一、 风险管理及内部控制制度建立的背景
企业风险管理及内部控制制度的建立不是一蹴而就形成的，是经过了一个漫长的企业发展历程并在付出了沉重的政治、经济和社会诸多方面的代价而逐步建立的。众所周知的安然财务造假案、雷曼投资失败案、三鹿毒奶粉案以及紫金矿业污染案等等都是导致企业风险管理日益受到各国政府及企业自身重视的始作俑者。
我在英国石油2006～2008年从事集团内控审计师的工作过程中了解到，美、英、法、德、日等国家从20世纪70年代起，就已经逐步系统地认识到各种不同类型的企业和组织机构所面临的风险的多样性、复杂性以及由此会对企业和组织机构本身乃至国家经济的负面影响，随即组建了相应的机构着手研究企业和各类组织机构的风险管理。逐步出台了1992年美国反虚假财务报告委员会下属发起人委员会COSO发布的《企业内部控制——整合框架》（“COSO内控框架”）和2004年，COSO发布的《企业风险管理—— 整合框架》（“COSO风险管理框架”），成为各国立法机构制定政策法规及各类企业和组织机构制定风险防控目标以及采取相应措施的重要指引。
集体诉讼[1]是美国联邦民事诉讼规则中一个非常重要也富有争议的法律制度。在传统的民事诉讼程序中，法院审理的是一个原告和一个被告之间的争议。在集体诉讼中，集体代表代表全体集体成员向法院提起诉讼。集体代表之外的缺席集体成员不是传统意义上的诉讼当事人，他们不参与诉讼程序。无论判决对集体成员是否有利或者不利，集体诉讼判决将约束所有集体成员。
在美国，集体诉讼比民事诉讼的任何其它领域更受到法院、立法机构、学术界和实务界的关注。集体诉讼涉及生活中受到广泛关注的各种问题，这些问题涉及石棉诉讼、飞机失事、证券欺诈、反垄断、消费者权益保护、环境保护、种族歧视、性别歧视、就业歧视、输血、烟草、公民权利保护、员工福利、产品责任等方面。同时，集体诉讼比民事诉讼的任何其他领域更有争议。赞成者主张，集体诉讼是美国“二十世纪程序法最重要的发展之一”。法院应更多地使用集体诉讼，以达到改良社会目的，同时为那些在经济上无法起诉的受害者提供救济。反对者认为，除了使公司破产、律师发财、法院积压案件外，集体诉讼一无是处。
By King & Wood’s Trademark Group
One reader puts forward some questions regarding tort liability of the on-line BBS owners:
I am interested in the court’s decision in Wang Hai Yang case but do not read Chinese. I note that the case has been appealed and want to know the court’s decision particularly on the tort liability law and the right to reputation and privacy. Since the Tort Liability Law came into effect, I want to know if there had been any changes to the court’s interpretation to right to privacy and right to reputation after Wang Fei case.
For your questions, please see below our reply:
Continue Reading Comments to ‘Tort Law Provides Supplementary Protection to IP Rights’
By Guan Feng King & Wood’s Finance Group
This article continues to discuss Insurance Benefits for Banks as Mortgagees. The first part of this article was published on Chinalawinsight on January 2012.
In practice, in order to insure the debt, the lender bank often signs an insurance assignment agreement with the borrower, in which the borrower will assign all insurance benefits(1) under the related property insurance policy(2) to the lender bank. The assignment of rights becomes effective at the moment when the assignment contract is signed, or when the borrower defaults on the loan. Meanwhile, the endorsement slip, in which the insured designates the bank as the "first beneficiary" under the insurance policy, confirms the rights of the bank. To evaluate the feasibility of the insurance assignment contract, the fundamental approach from an insurance law perspective is to assess the nature of the insurance benefits assigned.
Continue Reading Insurance Benefits for Banks as Mortgagees (Part II of II)
本文分两部分刊登， 2012年1月16日金杜法律博客(Chinalawinsight)刊登的了本文的第一部分。文章第二部分将继续对《文件名》进行解读。
从目前的行业惯例来看，为了保证借款人偿还贷款，银行往往会与借款人签订保险转让合同，约定借款人向银行转让相关财产保险单（1）项下的所有保险收益（2）。权利转让可能发生在转让合同签署之时，也有可能发生在借款人违约之时。与此同时，保险公司出具批单，以将银行列为保险单项下第一收益人（“first beneficial”）的方式，确认银行的权利。如果要判断这种转让保险收益行为的可行性，就必须从基础理论出发，了解保险收益转让的实质。
By You Yang and Lin Kaiyi King & Wood’s Real Estate Group
This article continues to discuss Risk Management for China’s Real Estate Pooled Investment Funds. The first part of this article was published on Chinalawinsight on December 2011.
B. Inherent Risks of Real Estate Trust Products
Inherent risks are closely related to the characteristics of real estate trust products and thus ingrained in such products as follows:
a. Real estate pooled funds generate returns through specific assets
Real estate pooled funds generate and distribute returns by structuring the priority of beneficial interests: according to the financing agreement between trust companies and real estate developers, trust companies raise funds from the public for specific acquisition projects and guarantee investors’ beneficial interests as a priority payment. The parent companies or actual controllers (usually real estate developers) of the specific acquisition project transfer shares to the trust companies to gain secondary beneficial interests. Therefore, real estate developer’s interests are bound to the priority interests of investors and trust companies distribute returns to beneficiaries in a particular order.
Continue Reading Risk Management for China’s Real Estate Pooled Investment Funds (Part II of II)
本文分两部分刊登， 2011年12月19日金杜法律博客(Chinalawinsight)刊登的了本文的第一部分。文章第二部分将继续对《浅论房地产集合资金信托产品的风险及控制》进行解读。
2、各类房地产信托产品的固有风险
尽管房地产信托产品种类繁多，但是各类信托产品都有其固有风险，这些风险与该类信托产品的特性紧密结合，根植于该类信托产品之中。例如：
(1) 以特定资产收益权为投资对象的信托计划
这类信托常与结构化信托相结合，典型的结构化特定资产收益权信托的模型是：信托公司与交易对手达成协议后，信托公司向公众募集资金并赋予其优先级受益权，并以募集来的资金收购项目公司的特定房地产项目的收益权。同时，项目公司的母公司或实际控制人将项目公司的股权转让与信托公司，并获得次级受益权，借此将房地产开发商的利益与优先级受益权人的利益进行绑定。在信托计划到期后，信托公司首先向优先级受益人分配信托利益，之后再向次级受益人分配剩余信托利益。
By King & Wood’s Trademark Group
A "geographic indication" is a sign used on a product that indicates a specific geographical origin and that the product possesses qualities or a reputation or other features that are associated with that place of origin. That is, the sign represents the geographical origin of the goods in a certain territory or area or region within the territory. The specific quality, reputation or other features of the goods are primarily related to the place of origin. Even if goods fall within the same category, they share a different quality and reputation due to the natural or cultural factors of different geographical origins.
The geographic indication is considered one of the most important symbols that distinguishes between goods of different origins. The protection of geographic indications can prompt economic development in a specific area or a country, and can also protect the legal interest of the manufacturer and consumers of the goods marked with the geographic indications. As such, the protection of geographic indications needs to be consolidated.
Continue Reading Protecting Foreign Geographic Indications in China
作者：金杜律师事务所商标组
地理标志，是指标示某商品来源于某地区，该商品的特定质量、信誉或者其他特征，主要由该地区的自然因素或者人文因素所决定的标志。也就是说，地理标志代表了在某个特定区域或在某个特定区域内的地区的商品的原产地。而该商品的特定质量、信誉或其他特征在很大程度上与商品的原产地密切相关。即便是同种类的商品来自于不同的地区，由于自然因素或人文因素的不同导致商品的质量和信誉也不尽相同。
地理标志目前已经成为区分商品来源的最重要的标志之一。对于地理标志的保护不仅可以刺激某个特定地区或国家的经济发展，而且可以保护生产商和消费者的合法权益。因此，对于地理标志的保护是十分必要的。
By Liu Cheng and Linda Davinson King & Wood’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Group
A significant recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit temporarily concludes the U.S.-China tire wars in the case of GPX International Tire Corporation and Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd et al v. United States et al. The U.S. Federal Court held that existing U.S. countervailing duty law cannot be applied to non-market economy (NME) countries including China, affirming the U.S. International Trade Court’s decision but on different grounds.
Shortly thereafter, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) highlighted the U.S. Federal Court’s decision by issuing a statement to the United States to not impose countervailing duties on Chinese imports because to do so would violate the rules of the World Trade Organization and prevailing U.S. law.
