By  Jill Wong and Amanda Beattie King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group, Hong Kong Office

The Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) has been steadily getting more creative in the use of its powers and we can expect them to continue to do so, given their recent success in obtaining compensation for investors for financial misstatements in a company’s prospectus. The SFC successfully obtained a court order under section 213 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”), that Hontex International Holdings Co. Ltd. (“Hontex”) pay back more than HK$1 billion raised in its 2009 initial public offering. This will give further impetus to the SFC’s push to improve the quality of disclosure in prospectuses and their controversial proposal – the consultation period for which has been extended to end of July – to make sponsors (who advise companies to a listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange) criminally liable for faulty prospectuses. And finally, a sting in the tail – what will this mean for financial institutions with self-reporting obligations and their new obligations, effective December 2012, to self-report suspected market misconduct by their clients?

Continue Reading Combating Market Misconduct – Section 213 strikes again…and where or what else will it strike?

作者： 黄紫玲  Amanda Beattie 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（“香港证监会”）开始越来越有创见性地行使其权力；而且，考虑到他们的工作已初显成效，投资者也因此成功就公司招股章程中的失实财务陈述获得相应赔偿，相信香港证监会将会延续其工作方针。

香港证监会已依据香港《证券及期货条例》（“《证券及期货条例》”）第213条的规定成功取得一项法庭命令，要求洪良国际控股有限公司（“洪良”）退还其在2009年首次公开发行中募集的10亿多港元。而与此同时，香港证监会还在努力提升招股章程中所作披露的质量，并提出具有争议的方案，欲就不实招股章程追究保荐人（即，那些为在香港联交所上市的公司提供咨询服务的保荐人）的刑事责任，虽然该方案的磋商期限已推迟至7月末，但上述法庭命令仍将对香港证监会实现其相关努力起推动作用。然而，这对于负有自行呈报义务和新义务的金融机构来说最终意味着什么呢？（前述新义务是指那些即将在2012年12月生效、且要求金融机构自行呈报其客户可疑的市场失当行为的义务。） Continue Reading 打击市场失当行为 – 又见第213条 …它的打击对象将是什么?

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Kate Peng

It is generally known that the antitrust enforcement powers are shared by three government authorities in China: the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”),  which is responsible for merger control,  the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), which is responsible for price-related monopoly conducts, and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”), which is responsible for non-price related monopoly conducts.  Compared to the former two authorities, SAIC  keeps a relatively low profile on its antitrust enforcement actions. 

On July 11, Director General of the Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Enforcement Bureau of SAIC (“AMAUCEB”), Ms. Ren Airong (任爱荣) made a speech at a conference and introduced the fruits of antitrust enforcement by SAIC since the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”)  came into effect on August 1, 2008. 

Continue Reading A General Picture of SAIC’s Antitrust Enforcement

作者：党喆 蒋志培 金杜律师事务所知识产权诉讼组

最近，中国对著作权法的修改引起广泛关注。2012年3月31日，由国家版权局起草的《中华人民共和国著作权法（修改草案）》（“草案”）公开向社会征求意见，其中如网络服务商的著作权责任等诸多条款引发各界热议。最高人民法院4月22日公布了《最高人民法院关于审理侵犯信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定(征求意见稿)》（“征求意见稿”），该稿更是全面、具体涉及了网络服务商等的著作权责任，也公开向社会征求意见。这两份文件虽然都不是正式生效的法律文件，但从立法和司法的角度讲，我们都可以从中理解和体会国家版权行政机关和最高审判机关对网络服务提供者著作权法律责任的立法和司法意图，这对今后网络服务商著作权法律责任适用和判定趋势影响重大，值得仔细研读。

 一、 对著作权法草案第六十九条的解读

草案诞生于中国著作权法第三次修改之际，是一次主动修法（前两次修改系出于履行对世贸组织的承诺或者执行世贸组织争端解决机构的裁定），也是修改幅度最大的一次。 Continue Reading 网络服务提供者著作权法律责任判定最新立法趋势

作者：宁宣凤 彭荷月 金杜律师事务所反垄断组

自《中华人民共和国反垄断法》（“《反垄断法》”）实施以来，作为反垄断执法机构的国家工商行政管理总局（“国家工商总局”）和国家发展和改革委员会（“国家发改委”）已经分别在其职权范围内就一些经营者涉嫌垄断的行为进行了调查，并对部分行为实施了处罚。请参见”First Public Enforcement Decision by SAIC against concrete manufacturers（国家工商总局首个公开处罚决定针对混凝土生产企业）”、”Earlier Rumor Confirmed: China Telecom and China Unicom under Antitrust Investigation（早前传闻被确认——中国电信和中国联通接受反垄断调查）”、”NDRC Fined Two Pharmaceutical Companies for Abusive Conducts（国家发改委对两家制药公司垄断行为进行处罚）”以及”Price Related Breaches of the AML and the Price Law – How Many Public Cases Have There Been?（与价格有关的垄断行为以及价格法——目前有多少公开案例？）”等相关文章。

根据《反垄断法》第46条和第47条，如果经营者达成并实施垄断协议，或滥用市场支配地位，反垄断执法机构可以作出以下处罚决定：
 

Continue Reading 反垄断处罚行政复议常见问题解答

By Susan Ning and Kate Peng

Since the enactment of the China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML“), the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC“) and the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC“) have investigated into a number of cases that raise competition concerns and have imposed penalties on some companies within their respective authorities.  Please see our previously published articles including “First Public Enforcement Decision by SAIC against concrete manufacturers“, “Earlier Rumor Confirmed: China Telecom and China Unicom under Antitrust Investigation“, “NDRC Fined Two Pharmaceutical Companies for Abusive Conducts“, “Price Related Breaches of the AML and the Price Law -How Many Public Cases Have There Been?“, etc.

According to Article 46 and 47 of the AML, if a business operator reaches and executes a monopoly agreement or abuses its dominant market position, the anti-monopoly enforcement agencies can impose the following penalties:

Continue Reading FAQs about Administrative Review of Antitrust Enforcement Decision

By Susan Ning and Huang Jing

On June 6, 2012, the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM“) promulgates the new merger filing form (the “New Form“).  Filings submitted after July 7, 2012 should use this New Form.  The New Form is more than just a formal change.  MOFCOM has condensed its three and a half years of experience since the first filing form of January 2009 into the new form.  It contains requests for additional information and guidelines on some substantive issues of merger filling.

 The definition of “operator to the concentration”

Before the promulgation of the New Form, the definition of an “operator to the concentration” is one of the major unsolved issues related to merger control review in China.  Continue Reading MOFCOM New Merger Filing Form-Clarification on Major Filing Issues

By Susan Ning and Hazel Yin

On June 15, 2012, the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) approved the acquisition of Goodrich Corporation (“Goodrich”) by United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) subject to the divestment of the electronic systems business of Goodrich.  Both companies are headquartered in the United States and active in the production and sale of aviation equipment.  This marks the fourth conditional clearance issued by MOFCOM in the first half of 2012 and the only case where the core remedies are structural.

 Review Process.  MOFCOM received the notification on December 12, 2011 and officially accepted it on February 6, 2012.  A Phase 2 investigation was opened on March 2 and extended on May 31, which was set to expire on July 30.  Continue Reading MOFCOM Approves UTC’s Acquisition of Goodrich with Divestiture Requirement

By Martyn Huckerby Jill Wong King & Wood Mallesons’ Foreign Direct Investment Group

On June 22, 2012, Hong Kong’s first cross-sector substantive competition law regime was published in the official gazette, bringing with it a new regulator ready to change business practices in the Asian region, and armed with extensive enforcement powers, including the ability to conduct dawn raids and levy significant fines for anti-competitive conduct once the changes come into force.

The Competition Ordinance will prohibit cartel conduct, abuses of market power and other forms of anti-competitive conduct, subject to the availability of a number of exemptions, including exemptions based on efficiencies, Block Exemptions and minimum turnover. Merger control will continue to be limited to the telecommunications sector. Continue Reading Hong Kong’s new competition law: get ready for the antitrust revolution

作者：张保生 程世刚  金杜律师事务所争议解决组

根据公司法的公司契约理论，公司本质是一种合同的集合，是股东之间就设立公司、分享权利和承担义务等内容所订立的协议，股东对公司的出资义务也是合同义务之一。借鉴合同法上违约行为的概念体系，根据股东违反出资义务的形式即出资瑕疵形式的不同，因出资问题引发的纠纷可分为不履行出资义务的纠纷和不适当履行出资义务的纠纷。不履行出资义务是指股东根本未出资，具体又可分为虚报注册资本纠纷、虚假出资纠纷、抽逃出资纠纷。不适当履行出资义务是指出资数额、出资时间、出资手续不符合规定或者约定，具体又分为出资不足纠纷、逾期出资纠纷、出资不当纠纷等。结合实践情况，现将各种出资问题引发的纠纷介绍如下。

1、虚报注册资本纠纷

虚报注册资本，是指出资人申请公司登记时使用虚假证明文件或者其他欺诈手段，虚报注册资本，欺骗公司登记主管部门并取得公司登记。

Continue Reading 因出资瑕疵引发的公司诉讼—-跨国公司在华公司诉讼系列（II）