By Huang Xuhua  Sau-Wing Mak  Kevin Tong  King & Wood Mallesons’ Corporate Group

Background

As part of China’s commitment to foster the development of the offshore RMB bond market in Hong Kong, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) published the “Circular on the Matters relating to the Issuance of RMB Bonds in Hong Kong by Onshore Non-financial institutions” (the “NDRC Circular”) on 2 May 2012. The Circular is a sequel to the “Interim Measures for the Administration of the Issuance of RMB Bonds in Hong Kong by Onshore Financial Institutions” published by the NDRC in June 2007 which regulate the issuance of RMB bonds in Hong Kong by onshore financial institutions (the “2007 Measures”).

Prior to the publication of the NDRC Circular, approvals for onshore PRC non-financial institutions to issue RMB Bonds in Hong Kong have been granted on a discretionary basis. In November last year, Baosteel Group Corporation became the first PRC corporate to issue RMB bonds in Hong Kong. Late last month, one metals and mining company and three state-owned power plant operators, namely China Minmetals, Guangdong Nuclear Power, Huaneng Power and Datang Power , were granted approvals by the NDRC to issue RMB bonds in Hong Kong. The significance of the NDRC Circular is that it formalises the approval process and stipulates the regulatory framework for onshore PRC non-financial institutions to issue RMB bonds in Hong Kong.

Continue Reading New NDRC rules facilitate the issuance of RMB Bonds in Hong Kong by PRC non-financial institutions

作者:黄绪华 麦秀颖 唐礼贤  金杜律师事务所公司

背景

作为中央政府承诺促进香港人民币债券市场发展的一部分,2012年5月2日,国家发展和改革委员会(“国家发改委”)发布了《国家发展改革委关于境内非金融机构赴香港特别行政区发行人民币债券有关事项的通知》(“发改委通知”)。发改委通知是《境内金融机构赴香港特别行政区发行人民币债券管理暂行办法》(“2007年办法”)之续篇,2007年办法由中国人民银行和国家发改委于2007年6月8日公布,主要规范境内金融机构赴香港发行人民币债券的行为。

发改委通知发布之前,内地非金融机构赴香港发行人民币债券采用的是个案审批。去年十一月,宝钢集团公司成为第一家在香港发行人民币债券的内地公司。上个月,国家发改委核准中国五矿集团、广东核电集团、华能电力和大唐电力赴香港发行人民币债券。发改委通知就内地非金融机构赴香港发行人民币债券确定了正式的审批流程和监管架构,意义重大。

Continue Reading 国家发改委发布通知以规范并促进境内非金融机构赴香港发行人民币债券

By King & Wood Mallesons’ Trademark Group

Recently, GreenTree Inn Hotel ("GreenTree"), an economy hotel chain that owns over 450 chain hotels in almost 150 cites in China, brought a lawsuit against a local hotel named "Green Home Business Hotel" ("Green Home"), which is located in the Yanchen City, Jiangsu Province, for the alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition. GreenTree’s mark in actual use, namely,  , consists of three parts, an oak tree device and the English of "GreenTree Inn" in an eclipse and Chinese Tradename of the hotel "格林豪泰" below the eclipse. In fact, in the four-character Chinese Tradename of GreenTree, only the first two correspond to "Green" in sound and the latter two are irrelevant to the word "GreenTree Inn" in either sound or concept, which pronounce "Hao" and "Tai", meaning "Generous" and "Peaceful", respectively.

Continue Reading “Green Home” Accused of Being Copycat of “GreenTree Inn”

作者:金杜律师事务所商标

日前,格林豪泰酒店(以下简称“格林豪泰”),一家在中国近150个城市拥有超过450家正在经营的经济型连锁酒店,起诉盐城市亭湖区一酒店“格林之家商务酒店”(以下简称“格林之家”)商标侵权和不正当竞争。格林豪泰在实际使用中的商标图样为,基本构造为椭圆形图案内包含橡树图、英文“GreenTree Inn”,以及椭圆形图案下方的“格林豪泰酒店”字样。值得注意的是格林豪泰酒店的中文名字与其英文名字GreenTree Inn并不完全对应。

Continue Reading 格林豪泰酒店起诉”格林之家商务酒店”商标侵权

作者:张守志 徐晓丹 李响  金杜律师事务所争议解决

在缔约一方为外国公司的合同中,尤其是国际融资合同中,争端解决条款经常约定相关争议应由外国法院管辖。这种约定往往是基于此类合同的惯例,并在作为优势一方的外国金融机构的坚持下订立的。但是,在商事活动越来越国际化的今天,固守这种惯例的交易外方,可能面临进退两难的困境。

一、   外国法院的判决可能无法在中国得到承认和执行

在合同约定外国法院管辖的情况下,如果中国公司只在中国(不包括港澳台地区)境内有可执行的财产,那么,一旦将来双方产生争议并由外国法院做出判决,则外方在该判决项下的权利只有在该判决被中国法院承认及执行后才能行使。然而,在中国申请承认和执行外国法院判决的难度非常大,需要满足相关法律和条约设定的种种条件。只要有一项条件不具备,相关外国法院的判决就无法得到中国法院的承认和执行,使得原本有利于外方的胜诉判决成为一纸空文。

Continue Reading 约定域外法院管辖的困境及出路

By Liu Xiangwen and Xu Xianhong  King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group

International commercial disputes have an extensive scope, involving matters such as international sale of goods, mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, and construction. The so-called international commercial dispute resolution cases dealt with by Chinese lawyers means those related to China and foreign countries, the main factors of which occurred either in China or in other countries. Due to the main characteristic of cross-border issues, international commercial dispute resolution is distinguished from domestic dispute resolution.

In the past, the parties in international commercial activities paid less attention when choosing options for dispute resolution, which were indicated by the fact that there were often no dispute resolution clauses in their contracts, or even where there were such provisions, they were poorly drafted. This situation has improved substantially according to recent cases we have dealt with.

Continue Reading Options for International Commercial Dispute Resolution

作者:刘相文 徐献宏   金杜律师事务所争议解决

国际商事争议的范围很广,涉及国际货物买卖、并购、PE投资、工程建设等诸多领域。但是简言之,中国律师所处理的“国际商事争议”,指的是同时具备中国和外国因素的商事争议,其主要事实可能发生在中国国内,也可能发生在国外。由于其跨国性的基本特点,国际商事争议的解决方式与国内争议有明显的区别。

在处理案件的过程中,我们发现国际商事活动的当事人越来越重视争议解决方式的选择,之前在合同中没有争议解决条款或者争议解决条款不规范的情况有所改观。

Continue Reading 刍议国际商事争议解决方式的选择

By Susan Ning and Hazel Yin

On April 18, the Guangdong Higher People’s Court held the first court hearing for the abuse of dominance action filed by Qihoo(the operator of 360 safety software)against Tencent(the operator of QQ instant messaging software)under the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML"). Qihoo accused Tencent for abusing its dominance in the market of online instant communications services and claimed damages of RMB 150,000,000. The court hearing lasted for more than 8 hours, and attracted an audience of almost 400 people. 

As requested by the court, the hearing was divided into four sessions, dedicated to each of the four issues: market definition, dominant position, abusive conducts and legal liabilities.  The hearing focused on the first three issues and both sides called in expert witnesses and had fierce debates over each of these issues.

Continue Reading 360 v. QQ-Abuse of Dominance Action Tried at Guangdong Higher Court

By Zhang Shouzhi, Xu Xiaodan and Li Xiang  King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group

Commercial contracts (especially international financing agreements) between Chinese parties and foreign parties often designate a foreign court outside of China as the forum in which to resolve potential disputes. Such a forum selection clause, often insisted upon by the financial institution due to its stronger bargaining position, has become a generally accepted practice in international financing transactions.

However, when entering into an international commercial contract with a Chinese party, selecting a foreign jurisdiction to resolve disputes may place the foreign party at a disadvantage with respect to future commercial activities.

Continue Reading Forum Shopping in Dispute Resolution: Hurdles and Solutions