By Rupert Li  King & Wood Mallesons

People frequently observe the cultural barriers which the Chinese companies find difficult to overcome in relation to China’s nascent outbound investment program.  Since China is culturally and politically different from the mainstream trading countries, an attribution of the anguish on both sides of the negotiation table to cultural barriers is indeed tempting but often misplaced.  Any professionals operating in places other than in the rule setting non Anglo-American jurisdictions always have war stories to share with their colleagues.  The Mexican tycoons prefer to negotiate their deals in the smoking rooms of their vast hacienda guarded by private soldiers.  The Indians nod to signify their disapproval and shake their heads for approval, or sometimes vice versa.  The Japanese entertain their foreign guests with stylized geisha dance and ocean dainties of whale meat and blow fish.  Continue Reading Cross Border Transactions– How Many Hardships does China Need to Overcome?

作者：黄建雯 金杜律师事务所国贸组

“中国政府在医疗卫生体制改革一系列政策及最新公布的十二五计划中明确表达了其将大大改善中国人民福祉的宏伟规划与承诺。”“与此同时，医疗卫生领域各相关方面，包括制药行业自身，都应当以严格遵守最高职业和伦理道德标准的行为规范的方式来响应政府的这一宏伟规划和承诺。”——主席致辞（《RDPAC药品推广行为准则（2012年修订版）》）   

为此，中国外商投资企业协会（CAEFI）药品研制和开发行业委员会（RDPAC）在更加深入地了解患者和其他利益相关方需求的基础上，为了进一步强化行业的推广行为准则，于2012年7月重新修改并制定了《RDPAC药品推广行为准则（2012年修订版）》（以下简称“2012版本”）。2012版本于2012年7月1日起生效，并取代2002年版的《FRPIA药品推广行为准则（第二版）》及2006年版和2010年版RDPAC药品推广行为准则。 Continue Reading 药品推广行为准则最新更新与发展

 作者：张保生 陈湘林 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

1、如何认定公司僵局？

公司僵局是指，公司的运行机制完全失灵，股东（大）会、董事会、监事会等权力机构和管理机构无法正常运行、对公司的任何实行做出任何决议，公司的一切事务处于瘫痪的这种经营管理困难状况。[1]

目前，在我国，公司僵局主要指公司股东会僵局和董事会僵局两种情况。《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的意见（二）》规定了公司僵局的几种情况：

 （1）公司持续两年以上无法召开股东会或者股东大会，公司经营管理发生严重困难的； Continue Reading 跨国公司诉讼系列之七–公司僵局和清算

By Denning Jin King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group Shanghai Office

In June of 2012, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People‘s Court issued several orders against individuals responsible for violating a preliminary injunction, including fines and detention. This event was significant because it was the first time a court in Shanghai took such measures to compel enforcement of a preliminary injunction.

In June, 2012, a Belgian Company discovered that a Guangdong Company was likely infringing one of its design patents. According to the Belgian company, the Guangdong Company was selling products with an appearance that was substantially similar to designs covered by the Belgian Compan’s design patent at an exhibition being held at the Shanghai New International Expo Center. Subsequently, the Belgian company applied to the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court for a preliminary injunction. Continue Reading Shanghai Courts Adopt New Methods to Compel Compliance of Preliminary Injunctions in Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes

作者：金立宇 金杜律师事务所IP诉讼组 上海办公室

2012年6月，上海市第一中级人民法院对违反诉前禁令的直接责任人采取了拘留、罚款等强制措施。这是上海法院首次以强制措施强化诉前禁令的执行力。

2012年6月，比利时某公司在上海新国际展览中心举办的“中国国际纺织品机械展览会暨ITMA亚洲展览会”上发现，广东某公司展出的商品在外观上与自己公司的专利产品高度相似。比利时某公司遂立即向上海一中院提出申请，请求裁定该广东公司立即停止在该展会上销售和许诺销售涉嫌侵权的织机产品。上海一中院在申请当日便对申请进行了全面审查，并裁定被申请公司停止在展览会上销售和许诺销售涉嫌侵权产品。 Continue Reading 上海法院首次对违反知识产权侵权纠纷诉前禁令采取强制措施

By Mark Schaub Chen Bing King & Wood Mallesons’ FDI Group Shanghai Office.

State Administration of Taxation of the PRC (“SAT”) promulgated the Administrative Rules on Income Tax for Policy-based Relocation of Enterprises on August 10, 2012 (“Rule 40″) which is set to become effective on October 1, 2012.   Policy based relocation refers to relocations at the request of the authority rather than voluntary relocations by enterprises (see below for more details).

Rule 40 aims at establishing more specific and systematic rules in terms of preferential tax treatments which apply to policy-based relocations. This new rule will replace the Circular on Relevant Issues concerning Enterprise Income Tax on Incomes from Policy-based Relocation or Disposal of Assets promulgated by State Administration of Taxation on March 12, 2009 (“Circular 118”).

Continue Reading New Enterprise Income Tax Rule in relation to Enterprise Relocation

By Richard W. Wigley King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group

Under the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C. (“CPL”), Articles 53-56 of the current CPL define requirements for filing a “joint litigation”, including those suits where said joint litigation may involve “one party with numerous litigants”.[1] To this latter scenario, Article 55 of the CPL notes that where “one of the parties has numerous litigants, but the exact number of litigants is uncertain when the lawsuit is filed, the People’s Court may issue a public notice to explain the nature of the case and the claims of the litigation and inform those persons who are entitled to the claim to register their rights with the People’s Court within a fixed time period.”[2] Article 55 goes on to provide that the litigants may elect “representatives” and further defines the binding nature of the Court’s ruling on not only the “representative”, but upon all litigants.[3] Continue Reading China’s Civil Procedure Law Reported to be Amended to Broaden Definition of Types of Litigants Allowed to File Class-action Lawsuits

作者：徐萍 金杜律师事务所公司组

在国际经济格局被重塑的今天，中国企业的身上蕴含着一股强大的驱动力，促使他们走向海外，以自身的优势产能同国外资源及先进技术相结合，成为全球经济舞台的领跑者。

面对历史性的机遇，中国企业的境外投资近五年内呈现爆发性的增长。但是，由于文化、法律环境、经营理念的重大差异，中国企业在跨境并购中面临着复杂多变的问题和艰巨的挑战。一项对213项中国企业海外并购项目的调查结果表明，有67%的海外并购项目是失败的，这个比例在整个国际并购市场上是很高的。造成中国企业出师不利的原因有很多：缺乏对目标国法律和文化的了解；没有对目标公司进行充分的尽职调查，充分评估风险；缺乏应对目标国贸易保护主义政策的能力；交易流程缺乏计划和组织；未能将中国及海外的运营进行整合。这些风险有很多都可以通过聘用值得信赖的顾问团队来避免和应对。

Continue Reading 中国企业海外并购中的风险防范

作者：关峰 朱嘉寅 金杜律师事务所争议解决组上海办公室

近年来，随着大量理财产品在市场上的发行，银行与理财产品投资人间争议日趋增加。在这之中，主要争议之一即如何定性理财产品合同的法律性质，这对确立银行与理财产品投资人间的权利义务关系和履行合同义务的范围有着决定性的作用。但是由于一方面理财产品本身种类繁多，包括信贷型、债券型、结构型等等，理财产品协议法律条款呈现多样化，未统一法律定性；另一方面，银行与投资人间理财产品纠纷系近年新型的纠纷形式，理财产品相关法律制度亦仍不完善，主要规定都在监管层面，但监管规定与传统民法理论又存在一定冲突等因素，对如何定性理财产品协议法律性质在理论和实践中都存在一定争议。为了探究银行与理财产品投资人间法律关系，我们将在下文中以银信合作理财产品这一在市场上较为普遍和占有较大发行数量的理财产品为例，结合理论及银行操作实践具体展开讨论。目前对于银行与理财产品投资人间法律关系定性的主流观点包括委托关系、信托关系、行纪关系、买卖关系（对手交易）等，具体如下： Continue Reading 银行理财产品中银行与投资者法律关系探析–以银信合作理财产品为例

By Liu Zhigang King & Wood Mallesons’ Finance Group

The history of Project Finance in China is not long, but it is rich. In the earliest days, Project Finance was used mainly in power plant deals, then later extended to water plant deals and petrochemical projects. At that time, Chinese sponsors were short of funds and experience, and Chinese banks were short of foreign exchange and caught up in bad loans. Furthermore, China’s infrastructure base was very weak, and the production capability of Chinese entities was also unreliable. Therefore, the lenders in the Project Finance market were mainly foreign banks, and the loans included commercial loans, export credit, and soft loans. The loans were used mainly to import the machinery and equipment produced by the foreign producers. As well as the collateral on all project assets, the lenders also requested and were able to obtain sponsors’ guaranties and even governmental guaranties for almost every project, although such arrangements are not typical under the project finance model. Continue Reading Development of Project Finance Deals in China and with Chinese Banks