作者：汪蕊 戈易帛 张军 金杜律师事务所公司证券部
2
016年4月28日，第十二届全国人大常委会第二十次会议审议通过《中华人民共和国境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》（“《境外NGO管理法》”或“该法”）。《境外NGO管理法》将于2017年1月1日起生效实施，是中国首次就境外非政府组织在华活动进行管理、监督和提供服务保障进行的立法。
《境外NGO管理法》从登记备案、活动规范、监督管理及法律责任等角度，对在境外合法成立的基金会、社会团体、智库机构等非营利、非政府的社会组织[1]（“境外NGO”）在中国境内开展活动的主要方面进行了规制，将对境外NGO在中国的发展产生深远影响。本文试图对该法的主要内容进行梳理，并针对其中的若干亮点进行讨论。
全文阅读，请点击此处。
By Mark Schaub and Chen Bing, King & Wood Mallesons’ Corporate & Securities Group
C
h
ina cross border e-commerce has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 2 years since the PRC authorities encouraged the use of bonded zones. Some commentators have suggested the value of the business may have exceeded USD 3 trillion in 2015. The effects have not been limited to China as many international companies have seen their share price rise exponentially on the basis of the China e-commerce phenomenon. Cross border e-commerce moved from being a possible avenue to sell to the China consumer to THE only way to sell to China.
Just as everything was going so well, suddenly major concerns surfaced about the very future of cross border e-commerce in China. These concerns were due to a raft of regulations that were issued in April 2016 by a number of Chinese regulators including Ministry of Finance (“MOF”), General Administration of Customs, State Administration of Taxation, Food and Drug Administration (“CFDA”), Ministry of Commerce, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. Continue Reading “Keep Calm and Carry On”: Keeping up with China’s changing rules for cross-border e-commerce
By Lucy Lu, Ding Wu King & Wood Mallesons’ Commercial & Regulatory Group
T
he Rules for the Administration of Employment of Foreigners in China, promulgated by former Labor Ministry, Public Security Ministry and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is an old provision since 1996 without any revision. Recently with the internationalization of the employment market in China, there are more and more foreign labor disputes in new style. From the judgment of legitimate employment by focusing on working permit, to the application of severance payment to foreigners, and the judicial view of discretion clause on termination criteria of foreigners, all these typical issues require a conclusion from judicial practice.
This article picks Mr. Zhou v. Company A (case no. (2015) Hu Er Zhong Min San (Min) Zhong Zi No. 7)from Shanghai 2nd Intermediate Court as a lead to analyze the above issues based on practical experience and researches into other cases.
Read full article, please click here.
作者：陆慧文 丁戊 金杜律师事务所商务合规部
由原劳动部、公安部、外交部联合颁布的《外国人在中国就业管理规定》已是96年的陈规，施行多年未进行修改。近年来，随着我国人才市场的国际化，各式各样的外国人劳动争议新型案件也层出不穷。无论是以就业证为核心考量因素的合法就业判断，还是近来社会舆论广泛关注的劳动合同法中的离职经济补偿金对于外国人的适用与否、以及由此引申出的企业与外籍员工自由约定劳动合同解除条件的司法认定，再到外籍员工离职时的经济补偿，都是值得从实践操作中进行总结提炼的典型问题。
本文选取了2015年上海市二中院(2015)沪二中民三(民)终字第7号案件作为切入，综合上海市的实务操作和相关案例的调查总结，对上述问题进行分析。
全文阅读，请点击此处。
作者：金杜律师事务所
By King & Wood Mallesons
2016年4月29日，浙江哈尔斯真空器皿股份有限公司（简称“哈尔斯”，股票代码：002615）在金杜律师事务所专业法律团队的协助下，通过其香港全资子公司以现金收购的方式受让SIGG Switerland Bottles AG （简称“SIGG”）的全部资产，交易规模达1610万瑞士法郎（约1687.4万美元）。本项目是国内真空器皿行业首单民营企业跨国并购交易。
29 April, 2016, King & Wood Mallesons advised Zhejiang Haers Vacuum Containers Co., Ltd. (Haers, stock code: 002615) on acquiring 100% assets of SIGG Switerland Bottles AG (SIGG) for CHF 16.1 million (around US$16.874 million) in cash through its wholly-owned subsidiary in Hong Kong. The transaction marks the first cross-border M&A by a private enterprise in China’s vacuum containers industry. Continue Reading 金杜助力哈尔斯成功跨境收购瑞士SIGG / King & Wood Mallesons advised Haers on its cross-border acquisition of SIGG
By Susan Ning, Kate Peng, and Yumeng Li King & Wood Mallesons’ Commercial & Regulatory Group
A
t 
the outset, the PRC Anti-monopoly Law (AML) does not set out specific requirement on information exchange among affiliates. However, it explicitly provides that independent competitors are prohibited from reaching monopoly agreements.[1]“Monopoly Agreements” refer to agreements, decisions or other concerted practices that eliminate or restrict competition.[2] According to relevant provisions promulgated by the NDRC and the SAIC, the authorities will determine whether there exists concerted conducts based on various factors, including whether there is uniformity in their acts, whether there has been communication of intention or exchange of information, and whether business operators are able to give reasonable explanations for their concerted conducts.[3] In situations where the exchange of certain commercial sensitive information facilities concerted practice, the authorities may decide that monopoly agreements are concluded by competitors.
Read full article, Please click here.
By Li Qiang King & Wood Mallesons’ Corporate & Securities Group
I
n recent years, the Chinese government has been dedicated to the reform of state-owned hospitals and has issued a series of policy papers in this field, including Opinions of the State Council on Deepening Medicine and Health System Reform issued by the State Council in 2009, Opinions of the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Health and Other Departments on Further Encouraging and Guiding Social Capital to Establish Medical Institutions promulgated in 2010, and Circular of the General Office of the State Council on Progressing the Guiding Opinions of the Ministry of Finance, the National Development and Reform Commission and the People’s Bank of China on Promoting the Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) Mechanism in Public Services (“the Guiding Opinions”) published in 2015. Particularly in the Guiding Opinions, the government promotes the development of non-public medical institutions, and specifically encourages social capital participation through the public-private-partnership (PPP) mechanism for public services including medical treatment, and healthcare This makes a big contribution to the prospects of system innovation in the healthcare sector.
In this context, it is essential to broaden the international perspective, and to seek valuable experience and innovative ideas from health sector developments in other countries.
Read full article, please click here.
作者：吴俊 金杜律师事务所争议解决部
有限合伙作为一种有效的商业组织架构，因其税务上的巨大优势和责权分配的灵活性，在资产管理业务中扮演着极其重要的作用。通常，作为财务投资者的LP（有限合伙人）和作为经营管理者的GP（普通合伙人）共同设立一家有限合伙企业，有限合伙再以借款、信托、基金等多种方式向基础资产投入资金，并在投资期届满后收回资金和盈余。
但随着整体社会经济形势的下行，越来越多的基础资产出现了兑付不能的状况。这个时候，作为上游投资者的有限合伙受到牵连，也就无法向LP进行盈余分配，乃至本金也难以退还。在这个时候，GP和LP的矛盾也会变得相当的尖锐。于是乎，市场上各种GP和LP的宫斗大戏屡屡上演。有集体堵GP大门的，有拉横幅上街“散步”的，自然也不缺一哭二闹三上吊的戏码。
那么，如何才能正确打开这场宫斗大戏呢，且待金杜君慢慢道来。
全文阅读，请点击此处。
