼中以禁令的形式为权利人提供临时救济措施，以避免损失的发生或扩大。但在知识产权仲裁中，由于仲裁法律对禁令缺少明确规定，并且仲裁庭不具有作出禁令的权力，使得仲裁当事人难以获得禁令的救济，其权利不能得到充分的保障。本文将就仲裁中适用禁令的法律依据及面临的问题进行探讨，希望抛砖引玉，与各位同仁商榷。
Continue Reading 禁令在知识产权仲裁中的适用问题
2014年8月21日，中国证监会发布了《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》（以下简称《暂行办法》），根据《暂行办法》，界定“私募”行为的标准可包括：（1）以非公开方式募集；[1]（2）向合格投资者募集；[2]（3）向累计不超过法律规定数量的投资者发行；[3]（4）登记备案；[4]（5）不得承诺投资本金不受损失或者承诺最低收益等。[5]
2010年，最高人民法院制定并出台了《最高人民法院关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》（以下简称《解释》）。根据《解释》第1条的规定，非法集资活动应该同时具备以下四个条件：（1）未经有关部门依法批准或者借用合法经营的形式吸收资金；（2）通过媒体、推介会、传单、手机短信等途径向社会公开宣传；（3）承诺在一定期限内以货币、实物、股权等方式还本付息或者给付回报；（4）向社会公众即社会不特定对象吸收资金。
Continue Reading 私募新规，划清与非法集资的边界
By He Wei and Wang Yaxi King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group
Introduction
As China’s cross-border technology trade develops, the number of disputes arising from international Intellectual Property contracts gradually increases. Many parties involved in international business prefer arbitration as their dispute resolution mechanism, because arbitration is confidential and its decisions can be enforced in different jurisdictions. Loads of international technology license agreements contain arbitration provisions whereby the parties agree on how to settle IP related disputes. IP disputes that will be arbitrated usually include: whether the licensee’s use exceeds the licensed scope; issues concerning the licensee’s disclosure of the licensor’s technology; and the licensee’s unauthorized sub-license of the licensor’s technology. The value of an IP right, as an intangible property right, lies in a right owner’s exclusive right to use the technology or business resources which constitute the subject matter of the right. Therefore it is essential for a right owner to maintain his IP right by prohibiting unauthorized use by others. Accordingly the use of injunctions plays a vital role in IP cases. China’s IP legislation now provides pre-action and interlocutory injunctions to give right owners provisional remedies, in the form of injunctions before and during the trial. In this way an owner can stop damage from occurring or escalating.
Continue Reading Applications for Injunctive Orders in IP Arbitration
By Meg Utterback Monique Carroll and Emily Rich King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group
Bribery and corruption is increasingly an issue of concern for multinational companies, especially when seeking to invest in “high risk” jurisdictions. Historically, the primary concern in this area has been exposure to civil and criminal penalties for contravention of anti-bribery and corruption legislation. However, recent years have seen a growing trend towards governmental expropriation of investments alleged to have been obtained by bribery and corruption. This poses a significant additional risk to foreign investors. Investors who are found to have engaged in corrupt practices will have difficulty defending against expropriation or seeking compensation for expropriation that might otherwise have been obtainable under either domestic or public international law. Unfortunately, in some cases, foreign officials may take retaliatory action against an investor for failing to pay a bribe. Organisations doing business abroad must remain vigilant about anti-bribery and corruption compliance. They must also consider what protections may be available under investment treaties for unfair or arbitrary state conduct that equates to an expropriation or another breach of applicable international standards.
Continue Reading Bribery and Corruption in Foreign Investments: Investors Beware
作者：胡梅（Meg Utterback） Monique Carroll Emily Rich 金杜律师事务所争议解决组
近年来贿赂和腐败成为跨国企业面临的一个日益严重的问题，对于在贿赂问题风险偏高的国家寻找投资机会的投资者来说更是如此。过去这方面主要问题表现在违反反贪腐法律相关规定导致的民事和刑事处罚。近年来的一大趋势是政府强制征用被认定为涉嫌腐败行为的投资资产，这给外商投资带来更大的风险。被发现参与腐败行为的投资者将很难避免资产被没收或是只能在被没收后寻求国内法或国际法下的赔偿。但不幸的是，行贿在一些情况下已成为惯例，对于未行贿的投资者可能会遭到当地官员的报复。在境外进行商业活动的投资者应谨慎对待反贪腐的合规工作，其必须考虑双边投资条约项下有什么可行的保护措施来应对此类独断不公的政府征用行为和违背国际标准的政府行为。
Continue Reading 投资者须知：境外投资中的贿赂与腐败
我们曾参与某上市电力公司向控股股东某国有企业发行股份购买控股股东持有的部分电力企业股权的重大资产重组项目。该重组项目最终取得了监管部门的核准。本文以该重组项目中所遇到的主要法律问题为主线，同时结合正在参与的其他电力企业上市项目，针对电力行业的特点，从国有股权转让、项目审批及建设、经营资质、环境保护、同业竞争、关联交易和行政处罚几个方面，介绍在电力企业法律尽职调查中应当关注的主要法律问题。
国有股权协议转让问题
电力企业多为国有企业，且一般设立时间较早。在尽职调查过程中，企业设立时的股东出资、存续过程中的股权转让、国有企业改制、国有资产处置等事项是否符合当时有关国有资产管理的规定、是否履行了国有资产管理程序等，是需要核查和解决的重点问题。其中，国有股权协议转让是否合法合规（包括国有单位之间的转让，以及国有单位向非国有单位转让），是监管机构重点关注的问题之一。
Continue Reading 电力企业法律尽职调查应关注的主要问题
作者：金杜律师事务所 矿产资源诉讼仲裁团队
矿业权纠纷包括矿业权的出让、转让、合作、承包、租赁、抵押及侵权纠纷等多个类型。结合前沿理论、司法惯例及立法动态，我们将陆续推出“矿业权纠纷的应对与处理”系列文章。
第一步，国土资源主管部门委托矿业权交易机构。国土资源主管部门拟出让矿业后，需由先向矿业权交易机构下达矿业权交易委托书，委托矿业权交易机构以招标、拍卖、挂牌方式出让矿业权。相关出让工作由矿业权交易机构按委托书的内容组织实施。国土资源主管部门应与矿业权交易机构签订委托合同，且委托合同应包括下列内容：（一）转让人和矿业权交易机构的名称、场所；（二）委托服务事项及要求；（三）服务费用；（四）违约责任；（五）纠纷解决方式；（六）需要约定的其他事项。
Continue Reading 以招拍挂方式取得矿业权的八大步骤
“Made in Africa”, a publication that looks at the latest legal developments, market analysis and hot topics, with our partners in Africa, that are focusing the minds of investors into, and businesses operating in, Africa.
As the focus on Africa intensifies we are seeing new players enter the market and strategic players increase
By Richard W. Wigley King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group
The framework for variants of class action-type litigation in the People’s Republic of China has been in place since the initial promulgation of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C. (“CPL”) in 1991. The amended CPL provides requirements for filing a “joint litigation” for suits where “the object of the action is of the same category and a party consists of numerous persons” and where the parties may choose to elect a representative.[1] Further as to whether standing is afforded the plaintiff and the filing requirements for such litigation, the CPL provides that “[t]he plaintiff must be a citizen, legal person, or an organization having a direct interest with the case … there must be a specific defendant … [and] there must be a specific claim and a specific factual basis and grounds ….”[2] In short, the CPL provides a framework which allows for what is a variation of what is commonly referred to as a “class action lawsuit”.
Continue Reading Class Action-type Litigation in China
