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.
长期以来，可变利益实体结构（即Variable Interest Entity，“VIE”结构）一直是外国投资者进入中国外商投资限制领域的常用模式。与此同时，VIE结构一直以来也是中国境内企业在境外资本市场实现上市的常用做法。
第一个通过VIE结构上市的著名案例便是新浪，其于2000在美国纳斯达克成功上市。实际上，VIE结构的另一种常用的说法就是“新浪模式”。新浪使用VIE结构成功绕开了中国电信增值产业对于外商投资的限制。从那以后，无论是外国投资者还是国内投资者在中国很多限制或禁止外商投资的领域开始复制使用VIE结构。
VIE结构实质上是指一种安排，根据该安排，在中国境内的一家全资或合资外商投资企业（“控股公司”）取得另一家实际运营公司（“运营公司”）的控制权，而该运营公司则持有必要的许可以在限制或禁止外商投资的领域内开展业务。由于这些产业被中国政府规定为限制或禁止外商投资的产业，所以外国投资无法直接向该运营公司进行投资。相应的，外国投资者会在控股公司和运营公司之间采取多种合同安排，以便使该控股公司获得对运营公司的运作和管理的实际控制权。该运营公司的利润也将流回控股公司，并其业绩将最终纳入控股公司。
作为世界第二大经济体，中国逐步出现在世界经济舞台的中心，中国的经济和法制也不断发生变化。随着中国国家知识产权保护体系的不断完善，专利投入快速增长，越来越显示出中国创新政策的优势，专利申请也出现了自己的特色。中国公司也创造了大量专有的知识产权，并对外国公司和中国当地的竞争对手提起侵权诉讼。中国第三次专利法修正案[1] （“新专利法”）也在很多方面改变了中国专利实务和程序。
这些新变化对所有中国境内开展的公司将产生深远的影响，特别是发展很大程度上依赖知识产权的公司。应对这些重要变化的最好的方式是什么呢？中国境内公司在设计其中国专利战略时，至少要考虑到下述几点要素。
By Guan Feng King & Wood’s Finance Group
Banks usually require a borrower to provide a mortgage on their property as security for the bank’s loan. However, under China’s laws, a mortgagee is not entitled to directly receive insurance benefits or indemnification relating to the mortgaged property. If the mortgagee cannot be directly indemnified when the mortgaged property suffers damage or loss, the mortgagee bears the risk of being under-secured on its loan since it does not have a priority right to the insurance proceeds. Although the mortgagee can seek indemnification from the borrower if the borrower has been reimbursed with insurance benefits, ideally the bank should directly receive indemnification for the loss in value of its security.
In practice, the lender bank usually requires the borrower to insure the mortgaged property and designate the bank as the "first beneficiary" in the property insurance contract. In this way, the bank can directly obtain indemnification if the mortgaged property suffers damage or loss due to insured incidents. However, under the Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China ("Insurance Law"), the term "beneficiary" is only defined in life insurance rather than in property insurance. On September 23, 1992, the Department of Real Estate Credit of the Construction Bank of China promulgated the Interim Measures of Employees Mortgage, which defined the term of "first beneficiary". However, the Measures for the Administration of Individual Housing Loans promulgated by the People’s Bank of China on May 9, 1998 phased out the "first beneficiary" concept. Thus, since there is no definition for "beneficiary" in property insurance under China’s current laws, the question of whether such a "beneficiary" is entitled to any direct claim to indemnity remains a myth in the property insurance contract. In order to clarify this issue, the High Court of Shanghai, in its 2009 and 2010 White Paper on Trial Judgments in Financial Cases, instructed that a beneficiary can only be specified in a life insurance contract according to the relevant provisions of the Insurance Law and instructions of the Supreme Court of China.
Continue Reading Insurance Benefits for Banks as Mortgagees (Part I of II)
作者 宁宣凤、吉凯伦、尹冉冉
2011年12月30日，商务部发布了《未依法申报经营者集中调查处理暂行办法》（“暂行办法”），将于2012年2月1日正式实施。该暂行办法就达到申报标准但未依法申报的经营者集中，规定了调查处理程序。
根据暂行办法，任何单位和个人均有权向商务部举报涉嫌应报未报的经营者集中，商务部也可能通过其他途径获得相关信息。如果有初步事实和证据表明存在未依法申报嫌疑，商务部就应当立案，并书面通知被调查的经营者。
