在香港银行近期特别关注的中银香港诉辽宁省政府最高法院［（2014）民四终字第37号］判决中，该院确认了关于如何判断政府《承诺函》是否构成担保责任承诺的依据以及债权人在破产程序中依据《承诺函》向承诺人主张权利的期间问题。
该案涉及的具体争议焦点有二项：（一）辽宁省政府出具的《承诺函》是否构成保证责任；（二）在债务人中辽公司破产后，中银香港向担保人葫芦岛锌厂主张权利是否超过了法定保证期间。其裁判观点分别为： Continue Reading 政府《承诺函》的效力与破产程序中的保证期限
The E.U.—China bilateral investment treaty
By Ramón García-Gallardo, Xiao Jin, King & Wood Mallesons
More than five years after the United States (“U.S.”) and China agreed to start negotiations of a bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”), the launch of the negotiations between the European Union (“E.U.”) and China towards a BIT was announced at the Sixteenth China-E.U. Summit held in Beijing on 21 November 2013. Continue Reading The E.U.—China bilateral investment treaty
欧盟——中国双边投资协定
作者：Ramón García-Gallardo 肖瑾 金杜律师事务所
在美国和中国同意启动双边贸易协定谈判超过五年后，2013年11月21日，在北京举办的第十六届中欧峰会上也宣布启动欧盟和中国的双边贸易协定的谈判。
为什么欧盟和中国需要双边贸易协定
尽管欧盟和中国之间商品与服务的贸易价值每日超过十亿欧元，双方之间的投资在过去二十年增长迅速，但仍显示具有潜力。欧洲境外投资投向中国的部分所占比例不到5%，并且来自于中国的外商直接投资(“FDI”)仅占对欧盟外商投资的不到3%。双方均希望，在中国国内经济改革以及欧盟努力克服金融危机的背景下，通过全面的双边贸易协定减少双方在贸易及投资领域水平的明显差异，并继续推动现有的双方互惠合作。 Continue Reading 欧盟——中国双边投资协定
Hong Kong Competition Ordinance: First Conduct Rule
By Joshua Cole, Sharon Henrick, Michael Robert-Smith King&Wood Mallesons
In this article we explore the First Conduct Rule in Hong Kong’s Competition Ordinance, focusing on its significance for companies preparing for implementation of the Ordinance.
Overview of the First Conduct Rule
The First Conduct Rule targets anti-competitive agreements, including serious or ‘hardcore’ coordination between competitors such as price-fixing, market allocation, output restriction or bid-rigging.
Hong Kong’s Competition Commission has indicated that it will be particularly focused on this type of conduct. The Chairperson of the Commission, Ms Anna Wu, has singled out price-fixing cartels as initial targets, stating that she is determined to tackle the “Big Tigers” of Hong Kong. Continue Reading Hong Kong Competition Ordinance: First Conduct Rule
香港竞争条例：第一行为守则——生效倒计时
作者：Joshua Cole Sharon Henrick Michael Robert-Smith 金杜律师事务所
本文将探讨香港竞争条例中的第一行为守则，并且将关注其对拟适用于该条例的公司的重要性。
第一行为守则概述
第一行为守则针对反竞争性协议，包括公司间严重的“核心”协同行为，例如固定价格、市场分割、产量限制或串通投标。
香港竞争事务委员会已经说明其将尤其关注该类行为。委员会主席胡红玉指出首先会针对固定价格的同业联合，声称她已经决心解决香港的“大老虎”。 Continue Reading 香港竞争条例：第一行为守则——生效倒计时
Typical Cases Re Valuation Adjustment Mechanism Agreements post HaiFu Investment Co., Ltd. v. Shiheng Non-ferrous Recourses Recycling Co., Ltd.
By Xia Dongxia Yang Ting King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group
In November, 2012, the Supreme People’s Court entered into the decision of retrial for HaiFu Investment Co., Ltd. v. ShiHeng Non-ferrous Recourses Recycling Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the “HaiFu Investment Case”). This judgment made a distinction between signing a valuation adjustment mechanism (hereafter referred to as “VAM”) agreement with the target company and signing a VAM agreement with the shareholder. In essence, it confirms that a VAM Agreement between the investor and the shareholder is valid, whereas a VAM Agreement between the investor and the target company is invalid because such agreement would harm the interests of the company and its creditors. After that, the Supreme People’s Court, various people’s courts at the local level, and arbitration institutions dealt with a number of cases related to issues of VAM agreement under the Private Equity (hereafter referred to as “PE”) framework. A select number of such typical cases are summarized below: Continue Reading Typical Cases Re Valuation Adjustment Mechanism Agreements post HaiFu Investment Co., Ltd. v. Shiheng Non-ferrous Recourses Recycling Co., Ltd.
企业应如何理解新《食品安全法》
与中国很多的法律法规的出台相似，2009年2月出台的《食品安全法》从一开始即承载着特定的背景和期望。2008年三聚氰胺事件给中国食品监管体系敲响了警钟，作为众多措施之一，《食品安全法》在事件发生后半年内迅速出台。实施了近四年后，食品安全法于2014年进入全面修订。历经三次审议，全国人大常委于今年4月24日颁布了新修订的《食品安全法》。如此短时间内对一部上位法律进行重大修订，反映了中国复杂食品安全状况，也凸显了中央政府强化食品监管的强烈意志。
作为食品安全领域的上位法，《食品安全法》全局性统领食品监管法律体系。对于该领域的各个主体，包括监管机构、中介机构、市场主体（包括食品生产者、销售方、运输方、和其他食品相关方），新法都将带来重大的影响。 Continue Reading 企业应如何理解新《食品安全法》
Do courts at the place of receipt in an online transaction have jurisdiction over patent infringement cases?
By Sun Mingfei and Gui Hongxia King&Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group
Often the first battle that parties face in an intellectual property infringement dispute is determining which court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. For many reasons, the plaintiff will usually wish to initiate proceedings at the court where the plaintiff has its domicile or at a court relatively experienced in intellectual property disputes. A plaintiff will generally try to avoid initiating proceedings at the court where the defendant has its domicile. When determining jurisdiction, the parties and the court should seek to determine the places with the most significant connection to the dispute. Apart from where the defendant has its domicile, the other place that will have a connection with the dispute will be the place of infringement. In an online environment, there have been many cases that have considered whether the place of receipt in an online transaction can be considered as the place of infringement. However, no uniform understanding has yet been reached in judicial practice. As a result, there have been a large number of jurisdictional challenges. Continue Reading Do courts at the place of receipt in an online transaction have jurisdiction over patent infringement cases?
Comments on judicial protection of intellectual property in Chinese courts in 2014
By Li Zhongsheng King&Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group
1.Introduction
More than 30 years have passed since China took a substantial leap forward in the judicial protection of intellectual property (IP); opening up policy and updating trial practice.
After joining the WTO, the IP legislative department was widely regarded as the most internationalized department in the Chinese legal system with regular changes made to its laws and judicial interpretations (including the Patent Law, the Trademark Law, the Copyright Law and the Law against Unfair Competition).
Looking at these legislative changes now, there are several principles that stand out: Continue Reading Comments on judicial protection of intellectual property in Chinese courts in 2014
2014年中国法院知识产权司法保护评述
一、引言
改革开放三十多年来，中国知识产权审判取得巨大进步。从立法方面看，中国多次修改和完善专利法、商标法、著作权法、反不正当竞争法等法律和司法解释。尤其是加入WTO以后的十几年里，知识产权立法是中国法律体系中与国际接轨程度最高的法律部门之一。知识产权立法和修改，充分体现以下原则：第一，维护知识产权权利人利益与维护公众利益的统一。着力兼顾智力创造者、商业利用者和社会公众的利益，协调好激励创新、促进发展和保障智权的关系。第二，适应国际立法趋势与立足本国国情的统一。既向有较多积累的国家学习，又准确定位中国经济社会发展阶段和实际水平，强化区别情况和宽严适度观念，在知识产权司法保护中注重根据不同知识产权的属性和特点，符合不同知识产权的功能和保护需求，使知识产权司法保护更加适应中国所处的国际国内环境，符合经济社会发展的阶段性特征，符合文化发展和科技创新的要求。第三，维持法律稳定性与提高法律适应性的统一。保持法律的稳定性，保证公众参与法律实践的预期和维护法律自身的权威，同时及时兴利除弊，推动立法进步。 Continue Reading 2014年中国法院知识产权司法保护评述