By Meg Utterback and Linda Davinson King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

On January 1, 2012, the new International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration rules (the "new ICC rules") came into effect (the last major revision of the ICC rules occurred in 1998). As international arbitration continues to grow in popularity with the rise of cross-border commercial disputes, the international dispute resolution centers have been keen on competitively addressing the new business needs of our global marketplace. The rules of various institutions over the last decade have become increasingly sophisticated, blending common and civil law systems to give rise to non-country specific forums to resolve international disputes.Continue Reading New Year, New Rules for ICC Arbitration including Comparison of ICC, SIAC and HKIAC

By King & Wood’s Trademark Group

Whether revocation of the certificate of incorporation will result in deprivation of the capacity of trademark owners as well as the trademark rights depends on the nature of the trademark owners.

The term "trademark owners" refer to any individuals, legal entities or other organizations that enjoy trademark rights under the law.  Trademark owners include original owners and their successors.  According to Article 9 of the amended PRC Trademark Law, the eligible trademark applicants are defined as enterprises, institutions, social organizations, privately or individually-owned businesses, individual partnerships, foreign individuals and foreign enterprises.Continue Reading Can Trademark Right Still Exist When a Certificate of Incorporation Is Revoked?

By  Zeng Xianwu Bai Lihui King & Wood’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Group

To achieve the initial public offering (“IPO“), there are two options for Chinese companies, onshore listing (also known as A-share listing) and offshore listing (also known as red-chip listing).  Since the conditions and qualifications for A-share listing are usually a little higher and the procedure is more time-consuming than for the offshore listing, Chinese companies which cannot meet the A-share listing’s requirements or which need to complete IPO rapidly, usually would prefer the red-chip listing.  For the red-chip listing, there are two commonly-used structures for Chinese companies: the straight-forward offshore listing structure and the VIE structure.  In addition, for the purpose of attracting foreign investors and for circumventing restrictions on foreign direct investment, during the Pre-IPO restructuring, the VIE structure is also widely used by Chinese companies and foreign companies alike.

In 2011, after a series of public events, the variable interest entity (“VIE“) structure re-attracted a lot of attention and concerns from the PRC authorities, entrepreneurs, investors and other market participants.  This essay will describe the circumstances in which the VIE structure was created, how it has been used and the changes in the regulatory environment which might affect the feasibility of utilizing the VIE structure.Continue Reading Variable Interest Entity Structure in China

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.

III. Assignment of Insurance Benefits

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)

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)

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

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.Continue Reading US-China Trade War Continues: No Countervailing Duty to be Applied to Goods from China, a Non-Market Economy Country

By Guan Feng King & Wood’s Finance Group

I. Introduction

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)

By Susan Ning, Ji Kailun and Hazel Yin

On 30 December 2011, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") promulgated the Interim Measures on Investigation and Punishment of Failure to Duly Notify Concentrations of Undertakings (《未依法申报经营者集中调查处理暂行办法》, "Interim Measures"), effective from February 1, 2012.1   The Interim Measures set down the procedures for MOFCOM to investigate and penalize companies for failure to notify a notifiable transaction in violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML").

According to the Interim Measures, MOFCOM shall initiate an investigation ("case acceptance") if there is prima facie evidence, either presented by any third party or it obtains through other channels, indicating that a company fails to notify a notifiable transaction. 
 Continue Reading MOFCOM Getting Tough on Failure to Notify a Concentration