China Law Insight

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

King & Wood Mallesons — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:13:46 +0800

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.

Scope of application

The NDRC Circular applies to the issuance of RMB bonds in Hong Kong by non-financial institutions incorporated in the PRC (“non-financial institutions”). The RMB bonds should have a tenor of no less than one year.

Although the NDRC Circular technically applies to all non-financial institutions, it remains to be seen how many and which type of institutions will be granted the approval. That said, it is likely that state-owned enterprises will be the first batch of companies to be granted the approval, as smaller private companies may struggle to meet all of the requirements set out by the NDRC.

Approval process and timing

The specific approval process varies depending on the type of non-financial institution. An enterprise which is supervised by the Central Government can submit the application directly to the NDRC for approval. A local enterprise is required to submit the application for examination and approval by the provincial branch of the NDRC, which will in turn submit the application to the NDRC for final approval.

The NDRC will decide whether it will grant the approval to a non-financial institution within 60 working days of accepting the application. Once the approval is granted, the non-financial institution is required to initiate the bond issuance process within 60 working days from the date of the approval. The NDRC approval will be valid for one year during which the RMB bond issuance must be completed.

Applicant’s criteria

An applicant seeking to issue RMB bonds in Hong Kong must fulfil the following criteria:

(a) it must have good corporate governance and creditability;

(b) it must have relatively strong profitability;

(c) the proceeds obtained from the RMB bond issuance must be mainly used for fixed asset investment projects which comply with the PRC’s national macroeconomic policies, industrial policies, foreign investment and outbound investment policies and fixed asset investment administrative rules;

(d) none of its outstanding corporate bonds or other debt is in default and there has been no deferral of any payment of interest or principal; and

(e) it has maintained a three-year compliance track record, with no material violation of any laws or regulations.

Whilst the eligibility criteria for non-financial institutions under the NDRC Circular are similar to the ones for financial institutions set out under the 2007 Measures in terms of corporate governance, financial condition and compliance track record, the NDRC Circular appears to have introduced a different treatment in terms of the use of proceeds of the RMB bonds. Under the 2007 Measures, the issuer is required to repatriate the proceeds of the RMB bonds back to the PRC within 30 working days after the completion of the bond issue. The repatriation of funds is no longer required under the NDRC Circular. Under the new rules, the proceeds must however be used to invest in fixed asset investment projects in those industries which are in line with China’s policies with respect to macroeconomic control, administration of industry and use of foreign investments. . It also appears that proceeds of the bond issue may be used for outbound investment projects, a move which is in line with PRC Government’s initiatives for RMB internationalisation.

Reporting and registration requirements

The issuer is required to report details of the status of the RMB bond issuance to the NDRC within 10 working days after completion of the bond issuance.

Any RMB bond issuance in Hong Kong by an issuer pursuant to the NDRC Circular will be classified as “foreign debt” and hence all related regulations, such as the usual registration requirements with the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”), will need to be complied with.

In the case of a RMB bond issuance in Hong Kong by an offshore branch or subsidiary of a non-financial institution and guaranteed by an onshore entity, such non-financial institution is required to report details of the issue size, tenor and use of proceeds of the proposed bond issue to the NDRC 20 working days before the issuance of the RMB bonds.

Whilst the reporting and SAFE registration requirements under the NDRC Circular are similar to the 2007 Measures, the NDRC Circular has introduced a new requirement for the non-financial institution to make a filing with the NDRC where its offshore branch or subsidiary issues RMB bonds in Hong Kong which are to be guaranteed by an onshore entity. This requirement is additional to the current requirement that the giving of a guarantee to an offshore beneficiary by an onshore entity is subject to SAFE’s approval. Pursuant to the NDRC Circular, this filing requirement is limited to structures where there is a guarantee in place and does not appear to affect other structures commonly used in RMB bond deals, such as letter of support or keepwell arrangement or other forms of credit enhancement which does not constitute a guarantee.

Conclusion

The NDRC Circular completes the regulatory framework in relation to the issuance of RMB bonds in Hong Kong by both financial and non-financial institutions incorporated in the PRC. The rules set out in the NDRC Circular are similar to the 2007 Measures. It is a welcoming development that the NDRC Circular has removed some of the limitations and restrictions under the 2007 Measures. In the last article of the NDRC Circular, it is also stated that RMB bonds to be issued by a non-financial institution in offshore markets other than Hong Kong should follow the same rules and requirements as set out in the NDRC Circular, a positive indication of the PRC government’s effort for further development of the offshore bond market on other jurisdictions and the internationalisation of RMB in the near future.

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

King & Wood Mallesons — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:21:29 +0800

作者：黄绪华麦秀颖唐礼贤金杜律师事务所公司组

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。

适用范围

发改委通知适用于在内地设立的非金融机构（“非金融机构”）在香港发行人民币债券的行为。人民币债券的期限应为1年以上（含1年）。

发改委通知适用所有非金融机构，将有多少甚至哪些类型的机构会获得核准还有待政府对新规定的实施。不过国有企业将很可能先得到机会，因为对于规模较小的民营企业来说满足国家发改委的要求并不容易。

审批流程和时间

审批流程因非金融机构的类型不同而有所区别。中央管理企业可向国家发改委直接提出核准申请；地方企业向注册所在地省级发改委提出申请，经省级发改委审核后报国家发改委核准。

国家发改委将自受理申请之日起60个工作日内作出核准或者不予核准的决定。一旦经过核准，非金融机构自核准之日起60个工作日内必须开始启动实质性发债工作。国家发改委核准文件的有效期为1年，有效期内必须完成人民币债券的发行。

申请者之条件

赴港发行人民币债券的申请者必须符合下列条件：

(a) 具有良好的公司治理机制且资信情况良好；

(b) 具有较强的盈利能力；

(d) 已发行的所有企业债券或者其他债务未处于违约或者延迟支付本息的状态；

(e) 最近三年无重大违法违规行为。

发改委通知对于非金融机构在公司治理、财务状况和合规记录方面的要求与2007年办法对金融机构的要求类似；但是，发改委通知在人民币债券所募集资金的用途方面有不同的规定。2007年办法要求境内金融机构在债券发行完成后30个工作日内将发行人民币债券所募集的资金调回境内。发改委通知未要求将资金调回境内，募集的资金则必须用于固定资产投资项目，并符合内地宏观调控政策、产业政策和利用外资政策；另外，人民币债券所募集的资金可以用于境外投资项目，而这一点则符合中央政府推动人民币国际化的方向。

报告和登记要求

发行人应当在人民币债券发行工作结束后10个工作日内向国家发改委报告人民币债券的发行情况。

发行人根据发改委通知在香港发行的人民币债券归类为外债，因此所有相关规定包括向国家外汇管理局（“外管局”）登记的要求均需遵守。

如果非金融机构境外分支机构在香港发行人民币债券，并由境内机构提供担保，非金融机构应在人民币债券发行前20个工作日内，向国家发改委报告拟发行债券的规模、期限及募集资金用途。

尽管发改委通知规定的报告和外管局登记的要求与2007年办法相似，发改委通知引入了在非金融机构境外分支机构赴香港发行人民币债券由境内机构提供担保的情况下，非金融机构需向国家发改委备案的要求，这是境内机构对外担保需取得外管局批准之外的新的要求；不过这一新的备案要求限于存在担保的情况下，并不影响人民币债券交易中通常使用的其他结构或形式（例如不构成担保的支持函、维持良好信用之安排或其他提高信用的形式）。

结论

发改委通知完成了规范内地设立的金融机构和非金融机构赴香港发行人民币债券的监管框架。尽管发改委通知中载明的规定与2007年办法相似，但是发改委通知取消了一些2007年办法项下的限制和约束，这是一个受业界欢迎的变化。发改委通知的最后一条规定，非金融机构拟在香港以外的境外市场发行人民币债券，应当同样遵守发改委通知中的规定和要求，这象征着中国政府在不远的将来会鼓励在其他国家和地区开展人民币债券业务并进一步努力促进人民币国际化。

"Green Home" Accused of Being Copycat of "GreenTree Inn"

King & Wood Mallesons — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:32:49 +0800

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.

GreenTree claimed that "Green Home" had used the English mark of "Green Home" and the Chinese mark of "格林之家" (which is the Chinese equivalent of "Green Home"), as well as an oak tree device on its signboard, business cards, shower caps, tooth cleaners, disposable slippers, soaps, access cards. The marks being sued constitute similar marks with GreenTree's prior registered marks including "GreenTree Inn & oak device", "格林豪泰", which would mislead consumers as to the source of the service. From internet search, it can be seen from a photo of a signboard of Green Home, that the mark used has a similar structure with GreenTree's mark in actual use.

In December, 2011, a Shanghai law firm representing GreenTree Inn Management Group filed a lawsuit against Green Home with the Yanchen Intermediate People's Court for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

On February 20, 2012, Yanchen Intermediate People's Court made a ruling affirming that "the Green Home Business Hotel run by Green Home is within the same industry with GreenTree", "GreenTree has become an economy hotel chain which enjoys certain fame within the industry", and that GreenHome's commercial use of marks is similar to that having been registered by GreenTree without permission of the latter. All the similarities will cause confusion among the relevant public, violate the market principle of honesty, and infringe upon the exclusive trademark rights enjoyed by the plaintiff over its marks of "GreenTree Inn & oak device" and "格林豪泰". The court accordingly ordered Green Home to stop its infringing activities. Whether Green Home will appeal or not is still unknown to the public.

Although for those general Chinese consumers, there are some recognizable conceptual differences between "Green Home", its Chinese equivalent and GreenTree's prior registered marks of "GreenTree Inn", "格林豪泰", the court still supported GreenTree's claim for trademark infringement. The following two factors have been weighed by the court in making the ruling: 1) the defendant's marks are similar in structure with the plaintiff's, exposing the element of bad faith; 2) the continuous use of the marks of the Defendant may dilute the plaintiff's trademark. Though the Defendant's marks do not necessarily cause confusion among consumers, they are likely to weaken the established association between GreenTree Inn and its marks and accordingly dilute the brand distinctiveness and value of GreenTree.

News reports say GreenTree Inn Hotel is not the only hotel brand of fame being "Shan Zhai" (a Chinese slang referring to the activity to imitate the others' famous brands, but provide goods/services of inferior quality). Other leading brands in hotel industry such as "Home Inn", "7 Days Inn" with over 1,000 chain hotels around China, also have to face these similar "Shan Zhai" hotels. The court's ruling in this case will encourage the said chain hotels to take measures to safeguard their exclusive trademark rights. (Contributed by Luo Jingjing)

For more information about the above issue, please refer to:
http://money.163.com/12/0228/11/7RBJF8ML002526O3.html

格林豪泰酒店起诉"格林之家商务酒店"商标侵权

King & Wood Mallesons — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:37:33 +0800

作者：金杜律师事务所商标组

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。

格林豪泰称，格林之家酒店在营业招牌、名片、浴帽、牙具、浴巾、一次性拖鞋、香皂、门卡等物品上大量使用了“格林之家”、“Green Home”字样和“橡树”图形，与“格林豪泰”、“GreenTree Inn”等注册商标构成近似，足以使消费者对服务的来源产生误认。从互联网上能搜索到的格林之家的招牌照片来看，格林之家所使用的商标, 与格林豪泰实际运营中使用的商标在整体结构上确有相似之处。

2011年12月格林豪泰酒店管理集团委托上海市某律师事务所向盐城市中级人民法院依法提起诉讼，起诉“格林之家”商标侵权和不正当竞争。

2012年2月20日，盐城市中级人民法院作出判决，确认“格林之家经营的格林之家酒店与格林豪泰属于相同行业”，“格林豪泰酒店已成为国内具有一定知名度的经济型连锁酒店”，认为格林之家未经格林豪泰许可，将和格林豪泰的注册商标相近似的文字、图形在类似的市场经营中进行商业使用，足以造成相关公众的混淆和误认，该行为违背了诚实信用的市场经营准则，侵害格林豪泰的注册商标专用权，判决格林之家商务酒店停止对“格林豪泰”和“GreenTree Inn 及图”注册商标专用权的侵害。自判决作出后，目前尚无报道提及格林之家是否已上诉。

对于普通中国消费者而言，“格林之家”与“格林豪泰”两个商标如果仅从文字上加以比较，由于含义上的差异并非不能区分。法院对格林豪泰的诉求予以支持，根据事实推测，法院在裁决前可能考虑到了下面两个因素，即1）格林之家在实际使用中的商标与格林豪泰实际使用中的商标在结构上高度近似，从而暴露了其某种程度上的刻意摹仿 2）尽管格林之家使用的商标与“格林豪泰”有区别，但鉴于格林豪泰的知名度，其使用仍然有可能会在某种程度上削弱“格林豪泰”品牌与其所有人之间的固有联系，淡化其商标价值。

在一系列有关格林豪泰诉讼的新闻报道中均提到，在中国国内，被山寨的连锁酒店品牌并非只有格林豪泰一家。事实上，在全国范围内均拥有超过1,000家连锁店的如家快捷酒店和7天连锁酒店均被山寨。也许最近的这一法院判决会给像如家、7天这样快速发展中的经济型连锁酒店更多积极维权的信心。（整理：罗晶晶）

(改编自2012年2月28日网易财经www.money.163.com的报道《格林豪泰酒店起诉山寨酒店商标侵权》）

更多有关信息，请参考：
http://money.163.com/12/0228/11/7RBJF8ML002526O3.html)

中国における情報提供制度の活用指南

King & Wood Mallesons — Mon, 14 May 2012 11:30:34 +0800

作者：馬立栄 金杜律师事务所金杜律師事務所特許部

近年、中国において特許権の権利行使を行うケースが増えつつある中、事後対策として無効審判を起こすことは依然として有効な手段であるが、周到な事前予防策を講じることは今後より重要になると思われる。事前対策として中国の特許公報（週単位で更新される）をリアルタイムに監視し、対象特許が見つかり次第速やかに情報提供をする（中国において、「公衆意見の提出」と言われる）ことで、特許査定をさせなかったり、登録範囲を縮小させたりすることができれば、コスト対パフォーマンスの点においてより効果的であろう。

言語的な障壁が存在する以上、パテントファミリーを持たない日本の特許公報を中国の審査官が調べるには限りがある一方で、今のところ、その積極的な利用を示す公式な統計データこそ無いが、情報提供による情報がそのまま拒絶理由通知書に引用されているという現実から、提供された情報は、ある程度積極的に中国専利局の審査官に利用されていることがうかがわれる。

なお、中国における情報提供制度は、実務上、日本における同制度と異なる面があることには注意されたい。

一、中国の関係条文

ア、専利法実施細則第48条

「第四十八条発明特許出願の公開日から特許権付与の公告日まで、何人でも専利法の規定に適合しない特許出願について国務院特許行政部門に意見を提出し、かつ理由を説明することが出来る。」

ィ、審査指南の関連規定（第2部分第8章の4.9）

「公衆からの意見に対する処理　いかなる人による、専利法の規定に適合しない発明専利の出願について専利局に提出された意見は、審査官が実体審査をする際の考慮に供するように、当該出願書類のファイルに保管しなければならない。公衆情報は審査官が専利権の付与通知書を発行した後に受け取ったものであれば、考慮される必要はない。公衆の意見に対する専利局の対応状況は、情報提供者に通知する必要がない。」

二、情報提供の対象

発明特許のみ、情報提供の対象である。

三、情報提供の時期

発明特許出願の中国国内公開日から特許権付与公告日までの間、提出可能である。

優先日から18ヵ月後に中国移行されたPCT国際出願の場合、通常（実務において）中国段階移行日から2-5ヶ月で公開される。パリルートの特許出願の場合は、初期審査合格後、出願日（優先日がある場合、優先日）から18ヶ月満了時に公開される。出願人の申請による早期公開も可能である。早期公開の場合、初期審査合格後すぐに公開準備プロセスに入る。上記公開日を考慮して情報提供を行えば、より効果的に審査官の配慮の対象となり得る。

四、情報提供が可能な人

制限されておらず、何人でも可能である。実務において、匿名による情報提供の場合が多い。

五、提出可能な情報

特に制限はないが、専利法実施細則第53条に規定された要件に適合しない（拒絶理由に該当する）ことを理由としたのは、普通である。参考までに、関係内容を以下に引用する。

中国での実際出願日が、2010年2月1日前であれば、旧実施細則43条が適用される：

（１）出願が本細則第2条第1項の規定（発明特許の定義）を満たしていない場合

（２）出願が特許法第5条（公序良俗要件）及び第25条（特許法の非保護対象）に規定された場合に該当し、若しくは特許法第22条（新規性、進歩性、実用性）、本細則第13条第1項（重複授権してはならない）、第20条第1項（明瞭要件）又は第2１条第２項の規定（技術課題を解決するための必要・不可欠要件）を満たしていない場合、又は特許法第９条（先願主義）の規定に従い特許権を取得することができない場合

（３）出願が特許法第26条第3項（十分開示要件）、第4項（サポート要件）又は第31条第1項（単一性要件）の規定を満たしていない場合

（４）出願の補正は特許法第33条（新規事項追加の禁止）を満たしていない又は分割出願が本細則第43条第1項の規定を満たしていない場合

中国での実際出願日が、2010年2月1日後であれば、現行実施細則43条が適用される：

（1）出願が専利法第五条（公序良俗要件）、第二十五条（専利法の非保護対象）に規定される場合に該当し、もしくは専利法第九条（重複授権禁止）の規定によって特許権を付与できない場合

（2）出願が専利法第二条第2項（定義）、第二十条第1項（秘密審査）、第二十二条（新規性、進歩性、実用性要件）、第二十六条第3項（十分開示）、第4項（明瞭・サポート要件）、第5項（遺伝資源の明記）、第三十一条第1項（単一性要件）もしくは本細則第二十条第2項（技術課題を解決するための必要・不可欠要件）の規定に合致しない場合、

（3）出願の補正が専利法第三十三条（新規事項追加の禁止要件）の規定に適合しておらず、もしくは分割出願が本細則第四十三条第1項（分割出願の新規事項追加の要件）の規定に適合しない場合

六、情報提供者へのフィードバック

中国においては、提供された情報は審査官の自由裁量で採用されるため、情報提供者へのフィードバックは行われない点に注意されたい。

提供された情報が審査官に利用されたかを調べるために、対象特許が特許付与公告をされた後、その包袋を取り寄せることは可能である。調査可能な書類には、公衆意見は含まれないが、拒絶理由通知書を調べることにより、自分の提供した情報が採用されたかをある程度判断することが可能である。

七、提出方法（弁理士手数料のみ発生する）

「方法１」詳細な法律分析を加えずに、先行技術文献のみ提供する

「方法２」依頼人自身での分析後、現地代理人が先行技術文献とともに中国特許庁に提出する

　「方法３」現地代理人が詳細に法律分析を行い、拒絶すべき理由を陳述する

対象特許が自社に対して脅威があるものである場合、方法３を提案する。

约定域外法院管辖的困境及出路

King & Wood Mallesons — Fri, 11 May 2012 15:36:34 +0800

作者：张守志 徐晓丹 李响金杜律师事务所争议解决组

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。

1. 如协议选定的管辖法院所在国与中国没有缔结相互承认和执行法院判决的双边条约，相关裁决将难以在中国得到承认和执行。

《民事诉讼法第266条规定：“人民法院对申请或者请求承认和执行的外国法院作出的发生法律效力的判决、裁定，依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约，或者按照互惠原则进行审查后，认为不违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益的，裁定承认其效力，需要执行的，发出执行令，依照本法的有关规定执行。违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益的，不予承认和执行。”

从上述条款可见，外国法院的判决、裁定在中国得到承认和执行的法定条件是：

（1）外国法院做出的判决、裁定已经发生法律效力；

（2）法院地国与中国缔结了双边条约或共同参加了关于相互承认和执行法院判决的多边条约，或双方之间有相互承认和执行法院判决的互惠关系；及

（3）中国法院在审查该等判决、裁定后，认为其不违反中国的基本原则或国家主权、安全、社会公共利益。

在上述条件全部满足的情形下，外国法院的判决才能够在中国得到承认和执行。

众所周知，中国1987年加入了《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（“《纽约公约》”)，使得中国与130多个国家和地区能够相互承认及执行各自的仲裁裁决。但是，就与其他国家相互承认和执行法院判决，中国并没有加入《国际民商事案件中外国判决的承认和执行公约》[i]，也没有加入多边条约。并且，除非当事人举证证明，否则中国法院多数情况下不认可中国与其它国家存在互惠关系[ii]。因此，在实践中，如果当事人想在中国申请承认和执行外国法院裁判，绝大多数情况下只能援引中国与法院地国缔结的双边条约。

根据商务部转引外交部2009年4月2日公布的数据，截至2008年3月底，中国与五十多个国家缔结了各类双边司法协助类条约共99项，其中，包含承认及执行民事裁判内容的司法协助条约30项，包含承认及执行商事裁判内容的司法协助条约仅12项（如中国与土耳其、新加坡、泰国、埃及等国缔结的双边条约），还有一些虽然已经签署多年，却始终无法取得相对国国内立法机构的批准，无法满足协定的生效条件，因此尚未施行[iii]。

总之，在中国与法院国没有缔结相互承认及执行法院判决的双边条约的情况下，相关外国法院的判决将无法得到中国法院的承认和执行，从而在中国境内没有强制执行力。

2. 在协议选定的法院所在国与中国缔结了双边条约的情况下，如被选择的管辖法院根据双边条约的规定对案件没有管辖权，相关判决也将无法在中国得到承认和执行。

除了《民事诉讼法》第266条的原则性规定外，在中国缔结的双边条约中往往会列举双方法院可不予承认和执行的情形，其内容不限于《民事诉讼法》的规定，还包括作出判决的法院对争议没有管辖权及当事人的诉讼权利没有得到保障等。因此，当事人在协议选定管辖法院时需要尤其注意的是，根据法院所在国与中国缔结的双边条约的规定，被选择的法院是否对相关争议享有管辖权。

根据国际通行的司法原则，一国法院对相关争议具有司法管辖权是其审理该争议及另一国法院承认及执行相关判决的先决条件。中国缔结的关于承认和执行外国法院判决的双边条约通常规定：若作出判决的法院对相关争议没有管辖权，则中国法院可以拒绝承认和执行该等判决。至于作出判决的法院是否有管辖权，根据不同的签约对象，中国缔结的条约中规定了三种不同的判断标准：

（1）根据被请求国法律判断请求国法院是否具有管辖权（Exclusive Jurisdiction）（如中国与法国等国缔结的双边条约）；

（2）根据被请求国对案件是否具有专属管辖权来判断请求国法院是否有管辖权（如中国与俄罗斯的双边条约）；或

（3）直接规定若干“视为有管辖权”的条件（如中国与西班牙的双边条约）。

因此，即便当事人意图选择的管辖法院所在国与中国缔结了双边条约，也仍需根据两国条约中的具体规定，谨慎选择。举例来说，如一涉外合同选择了与合同没有实际联系的法院管辖，且法院国与中国缔结了承认和执行法院判决的双边司法协助条约，并规定按照被请求国法律判断管辖权。而根据中国《民事诉讼法》第242条，涉外合同双方选择的管辖法院应与争议有实际联系。在这种情况下，该合同所选择的法院作出的裁判将有可能因为作出裁判的法院根据中国法律不具有管辖权而被中国法院根据条约规定拒绝承认和执行。

二、 外国法院的临时措施和保全措施令状很可能得不到中国法院的承认和执行

为防止被告在诉讼过程中转移财产，逃避判决执行，原告通常会申请法院采取临时措施或保全措施。虽然形式各不相同，但各国民事诉讼程序法中基本都规定了与中国的财产保全措施类似的临时措施或保全措施。但中国民事诉讼法下不存在为支持在外国法院进行的诉讼而采取的临时措施。

当管辖相关争议的外国法院针对中国境内的被告或其财产发出临时措施或保全措施令状时，将遭遇一系列难题。

首先，如上所述，中国与美国、日本等世界主要经济体之间不存在相互执行法院判决或裁定的双边或多边条约。因此，这些国家的法院所做出的临时措施和保全措施令状在司法实践中不可能得到中国法院的承认和执行。

其次，在中国与有些国家签订的双边司法协助条约中，明确将临时措施和保全措施令状排除在可以相互承认和执行的民事裁判之外[iv]。而其它没有作出类似规定的双边司法协助也只是笼统地规定缔约国应当相互承认和执行已经发生法律效力的民商事裁决，而且未对“裁决”作出明确定义。在条约没有明确规定的情况下，是否承认和执行外国法院下达的临时措施和保全措施令状，将取决于中国法院的自由裁量。因此，该类令状无法得到中国法院承认和执行的风险很高。

再次，如果未经中国法院准许，而执行外国法院针对中国境内的当事人或财产作出的临时措施，还可能被认定为侵犯中国的司法主权。在与娃哈哈-达能案件相关的毕马威案件中，作为全球四大会计师事务所之一的毕马威，就因为在中国执行BVI和萨摩亚法院作出的临时冻结娃哈哈财产的令状，而被判决触犯中国的司法主权。[v]

在这些情况下，被诉的一方将有机会在诉讼期间，通过抵押、质押在中国境内的主要资产，或者将该等资产转移至关联公司，甚至对涉诉公司实施重组或破产等方式，以隐藏、转移其在中国境内的财产。一旦这种资产转移完成，即使另一方当事人在外国法院获得了胜诉判决，甚至该等判决满足了相关条约和法律规定的种种条件，得到了中国法院的承认和执行，其也很难就上述资产受偿。其结果可能是，胜诉方手握胜诉裁决，却无法从已经变成空壳的败诉方获得任何清偿。

三、 化解约定外国法院管辖风险的出路

从上述分析可见，争端解决条款约定外国法院管辖，将使外国公司面临在外国法院取得的胜诉裁决难以在中国得到承认和实际执行的风险。并且，如果根据双方约定，外国法院对相关争议具有排他性的管辖权，并且该等约定依据中国民事诉讼法判断是有效的[vi]，则当事方将难以在中国法院提起诉讼，有关法院将很可能对当事人的起诉不予受理。但另一方面，尽管其将面临合法权利得不到保障的风险，外国公司又往往因为不了解中国法院而仍坚持选择外国法院作为管辖法院。在这种情况下，比较可行的方法是约定外国法院对有关争议享有非专属管辖权（Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction），以解决上述困境。

根据2005年12月26日最高人民法院发布的《第二次全国涉外商事海事审判工作会议纪要》（法发[2005]26号）第12条，“涉外商事纠纷案件的当事人协议约定外国法院对其争议享有非排他性管辖权时，可以认定该协议并没有排除其他国家有管辖权法院的管辖权。如果一方当事人向我国法院提起诉讼，我国法院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》的有关规定对案件享有管辖权的，可以受理。”

因此，在外国公司坚持要求约定外国法院管辖时，可以考虑约定由外国法院对合同项下争议享有非专属管辖权。这样一来，一旦发生争议，根据纠纷的具体情况，外国公司既可以选择在外国诉讼，也可以选择在中国诉讼。如果被告可执行的财产全部在中国，原告完全可以选择在中国法院起诉。这样不仅避免了承认和执行外国法院裁决程序的困难，原告方还可以在诉前或诉讼过程中申请中国法院采取财产保全措施，防止被告在诉讼过程中转移财产、逃避债务，以保障胜诉判决的切实执行。

值得指出的是，如果原告在合同约定由外国法院非专属管辖时选择在外国提起诉讼，则根据上述分析，该等外国法院判决可能会因未满足有关条约和法律中规定的条件而无法在中国得到承认和执行。在这种情况下，如被告仅在中国境内有可供执行的财产，即便原告已经在外国法院获得了胜诉判决，其仍需在中国法院重新提起诉讼，以获得一份在中国境内有法律效力的判决。而这无疑将增加外国客户的讼累。

另一方面，外国法院已经做出的生效判决，不仅可能难以在中国得到承认和执行，而且难以在中国法院审理的案件中作为法院审理的基础。在受理原告的起诉后，中国法院将对案件所涉事实及法律问题重新进行独立、全面的审查，而不受外国法院判决中所查明的事实和认定的责任的影响。外国法院的判决在中国的诉讼中，最多只能证明原告已经在境外提起过诉讼这一事实，从而起到中断诉讼时效的作用。

四、 港、澳、台地区法院判决的承认和执行

2008年8月1日，《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行当事人协议管辖的民商事案件判决的安排》（“《香港安排》”）正式生效。此前，《关于内地与澳门特别行政区相互认可和执行民商事判决的安排》已经于2006年生效。而《关于人民法院认可台湾地区有关法院民事判决1998年就已经颁布施行。也就是说，港、澳、台三地的判决目前均可以依据法定程序在内地法院获得承认和执行。的规定》早在

需要特别提醒注意的是，《香港安排》第三条第一款规定：“本安排所称‘书面管辖协议’，是指当事人为解决与特定法律关系有关的已经发生或者可能发生的争议，自本安排生效之日起，以书面形式明确约定内地人民法院或者香港特别行政区法院具有唯一管辖权的协议。”因此，若管辖条款约定香港法院对合同项下争议享有“非专属管辖权”，则香港法院依据该等约定作出的判决，将不能在内地得到承认和执行。反之亦然。在这种情况下，当事人应当慎重考虑如何对管辖法院的管辖权进行约定。

总之，基于中国目前的法律规定和司法实践，约定外国法院管辖将使外国公司的利益面临难以得到有效维护的风险。一方面，在与中国缔结关于承认和执行民商事判决的双边司法协助条约的国家非常有限的情况下，在外国法院取得的胜诉裁决将难以在中国得到承认和执行；另一方面，即便外国法院的裁决满足了条约和中国法的种种要求，能够得到承认和执行，由于在诉讼过程中难以在中国采取临时措施和保全措施，外国公司千辛万苦获得的胜诉判决，很可能因为被诉方已将其在中国境内的财产隐藏和转移而难以实际受偿。

因此，在外国公司坚持不接受约定中国法院管辖的情况下，可以考虑在合同中规定外国法院对相关争议享有非专属的管辖权，以为其保留将来视情况到中国诉讼的可能性。

[i] 该公约于1971年2月在海牙国际私法会议通过。

[ii] 2009年8月，中国湖北省高级人民法院就湖北葛洲坝三联实业股份有限公司和湖北平湖旅游船有限公司诉美国罗宾逊直升机有限公司直升机产品侵权纠纷一案作出的判决，获得了美国联邦法院加州中部地区法院的承认与执行。这是第一例在美国得到承认与执行中国法院判决，并使得在中国依据“互惠原则”承认与执行美国法院作出的判决存在一定的可能性。不过，中国法院对于“互惠关系”的认定非常严格，当事人不仅要证明中国法院的判决曾经在法院地国获得过承认和执行，还要证明，假设正在被申请承认和执行的这份判决是中国法院作出的，那么，在同等条件下，该等判决也将获得外国法院的承认和执行。

[iii] 美国、英国、加拿大、日本、英属维尔京群岛等许多与我国经贸往来比较密切的国家，尚未与中国缔结民商事司法协助条约。中外司法协助双边条约清单参见商务部网站：http://www.fdi.gov.cn/pub/FDI/zgjj/tzhj/zzysh/gjgyty/t20090402_104106.htm?fclose=1（最后访问日期2012年2月14日）。据笔者不完全统计，2008年3月31日后我国又签订了三份双边司法协助条约，但都不涉及民商事判决的承认和执行问题。

[iv] 如中国与科威特、阿联酋、突尼斯等国缔结的民商事司法协助协定。

[v] 见彭博社报道（http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aktWOg0kuWU8）。

[vi] 《民事诉讼法》第242条规定：“涉外合同或者涉外财产权益纠纷的当事人，可以用书面协议选择与争议有实际联系的地点的法院管辖。选择中华人民共和国人民法院管辖的，不得违反本法关于级别管辖和专属管辖的规定。”因此，如双方协议选择的法院所在地与协议没有实际联系，则该等选择可能被认定为无效，中国法院将有可能受理起诉。

Options for International Commercial Dispute Resolution

King & Wood Mallesons — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:50:23 +0800

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.

I．Options Available in International Dispute Resolution

Generally speaking, no countries impose compulsory restrictions on dispute resolution options, except under clearly stipulated circumstances. In China, there are no specific restrictions on options for international commercial dispute resolution, except that divorce and family law disputes and administrative law disputes are excluded from arbitration^{^[i]}.

In practice, parties in international commercial activities might choose to litigate in a court in China or in a foreign country or to apply for arbitration in China or in a foreign country. The ultimate choice will be influenced by various factors including the parties’ personal preferences, the legal culture and judicial circumstances of the country they reside in, and relative bargaining positions.

Among the options mentioned above, international disputes litigated or arbitrated in China are highly involved by Chinese local attorneys. Since arbitration is highly flexible, it is not rare to see Chinese attorneys represent clients in arbitrations held in other countries. At the same time, Chinese attorneys usually need to cooperate with local attorneys when they represent clients in litigation occurring in foreign countries.

II．Factors Need to be Considered When Choosing Options for International Commercial Dispute Resolution

As mentioned above, the parties will make different choices based on different factors. In the following paragraphs, we will analyze these options from the perspective of practice.

First, Are the Parties Free to Choose between Litigation and Arbitration?

In principle, parties can reach an agreement on whether to litigate or arbitrate the disputes, because litigation and arbitration are both recognized by Chinese law as options for international commercial dispute resolution.

According to Article 3 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law （”Civil Procedure Law”）^{^[ii]} and Article 2 of the Arbitration Law of the PRC（”Arbitration Law”）^{^[iii]}, provisions of the law apply to civil lawsuits between citizens, between legal persons and between other organizations, as well as among them, filed because of property and personal relationships, and are handled by the People’s Court; contractual disputes between citizens of equal status, legal persons and other economic organizations and disputes arising from properly rights may be arbitrated.

When drafting dispute resolution provisions, both parties might first consider the advantages and disadvantages of both litigation and arbitration. On the one hand, from a purely technical prospective, there is no answer to which one is better. On the other hand, taking into account the backgrounds of the parties and their attitudes towards Chinese judicial circumstances into consideration, the parties, especially foreign parties, would probably prefer to choose arbitration as the method of dispute resolution.

The parties should make it clear and unambiguous in the contract whether they have chosen litigation or arbitration as the way to resolve potential disputes. They should try to avoid leaving both options available in the contract in order to prevent unnecessary costs.

For example, the parties in a case reached the following dispute resolution clause in their contract: “all the disputes occurred or will occur from this contract, should be arbitrated by…arbitration commission, or litigated in the People’s Court of ….” According to Chinese law, this arbitration clause is invalid; if one party chooses to arbitrate the dispute while the other objects within the period provided by law, they cannot resolve the dispute through arbitration.^{^[iv]}

Second, What is the Reference Factor in Choosing between Litigation and Arbitration?

When conducting litigation or arbitration in China, the concerned parties should follow the Civil Procedure Law and the Arbitration Law. In deciding cases, the Chinese courts follow the two-instance trial system while the single ruling system is applied in arbitration. Whether the concerned parties receive a litigation judgment or arbitration award, they will need to apply to the court for compulsory enforcement if the party fails to perform voluntarily.

In practice, in order to ensure the chosen option is feasible, the parties should choose the court with jurisdiction over the disputes, or the validity of the arbitration clause.

According to the Civil Procedure Law, the parties are entitled to choose a court with actual connections to the disputes in the written agreement. The concerned parties could choose either the People’s Court in China or courts in foreign countries. If they choose to litigate the dispute in the People’s Court in China, they should follow the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law in the jurisdiction by forum level and on exclusive jurisdiction. If they choose to litigate the dispute in a court in a foreign country, they should also follow the Civil Procedure Law of the place where the forum is located accordingly.

When the concerned parties choose to arbitrate the dispute, they may freely choose from several Chinese arbitration institutions, e.g. the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Beijing Arbitration Commission or a foreign arbitration institution, e.g. Hong Kong International Arbitration Center, Singapore International Arbitration Center, International Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Center and London Court of International Arbitration. If they choose to arbitrate the dispute in China, according to Article 16 of the Arbitration Law, the following contents shall be included in an arbitration agreement: (1) the expression of the parties’ wish to submit to arbitration; (2) the matters to be arbitrated; and (3) the Arbitration Commission selected by the parties. Unlike choosing to litigate disputes in China, there is no requirement on jurisdiction by forum level or on exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, parties may choose the Arbitration Commission which is most convenient, based on the particular facts.

We noticed from recent cases that parties usually chose to arbitrate the dispute in a foreign arbitration institution when they are drafting Sino-foreign equity joint ventures or investment contracts, which was probably the result of insistence by the parties from other countries. Comparing through the cases we have worked on, we find that on one hand, to arbitrate the dispute in a foreign arbitration institute has the benefit of more efficiency and neutrality, on the other hand, it may be not the best choice for a foreign party. Compared to arbitration in China, offshore arbitration has inconveniences such as preservation of property and evidence, lengthy time frames, other litigation costs and enforcement issues.

Awards made in foreign arbitration institutions will be recognized and enforced according to the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards (the “New York Convention”)^{^[v]}. However, there is no specific provision to support the recognition and enforcement of property and evidence preservation from a procedural aspect in the New York Convention and PRC Laws. As a result, the decisions made by foreign arbitration institutions to preserve property and evidence cannot be recognized and enforced in China, which will create a potential risk that the other parties could hide or destroy evidence or hide or transfer their property in China.

Since arbitration in a foreign country will apply the procedural law of where the forum is located and the concerned parties in common law countries will try to protect themselves from every procedural perspective, the parties will have to advance strong arguments on procedural matters. In addition, experts of Chinese law are hired to prepare legal opinions and be questioned as they submit their arguments. After the arbitration award, there will be a delay before the award is recognized and enforced in Chinese court. Both make arbitration in a foreign country highly time consuming. Furthermore, the fees paid to the arbitration commission, witnesses, foreign law experts and attorneys (both Chinese attorneys and foreign attorneys in cooperation) also make the arbitration in a foreign country costly for the client.

In contrast, arbitration in China does not have the shortfalls mentioned above. In addition, Chinese arbitration institutions such as China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission have a well-educated, highly professional and multi-lingual panel of arbitrators, and are capable of dealing with complicated international commercial disputes. Besides, to arbitrate disputes in China would help the parties avoid the risk in evidence and property preservation, enforce the arbitration awards and control litigation costs.

Conclusion

Parties of international commercial activities should choose the proper option to resolve potential disputes as the case may be. If the subject matter of the potential disputes and/or the principal property of the counterparty are located in China, we tend to recommend our clients to choose litigation or arbitration in China.

(This article was originally written in Chinese, the English version is a translation)

[i] Article 3 of the Arbitration Law of the PRC provides: the following disputes cannot be put to arbitration: (1) dispute arising from marriage, adoption, guardianship, bringing up of children and inheritance; (2) Disputes that have been stipulated by law to be settled by administrative organs.

[ii] The PRC Civil Procedure Law was adopted at the 4th Session of the 7th National People's Congress on April 9, 1991 and amended in accordance with the Decision of the 30th session of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Amending the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China on October 28, 2007.

[iii] The Arbitration Law of the PRC was adopted at the 8th Session of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on August 31, and became effective as of September 1, 1995.

[iv] Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court concerning Some Issues on Application of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China provides:“ where concerned parties agree that they may either apply to a arbitration organ for arbitration or bring a lawsuit to the people’s court for settlement of disputes, the arbitration agreement shall become invalid, unless after one party applies to the arbitration organ for arbitration, the other party fails to propose any objection within the period in Paragraph 2, Article 20 of the Arbitration Law.”

[v] The New York Conventionwas adopted by a United Nationslomatic conference on 10 June 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to give effect to private agreements to arbitrate and to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made in other contracting states. dip

刍议国际商事争议解决方式的选择

King & Wood Mallesons — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:37:41 +0800

作者：刘相文徐献宏金杜律师事务所争议解决组

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。

一、 可选择的国际商事争议解决方式

通常而言，除明确规定的例外情况外，各国法律对于争议解决的方式并没有强制性的限制，中国法律主要是将婚姻家庭类纠纷以及行政争议排除在可仲裁的范围之外^{^[i]}，对于国际商事争议解决方式的选择则没有明确限制。

在实践中，国际商事活动的当事人选择的争议解决方式可能是在中国法院诉讼，在中国的仲裁机构仲裁，在外国的法院诉讼，或者在外国的仲裁机构仲裁等。当事人具体选择何种争议解决方式，会受到当事人的偏好、当事人所在国的法律文化和司法环境、当事人的谈判地位以及其他因素的影响。

在前述的各种争议解决方式当中，中国本土律师参与度较高的显然是国内法院的涉外诉讼和国内仲裁处理的涉外仲裁这两种。尽管如此，由于仲裁具备高度的灵活性，中国律师直接代理境外仲裁的情况也较为常见，但是在涉及外国法院诉讼程序的时候，中国律师通常需要与法院所在地的律师进行合作。

二、 选择国际商事争议解决方式应考虑的因素

如上所述，由于各方面因素的影响，在个案当中当事人对国际商事争议解决方式的选择不尽相同。接下来将会基于实践中的情况，对各种争议解决方式的选择作进一步分析。

首先，当事人是否可以任意选择诉讼或仲裁？

诉讼和仲裁都是中国法律认可的国际商事争议解决方式，当事人原则上可以自行商定选择诉讼还是仲裁。

根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（“《民事诉讼法》”）^{^[ii]}第三条以及《中华人民共和国仲裁法》（“《仲裁法》”）^{^[iii]}第二条的规定，中国的法院受理公民之间、法人之间、其他组织之间以及他们相互之间因财产关系和人身关系提起的民事诉讼；而平等主体的公民、法人和其他组织之间发生的合同纠纷和其他财产权益纠纷，可以仲裁。

当事人在起草争议解决条款时，首先可能会考虑二者孰优孰劣、应选择诉讼还是仲裁来解决潜在纠纷的问题。诉讼和仲裁各有特点，从法律角度而言不存在何者更优的问题；但是，由于当事人的背景及其对中国司法环境的态度不同，很多情况下会有当事人（尤其是外国当事方）会倾向于选择仲裁。

尽管如此，当事人应当就选择诉讼还是仲裁作出明确、无歧义的选择，避免在争议解决条款中同时约定诉讼和仲裁两种方式，以免增加不必要的争议解决成本。

例如，在有的案件中，我们发现合同双方约定：“本合同项下的争议应提交XXX仲裁委员会进行仲裁，……或者提交XXX法院进行诉讼解决。”对于此种情况，依据中国法律规定，原则上该等仲裁协议是无效的，如果一方当事人在事后提起仲裁，而另一方在法律规定的时间内提出异议的话，将无法通过仲裁的方式来解决争议^{^[iv]}。

第二，选择诉讼或仲裁的参考因素有哪些？

在中国进行的诉讼和仲裁活动，都要受中国《民事诉讼法》和《仲裁法》以及相关法律法规的约束。中国的诉讼实行“两审终审”制，而仲裁则实行“一裁终局”，但无论诉讼判决还是仲裁裁决，在未得到义务人自觉履行的情况下，都需要向法院申请执行。

在实践中，为确保所选择的争议解决方式切实可行，当事人选择诉讼的，需要注意约定的法院对争议有管辖权；选择仲裁的，则应确保仲裁协议的有效性。

就诉讼而言，依据《民事诉讼法》的相关规定，当事人可以用书面协议选择与争议有实际联系的地点的法院管辖，据此，当事人可能视情况选择中国或外国的法院管辖，选择中国法院管辖的，不得违反《民事诉讼法》关于级别管辖和专属管辖的规定；选择外国法院管辖的，相应地应当适用该外国法院所在地的民事诉讼规则。

就仲裁而言，当事人可以自由选择中国的仲裁机构（例如中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会，北京仲裁委员会等）或者外国的仲裁机构（（比如香港国际仲裁中心，新加坡国际仲裁中心，国际商会，斯德哥尔摩国际商会仲裁院，伦敦国际仲裁院等）进行仲裁。如选择中国的仲裁机构，依据《仲裁法》第十六条的规定，仲裁协议应当具有三项必备内容，即：请求仲裁的意思表示，仲裁事项以及选定的仲裁委员会。与诉讼不同的是，中国法律规定仲裁不实行级别管辖和地域管辖，因此，当事人可以根据个案情况在其信任的范围内，选择对其而言较为便捷的仲裁委员会。

结合近年来的案例，我们注意到，在中国公司与外国公司签订的中外合资及投资等合同中，可能是基于外方的坚持，往往选择境外仲裁的方式来解决争议。通过处理此类案件发现，境外仲裁虽然具有办案经验丰富、能较好地保持中立性，但尤其对于境外当事人而言并不见得是最佳的选择，与境内仲裁相比，境外仲裁存在一些问题，主要体现在财产和证据的保全、耗费的时间和诉讼成本及执行等方面。

《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决的纽约公约》（“《纽约公约》”）^{^[v]}是各国相互承认和执行的仲裁文书的依据。但对于境外仲裁庭作出的包括财产或证据保全在内的各种程序令，在《纽约公约》以及中国国内法的层面均没有支持其在中国获得执行的规定。因此，在境外仲裁中，仲裁庭关于财产保全或证据保全的决定难以在中国境内得到承认及执行。鉴于此，在仲裁中处于不利地位当事人将有机会隐匿、销毁对其不利的证据，或者隐藏、转移其在中国境内的财产。

境外仲裁通常适用仲裁地的程序法，由于普通法系国家通常具有的重视程序的传统，以及当事人可能产生的在程序问题上进行自我保护的想法等原因，在境外仲裁中，当事人关于程序事项的争议往往较为激烈。并且，在适用中国法审理的案件中，往往会需要聘请中国法专家、准备专家意见以及对专家意见进行质询等。另外，在仲裁裁决作出后，当事人还需要漫长的周期才能使境外仲裁裁决获得中国法院的承认和执行。以上种种因素都会导致境外仲裁耗费的时间较长。另外，由于境外仲裁中仲裁机构收费较高，当事人需承担仲裁员的报酬（通常是按小时收费）以及证人和法律专家的相关费用，境外仲裁经常需要中国律师和境外律师的相互配合等原因，境外仲裁发生的费用往往也是很高昂的。

相比较而言，境内仲裁在以上各个方面均具有优势，并且，以贸仲为代表的中国知名仲裁机构的仲裁水平也在日益提高，就具体案件需要能够配备具备相应资历和语言能力的仲裁员，因而能够妥善处理较为复杂的国际商事纠纷。类似地，中国境内诉讼也有助于规避上述在财产和证据保全、诉讼成本以及执行等方面的风险。

三、结论

综上，国际商事活动的当事人应根据具体情况选择合适的争议解决方式。如果争议标的物或对方当事人的主要财产位于中国境内，那么我们可能会倾向于建议客户选择中国境内仲裁或诉讼。

[i] 《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第三条规定了仲裁法适用范围的例外：“下列纠纷不能仲裁：（一）婚姻、收养、监护、扶养、继承纠纷；（二）依法应当由行政机关处理的行政争议。”

[ii] 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》1991年4月9日第七届全国人民代表大会第四次会议通过，根据2007年10月28日第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第三十次会议《关于修改〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的决定》修正。

[iii] 《中华人民共和国仲裁法》1994年8月31日第八届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第九次会议通过、1995年9月1日执行。

[iv] 《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》第七条规定：“当事人约定争议可以向仲裁机构申请仲裁也可以向人民法院起诉的，仲裁协议无效。但一方向仲裁机构申请仲裁，另一方未在仲裁法第二十条第二款规定期间（注：此期间指的是仲裁庭首次开庭前）内提出异议的除外。”

[v] 《纽约公约》，即1958年6月10日在纽约召开的联合国国际商业仲裁会议上签署的《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards)。该公约处理的是外国仲裁裁决的承认和仲裁条款的执行问题，自1959年6月7日起生效实行。

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

King & Wood Mallesons — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:32:59 +0800

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.

Market Definition

Market definition is the threshold issue of an abuse of dominance claim. Qihoo argued that the relevant market is the mainland China market for online instant communication services, encompassing integrated text, voice and video services.

Following the State Council's Guideline on Relevant Market Definition, Qihoo mainly employed the demand-side substitutability test and reached into the conclusion that the integrated text, voice and video services constitute the smallest antitrust market from the consumers' perspective. Qihoo found that emails, social networks, microblogs, as well as traditional communication methods, such as telephone/mobile phone are not close substitutes of online instant communication services. Moreover, this market is of particular relevance for purposes of this dispute because Tencent's abusive conducts that are challenged in this dispute are related to this market.

The geographic market is defined as the mainland China market, in particular because of the preference of Chinese consumers, legal barriers in China on overseas service providers, and the distinct competitive dynamics in China.

Dominant Position

Article 19 of the AML sets forth a presumption that if an operator has more than 50% of the share in a relevant market, the operator shall be presumed to have dominance in the relevant market. This presumption is rebuttable; yet the burden is shifted to the defendant to prove that it is not dominant.
Various sources of independent third-party data employing different measures, including active usage, penetration rate, and use frequency all lead to the same conclusion that Tencent has more than 50% of the shares of the relevant market.¹

Moreover, network effects/locked-in effects of its instant communication services also significantly contributed to Tencent's dominance. Refusal to interoperate with other service providers reinforced Tencent's dominance and together with network effects/locked-in effects caused significant barriers to entry and expansion.²

Abusive Conduct

Article 17 of the AML provides that a company having a dominant market position is prohibited from engaging in various abusive conducts to eliminate or restrict competition.

In this case, Qihoo claimed that Tencent abused its dominance in the instant communications market by (1) forcing consumers to choose between QQ and Qihoo products in November 2010, constituting a violation of Article 17 (4) of the AML against exclusive dealing; and (ii) bundling QQ safety software with QQ IM software without valid reasons, constituting a violation of Article 17 (5) of the AML against bundling.

In the end, the court closed the hearing without rendering a judgment.

Comment

Ever since the AML was enacted, AML private litigations, in particular abuse of dominance actions have been very active. Yet up till now, there has been no case where the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. In most of the cases, the plaintiff's claims were rejected by the court for failure of meeting the burden of proving the defendant's dominance.

This is the first AML litigation where the plaintiff engaged in in-depth analysis and presented ample evidence to prove the defendant's dominant position. ³The burden of proof shall then shift to the defendant to prove that it does not have a dominant position.

The 360/QQ dispute will not be an easy case in any jurisdiction, and posed particular challenges for both Chinese legal practitioners and the courts, in particular considering the AML itself is only less than four years old. Nevertheless, we expect to see this case bringing about development of the AML judicial practice as it proceeds.

* Qihoo is represented by attorneys from the antitrust and IP litigation group of King & Wood Mallesons.

1.Unlike the Microsoft/Skype merger case in the European Commission ("Microsoft/Skype"), where market share is considered to be of limited value in evaluating the market position of the service providers, the competitive dynamics in the Chinese market is vastly different (e.g. QQ's market share has consistently been very high, with no comparable competitors, and no successful entry/expansion in the relevant market for the past five years) and can only suggest a conclusion to the contrary.
2.Unlike Microsoft/Skype, where network effects are considered to be mitigated by a relatively small "inner-circle", QQ users' contact circle is significantly larger and the network effects are reinforced by QQ's refusal to interoperate with other service providers.
3.Qihoo engaged RBB Economist to present an economic report and also invited RBB economists to testify at the court hearing.

Forum Shopping in Dispute Resolution: Hurdles and Solutions

King & Wood Mallesons — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:19:08 +0800

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.

I. The judgments rendered by foreign courts may not be recognized and enforced in Mainland China.

When a foreign court is named for the resolution of disputes, if the Chinese party has no property subject to enforcement outside Mainland China, the foreign party can only recover on its judgment if the judgment is recognized and enforced by a Chinese court. However, it is very difficult to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in China, since such a judgment must satisfy a number of requirements set forth by relevant Chinese laws and bilateral treaties between China and the forum state. A foreign judgment will become unenforceable in China if any of these requirements are not met.

A. It is difficult for a foreign judgment to be recognized and enforced in China if no applicable bilateral treaty exists between the forum state and China.

Article 266 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law provides:

“If a people's court, after its review in accordance with the international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or on the principle of reciprocity, finds that the legally effective judgment or order of a foreign court does not breach the basic principles of the Chinese law or violate the sovereignty, national security and public interests of China, the people’s court shall render an order to recognize the effectiveness of such a foreign judgment. Where the execution of the judgment is necessary, the people’s court shall issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law. The people's court shall reject the recognition and enforcement of the judgment, if the judgment is against the basic principles of Chinese law or violates the sovereignty, national security and public interest of China.”

This provision sets forth the statutory requirements for recognition and enforcement of a judgment or order rendered by a foreign court, including:

(a) A judgment or order rendered by a foreign court that has already become legally effective;

(b) The forum state and China have concluded a bilateral treaty or have both acceded to a multilateral treaty relating to mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments, or have a reciprocal relationship of recognition and enforcement of court judgments; and

(c) The Chinese court concludes, after examination, that the judgment is not against the basic morals, or violates the sovereignty, national security or public interests of China.

A foreign judgment/order is recognizable and enforceable in China when the above requirements are all satisfied.

As a member of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as the New York Convention),[1] China is able to recognize and enforce arbitral awards made in more than 130 countries, and vice versa. However, as of yet China has not acceded to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters[2] or any other similar multilateral treaties which enable Chinese courts to recognize and enforce court judgments rendered in other countries. Furthermore, Chinese courts generally do not presume that China has de facto reciprocal interests with other countries unless the parties can prove otherwise with sufficient evidence, and no such case has been reported.[3] As a result, in practice, the party seeking recognition and enforcement of an effective judgment or order rendered by a foreign court has to invoke a bilateral treaty existing between China and the forum state. In most cases, there is no other available option.

According to the statistics from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated April 2, 2009, China participates in 99 bilateral judicial assistance treaties with more than 50 countries at the end of May 2008. Among them, 30 treaties relate to recognition and enforcement of civil judgments and 12 treaties relate to recognition and enforcement of commercial judgments (with countries including Turkey, Singapore, Thailand and Egypt). For the rest, some of these treaties have yet to be ratified by the domestic legislative body of the other signatory countries and, therefore, remain ineffective.[4]

In short, if there is no applicable bilateral treaty providing mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the forum state and China, judgments rendered in the forum state will not be recognized and enforced by Chinese courts. In other words, they will have no enforceability within the territory of China.

B. Even if the forum state has concluded bilateral treaties with China, judgments rendered in the forum state will not be recognized and enforced in China if, pursuant to such treaties, the chosen court in the forum state lacks jurisdiction over the case on which the judgment has been rendered.

In addition to the general principles provided in Article 266 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, some bilateral treaties that China has entered into may also specify the circumstances under which a contracting state may refuse to recognize and enforce judgments rendered by the other. For example, a treaty may state that a judgment shall not be recognized and enforced if the court has no jurisdiction over the dispute, or if due process is violated. Therefore, in choosing a foreign jurisdiction, it is very important for the contractual parties to find out whether the selected court has jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to the applicable treaty.

It is also a well accepted principle that as a precondition for a court to hear the dispute and for the judgment to be recognized and enforced by foreign courts, a court must first have jurisdiction over the dispute. Many of the treaties that China participates in often stipulate that Chinese courts may refuse to recognize and enforce the judgment rendered by a foreign court having no jurisdiction over the dispute. In these treaties, there are three different sets of rules to determine whether the court of the requesting country has jurisdiction over a particular dispute:

(a) In accordance with the law of the requested country (e.g. the Sino-French Treaty);

(b) In accordance with the rule of the requested country on exclusive jurisdiction of its courts on certain disputes ( e.g. the Sino-Russian treaty); or

(c) In accordance with the specific conditions provided in the treaty under which the courts of the requesting country are “deemed to have jurisdiction” (e.g. the Sino-Spanish treaty).

Clearly, even if a foreign country has concluded a judicial assistance treaty with China, the parties should be cautious and refer to the provisions of the relevant treaties when drafting their forum selection clause.

For example, in a contract involving foreign interests nominates a court of a foreign country which has no actual connection with the contract to settle potential disputes arising from the contract, the Chinese courts may refuse to recognize an enforcement of the judgment rendered by the selected foreign court on the grounds that the foreign court lacks jurisdiction over the relevant disputes. This might be the case even if the forum state has concluded with China a bilateral treaty on mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, if the treaty stipulates that the jurisdiction issue should be decided in accordance with the law of the requested country, i.e. the law of China, while Article 242 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law prescribes that parties to a contract with a foreign element shall choose a court in places that have actual connections with the dispute, to exercise jurisdiction.

II. The interim injunctions issued by foreign courts are unlikely to be recognized and enforced by Chinese courts.

In litigation proceedings, the plaintiff often applies for an interim injunction in order to prevent the defendant from evading the enforcement of the judgment by concealing properties during trial. Most countries provide interim evidence or property preservation measures similar to those under the PRC Civil Procedure Law, although the means of preservation may vary from country to country. However, there is no available interim remedy supporting foreign litigation under the law of China.

Where the defendant or the defendant’s property is located in China, an interim measure against the defendant or property issued by a selected foreign court will encounter a series of enforcement problems in China.

Firstly, as mentioned above, there is no bilateral or multilateral treaty between China and some major economies (e.g. the US and Japan) on mutual enforcement of court judgments and orders. As a result, the interim injunctions rendered by courts of many countries will not be recognized and enforced by Chinese courts.

Secondly, some of the bilateral judicial assistance treaties entered into by China exclude interim injunctions from mutually recognizable and enforceable civil judgments[5]. Treaties without such an exclusion clause briefly provide that signatory countries should mutually recognize and enforce the effective civil and commercial judgments rendered by courts of the other country, but no definition or scope of the term “judgment” is given. Therefore, Chinese courts will have discretion in granting or rejecting recognition or enforcement of interim injunctions issued by foreign courts. In other words, there is a high risk that the recognition and enforcement of the said interim injunctions may be rejected by Chinese courts.

Thirdly, to execute such interim measures against persons, entities and properties located in China, if not approved by Chinese courts, may even be regarded as offending the judicial sovereignty of China. In the KPMG case in 2009 concerning the Wahaha-Danone dispute, the reputable international accounting firm KPMG was ruled as having violated China's judicial sovereignty in executing orders issued by BVI and Samoa courts to temporarily freeze the assets of Wahaha in China[6], and consequently no freezing measures were executed.

In such scenarios, the defendant may conceal or transfer its properties within China by pledging or mortgaging its main assets, or by transferring the assets to its affiliated companies, or even by initiating false restructuring or bankruptcy procedures. Once the transfer of assets is completed, it will be rather difficult for the prevailing party to fully realize its substantial rights awarded by a foreign court, even if the judgment satisfies all the statutory conditions for recognition and enforcement under applicable laws and treaties. The prevailing party may even fail to recover any compensation from the losing party, which will have become an empty shell.

III. Solutions to manage the risk of selecting a foreign court

The above analysis explains why a foreign party will face a high risk that a favorable judgment rendered by a foreign court may not be recognized and enforced in Mainland China when parties nominate a foreign jurisdiction in the dispute resolution clause of the contract. If the parties agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court and such an agreement is valid according to the PRC Civil Procedure Law[7], Chinese courts are very likely to refuse to exercise jurisdiction in disputes arising from the contract including the said agreement. Where foreign parties, who have little knowledge of Chinese courts, insist on choosing a foreign jurisdiction, one feasible solution to protect their interests is to provide in the contract that a foreign court may exercise non-exclusive jurisdiction over the relevant disputes.

Pursuant to Article 12 of Memorandum of the Second National Conference on Trial of Foreign Related Maritime and Commercial Cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court on December 26, 2005, “if the parties to a foreign related contract agree to choose the non-exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court, a Chinese court may rule that the jurisdiction of competent courts in other countries is not excluded. A Chinese court should accept the case if a party initiates a suit before the court and the court has jurisdiction over the case according to the Civil Procedure Law.”

Therefore, choosing the non-exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court to resolve disputes under a foreign related contract can be a potential solution for a foreign party that prefers foreign jurisdiction. With this approach, once disputes arise, the foreign party may either initiate a lawsuit before a Chinese court or before the chosen foreign court, depending on the situation. If the enforceable properties of the defendant are in China, the plaintiff may file a suit in a Chinese court. Therefore, the plaintiff is not only able to avoid the challenges in requesting a Chinese court to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment, but also able to apply for property preservation measures under the law of China before or during the course of litigation, to effectively prevent the defendant from transferring property and evading obligations. All of these steps are helpful and sometimes necessary to ensure the final enforcement of a favorable judgment.

Where the plaintiff initiates a lawsuit before a foreign court with non-exclusive jurisdiction as provided by the contract and recognition and enforcement of the judgment by a Chinese court is needed, the judgment runs the risk of being refused to be enforced if the judgment does not satisfy the statutory requirements. As a result, even if the plaintiff has obtained a favorable judgment from a foreign court, the plaintiff has to bring another lawsuit before a Chinese court, a parallel lawsuit, to obtain a judgment which is effective and legally enforceable within China. This will undoubtedly increase the costs of the foreign party.

Furthermore, a foreign judgment that is not recognized cannot be relied on by Chinese courts as the basis for a parallel action in China. The Chinese court, upon admission of the case, will hear the case de novo and draw factual and legal conclusions on its own, without materially considering the rulings of the foreign court on facts or liability. Nevertheless, the foreign judgment is probably sufficient to interrupt the limitation of actions legislation in China, as the judgment can prove that the plaintiff has initiated an action against the defendant overseas.

IV. Recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan

The Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region pursuant to Choice of Court Agreements between Parties Concerned (“Hong Kong Arrangement”) came into effect on August 1, 2008. Before the implementation of the Hong Kong Arrangement, the Arrangement between the Mainland and the Macao Special Administrative Region on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and the Regulation on the People's Courts' Recognition of Civil Judgments Made by Courts of Taiwan were implemented respectively in 2006 and 1998. The three arrangements enable the judgments rendered by courts in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan to be recognized and enforced by Mainland courts in accordance with applicable legal procedures.

However, the parties should pay careful attention to Paragraph 1, Article 3 of the Hong Kong Arrangement, which provides:

“ ‘A written agreement on choice of court’ in this Arrangement refers to any agreement in writing between the parties, on or after the effective date of this Arrangement, expressly nominating a people’s court in the Mainland or a court in the HKSAR as the court having sole jurisdiction over any dispute arising from or that may arise from a particular legal relationship.”

According to the said provision, if a Hong Kong court is chosen in the dispute resolution clause to exercise non-exclusive jurisdiction over disputes under the contract, the judgments rendered by the Hong Kong court based on this dispute resolution clause will be unable to be recognized and enforced in the Mainland, and vice versa. For this reason, parties should be very careful when deciding which jurisdiction to choose in a contract.

To summarize, under the current legislation and practice of China, a foreign party faces a substantial risk that its rights may not be effectively protected if it designates a foreign jurisdiction to resolve potential disputes when entering into an international commercial agreement with a Chinese party. On one hand, it is hard to make favorable judgments rendered by foreign courts recognized and enforced in China, because very few countries have concluded treaties with China with respect to recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments. On the other hand, even if judgments by foreign courts are recognizable and enforceable in China, the foreign parties may still face challenges in recovering the awarded compensation from the defendant, who may have already concealed or transferred all the assets in China, as an interim injunction could not be taken to preserve such assets in China unless it is recognized by a Chinese court.

Therefore, if foreign parties are unwilling to accept the jurisdiction of Chinese courts, it is advisable that they should choose a foreign court to exercise non-exclusive jurisdiction over related disputes. Such an approach leaves open the choice for foreign parties to initiate lawsuits before Chinese courts when needed.

(The article was originally written in Chinese, the English version is a translation.)

[1] China became a member of the New York Convention in 1987.

[2] The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters was adopted at Hague Conference on Private International Law on 1 February 1971.

[3] In August, 2009, Hubei High Court rendered its decision on the products liability case initiated by Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd. and Hubei Pinghu Cruise Co., Ltd. against Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. This decision was later recognized and enforced by the US District Court of Central District of California. This is a landmark case in which a PRC court judgment was successfully recognized and enforced for the first time in the US. The Case may be cited by any foreign party in requesting for application of the internationally accepted principles of comity and reciprocity. In addition, the Case could also create the possibility for the recognition and enforcement of US court judgments in the PRC. However, Chinese courts tend to be cautious when applying principles of comity and reciprocity. The applicant shall prove that judgments rendered by Chinese courts have been recognized and enforced in the forum state. The applicant shall also prove that a judgment identical to the one that is sought to be recognized and enforced in China would be recognized and enforced in the forum state, had it been rendered under the same circumstances by a Chinese court.

[4] Most countries with very close economic ties with China, such as the US, the UK, Canada, Japan and the BVI, have not concluded civil and commercial legal assistance treaties with China. A list of civil and commercial legal assistance treaties that China has entered into with other countries can be found on the website of Ministry of Commerce: http://www.fdi.gov.cn/pub/FDI/zgjj/tzhj/zzysh/gjgyty/t20090402_104106.htm?fclose=1 (last accessed on February, 2009). According to our online survey, there are three Sino-foreign bilateral treaties on judicial assistance afterwards, with none of them on civil and commercial judicial assistance.

[5] e.g. Civil and Commercial Judicial Assistance Treaties between China and Kuwait, the UAE and Tunis.

[6] See Bloomberg report: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aktWOg0kuWU8

[7] Article 242 of the Civil Procedure Law provides:

“Parties to a dispute over a foreign related contract or a foreign related contract involving property rights and interest may, through written agreement, choose the people's court in the place which has actual connections with the dispute as the jurisdictional court. If a people's court of the People's Republic of China is chosen as the jurisdictional court, the provisions on jurisdiction hierarchy and exclusive jurisdiction of this Law shall not be contravened.”

Therefore, if the domicile of the selected court has no actual connections with the dispute, the Chinese court may hold a written agreement of the parties of nominating such a court void and hear the suit.

Michael Jordan vs. Qiaodan Sportswear Co., Ltd Lawsuit Accepted

King & Wood Mallesons — Fri, 04 May 2012 17:34:17 +0800

By King & Wood Mallesons' Trademark Group

According to the statement dated as of March 1, 2012 issued by a representative for Michael Jordan, the suit filed by former NBA basketball legend Michael Jordan against a Chinese sportswear and shoe manufacturer Qiaodan Sportswear Co., Ltd., whose trade name and trademark 乔丹 is equivalent to the commonly used Chinese translation for Jordan, has been accepted by court in China. The specific claims of the suit remain a myth presently.

Subsequent to the above statement, Michael Jordan also released another statement:

"I am very happy that the Chinese courts have accepted my case to protect the use of my name and the interests of Chinese consumers. Qiaodan Sports has built a business off my Chinese name, the number 23, and even attempted to use the names of my children, without authorization. I think Chinese consumers deserve to be protected from being misled, and they should know exactly what they are buying. I am taking this action to preserve the ownership of my name and my brand. No one should lose control of their own name, and the acceptance of my case shows that China recognizes that this is true for everyone. After all, what's more personal than your name?"

Michael Jordan, who led the Chicago Bulls to six NBA Championships during the 1990s, has been known in China by the name "乔丹(Qiaodan)" - the Chinese translation of Jordan - since he was first seen on Chinese television program playing for the U.S. Basketball Team in the 1984 Olympics.

The Chinese company, Qiaodan Sportswear Co. Ltd, was registered in 2000 and has used the name and trademark "乔丹 (Qiaodan)" since its establishment. It owns many trademark registrations for "乔丹", "QIAODAN", "XIAOQIAODAN 小乔丹" (means little Jordan) , " " and "" on goods of "clothing; sports shoes", etc. in Class 25.

It is publicly reported that the IPO application filed by Qiaodan Sportswear has been approved by China Securities Regulatory Commission. If Qiaodan Sportswear loses the suit, not only will it suffer huge amount of compensation, but it will be forced to stop using the mark "乔丹". In addition, the result may affect its IPO.

In the meantime, NIKE, who used to cooperate with Michael Jordan as early as in the 1980s, expressed its support to Jordan's lawsuit. As a matter of fact, NIKE filed several trademark oppositions against Qiaodan Sportswear's trademarks applications for "", which shares certain similarities to NIKE's device mark in use " ". However, all the aforesaid oppositions were not supported by the China Trademark Office. (Contributed by: Cai Ye)

For more information about the above issue, please refer to:

http://www.therealjordan.com/zh/default.aspx
http://kuaixun.stcn.com/content/2012-03/02/content_4919796.htm
http://overseas.stcn.com/content/2012-03/05/content_4930140.htm

乔丹告乔丹体育诉讼获受理

King & Wood Mallesons — Thu, 03 May 2012 16:26:38 +0800

作者：金杜律师事务所商标组

篮球“飞人”迈克尔•乔丹（以下简称“乔丹”）起诉乔丹体育股份有限公司（以下简称“乔丹体育”）的诉讼事件近期闹的沸沸扬扬。昨日，该事件有了新的进展，根据迈克尔•乔丹的发言人发布的书面文件，法院已受理上述起诉,但是乔丹的诉讼请求尚不明确。

该书面文件显示的日期为3月1日，内容提及法院已受理迈克尔•乔丹对乔丹体育提起的诉讼。同时，迈克尔•乔丹在一份声明中表示：“我很高兴，中国法院受理了我的诉讼，以保护我的姓名权和中国消费者的利益。乔丹体育未经授权使用我的中文名字、球衣号码23号、甚至试图用我孩子的名字从事经营活动。我认为中国消费者的权益应当受到保护、不应被误导，他们应该对其购买的商品具有清楚的知情权。我采取这一行动旨在保护我的姓名权和品牌。任何人均有权保护自己的姓名权。对于本案的受理，说明中国认可姓名权是每个人应有的权利。”

迈克尔•乔丹（Michael Jordan）是美国知名的NBA篮球运动员，曾经于20世纪90年代带领芝加哥公牛队赢得6次NBA冠军。而自1984年奥运会开始，“乔丹”就一直作为其相应的中文名出现在中国电视、报纸等媒体上，为中国消费者较为熟悉的运动员名字。

乔丹体育成立于2000年，主营业务为运动鞋、运动服装和运动配饰的设计、生产和销售，其对“乔丹”、“QIAODAN”拥有多个类别的注册商标，多年以来一直是用在其运动服装等体育用品上。除了“乔丹”、“QIAODAN”之外，乔丹体育在25类服装、运动鞋等商品上对文字“小乔丹 XIAOQIAODAN”、图形“”、“”等商标也拥有注册。

公开资料显示，乔丹体育在首发申请已获证监会通过，公司拟发行11250万股，拟于上交所上市。一旦败诉，乔丹体育可能将面临巨额赔偿并且不得再继续使用“乔丹”品牌。不过，诉讼的结果可能还不是乔丹体育所需面对的最大挑战，因为这也可能会影响到公司能否顺利的进行首次公开招募（IPO）。

与此同时，早在20世纪80年代与迈克尔•乔丹就有合作的耐克公司也表示了对乔丹起诉乔丹体育的支持。乔丹体育名下拥有多个包含有图形“”的商标，这些商标与耐克公司一致使用的飞人图形商标“”外观上有近似之处。此前，耐克公司对于乔丹体育所提起的多件包含有图形“”的商标曾提起异议，而所有的异议均未获得商标局的支持。（整理：蔡叶）

Joint purchasing under the AML-SOHU, QQ and Baidu launched Video Content Cooperation Alliance

King & Wood Mallesons — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:30:06 +0800

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Huang Jing

On April 24, 2012, TV.SOHU.COM, v.QQ.COM,and iQIYI.COM (the specialized video website of Baidu)jointly announced the establishment of an alliance called "Video Content Cooperation" (VCC) for vedio copyright joint purchasing. The VCC is viewed as another "faction" after the recent combination of Youku and Tudou. It is reported that the main purpose of the VCC is to jointly purchasing the copy right for their own each website.¹

TV.SOHU.COM, v.QQ.COM, and iQIYI.COM are all internet video websites and are close competitors. Their cooperation may affect the competition status in the market. This article will analyze under the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) whether joint purchase arrangement could constitute "horizontal monopoly agreement".

Typical horizontal monopoly Agreement

Article 13 of the AML clearly lists five types of horizontal monopoly agreements between competitors that are prohibited, including price fixing, production quantity or sale quantity restriction, dividing sales market or procurement market of raw materials, restricting the procurement of new technologies or new equipment or restricting the development of new technologies or new products, and jointly boycott. The National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC"), responsible for price-related monopoly agreements and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ("SAIC"), responsible for non-price-related monopoly agreements both enacted implementing rules for prohibition of the monopoly agreements. These implementing rules list some conducts that shall be deemed as horizontal monopoly agreement:

Category	Conducts	Authority in charge
Price fixing	• Fixing or changing price level of products. • Fixing or changing the magnitude of price changes. • Fixing or changing fees or discounts that influence the price. • Applying an appointed price as the basis for transacting with a third party. • Agreeing to apply a standard formula as a basis to calculate prices. • Agreeing that a price shall not be changed without consent of competitors.	NDRC
Production and Sales restriction	• Restricting the production volume of products, or restricting the production volume of specific kinds or types of products by means such as limiting, fixing production volume, stopping production, etc. • Restricting the sales volume of products or restricting the sales volume of specific kinds or types of products by means such as refusing to supply, limiting the launch volume of products, etc.	SAIC
Market division	• Dividing the sales regions, sales targets or categories and volume of products. • Dividing the procurement regions, categories and volume of raw materials such as (basic) raw materials, semi-finished goods, parts and components and related equipment, etc. • Dividing the suppliers of raw materials such as the (basic) raw materials, semi-finished goods, parts and components and related equipment, etc.	SAIC
Restriction on New Technology	• Restricting the purchase or use of new technologies or new process. • Restricting the purchase, lease or use of new equipments; • Restricting the investment in, the R&D of new technologies, new process or new products; • Refusing to use new technologies, new process or new equipments; • Refusing to adopt new technical standards.	SAIC
Jointly Boycott	• Jointly refusing to supply or sell products to particular undertakings; • Jointly refusing to procure or sell the products of particular undertakings; • Jointly restricting particular undertakings to conduct business with undertakings competing against them.	SAIC

Joint purchasing and price fixing

The AML does not clearly list joint purchasing as one of the horizontal monopoly agreements. However, it is possible that parties to a joint purchasing arrangement jointly fix the purchasing prices paying to their supplier. Price fixing usually refers to competitors in the upstream market fixing their selling prices. It is not clear under the AML whether fixing the purchasing price by the competitors in the downstream market could constitute price fixing. Joint purchasing arrangements usually aim at creating countervailing buying power against upstream industry suppliers, in order to obtain raw materials at lower price. It may ultimately benefits consumers through the decrease of the final product's price. While fixing selling price would usually lead to higher prices and harm the interest of consumers.

EU regulation for joint purchasing

The EU rules may shed some light in this regard. The Guidelines on the horizontal co-operation agreements specifically analyzed joint purchasing arrangement. Under the EU rules, to see whether a joint purchasing arrangement violate the Article 101(1), it must be assessed whether it would give rise to competition concerns. To this end, two markets, i.e. relevant purchasing markets and selling market, need to be analyzed at the same time. The agreement related to fixing purchase prices will not be assessed separately, but in the light of the overall effects of the purchasing agreement on the market. It is recognized that, in general, joint purchasing arrangements are less likely to give rise to competition concerns when the parties do not have strong market powers on the selling market.

Conclusion

It is not clear under the AML whether the three internet video websites' joint purchasing arrangement can be deemed as conclusion of horizontal monopoly agreement. Whether the establishment of VCC will cause competition concerns could be essential for the analysis. But such question may only be solved after observing the actual operation of the VCC.

1. On March 12, two Chinese Internet video giants Youku and Tudou announced that the two companies have signed a final agreement on March 11 to combine their services in a 100% stock-for-stock transaction to create a new service provider, Youku Tudou Inc. To read more, please refer to our article, titled "Lauch of Youku Tudou Inc."

一部の資本項目外貨業務管理の更なる明確化・規範化の問題に関する通知

King & Wood Mallesons — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:20:53 +0800

By King & Wood's Corporate Group

（中国語原文「关于进一步明确和规范部分资本项目外汇业务管理有关问题的通知」）

クロスボーダーの資本流動による金融リスクを防止し、国際収支の基本的均衡を図るため、国家外貨管理局は、本通知を発し、外貨資本金の支払・人民元転、外債借入、土地保証金口座、個人資産現金化専門外貨口座に関する規制を強化した。

①外貨資本金の支払・人民元転に関する管理の規範化

外資系企業は、外貨資本金の人民元転により取得した人民元資金を、国内持分投資、非自社用不動産の購入に関する費用の支払い、委託貸付の実行、企業間貸借（第三者の立替金を含む）、第三者に転貸した銀行貸付金の返済及び各種の保証金の支払いに使用してはならないことを再度強調した。

②外債借入に関する管理の強化

外資系企業が対外債務を借り入れる場合、その枠は投資総額と登録資本の差額（以下、「投注差」という）を超えてはならず、外国投資者が登録資本の満額を払い込んでいない場合、その外債借入限度額は、投注差に外国投資者の出資払込比率を乗じて算出される。

外資系企業が借り入れた外債に延滞が生じ、かつ外債変更登記手続を行わなかった場合には、外貨管理局によって新規の外債借入が停止される可能性があり、短期外債の延滞又は延期により実際の借入期間が1年を超えた場合には、累計発生額ベースで管理を実施するとしている。

③土地保証金口座に関する管理の規範化

土地使用権の競売を行う場合、関連規定に基づき保証金専用口座を通じて実施しなければならず、その口座の名称を「土地使用権の競売に関わる保証金専用外貨口座」に変更する。当該口座内の資金については人民元転を行ってはならない。

④個人資産現金化専門外貨口座に関する管理の整備

中国国内の個人は、外国投資者の中国現地企業の持分又はその他の権益の譲渡により収入を得た場合、所在地の外貨管理局に資産現金化専門外貨口座の開設を申請しなければならない。国内個人は、相応の資産現金化収入に関する税金納付完了証明書をもって、銀行に当該口座内資金の人民元転を申請することが可能である。

在中国境内为美国诉讼取证

King & Wood Mallesons — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:42:29 +0800

作者：胡梅 Holly Blackwell 金杜律师事务所争议解决组上海分所

美国的诉讼证据开示制度对于缺乏美国诉讼经验的当事人来说非常陌生，对于中方当事人来说更是如此，因为中国诉讼程序与其大相径庭。中国法下的诉讼程序与其他大陆法系国家类似，双方当事人只须提供支持己方诉求或抗辩的相关证据既可。美国证据开示制度则不仅要求当事人提供对己方有利的证据，也要求当事人提供对其不利的证据。美国证据开示规则能使诉讼当事人较容易地得到对方、甚至是第三方的信息，例如公司内部电子邮件、文件、记录和规章。即使此类信息的披露会违反中国法律规定，一方也可以要求对方披露所需信息。尽管海牙公约提供了一条取得中国境内证据的途径，但当一方当事人在美国法庭提起诉讼时，美国法庭并不总倾向于适用《海牙公约》^{^[i]}的程序。从近期的一些美国案例中，我们不难看出要求中方当事人出示证据的困难性，以及中方当事人就此问题在美国诉讼中面临的挑战。

一、美国诉讼证据披露制度概况

中国法中证据开示的范围比美国法的要求要小得多。在中国诉讼程序规则下，诉讼当事人只需提供充足证据来支持己方的诉求或抗辩。一方当事人很少被要求提供证据以支持对方当事人的诉求或抗辩，而第三方当事人通常无义务为诉讼提供任何证据。尽管法官和仲裁员可以要求当事人提供此类证据，但往往很难从争议相对方处获得这些证据。相反，《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》（“联邦规则”）允许一方诉讼当事人从对方当事人手中取得除律师与客户间的特许交流文件外的相关文件来支持己方的诉求或抗辩，纵使这些证据将对提供方带来不利后果^{^[i]}。这些证据的常见形式包括应对方要求而提供的书面证据、通过庭外证人证言形成的口头证言，以及通过回答书面质询形成的书面证言。

在美国有经营业务的中国公司常常会惊讶的发现，尽管自己不是诉讼当事人，却依然有可能被要求为诉讼提供证据。根据联邦规则规定，只要一方当事人在法院的管辖范围内，法院就可以以传票形式要求第三方提供文件或提交庭外证人证言。如果某中方当事人在美国境内有固定资产、分支机构或附属公司，或在美国境内开展业务，或前往美国，则都可能会被视为处于美国法院的管辖范围内。但是要注意的是，中国法律严格禁止美国律师或代理人未经中国当局许可在中国境内搜集庭外证人证言。故对于中国籍证人的庭外证人证言的搜集，通常在其自愿的基础上，在香港或证人可以前往的其他国家制作。因美国大使馆和领事馆被视为美国领土，故庭外证人证言也可以在美国使领馆内制作完成。

履行有关证据开示的请求或依传票要求出庭是强制性的。若未能履行该等义务，将可能会产生民事甚至是刑事责任。若第三方不在美国法院管辖范围内，通常情况下是无义务满足诉讼当事人关于证据披露的要求的。若诉讼当事方未能完成证据披露的要求，则会对自身的主张产生不利影响，这是因为法院可能会因此作出不利于拒绝披露方的推论。例如，如果被告拒绝依原告要求提供原告认为能证明被告违约或侵权责任的电子邮件，法院可能作出不利于被告的推论：即被告拒绝提供的电子邮件的确能证明被告违约或侵权责任的成立。因此，未能提供和拒绝提供关键性文件可能会削弱己方律师申诉或辩护的能力。

证据开示的目的之一在于寻找文件中能体现对方主张中薄弱或互相矛盾的部分。作为律师，我们通过寻找对方陈述中的矛盾点来证明其没有向法庭说明全部事实。例如，当证人提供证言试图说明某件事没有发生时，我们可以通过能证明该事件确已发生的电子邮件或文件来诘问该证人。作为律师，我们要达到的目的是通过证明该证人在这一点上撒谎，进而希望法庭推断认为该证人在其他方面所作的证言同样不可信。因此，美国诉讼中的当事人很快便会意识到谎言或者似是而非的陈述是很容易被识破的。

当事人也必须谨慎对待证据灭失的问题。当诉讼开始，或面临诉讼威胁之时，律师会要求公司对内发出一份诉讼证据保全通知，告知公司内每个人必须保留所有的纸质或电子文档，直至诉讼结束。若在之后有丢失或销毁书面证据的情况发生，对方当事人会以此来争辩另一方销毁了不利于我方的证据。在中国境内有效地执行诉讼证据保全是很难办到的一件事，因为许多公司的雇员不通过公司服务器收发业务邮件，或倾向于使用短信而非电子邮件进行交流。这些短信通常难以被提取。此时，对方可以利用这一点主张说支持我方论点的证据从未存在，或不利于我方的证据已被销毁，或我方为了使证据难以被保存而故意使用短信而非电子邮件。

二、中国境内证据的开示和取得

美国法规定可以适用联邦规则或海牙公约来获取境外文件。美方会争取利用联邦规则要求对方进行证据开示，因为这一渠道更为快捷，且能要求对方披露更多信息。中方则会尽量要求适用海牙公约的规定来限制信息披露的范围，以及避免因披露信息而违反中国法律的风险。

1、根据联邦规则进行的证据开示

如果适用联邦规则，除非有合理的拒绝理由，否则必须出示所要求的所有信息。当事人通常用来拒绝证据开示的理由包括相关信息为律师与客户间的特许保密文件、该信息为律师工作所得，或披露该信息是不合理的且过于繁琐。若一方拒绝出示，拒绝的理由必需首先是非恶意的，且必须详细陈述拒绝信息披露的理由。但这里需要指出的是，一般的结果是信息披露的范围被缩小了，而非完全不用披露相关的信息。

中国公司的驻美分支机构或附属公司也可能被要求提供存放在中国境内的信息。根据联邦规则，当事人必须披露所拥有、保管、或控制的所有不属于律师与当事人之间保密特权范围内的文件，即使这些文件存放在另一独立境外法人处。此时，当一驻美实体有“实际能力”获取被要求披露的文件时，此实体可能会被视为有能力取得这些文件^{^[ii]}。

2、根据海牙公约进行的证据开示

为依海牙公约的规定获得披露的信息，美国法院必须先向中国司法部递交披露请求书。这封请求书会被转交至中国最高人民法院进行审查，所需时间为6至12个月。与许多认为美国披露制度范围太广的大陆法系国家相同，中国法院只会要求披露“与诉讼争议有直接和密切联系”的文件^{^[iii]}。当信息披露有可能违反中国法律或危害中国国家主权、安全或公共利益时，法院也会限缩信息披露要求的范围，或拒绝全部信息披露要求。当法院批准了信息披露的要求时，请求书会被转交至低一级的人民法院执行。

三、中国诉讼当事人和第三方需要注意的一些事项

除非有令人信服的需要适用海牙公约的理由，信息披露将按照联邦规则进行。若当事人主张要适用海牙公约，它必须说服法院这样作的合适性。美国法院会考虑一系列的因素，包括需要获得的信息的重要性、披露请求的具体性、信息是否源自美国、海牙公约作为替代手段的可行性、并权衡美方和中方各自的利益^{^[iv]}。到目前为止，美国法院一般不倾向于适用海牙公约，因为法院认为此种途径费时、昂贵且低效。

尽管中国法律规定，除运用海牙公约或外交途径外，美国诉讼当事人不可通过任何其他方式在中国境内搜集证据，但这一限制本身不能说服美国法院不适用联邦规则^{^[v]}。中方当事人必须阐明未经中国当局许可的信息披露将确实会导致民事或刑事处罚，而非仅仅存在受到处罚的可能性。中方当事人需要列举因违反中国法律规定进行信息披露而受处罚的实例。如果能证明运用海牙公约也可以获得需要披露的信息，且中国保护某一信息的国家利益大于美方因信息不披露而造成的损失时，美国法院也能接受这一解释并适用海牙公约。当美国诉讼开始时，中方当事人应当考虑所要求开示的信息的性质、此信息是否被中国法律保护、以及若未经许可径行披露信息可能会受到的处罚。

1、在诉讼程序开始阶段寻求适用海牙公约

国外诉讼当事方经常拖了很久才对出示受保护信息的要求提出异议。根据联邦规则，如果诉讼当事方或第三方拒绝提供所要求披露的信息，它必须通知要求方并告知拒绝理由。若未经有效反对就拒绝提供信息，要求方可以请求法院强制对方披露信息。对于披露信息异议方来说，按兵不动直至请求方申请法院强制披露并不是一个明智的应对策略，因为这种不作为可能会被视为放弃了对信息披露要求的异议，或者被视为是在拖延或躲避信息披露^{^[vi]}。尽早让法院在审前程序阶段就信息披露问题作出裁决可能对中方当事人来说更为有利，进而达到限缩披露范围，或者说服法院适用海牙公约的目的。

2、注意所要求出示的信息是否受到中国法律保护

在寻求适用海牙公约之前，中方当事人应当考虑所要求披露的信息是否受到中国法律的保护。受保护信息的常见形式包括国家秘密、商业秘密、以及银行秘密。中方当事人除了要使法官认识到中国保护此类信息的最高国家利益以及非法披露信息确实会导致法律责任外，还须说明自己确实采取了避免受保护信息遭泄漏的措施^{^[vii]}。

（1）国家秘密

国有企业及身处敏感行业的当事方，例如电信业、银行业、信息科技业、能源业和自然资源业等，都特别有可能掌握有国家秘密^{^[viii]}。《中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法》禁止公司或个人泄漏被认为是国家秘密的信息。中国政府对于国家秘密的诠释是非常广的，甚至根据中国法律一些国有企业的内部政策或程序性信息也会被认为是国家秘密。若中方认为手中信息可能是敏感信息，可以事先向中国政府确认该信息是否为国家秘密。这样可减少非法信息披露的不利后果，也可以提高自己在美国诉讼程序中提出的信息披露异议的说服力。

（2）商业秘密

被要求披露的信息通常包括公司内部电子邮件、文件，以及包含公司机密和专有知识产权信息。中方应当考虑被要求提供的信息是否为自身所有或第三方所有的商业秘密。中国法可能禁止披露第三方所有的商业秘密，此时就可能可以适用海牙公约。如果商业秘密为中方所有，也可以据此提出异议。若信息披露请求方能证明该信息既非机密，又为诉讼相关且必不可少的内容，也不可能通过其他途径取得时，这些信息依然必须得到披露。在这种情况下，中方可以请求法院出具保护令来防止该信息被公众所知，并保证该信息只为诉讼目的所用。

（3）近期的几则相关美国案例

在最近的两个案例中，一些中国银行的美国分行被要求提供中国被告方的银行记录，而中国法中禁止披露这一类的信息。这些案例结果的不同体现出中方在应对美国披露制度时所面临的不确定性。在是否运用海牙公约这一问题上不同美国法院之间持有对立观点。

在Tiffany v. Andrew一案中，原告在纽约南部联邦地区法院对中国被告提起商标侵权之诉，并要求中国银行、招商银行和中国工商银行的纽约支行提供被告的银行记录^{^[ix]}。这些银行同意提供存放在纽约的记录，但拒绝提供存放在中国的记录，理由是这种信息披露违反中国法的规定，且这些存放于中国的记录不在它们的控制范围内。尽管法院认为由中国总部保管的记录能被视为在美国分行的控制范围内，这些银行依然成功地说服了法院适用海牙公约。法院不认同海牙公约既费时又不可靠这一过时的观念，同时接受了能证明中国政府必须也愿意接受请求书的新证据，并认为利用海牙公约在中国取证是可行的。法院认为中国为保护机密银行记录的国家利益和违反银行保密法的严苛后果比美方保护其知识产权的利益更为重要。银行作为第三方而非诉讼当事方的这一身份也支持了银行的立场。

但是，不到一个月后，同一司法管辖区的另一位法官却得出了相反的结论。在Gucci America, Inc. v. Weixing Li一案中，同样是针对中国被告的商标侵权之诉，中国银行纽约分行再次被要求提供存放在中国的银行记录^{^[x]}。与Tiffany一案不同的是，该案审理法院认为不能通过海牙公约获得可被披露的证据。同时法院也认为中国银行将不会因违反中国法律披露信息而承担法律责任的风险。法院认为美方保护知识产权的利益重于中国保护银行秘密的国家利益，并强制银行根据联邦规则提供帐户记录。

在近期的另一个案件中（US Securities and Exchange Commission v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., Miscellaneous Action No. 11-0512 GK/DAR (US DC DC January 4, 2012)），美国哥伦比亚地区联邦地区法院的地方法官Deborah A. Robinson向德勤会计师事务所中国公司出具“说明理由令”，要求被告就没有提交某些证据说明理由。德勤请求中国政府批准其披露相关信息，但中国政府只是提醒德勤这种披露将会违反中国法律规定。在这种美国与中国利益处于完全对立的情况下，本案最终结果如何仍是未知数。

五、结束语

信息披露与否的法庭之战将持续进行，根据个案不同结果也会不同。美国法院将披露制度作为一种工具，从而“使庭审变得不怎么像是盲人虚张声势的游戏，而更像是一场在尽可能大的范围内披露基本问题和事实的公平竞赛”^{^[xi]}。美国法官并不愿意缩小诉讼当事方和第三方披露信息的必要范围。能否说服美国法院限缩披露范围并运用海牙公约的可能性具有不可预测性，结果将因个案不同而有所不同。中国诉讼当事方可能会觉得难以驾驭美国披露制度，但无论如何，能认识到问题的艰难性就是个好的开始。若中国公司卷入美国诉讼，我们建议应以美国诉讼制度和披露过程、义务和风险为题告知员工应如何应对。只有这样，诉讼团队才能有效地主动出击、获得成功。

（本文原文为英文，中文为译文）

[i] 即《关于向国外送达民事或商事司法文书和司法外文书公约》，于1965年11月15日开放签字，并于1969年2月10日起开始生效，中国和美国均为其成员国。《海牙公约》适用于一切成员国的文书向另一成员国的送达。

[ii] 参见《联邦民事诉讼规则》（“联邦规则”）第26条（b）款（i）项。美国法院系统分为联邦法院和州法院两套系统，因为大部分涉及外国当事人的诉讼在联邦法院审理，故本文所述基于联邦规则。州法院诉讼程序规则因各州法律而异。

[iii] 参见In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 179, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).一案。为了限制可被视为由中国公司驻美分公司或子公司控制的文件范围，中国公司可以考虑设置各公司间的文件“隔离墙”来防止中国公司和驻美公司间信息的自由流通。

[iv] 参见《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的公约》第33条和公约状态表（“海牙公约”），详见http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=82.

[v] 参见Societe Nationale IndustrielleAeropostialev. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,482 U.S. 522, 544, n.28 (1987)一案。一些法院同时也考虑被要求披露方可能受到的不利处境，以及拒绝是否基于善意。

[vi] 参见《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第261条。

[vii] 参见Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 952 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) （该案中法院驳回了被告对于信息披露要求的异议，因为被告在法庭已经颁布信息披露令的情况下还迟迟不予遵守，直至审前阶段的末尾才以信息涉及中国国家秘密为由提出异议，被告的行为被认定为藐视法庭，并因此受到处罚。）。

[viii] 同上。（该案中法院驳回了被告提出的披露中国国家机密信息的异议，也拒绝了被告适用海牙公约的请求，除其他原因外，法院的否决也基于被告之前在商业交易中已经泄漏了这些信息，同时也没有提交有力的证据表明信息披露会危害到中国国家利益，也未表明信息披露会确实导致其蒙受不利后果。）

[ix] 敏感行业也包括国防、农业、基础设施业、交通业、设备制造业和科技产业。

[x] 参见Tiffany, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80677。

[xi] 参见Gucci America v. Weixing Li, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97814 (S.D.N.Y. August 23, 2011)。

[xii] United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677，1958年，682-683段。

Obtaining Discovery in China for Use in US Litigation

King & Wood — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:58:44 +0800

By Meg Utterback and Holly Blackwell King & Wood's Dispute Resolution Group

The concept of US discovery is very alien to the uninitiated litigant and particularly foreign to Chinese parties, because the Chinese litigation process is far different. China proceedings are conducted much like other civil code jurisdictions, with the parties proffering only evidence that supports the claims or defenses. US discovery is intended to uncover both supporting and damaging evidence. US discovery rules provide litigants liberal access to information possessed by opponents, and even third parties, such as internal company emails, documents, records, and policies. Disclosure of requested information may be required, even though such disclosure would be prohibited under PRC law. The Hague Convention provides one avenue of obtaining evidence located in China, but US courts are not always willing to require the use of the Hague Convention procedures where a party has submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court. Recent US cases demonstrate the challenges of requiring discovery from Chinese parties and the challenges that Chinese parties face in US courts.

Overview of discovery in US litigation

The scope of discovery in China is far more restricted than in the US. Under PRC procedural rules, a litigant must only present sufficient evidence to support its own claim or defense. In China, a party is rarely required to produce evidence to support the other's claim or defense, and third parties generally are under no obligation to provide any evidence for the litigation. Judges and arbitrators can order the production of such evidence but obtaining it from the other side is often difficult. In contrast, the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Federal Rules") allow a litigant to collect from its opponent non-privileged evidence relevant to its own claim or defense, even if disclosure would be adverse to the producing party.[1] Common forms of evidence include documentary evidence produced in response to requests for production of documents, oral testimony through depositions, and written testimony through answers to interrogatories.

PRC companies with a presence in the US are often surprised to learn that despite not being a party to the suit, they may be compelled to produce evidence for the litigation. Under the Federal Rules, if a party is within the court's jurisdiction, a court may order a third party, through a subpoena, to produce documents or submit to a deposition. A PRC party may be within the court's jurisdiction if it has assets, a branch office, or affiliate company in the US or if it conducts business in or travels to the US. PRC law, however, strictly prohibits US attorneys and agencies from taking depositions on PRC soil without approval from PRC authorities. Depositions of PRC individuals are often taken voluntarily in Hong Kong or other countries accessible to the deponent. Depositions may also be conducted at the US embassy or consulate, which is considered US soil.

Compliance with a discovery request or subpoena is mandatory. Failure to comply can result in civil and even criminal sanctions. A third party beyond the US court's jurisdiction is generally under no obligation to comply with a litigant's request for information. The failure of a party to litigation to respond to discovery will adversely affect that party's ability to prove its case. The court may take an adverse inference from the failure to produce, e.g. if the defendant refuses to produce an email that the other side contends demonstrates liability, the court may take the adverse inference that if the email had been properly produced it would have proven liability on that point. Thus, failing to produce and refusals to produce key documents may undermine counsel's ability to prosecute or defend the case.

A major focus of discovery is looking for evidence that shows a weakness or inconsistency in the other side's case. As counsel, we look for inconsistencies to show the other side is not being truthful or candid with the court. A witness who testifies for example that an event did not occur might be cross examined with an email or document that confirms the event. As counsel, we can use such evidence to argue that if the witness is lying about this issue the court should find the witness' testimony on other issues equally unreliable. Litigants in US litigation quickly learn that a lie or half truth is easily discerned.

Parties must also be conscious of issues of spoliation of evidence. At the start of litigation or threatened litigation, counsel will ask the company to issue a litigation hold notice. This is a notice to everyone in the company that physical and electronic documents have to be retained until the litigation is completed. If documentary evidence is lost or destroyed after litigation is threatened or commenced, the other side will use this as proof that the party destroyed evidence adverse to its case. Effectively creating and maintaining a litigation hold in China is difficult because so many companies have employees that may use non-company servers for emails exchanges. Similarly, employees tend to use SMS messaging rather than emails. Such messages are often irretrievable. Again this may give the opponent the chance to argue that supporting evidence of a claim never existed or that damaging evidence was destroyed or intentionally sent via text rather than email.

Discovery of information located in China

Under US law, documents located abroad may be obtained pursuant to the Federal Rules or the Hague Convention. The US party will argue for discovery under the Federal Rules because it will be faster and result in broader disclosure of information. The PRC party will aim for discovery though the Hague Convention to limit the scope and avoid the risk of disclosing information in violation of PRC law.

Discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules. If the Federal Rules are applied, all requested information must be produced unless there is a valid basis to object to disclosure. Parties commonly object to disclosure on the basis that information is a privileged communication between attorney and client, is attorney work product, or would be unreasonable and unduly burdensome to produce. The objecting party must have a good faith basis and specifically state its reasons for the objection. Importantly, a successful objection may narrow the scope of disclosure but may not fully defeat the request.

A US branch office or affiliate of a PRC company may also be the conduit for obtaining documents located in China. Under the Federal Rules, all non-privileged documents within a party's possession, custody, or control must be produced, even if they are located in a separate offshore legal entity. The US entity may be deemed to have control over requested documents if it has the "practical ability" to obtain them.[2]

Discovery pursuant to the Hague Convention. To obtain discovery under the Hague Convention, the US court must submit a Letter of Request to the PRC Ministry of Justice. The letter is forwarded to the PRC Supreme Court for review, which may take six to twelve months. Like many civil law countries which view US discovery as overly broad, the court will only order production of documents with a "direct and close connection with the subject matter of the litigation."[3] The court may also limit the scope of the request, or reject the request altogether, if disclosure would violate PRC law or state sovereignty, security, or public interest. If approved, the letter will be forwarded to a lower PRC court for execution.

Considerations for PRC litigants and third parties

Unless there is a compelling reason to apply the Hague Convention, discovery will be conducted under the Federal Rules. The party seeking application of the Hague Convention has the burden of persuading the court that it is the proper channel for discovery. A US court will consider a number of factors, including the importance of the information sought, the degree of specificity of the request, whether the information originated in the US, the viability of the Hague Convention as an alternative means to obtain the information, and the US and Chinese interests at stake.[4] Historically, US courts have been reluctant to order discovery under the Hague Convention because they view it as time consuming, expensive, and ineffective.

Though PRC law prohibits US litigants from obtaining evidence in China by any means other than the Hague Convention or diplomatic channels, this alone will not be enough to convince a US court to deviate from the Federal Rules.[5] The PRC party must demonstrate that disclosure of the information without consent from PRC authorities would result in a genuine threat, not just a mere possibility, of civil or criminal penalties. The PRC party will need to point to actual instances of enforcement when the type of information sought was disclosed in violation of PRC law. The US court must also be convinced that application of the Hague Convention will result in production of discoverable information and that China's interest in protecting the information outweighs the US interests at stake. At the onset of US litigation, PRC parties should consider the nature of information which may be requested, whether such information is protected by PRC law, and potential exposure to penalties if disclosed without approval.

Seek application of the Hague Convention early in the proceedings.Foreign litigants often wait too late to object to requests for protected information. Under the Federal Rules, if a litigant or third party refuses to produce requested information, it must notify the requesting party of its reasons for doing so. If information is withheld without a valid objection, the requesting party may ask a court to compel production of such information. Waiting until the requesting party has involved the court is generally not a successful strategy for the objecting party, as the objection may be waived or viewed as a last ditch effort to delay or avoid discovery.[6] Involving the court early in pre-trial proceedings may place a PRC party in a better position to narrow disclosure or persuade the court to order discovery under the Hague Convention.

Consider whether the information sought is protected by PRC law. Before seeking application of the Hague Convention, a PRC party should consider whether the information sought is protected by PRC law. State secrets, trade secrets, and bank secrets are common forms of protected information. In addition to establishing the paramount interests of China in protecting the information and a real exposure to liability for unlawful disclosure, the PRC party will also need to demonstrate it has undertaken measures to prevent disclosure of the protected information.[7]

State secrets. SOE's and parties involved in sensitive industries such as telecommunications, banking, information technology, energy, and natural resources are particularly at risk for possessing state secrets.[8] The PRC Law on Guarding State Secrets prohibits a company or individual from disclosing information considered to be a state secret. PRC authorities take an expansive view of information deemed state secrets and even information relating to the internal policies and procedures of a SOE may be considered state secrets under PRC law. A PRC party in possession of potentially sensitive information may want to consult with PRC authorities in advance to determine if any of the information should be designated a state secret. This may reduce exposure to adverse consequences for unlawful disclosure and strengthen an objection to disclosure in US proceedings.

Trade secrets. Requested information often includes internal company emails, documents, and information containing confidential and proprietary company information. A PRC party should consider whether the information sought includes trade secrets owned by it or a third party. If owned by a third party, disclosure of trade secrets may be prohibited by PRC law and application of the Hague Convention may be appropriate. If owned by the PRC party, an objection to disclosure may also be raised. The information may still be discoverable if the requesting party can show the information is not privileged, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, and may not be obtained by other means. In such case, the PRC party may ask the court to issue a protective order to prohibit public disclosure of the information and use of the information for any purpose other than the litigation.

Recent US cases

In two recent cases, the US branches of PRC banks were ordered to produce bank records of PRC defendants, the disclosure of which is prohibited by PRC law. These cases represent the uncertainty PRC parties face when subject to US discovery and the competing views US courts may take when asked to apply the Hague Convention.

In Tiffany v. Andrew, plaintiffs brought a trademark infringement suit against PRC defendants in the Southern District of New York and requested defendants' bank records from the New York branches of Bank of China, China Merchant's Bank, and ICBC.[9] The banks agreed to produce records located in New York but refused to produce records located in China because disclosure was prohibited by PRC law. The US branches also argued the records located in China were beyond their control. Though the court considered records held by the PRC headquarters to be within the control of the US branches, the banks were successful in persuading the court to apply the Hague Convention. In doing so, the court dismissed what it considered to be outdated notions that the Hague Convention was time consuming and unlikely to lead to discoverable information. Instead, it was persuaded by new evidence that PRC authorities have and are willing to execute Letters of Requests and viewed the Hague Convention as a viable means to obtain evidence in China. The court also viewed the PRC interests in protecting confidential bank records and existence of harsh penalties for violating PRC bank secrecy laws to outweigh the US interest in enforcing intellectual property rights. The banks' status as third parties, not parties to the litigation, was also an important factor in favor of the banks' arguments.

Less than one month later, however, a judge in the same judicial district reached the opposite conclusion. In Gucci America, Inc. v. Weixing Li, also a trademark infringement action involving PRC defendants, Bank of China's New York branch was again asked to produce bank records located in China.[10] Unlike the Tiffany case, the court was not persuaded the Hague Convention would lead to production of discoverable evidence. It was also unconvinced that Bank of China faced a real threat of liability for disclosing account records in violation of PRC law. The court viewed the US interest in protecting intellectual property to be dominant to the PRC interest in protecting bank secrets and compelled production of the account records under the Federal Rules.

In a third recent matter, (US Securities and Exchange Commission v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., Miscellaneous Action No. 11-0512 GK/DAR (US DC DC January 4, 2012)), the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson has issued a show cause order to the Chinese entity Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., requiring that the defendant show cause as to why it has failed to produce certain evidence. Deloitte has sought the approval of the PRC authorities to release the information and the PRC authorities have apparently advised that such production would be in violation of PRC law. It remains to be seen what accommodation will ultimately be reached in this case where US and PRC interests are in clear opposition.

Final remarks

As one can see, these discovery battles will continue to be fought on a case by case basis. US courts view discovery as a tool to "make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent."[11] Accordingly, US judges are reluctant to limit the scope of discoverable information that a litigant or third party must produce. The likelihood of convincing a US court to narrow disclosure and apply the Hague Convention is uncertain and will depend on the circumstances of each case. Chinese litigants may find navigating the US discovery maze difficult. The key to success is understanding the challenges. We strongly recommend that if you are involved in litigation you train the employees handling the case regarding the US litigation and discovery process, the obligations and the risks. Only then can the team effectively deal with these issues in a proactive and successful way.

[1] See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Federal Rules") 26(b)(i). The US court system is divided into federal and state courts. Because most litigation involving foreign parties takes place in federal courts, this article is based on the Federal Rules. Procedural rules in state courts vary by state.

[2] See In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 179, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). To limit documents deemed within the control of their US branches or subsidiaries, PRC companies may consider implementing corporate borders to prevent the free-flow of information between the PRC and US entities.

[3] See Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, Article 33 and Status Table ("Hague Convention"), available at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=82.

[4] See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aeropostiale v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,482 U.S. 522, 544, n.28 (1987). Some courts will also consider hardship of compliance on the party from whom discovery is sought and whether the resisting party acted in good faith.

[5] See PRC Civil Procedure Law, Article 261.

[6] See, e.g., Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 952 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (rejecting defendant's objection to discovery because defendant failed to object to disclosure of PRC state secrets until late in pretrial proceedings after defendant failed to comply with court-ordered discovery, was held in contempt, and subject to sanctions).

[7] See id. (rejecting defendant's objection to disclosure of PRC state secrets and request for application of the Hague Convention because, among other things, defendant previously released some of the information sought in commercial dealings, did not present convincing evidence that disclosure would affect PRC interests, and did not face a genuine threat of adverse consequences for disclosure).

[8] Sensitive industries also include defense, agriculture, infrastructure, transportation, equipment-manufacturing, and technology industries.

[9] See Tiffany, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80677.

[10] See Gucci America v. Weixing Li, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97814 (S.D.N.Y. August 23, 2011).

[11] United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682-83 (1958).

Supreme People's Court provides a Guideline Case for Court Enforcement of Settlement Agreements

King & Wood — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:11:36 +0800

By Richard W. Wigley and Xu Jing King & Wood's Dispute Resolution Group

The means available for effective enforcement of settlement agreements associated with litigation is an issue which is often raised by litigants in the P.R.C. Specifically, it is often asked, what is a party's recourse should the other party breach a private settlement agreement, but where the breach occurs after the Appeal in the litigation at issue has been withdrawn? As P.R.C. law is a civil law system based upon the statutory law, there is no equivalent to the case precedent system of common law countries, such as the United States, Australia, and the U.K. There is relevant statutory law as provided in the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C., but there exist certain legal issues which may require additional clarification beyond the statutory law. With this in mind, as per the Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Case Guidance ("Provisions"), the Supreme People's Court does on occasion publish what it sees as "indicative" cases, where the decisions reached in the cases are deemed to be used as guidelines in relevant judicial review by the lower courts.[1]

Furthermore, Article 7 of the Provisions notes that said indicative cases are released so that "People's Courts at all levels should refer to the indicative cases …. when reviewing similar cases at trial".[2] The Supreme People's Court, in a recent statement during a press conference noted that such "indicative" cases should be "refer[red] to" by the lower courts in "similar cases", but that it is not an absolute requirement that the lower courts cite the "indicative" or guideline case. [3] In addition, during said press conference, the Supreme People's Court noted that High People's Courts may release "reference cases" which are "representative and instructive", but that "such cases should not be named as "indicative cases and should not be quoted in the verdict".[4] Such establishes a hierarchy for case guidance to the lower courts, including the statutory law, the "indicative cases" of the Supreme People's Court, and "reference cases" of the High People's Courts. Recently, the Supreme People's Court published an "indicative" or guideline case which provides the lower courts with guidance on the above-noted issue, as follows.

The case at issue involved a contract dispute whereas Plaintiff, Wu Mei (a scrap paper collection company) sued Defendant, Xicheng Paper Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xicheng") in the People's Court of Dongpo District, Meishan City (hereinafter referred to as the "First Instance Court") in Sichuan Province over contract breach of a sales/purchase contract between the parties, alleging that Xicheng had breached their contract by failing to provide payment for the scrap paper provided.[5] The Defendant appealed to the Intermediate People's Court, but the Appeal was later withdrawn after the parties had reached a settlement privately, without the Appellate Court's mediation. Subsequent to the settlement agreement being signed and the Appeal being withdrawn, Wu Mei alleged that Xicheng had breached the settlement agreement and, as such, Wu Mei applied to the First Instance Court for enforcement of the First Instance Judgment, but Xicheng applied to the Intermediate Court to challenge the enforcement of the Judgment.[6] It was noted by the Appellate Court that the settlement agreement at issue was not reached through the Court's mediation, that this agreement established new rights and obligations upon the parties, and, also, that this agreement stipulated that the parties gave up the right of appeal.[7]

The key issue which was considered by the Appellate Court and which the Supreme People's Court believed warranted clarification is whether if one party does not fulfill its obligations under a private settlement agreement which includes a withdrawal of an Appeal, should the First Instance Court upon application enforce the First Instance decision? Relevant law can be found in Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C. which states that "….[i]f one party fails to fulfill the settlement agreement, the People's Court may, at the request of the other party, resume the enforcement according to the original and effective legal document."[8] It is worth noting, however, that the settlement agreement in Article 207 refers to a settlement agreement reached as part of the Court enforcement procedures and, therefore, it is not applicable to the case at issue, which involved a private settlement. However, as per the rationale prescribed in said Article, it can be deduced that breach of a private settlement agreement (i.e. a settlement reached without the Court's mediation) can be grounds for a First Instance court to enforce its decision which, in the absence of an Appeal, was a final and effective decision, as was the argument of the Plaintiff in this case.

In addition, Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C. notes that "… [a]ll parties shall comply with a mediation agreement or other legal documents that are to be enforced by a People's Court. If a party refuses to comply, the other party may apply to the People's Court for enforcement."[9] Please note, however, in regards to Article 212, this only references a "mediation agreement or other legal documents that are to be enforced by a People's Court" and does not make specific reference to a private settlement agreement reached outside the auspices of the Court's mediation.

Two points stand out in the Appellate Court's ruling the guideline case. Firstly, the Court was clear that this applied to cases, such as this, where there was no mediation by the Court in the settlement agreement and, secondly, this applied to cases, such as this, where the rights and obligations of the parties were changed relative to the original contract in dispute. As stated by the Appellate Court (with Chinese language to English language translations provided herein):

"The party should have known the consequence of withdrawing the appeal in the Second Instance of Trial in that, upon the approval of withdrawal of the Appeal by the Second Instance Court, the judgment rendered by the First Instance Court is a final judgment and shall be binding and enforceable. Though the parties reached a settlement agreement, said agreement reached between parties without the People's Court's confirmation and issuance of the Court's mediation order. As such, said private settlement agreement can not be the basis to request the Court to enforce. The party breaching this private settlement agreement violates the principal of acting in good faith. Therefore, the request of the breaching party of not enforcing the First Instance Judgment due to the conclusion of the private agreement shall not be supported by the Court.[10]

Such private settlement and changing of duties/obligations is not uncommon in contract dispute settlements between parties, but, when choosing to take such a course of action, parties should understand the associated consequences. Consideration should be given in regards to the advantages/disadvantages of both private settlement negotiations and mediation by the Court, as well as the impact of the imposition of new duties and obligations upon the parties to the settlement agreement. In regards to the former issue (i.e. court mediation), if a court-mediated settlement is reached, as per Article 212 noted above, a court could directly enforce the settlement agreement. In cases such as the guideline case, private settlements outside of the court's mediation cannot be directly enforced by the court and will have to be dealt with as a separate contract dispute if breach should be claimed. In regards to the latter issue of the imposition of new duties and obligations upon the parties in the settlement agreement, the Appellate Court is making clear that the Court is not in a position to enforce a settlement agreement where new duties/obligations beyond the scope of those described in the contract in dispute are imposed upon the parties as said agreement is "not relevant to the litigation" .

As such, parties must weigh the certain advantages of settlement agreements reached through the mediation of a dispute by the court (including but not limited to the direct enforceability of a settlement agreement) with the possible limitations of scope of rights and obligations which may apply to a potential settlement agreement. The Supreme People's Court, by providing the above "indicative" or guideline case, is making clear its position on the matter and, as such, relevant contract dispute settlements under P.R.C. law will be expected to comply with the associated guidelines.

Note: this publication is for informational purposes only and it does not in any way constitute a legal opinion.

[1] Art. 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Case Guidance Work (released November 26, 2010), found at http://vip.chinalawinfo.com/newlaw2002/slc/slc.asp?db=chl&gid=143870 (last visited on January 6, 2012) (English language Translation).

[2] Id. at Art. 7.

[3] Law-star.com, posted December 22, 2011, referencing statements made on December 20, 2011, found at http://www.law-star.com/cacnew/201112/1545074371.htm (last visited on January 6, 2012) (English language translation).

[4] Id.

[5] Wu Mei v. Xicheng Paper Co., Ltd. Fa(2011)No. 354 法〔2011〕354号
Found at http://www.chinacourt.org/html/article/201112/21/472159.shtml (last visited on December 27, 2011) (English language translation).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Art. 207 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, promulgated and effective on April 9, 1991, Amended on October 28, 2007 (English language translation).

[9] Id. at Art. 212.

[10] Supra at 5.

最高人民法院为各级法院执行和解协议提供指导性案例

King & Wood Mallesons — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:54:15 +0800

作者：Richard W. Wigley 徐静 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

在中国的民事诉讼中，如何有效地执行和解协议经常会成为诉讼参与人关注的焦点。尤其是当上诉人撤回上诉请求后，而另一方当事人不执行庭外和解协议，另一方当事人的权利如何得到救济？中国是一个以成文法为基础的大陆法系国家，没有美国、澳大利亚、英国等英美法系国家一样的判例制度。虽然中国有相应的成文法，如《民事诉讼法》，但司法实践中存在大量法律问题需要在成文法之外予以释明。基于上述原因，最高人民法院在《关于关于案例指导工作的规定》的第一条中，明确说明了“指导性”案例的价值，即作为对全国法院审判、执行工作提供指导作用[i]。

此外，《关于案例指导工作的规定》第七条规定，在公布指导性案例之后，“各级人民法院审判类似案例时应当参照[i]。” 在最近召开的记者会上，最高人民法院指出下级人民法院在审判类似案件时应当参照指导性案例，但并不要求在具体判决书中引用这些指导性案例[ii]。此外，在这次记者会上，最高人民法院表示，各高级人民法院可以发布具有典型或指导意义的“参考性案例”，但这些案例不得称之为“指导性案例”且在判决书中不得加以引用[iii]。因此，地方各级法院拥有了一套以成文法、最高人民法院发布的“指导性案例”及各高级人民法院发布的“参考性案例”为主体的案件审判指导体系。最近，最高人民法院公布了一个指导性案例为各级法院审判类似案件提供指导，该案例内容如下：

此案系买卖合同纠纷案件。原告吴梅（经营一家废品收购站）向四川省眉山市东坡区法院（“一审法院”）起诉被告西城纸业有限公司（“西城公司”）违反了双方之间的买卖合同，理由为西城公司在原告已经提供了废旧书籍的情况下没有支付相应的货款[iv]。被告在一审败诉后上诉至地方中级人民法院，二审审理期间，双方在庭外达成和解协议，西城公司撤诉。上述和解协议未经法院制作调解书。在西城公司撤诉之后，因西城公司未完全履行和解协议，吴梅向一审法院申请强制执行一审判决。西城公司向当地中级人民法院申请不予执行一审判决[v] 。当地中院认为，本案中的和解协议没有通过法院制作调解书，属于诉讼外达成的和解协议。一方当事人不履行和解协议，另一方当事人执行一审判决的，人民法院应予支持。[vi]。

当地中院考量的且最高人民法院也认为需要明确的问题是，如果一方当事人不履行双方庭外达成的和解协议，而此和解协议中又包含撤回上诉的条款，一审法院应当依一方申请执行一审判决吗？《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》中存在类似的规定。《民事诉讼法》第二百零七条规定，“……一方当事人不履行和解协议的，人民法院可以根据对方当事人的申请，恢复对原生效法律文书的执行[vii]。”然而，上述法条所述的和解协议是指在执行程序中双方达成的和解协议，因此尽管上述案例双方当事人也达成了和解协议，但是这一法条却并不适用。通过对上述法条的法理进行分析，我们可以得出这样的结论，即违反和解协议（即便该协议没有经过法院调解书确认）可导致一审法院执行一审判决。当然，前提是该一审判决未被上诉且为生效的终局判决。

此外，《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百一十二条规定，“……调解书和其他应当由人民法院执行的法律文书，当事人必须履行。一方拒绝履行的，对方当事人可以向人民法院申请执行[viii]。”但请注意，此法条仅规定了“调解书和其他应当由人民法院执行的法律文书”，而并未具体提及未经法院调解、由双方当事人庭外制定的和解协议。

在这个指导性案例中，二审法院审理时有两个重点：第一点，在这一类案件中，双方当事人所达成的和解协议没有经法院制作调解书；第二点，在这一类案件中，与一审判决相比，和解协议所规定的双方的权利义务发生了变化。该案的二审法院认为：

“西城公司对于撤诉的法律后果应当明知，即一旦法院裁定准予其撤回上诉，眉山市东坡区人民法院的一审判决即为生效判决，具有强制执行的效力。虽然二审期间双方在自愿基础上达成的和解协议对相关权利义务做出约定，西城纸业公司因该协议的签订而放弃行使上诉权，吴梅则放弃了利息，但是该和解协议属于双方当事人诉讼外达成的协议，未经人民法院依法确认并制作调解书，因此不具有强制执行力。西城纸业公司未按和解协议履行还款义务，违背了双方约定和诚实信用原则，故对其以双方达成和解协议为由，主张不予执行原生效判决的请求不予支持[ix]。”

在买卖合同纠纷案件中，双方当事人庭外达成和解协议并且该和解协议改变双方当事人的权利义务，这种现象是普遍存在的。但是达成庭外和解之前（指当事人庭外达成和解协议并且该和解协议改变双方当事人的权利义务），双方当事人应当清楚所带来的后果。无论是双方当事人庭外进行谈判，还是由法院进行调解，双方当事人均应谨慎考虑其利弊得失以及和解协议或调解协议新设定的权利义务所带来的影响。在以往的案例（由法院调解）中，如果双方达成和解并由法院制作调解书，那么根据《民事诉讼法》第二百一十二条，法院可以直接执行该调解协议。而在其他案件（如该指导性案例）中，双方庭外达成和解协议且未经法院制作调解书，则该和解协议无法被人民法院强制执行，且若一方当事人违反该协议，法院会按照合同纠纷进行处理。

关于上述第二点，即和解协议与一审判决相比双方的权利义务发生了变化的执行问题，在审判实务中，会出现诉讼双方基于多种考虑而达成庭外和解协议，且协议内容超出诉讼范围的情形。在这种情形下，法院不会将超出诉讼范围的和解协议内容纳入调解书中。为了确保和解协议中的新权利义务可被法院强制执行，如新权利义务并未超出原诉讼范围的，应确保法院将和解协议载入调解书中。

因此，当事人必须衡量由法院制作调解书所带来的优势（包括但不限于该调解书可直接由法院执行这一优势）以及制作调解书在对和解协议的权利义务可能带来的限制，而相对于双方庭外达成的和解协议则可能没有这种限制。最高人民法院通过公布该指导性案例已经明确表明了自身立场。此后中国法院审理类似的合同争议案件将依照上述指导案例进行。

注意：本文的使用仅以信息交流为目的，不构成法律意见。

（本文原文为英文，中文为译文。）

[i]《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》第一条 (2010年11月26日发布，见于http://vip.chinalawinfo.com/newlaw2002/slc/slc.asp?db=chl&gid=143870，最后浏览日期为2012年2月4日)。

[ii]《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》第七条，其余同上。

[iii] 所述记者会于2011年12月20日举行，Law-star.com于2011年12月22日予以公布。（见于http://www.law-star.com/cacnew/201112/1545074371.htm，最后浏览日期为2012年2月4日)。

[iv] 同上。

[v] 《吴梅诉四川省眉山西城纸业有限公司买卖合同纠纷案》法〔2011〕354号（见于http://www.chinacourt.org/html/article/201112/21/472159.shtml ，最后浏览日期为2012年2月4日)。

[vi] 同上。

[vii] 同上。

[viii] 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百零七条，1991年4月9日颁布并生效，2007年10月28日修订。

[ix]《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百一十二条，1991年4月9日颁布并生效，2007年10月28日修订。

[x] 出处同注释5。

Beijing Released New Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance: Time for Resolving Labor Disputes Excluded from Time Limit for Applying for Work-Related Injuries Determination

King & Wood Mallesons — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:23:11 +0800

By King & Wood Mallesons' Labor Group

Beijing Implementation Rules on Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance (Beijing Municipal Decree No. 242) (hereinafter "the Rules") was released and effective on December 5^th, 2011. Based on the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance promulgated by the State Council of the People' s Republic of China and taking into consideration the Beijing practice, the Rules details the determination of work-related injuries, appraisal of work capability, and payment of work-related injury benefits, etc.

With regard to the determination procedure of work-related injuries, the Rules for the first time ever provides that if labor dispute concerning determination of the employment relationship affects the determination of work-related injuries, the labor dispute must be resolved in accordance with law before the application for work-related injury determination, and the time for resolving the labor dispute is excluded from the time limit for applying for the determination. In addition, the Rules establishes the scheme of designation of jurisdiction for work-related injury determination, i.e. when departments of work-related injury determination at district or county level deem that the application for determination is out of their jurisdiction, they shall report the application to the municipal social insurance administrative departments for designation of jurisdiction.

The Rules further provides that Beijing is going to establish a rehabilitation scheme for patients with work-related injuries which gives precedence to rehabilitation over appraisal and places equal emphasis on medical treatment and rehabilitation. When an injured employee with work-related injury deems that his/her physical condition has relatively stabilized, the employee may apply for work capability appraisal in writing. After accepting the aforesaid application, the commission of work capability appraisal at district or county level may request the employee to take further medical examination when it deems necessary. The time spent on such medical examination will be excluded from the time limit for work capability appraisal.

As to payment of work-related injury benefits, the Rules stipulates that if the employers enrolled in work-related injury insurance go into bankruptcy or liquidation, the work-related injury benefits paid by the work-related insurance fund will be distributed by the subdistrict offices of the government or by the social security institutions established by the people’s governments at town level.

King and Wood: Without overlapping withthe Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance, the Rules details the implementation rules of Beijing municipality with respect to determination of work-related injuries, appraisal of work capability, and payment of work-related injury benefits and therefore enhances the practicability of work-related injury insurance. Moreover, the Rules puts forward "a rehabilitation scheme for work-related injuries which gives precedence to rehabilitation over appraisal and places equal emphasis on medical treatment and rehabilitation". As such, there may be further implementation rules on this scheme to be released in future. Employees and employers should keep attention to the changing rules and policies with respect to work-related injury determination, rehabilitation and appraisal so as to protect their rights and interests and avoid legal risk.

北京出台实施工伤保险新规：解决劳动争议不计入工伤认定申请时限

King & Wood Mallesons — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:37:14 +0800

作者：金杜律师事务所劳动组

《北京市实施〈工伤保险条例〉若干规定》（北京市人民政府令第242号）（以下简称“《规定》”）已于2011年12月5日发布并实施。《规定》在国务院《工伤保险条例》的基础上，结合北京市的实际情况，对工伤认定、劳动能力鉴定、工伤保险待遇支付等方面进行了细化规定。

在工伤认定程序上，《规定》首次提出，因确认劳动关系发生争议而影响工伤认定的，应当在申请工伤认定前依法解决劳动争议，且解决劳动争议的时间将不计算在工伤认定申请时限内。此外，《规定》还建立了工伤认定的指定管辖制度，即区、县工伤鉴定部门认为工伤认定申请不属于本辖区管辖的，应当及时报请市社会保险行政部门指定管辖。

《规定》还明确提出，本市将建立先康复后鉴定、医疗和康复并重的工伤康复制度。工伤职工认为伤情相对稳定后，可书面申请进行劳动能力鉴定。受理后，区、县劳动能力鉴定委员会认为工伤职工需要进一步做医学检查的，检查时间不计算在劳动能力鉴定时限内。

此外，在工伤保险待遇支付方面，《规定》提出，当参加工伤保险的用人单位破产、解散的，由工伤保险基金支付的工伤待遇将由街道办事处或者乡、镇人民政府设立的社会保障事务机构来发放。

金杜评论：《规定》在不重复国务院《工伤保险条例》的基础上，细化了本市工伤认定、劳动能力鉴定、工伤保险待遇支付等方面的内容，从而提高了工伤保险的操作性。此外，值得注意的是，《规定》提出北京市“逐步建立先康复后鉴定、医疗和康复并重的工伤康复制度”，今后可能出台有关该制度的具体规定。劳动者与用人单位应密切工伤认定、康复、鉴定方面的法规政策变化，以维护自身权益、避免法律风险。