作者：Tim Taylor QC Chiz Nwokonkor 金杜律师事务所
从
阿比让到突尼斯，非洲的仲裁中心数量正在增加。这种增长势头反映了许多非洲经济体的增长和逐渐多样化发展。此种增长可以被看作由行业驱动，绝大多数向仲裁机构提交的争议都来自于电信、基础设施和能源部门。在该领域明显领先的是基加利国际仲裁中心和毛里求斯国际仲裁中心，前者仅在两年多的时间里就审理了约30起案件，其中数起为国际争议，后者很英明地与伦敦国际仲裁院相关联并获得支持和可信度，使其可以成为整个非洲大陆的仲裁平台。这里我们重点关注尼日利亚和吉布提最近的两个项目，它们是下一代非洲仲裁中心的代表。
拉各斯项目的仲裁是拉各斯仲裁院（LCA）和拉各斯商务部国际仲裁中心（LACIAC）的联合项目。LCA和LACIAC根据一份谅解备忘录的约定，共同鼓励在尼日利亚拉各斯进行国际和国内仲裁。较晚设立的LACIAC致力于将拉各斯推广成为人们解决与非洲有关的仲裁的首选。来自非洲其他地区的竞争也非常激烈，这两家仲裁中心面临着突出自身优势和吸引会员的一系列挑战。
全文阅读，请点击此处。
作者：宁宣凤 尹冉冉 刘成 张若寒 黎辉辉 金杜律师事务所商务合规部
2
0
1
6年5月12日，国家发展和改革委员会（“国家发改委”）在其网站上发布了《关于垄断协议豁免一般性条件和程序的指南》（征求意见稿）（以下简称“征求意见稿”），面向社会公开征求意见。作为国务院反垄断委员会工作计划中六部反垄断指南之一，征求意见稿首次系统性地规范了垄断协议豁免制度，明确了适用的一般性条件，并突破性地落实了垄断协议个案豁免的“事前咨询”程序，为反垄断实践提供了重要指引。
根据我国《反垄断法》第十五条的规定，经营者能够证明所达成的协议属于条款所列明的情况之一（并满足相关条件），将不受第十三条、第十四条的规制，即不属于《反垄断法》意义下的“垄断协议”。虽然该条采用列举方式对可以豁免的情况进行规定，碍于缺乏明确的程序性机制，实践中仍难以对经营者及执法机关提供明确指引。因此，距《反垄断法》生效已有八年，第十五条在执法或司法实践中却鲜有成功适用。此次征求意见稿的制定既为经营者理解和适用垄断协议豁免制度提供了较为明确的指引和保障，也在进一步提升反垄断执法透明度上迈出了坚实的一步。 Continue Reading 新规解读：垄断协议个案豁免制度首次获系统性规范
By King & Wood Mallesons
Arbitration clauses contained in commercial contracts typically derogate the jurisdiction of the otherwise competent state courts by providing that the parties to the contract will arbitrate all disputes which arise under or in connection with the contract. Similarly, jurisdiction clauses typically limit all disputes which arise under or in connection with the contract to the courts of one jurisdiction. The answer to the question of whether such clauses would also cover cartel damages claims of one party against the other party is often unclear, but becomes increasingly important given the growing number of private enforcement activities resulting from cartel infringements.
In its decision of 21 May 2015, the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) found that disputes concerning cartel damages claims between cartel members and the cartel’s victims are generally not covered by any jurisdiction clause contained in supply agreements unless the cartel’s victim has consented thereto[1]. This follows the rationale that cartel claims have their basis not in the sales contract between the cartelist and its customer, but in the infringement of competition law. Unfortunately, the ECJ did not expressly decide on arbitration clauses, but – presumably – the same reasoning would apply.
Read full article, please click here.
作者：金杜律师事务所
商业合同中的仲裁条款一般通过约定合同双方将通过仲裁解决所有由合同引起或与合同相关的争议，使本来有管辖权的国家法院不再具有管辖权。与之相似，管辖权条款一般将所有由合同引起或与合同相关的争议限制在某一司法辖区的法院。而此种条款是否涵盖一方向另一方主张卡特尔损害赔偿的情形，答案常常不明确，但随着卡特尔侵权引起的私人执行活动日益增多，这个答案也变得越来越重要。
欧洲法院在其2015年5月21日的判决中指出，卡特尔成员和卡特尔受害人之间有关卡特尔损害赔偿的争议一般不包含在供应协议的任何管辖权条款中，除非卡特尔的被侵权人同意如此。[1]其依据是，主张卡特尔损害赔偿并非基于卡特尔成员与其客户之间的销售合同，而是基于违反竞争法的行为。遗憾的是，欧洲法院没有明确就仲裁条款做出判决，但据推测可以适用同样的推理过程。
全文阅读，请点击此处。
By Liu Yuwu, Zhang Jun(James) and Louise England King & Wood Mallesons
F
or foreign and domestic parties alike, collection of evidence within China can raise some interesting and specific issues. Such evidence may be foundational for a dispute before a PRC court or arbitral institution, a foreign lawsuit which has Chinese elements, or for a party seeking to identify assets within China.
In some situations, foreign parties will have access to the evidence on which they seek to rely to support their allegations. In other cases, attempting to gather evidence within China requires a party to navigate what can be a seemingly difficult legislative and administrative tapestry. This is particularly so given discovery is not a process that is directly reflected in the Chinese Civil Procedure Law (CPL) and that under Chinese law, lawyers are not permitted to take depositions in China for use in foreign courts.
Depending on the purpose for which the party requires the evidence, foreign parties may be required to consider:
Read full article, please click here.
作者：刘郁武 张军 Louise England 金杜律师事务所
对于外国和中国国内当事人来说，在中国境内取证可能引发一些有趣和特别的问题。《民事诉讼法》第63条规定证据包含书证、物证、视听资料、证人证言、当事人陈述、鉴定意见和勘验笔录。这些证据对于在中国法院和仲裁机构的争议解决、涉及中国元素的外国诉讼以及在中国境内申请确认资产的当事人来说都可能具有重要意义。
在某些情况下， 外国当事人能够在中国获得用以支持他们主张的证据。在另一些情况下，在中国采集证据则需要当事人在复杂的立法和行政环境中摸索。特别是《民事诉讼法》并未规定证据开示程序，且根据中国法律，不允许律师将在中国境内获得的证词用于外国诉讼程序。
全文阅读，请点击此处。
By Rui Wang , Yibo Ge and Jun Zhang King & Wood Mallesons’ Corporate & Securities Group
O
n April 28, 2016, the PRC Administrative Law on Overseas NGOs’ Activities within China (《中华人民共和国非政府组织境内活动管理法》) (“Overseas NGOs Law”) was passed through the 20th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress. The Overseas NGOs Law will take effect on January 1, 2017. It is the first time that China has legislated on the administration, supervision and service assurance of overseas NGOs’ activities within China.
Read full article, please click here.
By Patrick Gunning King & Wood Mallesons’ Sydney Office
T
he results of our recent Directions survey confirm the anecdotal evidence that cyber-resilience was a hot topic for many directors and Boards in Australia in 2015 and is continuing in to 2016. ASIC produced a “Cyber resilience: health check” publication in March 2015, which helped guide thinking in the domestic market. As part of a director’s duty of care and diligence, directors need to assess and address the risk of damage to the company from external cyber-attacks and internal unauthorised access to or disclosure of company data. They should do so on the basis that no company is immune from such risks, although the likelihood of the risk eventuating and the degree of resulting damage varies substantially from company to company.
Read full article, please click here.
By Linda (Yanling) Liang and Wen Qin King & Wood Mallesons’ Commercial & Regulatory Group
T
he Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security promulgated the Opinions on Several Issues Relating to the Implementation of the Regulations on Work Injury Insurance (II) (Ren She Bu Fa [2016] No.29，hereinafter referred to as “Opinions (II)”), aiming to clarify a number of specific problems arising from implementing the Regulations of the Work Injury Insurance. We interpret certain essential clauses thereof as follows。
Read full article, please click here.
