在缔约一方为外国公司的合同中，尤其是国际融资合同中，争端解决条款经常约定相关争议应由外国法院管辖。这种约定往往是基于此类合同的惯例，并在作为优势一方的外国金融机构的坚持下订立的。但是，在商事活动越来越国际化的今天，固守这种惯例的交易外方，可能面临进退两难的困境。
一、 外国法院的判决可能无法在中国得到承认和执行
在合同约定外国法院管辖的情况下，如果中国公司只在中国（不包括港澳台地区）境内有可执行的财产，那么，一旦将来双方产生争议并由外国法院做出判决，则外方在该判决项下的权利只有在该判决被中国法院承认及执行后才能行使。然而，在中国申请承认和执行外国法院判决的难度非常大，需要满足相关法律和条约设定的种种条件。只要有一项条件不具备，相关外国法院的判决就无法得到中国法院的承认和执行，使得原本有利于外方的胜诉判决成为一纸空文。Continue Reading 约定域外法院管辖的困境及出路
By Liu Xiangwen and Xu Xianhong King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group
International commercial disputes have an extensive scope, involving matters such as international sale of goods, mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, and construction. The so-called international commercial dispute resolution cases dealt with by Chinese lawyers means those related to China and foreign countries, the main factors of which occurred either in China or in other countries. Due to the main characteristic of cross-border issues, international commercial dispute resolution is distinguished from domestic dispute resolution.
In the past, the parties in international commercial activities paid less attention when choosing options for dispute resolution, which were indicated by the fact that there were often no dispute resolution clauses in their contracts, or even where there were such provisions, they were poorly drafted. This situation has improved substantially according to recent cases we have dealt with.Continue Reading Options for International Commercial Dispute Resolution
国际商事争议的范围很广，涉及国际货物买卖、并购、PE投资、工程建设等诸多领域。但是简言之，中国律师所处理的“国际商事争议”，指的是同时具备中国和外国因素的商事争议，其主要事实可能发生在中国国内，也可能发生在国外。由于其跨国性的基本特点，国际商事争议的解决方式与国内争议有明显的区别。
在处理案件的过程中，我们发现国际商事活动的当事人越来越重视争议解决方式的选择，之前在合同中没有争议解决条款或者争议解决条款不规范的情况有所改观。Continue Reading 刍议国际商事争议解决方式的选择
By Susan Ning and Hazel Yin
On April 18, the Guangdong Higher People’s Court held the first court hearing for the abuse of dominance action filed by Qihoo(the operator of 360 safety software)against Tencent(the operator of QQ instant messaging software)under the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML"). Qihoo accused Tencent for abusing its dominance in the market of online instant communications services and claimed damages of RMB 150,000,000. The court hearing lasted for more than 8 hours, and attracted an audience of almost 400 people.
As requested by the court, the hearing was divided into four sessions, dedicated to each of the four issues: market definition, dominant position, abusive conducts and legal liabilities. The hearing focused on the first three issues and both sides called in expert witnesses and had fierce debates over each of these issues.Continue Reading 360 v. QQ-Abuse of Dominance Action Tried at Guangdong Higher Court
By Zhang Shouzhi, Xu Xiaodan and Li Xiang King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group
Commercial contracts (especially international financing agreements) between Chinese parties and foreign parties often designate a foreign court outside of China as the forum in which to resolve potential disputes. Such a forum selection clause, often insisted upon by the financial institution due to its stronger bargaining position, has become a generally accepted practice in international financing transactions.
However, when entering into an international commercial contract with a Chinese party, selecting a foreign jurisdiction to resolve disputes may place the foreign party at a disadvantage with respect to future commercial activities.Continue Reading Forum Shopping in Dispute Resolution: Hurdles and Solutions
By King & Wood Mallesons’ Trademark Group
According to the statement dated as of March 1, 2012 issued by a representative for Michael Jordan, the suit filed by former NBA basketball legend Michael Jordan against a Chinese sportswear and shoe manufacturer Qiaodan Sportswear Co., Ltd., whose trade name and trademark 乔丹 is equivalent to the commonly used Chinese translation for Jordan, has been accepted by court in China. The specific claims of the suit remain a myth presently.
Subsequent to the above statement, Michael Jordan also released another statement:Continue Reading Michael Jordan vs. Qiaodan Sportswear Co., Ltd Lawsuit Accepted
作者：金杜律师事务所商标组
篮球“飞人”迈克尔•乔丹（以下简称“乔丹”）起诉乔丹体育股份有限公司（以下简称“乔丹体育”）的诉讼事件近期闹的沸沸扬扬。昨日，该事件有了新的进展，根据迈克尔•乔丹的发言人发布的书面文件，法院已受理上述起诉,但是乔丹的诉讼请求尚不明确。
该书面文件显示的日期为3月1日，内容提及法院已受理迈克尔•乔丹对乔丹体育提起的诉讼。同时，迈克尔•乔丹在一份声明中表示：“我很高兴，中国法院受理了我的诉讼，以保护我的姓名权和中国消费者的利益。乔丹体育未经授权使用我的中文名字、球衣号码23号、甚至试图用我孩子的名字从事经营活动。我认为中国消费者的权益应当受到保护、不应被误导，他们应该对其购买的商品具有清楚的知情权。我采取这一行动旨在保护我的姓名权和品牌。任何人均有权保护自己的姓名权。对于本案的受理，说明中国认可姓名权是每个人应有的权利。”Continue Reading 乔丹告乔丹体育诉讼获受理
By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Huang Jing
On April 24, 2012, TV.SOHU.COM, v.QQ.COM,and iQIYI.COM (the specialized video website of Baidu)jointly announced the establishment of an alliance called "Video Content Cooperation" (VCC) for vedio copyright joint purchasing. The VCC is viewed as another "faction" after the recent combination of Youku and Tudou. It is reported that the main purpose of the VCC is to jointly purchasing the copy right for their own each website.1
TV.SOHU.COM, v.QQ.COM, and iQIYI.COM are all internet video websites and are close competitors. Their cooperation may affect the competition status in the market. This article will analyze under the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) whether joint purchase arrangement could constitute "horizontal monopoly agreement".Continue Reading Joint purchasing under the AML-SOHU, QQ and Baidu launched Video Content Cooperation Alliance
By King & Wood’s Corporate Group
（中国語原文「关于进一步明确和规范部分资本项目外汇业务管理有关问题的通知」）
クロスボーダーの資本流動による金融リスクを防止し、国際収支の基本的均衡を図るため、国家外貨管理局は、本通知を発し、外貨資本金の支払・人民元転、外債借入、土地保証金口座、個人資産現金化専門外貨口座に関する規制を強化した。
作者：胡梅 Holly Blackwell 金杜律师事务所争议解决组 上海分所
美国的诉讼证据开示制度对于缺乏美国诉讼经验的当事人来说非常陌生，对于中方当事人来说更是如此，因为中国诉讼程序与其大相径庭。中国法下的诉讼程序与其他大陆法系国家类似，双方当事人只须提供支持己方诉求或抗辩的相关证据既可。美国证据开示制度则不仅要求当事人提供对己方有利的证据，也要求当事人提供对其不利的证据。美国证据开示规则能使诉讼当事人较容易地得到对方、甚至是第三方的信息，例如公司内部电子邮件、文件、记录和规章。即使此类信息的披露会违反中国法律规定，一方也可以要求对方披露所需信息。尽管海牙公约提供了一条取得中国境内证据的途径，但当一方当事人在美国法庭提起诉讼时，美国法庭并不总倾向于适用《海牙公约》[i]的程序。从近期的一些美国案例中，我们不难看出要求中方当事人出示证据的困难性，以及中方当事人就此问题在美国诉讼中面临的挑战。Continue Reading 在中国境内为美国诉讼取证