By Sidney Qin and Yang Xiaoli  King & Wood Mallesons’ Compliance Group

Overview: Promoting products or services by advertising and other forms of propaganda (“Advertising Behavior”) has always being crucial for emerging retail brands to build their brand image, increase sales and secure market share. It is not rare for authorities in China to challenge retailers for improper Advertising Behavior, but how many of the retail market players have bothered to watch their steps in the various ways of conducting advertisements and propaganda in China? Continue Reading Retailers Beware: Be Careful with How You Advertise Your Products in China

By King & Wood Mallesons’ Compliance Group

On December 26, 2012, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly released the “Interpretation on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of the Criminal Cases of Offering Bribes“(the “Interpretation”). This Interpretation comes into effect as of January 1, 2013. The Interpretation specifies how the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law pertaining to the offering of bribes are to be applied.

The crime of offering bribes refers to the crime of offering money or property in kind to a state functionary with the intent to acquire illegal enrichment or interest. According to relevant provisions in the Criminal Law, state functionaries are persons who perform public service in state bodies, state-owned companies or, enterprises, institutions or people’s organizations. Additionally, persons who are assigned by state bodies, state-owned companies, enterprises or institutions to non-state-owned companies, enterprises or institutions to perform public service, and other persons who perform public service according to the law, shall all be regarded as state functionaries. Continue Reading Briefing Notes: “Interpretation on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of the Criminal Cases of Offering Bribes”

作者：金杜律师事务所法律合规组

2012年12月26日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院发布了《关于办理行贿刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》（“《解释》”）。该《解释》自2013年1月1日起实施，对《刑法》行贿罪相关条款的具体适用做出了明确地说明。

 行贿罪是指为谋取不正当利益，给予国家工作人员以财物的犯罪。而根据《刑法》相关规定，国家工作人员指在国家机关中从事公务的人员。国有公司、企业、事业单位、人民团体从事公务的人员和国家机关、国有公司、企事业单位委派到非国有公司、企业、事业单位、社会群体从事公务的人员，以及其他依照法律从事公务的人员，以国家工作人员论。 Continue Reading 《关于办理行贿刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》概要

By Susan Ning, Li Rui and Hazel Yin

On January 5th, 2013, the Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court (the “Court”) ruled in favor of a consumer who sued Shanxi Broadcast & TV Network Intermediary (Group) Co., Ltd. (“Network”), the local cable service provider, for tie-in and imposing unreasonable sales conditions by tying basic cable services with digital channel services. The Court found that the Network’s practice of selling basic cable services on the condition that the subscribers also purchase digital channel services violated Article 17(5) of the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) regarding tie-in sales and imposition of unreasonable trade conditions. In reaching this decision, the court reasoned that because the Network is a lawful monopoly in the local market for cable TV, its conditioning of the sale of basic cable service on the customer’s subscription for digital channels infringes upon the customer’s freedom of choice and diminishes consumer welfare. Continue Reading Chinese Consumer Wins Abuse of Dominance Civil Action against Tie-in Sales in Program Bundling

By Susan Ning, Kate Peng, Pulcheria Chung and Karen Ji

China’s Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) issued its Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct (“SPC rules”) on May 3, 2012, effective on June 1, 2012.  Article 7 of the SPC rules differentiates between horizontal and vertical monopolistic agreements with regard to the plaintiff’s burden of proof on the element of anti-competitive effect.  Horizontal monopolistic agreements falling within Article 13 of the AM are presumed to have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, unless the defendants can demonstrate otherwise.  For vertical monopolistic agreements under Article 14 of the AML, no such presumption will be made. 

By implication, the above differentiation would mean that the plaintiff in a vertical monopolistic claim must prove (1) the monopolistic agreement falls within Article 14 of the AML; (2) the agreement has anti-competitive effects; (3) it suffered damages because of the monopolistic conduct.  Whereas the plaintiff in a horizontal monopolistic claim only needs to prove item (1) and (3) abovementioned, and the defendant has the rebuttal burden to prove that the agreement would not eliminate or restrict competition. Continue Reading Burden of Proof in Monopolistic Agreement Claims

作者：郑志斌 张婷 金杜律师事务所破产重组部

《破产法》仅规定了债务人作为继续营业机构、重整计划草案制定主体和重整计划执行主体，并没有进一步对债务人的公司治理进行界定。因此，这种类似于美国“占有中的债务人”的制度在发挥债务人经营优势的同时，也给我国的重整实践带来了该制度困扰美国破产法学界的公司治理问题的“副产品”——股东是否有“直接控制经管债务人的能力”[i]的困惑，具体而言，作为重整继续营业机构、重整计划制作人和执行人的债务人，是否仍毋庸置疑的保持与没有进入重整的正常经营状态一样的公司治理结构，是否仍以股东大会为意思机构和最高权力机关、股东管理公司的权利是否受到限制等等，这些问题立法没有明确的规定，实践中已经出现了混淆和误解，亟需澄清和明确。 Continue Reading 债务人管理模式下公司控制权的变化——公司重整制度中的股东权益系列六

中国企业在走向世界的路途上都需要面对一个问题，即是否具备处理国际性商事争议的能力。金杜律师事务所争议解决部众多合伙人共同撰写的新书《国际商事争议解决，你准备好了吗？》已经由法律出版社出版。

本书分为三个章节，结合金杜经办的经典案例，就国际商事仲裁、诉讼和企业风险控制等进行了详细的介绍和论述。国际仲裁篇从国际仲裁程序进展的角度，从如何选择国际仲裁机构到最终如何执行国际仲裁裁决，讲述了如何准备和应对国际仲裁。该篇还专门讲述了投资保护仲裁，这是中国投资者们最近讨论的热点话题。海外诉讼篇主要关注在美诉讼的情况，并分析了如何执行外国法院的判决。企业控制风险篇介绍了五个广为人知的投资失败的案例，在这些案例中，投资者不仅对外投资失败，还官司缠身，如美国雪佛龙公司和帝国大厦的投资者们。特别是美国的案例，该书通过查阅美国法院的裁判文书收集了许多案件细节，更增加了文章的叙事性和趣味性。 Continue Reading 新书推介 –《国际商事争议解决，你准备好了吗？》

By King & Wood Mallesons’ Healthcare Group

Some recent news releases show that the PRC Ministry of Health has proposed to revise (the “Proposed Revision”) the current Measures for Inspection of Medical Advertisement (promulgated on 13 March 2007 and effective as of 1 May 2007) (the “2007 Measures”).

Among all other changes in the Proposed Revision, one hot-button issue is that, except for general information and name of the medicine, any other specific information (e.g. usage) regarding all medicine, including OTC medicines, is no longer allowed in public-oriented media, and only allowed in professional media. Compared with the 2007 Measures, which allowed OTC medicine advertisement to be used in public media, but subject to inspection by the SFDA. However, the Proposed Revision might ban this practice. Continue Reading Proposed Change on Medical Advertisement Related Regulation Might Cease All Advertisement for Otc Medicines in Public Media

作者：金杜律师事务所医疗法律事务组 

近期发布的消息显示，中国卫生部已计划对现行有效的于2007年3月13日发布并于2007年5月1日生效的《药品广告审查办法》(“2007年办法”)进行修订并透露了部分修订意见(“修订意见”)。

在修订意见的所有修改中，一个热点在于除药品名称和一般信息外，禁止就所有药品包括非处方药品(OTC药品)的任何特定信息(如，使用方法)进行以公众为对象的广告宣传，而仅能在专业媒体上进行广告宣传。与2007年办法相比较，非处方药品曾可以公众媒体进行广告宣传，但是需要受限于国家食品药品监督管理局的审查。然而，在修订意见中可能完全禁止该类广告。 Continue Reading 所有对非处方药品的大众媒体广告宣传将可能因药品广告有关法规的修订而终止

By Mark Schaub and Chen Bing King & Wood Mallesons’ Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Group

It would be safe to say that when Hong Kong rejoined China as a Special Administrative Region in 1997 there was little thought, if any, paid to milk powder and its effect on relations with the mainland. However, recent restrictions introduced in Hong Kong on the sale and distribution of milk powder produced by mainland suppliers has become a major, and indeed emotional, issue. As the 12th Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference National Committee (“CPPCC”) and 12th National People’s Congress (“NPC”) (the highest authority of the PRC) commenced on March 5, 2013, baby milk grabbed the attention of representatives in both forums. Continue Reading PRC Food Safety Law: Food for Thought