By Susan Ning, Kate Peng and Yunlong Zhang

 

 

On December 4th and 5th, 2012, the first China Competition Policy Forum (the “Forum“) was held in China University of  Political Science and Law.  The Forum was sponsored by the expert advisory group of the Anti-monopoly Commission of the State Council.   The Directors-General of the three enforcers under the Anti-Monopoly Law (the “AML“), i.e. the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM“), the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC“) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC“) attended the Forum and introduced the latest development of their AML enforcement activities.1

According to Director-General Shang Ming (尚明) of the Anti-Monopoly Bureau of MOFCOM, up to September 30, 2012, a total of 622 merger notification filings were received by MOFCOM, among which 562 were accepted and 510 were closed.  Amongst the cases having been closed, only 1 case was rejected (i.e., Coca Cola’s acquisition of Hui Yuan) and 15 cases were cleared with conditions.   Mr. Shang mentioned the publication of 458 unconditionally approved cases in November this year2,    and indicated that MOFCOM would regularly summarize and release the unconditionally cleared cases in the future.

  Continue Reading Heads of the Three Antitrust Enforcement Agencies Attended the First China Competition Policy Forum

By Harry Liu and Qiu yue  King and Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group  Shanghai Office

As an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, arbitration has been increasingly widely chosen as the dispute resolution method by parties to the commercial contracts. A signatory to the arbitration clause may bring litigation jointly against the other party to the arbitration clause and non-signatories to such arbitration clause. It remains uncertain in judicial practice whether courts have jurisdiction over such joint tort disputes despite of the arbitration clause. The Supreme People’s Court’s view towards the issue also has shifted back and forth. The retrial ruling lately handed down by the Supreme People’s Court after confirmed by its judicial committee gave a clearer answer to the question, which will definitely have a demonstration effect on the judicial practice in the future. Continue Reading Retrial Ruling of the Supreme People’s Court Settles the Disputes on the Jurisdiction over Joint Tort Cases: Litigation or Arbitration

作者：刘海涛 仇越 金杜律师事务所争议解决组 上海办公室

仲裁作为一种非诉纠纷解决方式，越来越普遍地被商事合同当事人选择为合同纠纷解决方式。仲裁条款的一方当事人可能会以仲裁条款的另一方当事人与非仲裁条款当事人为共同被告以共同侵权为由提起诉讼。在这种情况下，法院对共同侵权纠纷是否具有管辖权的问题在司法实践中一直没有确切的答案，最高人民法院对这一问题也态度摇摆。最高人民法院近期作出的并经审判委员会讨论通过的再审裁定无疑对这一问题给予了较为明晰的答复，对今后的司法实践具有示范、参考作用。

一、 以往案例回顾

在合同履行过程中，一方当事人的欺诈行为或其他违约行为可能同时构成侵权，另一方当事人可能会以侵权为由直接向法院起诉，而非依据合同中的仲裁条款提起仲裁。就这种类型的管辖权纠纷，最高人民法院已在《第二次全国涉外商事海事审判工作会议纪要》中给予了明确的答复，涉外商事合同的当事人之间签订有效仲裁协议约定了合同发生的或与合同有关的一切争议均应通过仲裁方式解决，原告就当事人在签订和履行合同过程中发生的纠纷以侵权为由向人民法院提起诉讼的，人民法院不享有管辖权。 Continue Reading 最高人民法院再审裁定厘清共同侵权案件诉讼与仲裁之争

By Qian Yaozhi, Xia Dongxia, Liu Xiangwen & Zhou We King and Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group

The Haifu Case is the first case in China where a court has denied the validity of an agreement containing a valuation adjustment mechanism (“VAM Agreement”). It has caused drastic reactions in the PE industry, and not surprisingly, the retrial of this case by the Supreme People’s Court of China (the “Supreme Court”) has also attracted intense public attention. Recently, the Supreme Court has given its retrial judgment, where the Supreme Court (i) corrects the lower courts’ decisions that completely deny the validity of the VAM agreement, and (ii) distinguishes VAM agreements between shareholders and the company from that between the shareholders only, and affirms the validity of the latter. This retrial judgment can be expected to have considerable influence on the controversial issue of validity of VAM agreement, and to generate significant implications for PE investors as for how to protect their interest. Continue Reading The Haifu Case Review –Interpreting the Supreme People’s Court’s Retrial Judgment And It’s Implications for PE Investors

作者：钱尧志 夏东霞 刘相文 周伟 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

海富投资案作为国内首例判决认定对赌协议无效案件，一度在PE界引发轩然大波，最高法院对该案再审的走向也一直受到各界热切关注。近日，最高法院对海富投资案作出再审判决，纠正了一、二审法院完全否认对赌协议效力的认定，区别对待与公司“对赌”和与股东“对赌”的协议效力，肯定股东与股东之间对赌条款的合法有效性。最高法院该再审判决无疑将对富有争议的对赌条款效力问题起到示范、参考作用，并对PE投资者保护投资权益具有重要启示作用。

一、案情回顾

（一）案件始末

2007年，苏州工业园区海富投资有限公司（“海富公司”）作为投资方与甘肃众星锌业有限公司（后更名为“甘肃世恒有色资源再利用有限公司”，“世恒公司”）、世恒公司当时惟一的股东香港迪亚有限公司（“迪亚公司”）、迪亚公司的实际控制人陆波，共同签订了《增资协议书》，约定海富公司以现金2000万元人民币对世恒公司进行增资。 Continue Reading 海富投资案：解读最高法院再审判决及对PE投资者的启示

By:King and Wood Mallesons’  PE Dispute Resolution Group

The case Haifu Investment Co., Ltd, vs. Gansu Shiheng Non-Ferrous Recycling Co., Ltd and Hong Kong Diya Limited for the defendants’ failure to perform the investment compensation clause under the “valuation adjustment mechanism” (“VAM”), which has drawn high public attention, was finally determined. After its retrial, the PRC Supreme People’s Court (the “Supreme Court”) rendered the final judgment ruling that the old shareholder, Hong Kong Diya Limited, shall bear the compensation liability for the investor. Continue Reading The Supreme People’s Court Overruled the Lower Court’s Decision on the Haifu vs. Gansu Shiheng Case

作者：金杜PE争议解决工作组

近期，市场关注度极高的海富投资有限公司诉甘肃世恒有色资源再利用有限公司及香港迪亚有限公司不履行对赌协议补偿投资案终于尘埃落定。最高人民法院经再审做出终审判决，判令公司原股东香港迪亚有限公司承担投资款补偿责任。毫无疑问，该判决的做出对以后类似案件的审理有很大的指引作用，应予认真研读。总结而言，我们认为有如下几点值得关注：

1. 从最高院对一审和二审审判思路的扬弃来看，最高院倾向估值调整机制（通俗称为“对赌协议”)的合法性判断建立在公司法对公司和债权人的合法权益保护的基础之上，而非“名为联营，实为借贷”的简单机械的合同裁判标准，这为以后类似案件中估值调整机制的合法性审查扫除了一个很大的法律障碍。 Continue Reading 最高院再审审结海富公司对赌协议纠纷案

作者：丁宪杰 楼仙英 姚迪 金杜律师事务所知识产权组 上海办公室 

  2012年12月14日，中国商标局发布了《关于申请注册新增零售或批发服务商标有关事项的通知》，通知在2013年1月1日起实施《商标注册用商品和服务国际分类表》第十版2013修改文本的第35类中增加“药用、兽医用、卫生用制剂和医疗用品的零售或批发服务”项目。

根据该通知，商标局规定新增服务与所销售商品原则上不类似，同时，新增服务与“替他人推销”等其他第35类服务原则上亦不类似。

在此之前，中国商标局一直拒绝接受零售服务、批发服务、以及分销服务上的商标注册申请。 Continue Reading 中国商标局发布了《关于申请注册新增零售或批发服务商标有关事项的通知》

By Ding Xianjie Cecilia Lou and Yao Di  King and Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group  Shanghai Office

On December 14, 2012, the China Trademark Office issued a Notice on Adding Trademark Specifications on Retail and Distribution Service Trademark. In this Notice, the CTMO specifies that “Retail and Distribution Service for pharmaceutical, veterinary, sanitary and medical goods” will be added in Class 35 of the Revision of 10th Edition of Goods and Services Classifications in China, and the new Revision will be effective dated January 1, 2013.

According to the Notice, the newly expanded service will not be deemed as similar to pharmaceutical goods. Also, the services are also different from prior “Distribution for others” in Class 35. Continue Reading CTMO Released Notice to Open Trademark Registration in Retail and Wholesale Service in China

作者：张保生 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

一、合同约定境外诉讼或仲裁的管辖问题

一旦出现PE纠纷，双方当事人首先面临的问题就是案件的管辖权问题。有关协议中约定的争端解决方式，并不一定是纠纷发生后实际适用的程序。为了争取对自己有利的结果，纠纷双方有时会选择挑战争端解决条款的效力或规避争端解决条款的适用，以将案件争取到对自己有利的地点进行审理。其中，最常见的可能致使争端解决条款无效的情况包括：没有涉外因素的合同约定境外仲裁；约定与合同没有连结点的境外法院管辖及未明确约定仲裁机构。

中国《仲裁法》第十八条规定：“仲裁协议对仲裁事项或者仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明确的，当事人可以补充协议；达不成补充协议的，仲裁协议无效。”因此，仅指明仲裁规则而未指明仲裁机构。且根据规则无法确定仲裁机构的，仲裁条款将被视为无效。 Continue Reading PE纠纷可能面临的法律问题——跨国公司在华公司诉讼系列（XII）