Forming A Chinese Company. Do It Right Or Do It ALL Wrong, But Don't Do A Rep Office.

Every couple of weeks my firm gets an email or a phone call from a small business that is seeking to justify forming a Rep Office in China instead of a Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise (WFOE). These small businesses typically go into advocacy mode explaining why their business can and should be a Rep Office in China. They then go on to explain that they simply cannot afford to form a WFOE in China due to the minimum capital requirements, the legal fees, and the taxes.?

They then want me to condone their Rep Office plans but I never do.

In fact, the increasing number of these requests has caused me to get even blunter than usual, and my most recent response exemplifies this:?

What you are describing doing as part of an RO [Rep Office] is definitely not proper for an RO. Not even close.?

In terms of minimum capital required, because it is Dongguan, it is likely to be pretty high. Sorry.?

You pretty much have two choices. You can operate completely off the grid and risk getting shut down, or you form a WFOE. Probably the worst thing you could do would be to form an RO that operates illegally because they you are just drawing attention to yourself. ?

I get the sense that the people contacting us on these things are hoping that they somehow have found THE loophole that nobody else has found and that if only they can get the blessings of an attorney for what they are doing, that their operating illegally will somehow not be illegal. I wish I had some magic oil I could sell (for a helluva lot of money) that I could sprinkle on illegal China businesses to make them legal, but I have no such thing.

Those who think they are going "sorta" legal by forming what is clearly an illegal Rep Office in China are very similar to those who think they are "sorta" protecting themselves legally by doing a "sorta" joint venture with their girlfriend. I wrote about those people in a post, entitled, "Operating Illegally In China. Half-Assing It Does Not Help."?In that post, I described the following email I had recently received from my co-blogger, Steve Dickinson:

We had one of these the other day and it precipitated an email from my co-blogger, Steve Dickinson, to me, which went as follows:

If these people are going to go illegal in China, they should go 100% illegal. That is, enforcement either through really strong family connections (your father knows her father) or enforcement through gangsters and the like. I know people who have succeeded this way but I don’t know anyone who has succeeded with an illegal contract. This is not because contracts don't work in China, because you and I have won enough China contract cases to know that they do.

It is because the Chinese judges are totally on to these sorts of arrangements and they know they violate or seek to evade Chinese law. They therefore have and will continue to deem such contracts void. Why do people live in this fantasy world thinking that somehow they are so different or that they have discovered the solution? Why do they think a Chinese court would enforce a contract designed to evade the law?

Take an alternative example. Remember John Smith’s [yes, it is an alias] company we formed in Beijing a few years ago? Not sure if you remember this, but that investment was with his Chinese wife. However, we did that as a very formally organized WFOE and left the wife and her family with the irregular side of the deal. His US company is the only shareholder and he runs the board. His company has had no trouble and he has had no trouble because he is legal and secure. His US LLC [and with it, the China WFOE] were just purchased by _______ [a pretty big name U.S. company]. The reason the purchase was successful is that the whole company was "clean" and therefore it could be purchased by a foreign public company.

I then concluded that post with the following:

As lawyers we are never going to tell our client to go full illegal, but in my role as a blogger, I have to think going full illegal would probably make better sense than paying a lawyer to draft a void contract. I think people know this, but their rightful discomfort at operating illegally makes them want to clutch on to something that will allow them to justify (however falsely) their actions.

The same holds true with respect to forming a Rep Office when a WFOE is required. Forming the Rep Office in that situation will just serve to let the Chinese government know where you are and what you are doing and will make it easy for them to realize that what you are doing requires a WFOE. On top of that, as I am always saying, you should not form a Rep Office with plans to form a WFOE in a year or so "if everything works out." You should not do this because you will end up paying THREE times as you will pay for forming the Rep Office, pay for shutting down the Rep Office (and this is not cheap), and then pay for forming the WFOE.

What really drives me crazy about all this though is that on at least three occasions, companies for whom we have refused to form Rep Offices have written me to tell me that "so and so" company formation company is willing to form the Rep Office for them, as though this mere fact means that my firm was wrong in declining to take money to do something we know will eventually not work.

And though I take no happiness from this, I will note that one of the three companies that went ahead and formed a Rep Office against our advice did contact us about a year later to tell us that the Chinese government was now making them form a WFOE.

For more on what is involved in forming a company in China, check out the following:

Doing business in China? Don't do it half right because you are only increasing your risk.?

What do you think??

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

97% Of Chinese Want To Live In The United States. Is This Really True?

The Globalist is out with an article, entitled, "The American Dream Is Alive and Well…In China," stating that "we heard that if U.S. immigration policies allowed it, 97% of the Chinese people would probably want to move to the United States." (h/t China Challenges) ?

I talked a bit about this previously in a post entitled, "Representing Chinese Companies. I See Some Light:"

Many of the Chinese companies that seek to hire us for one thing (let's say, forming a US company) really have another goal in mind (let's say getting visas for their families and getting their kids into U.S. schools). They do not tell us of their real goals until we are way into the project.

And again in "The Chinese Are Coming, Part XII. To A Public School Near You":

My own experiences have forced me to add an additional reason: sending kids to United States public elementary schools. Not kidding.

I should have realized this sooner, because this has been true of many of my firm's Russian and Korean clients for many years.

At least half the time, my meetings with Chinese companies looking to come to the United States devolve into a conversation as to whether it is really true that they will immediately be able to get their five year old kid (yes, the kid is usually five years old!) into a top neighborhood school for free. I swear that our saying "yes" to that question triples the chances of some sort of transaction going through.

The United States and Canada are the number one and two most desired countries for people from Asia, according to this recent Gallup survey. (h/t Global Small Business Blog) The reason the US scores so well is "opportunity," including for children, which translates into education.

UPDATE: Shanghaiist did a post, entitled, "Special delivery: mainland mothers heading to US to give birth," on how wealthy Chinese mothers-to-be are hopping on airplanes to the United States so their kids can attain United States citizenship by being born there.

But still, 97%. Can that really be? What do you think? 97%, real or made-up out of whole cloth?

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Suing Chinese Companies. "How Long Has This Been Going On?"

Yesterday, I participated in a phone call with a client and another lawyer in my office, Gerry Davis. We were discussing a worldwide software licensing agreement and I had brought in our best "tech" lawyer to assist. The counter-party had already provided a draft agreement to our client which our client had not yet sent to us. Fairly late in the discussion, I asked what law the agreement was calling for and then noted how that is oftentimes not as important as it is often made out to me. As I put it, as far as I know, in every country in the world, if you clearly say you will do something in a contract that is important to the contract and then you don't, you are liable for breach. I then asked what the contract said about where disputes would be resolved, at which point, Gerry said something about how my expertise is in dispute resolution clauses.

I know it makes me weird, but I kinda like that. ?

In a previous post, entitled, "Arbitration In Your China Contract. Adult Supervision Required," I talked a bit about my obsession with dispute resolution clauses:

With sushi restaurants, it's the yellow fin.

With new houses, it's the windows.

With international contracts, it's the dispute resolution provision.

The "it" I am talking about is the one easiest, fastest, most accurate, way to judge whether something is good or not. And the way I judge international contracts is by heading straight to the dispute resolution provision. The well crafted provision is, above all else unambiguous. If it calls for litigation, it says where it will be and what law will apply. And it says who will pay for it and under what circumstances. If it calls for arbitration, it says where it will be, how many arbitrators will be required, how the arbitrators will be chosen, the language of the proceedings, and the law that will apply. And it says who will pay for what.?

The above are minimums.?

I am heartened to see I am not the only blogger obsessed by these provisions. My friend, Santiago Cueto, of International Business Law Advisor, recently did his own post on international dispute resolution clauses, entitled, "7 Ways to Bulletproof Your International Arbitration Agreement."

My "problem" is that I have had to tell far too many companies (mostly American, with a smattering of European) that even though they have a great case based on the facts, the way their dispute resolution provision has been written will mean that pursuing their case will either be too expensive or too unlikely to succeed in actually collecting on any winnings.?

Hence the obsession.?

My firm is always handling international litigation and international arbitration matters. We are one of the few firms that takes such cases on a contingency fee or mixed fee basis, but we probably immediately turn down nine out of ten such cases referred to us and one of the most common reasons for our rejecting a case is because the dispute resolution provision has made actually collecting money too time consuming or difficult. ?

One of the things we love about pursuing litigation in China is the speed at which those cases usually proceed. We have handled (always using locally licensed Chinese counsel, of course) relatively complicated Chinese cases where we have been able to sue in China and get a judgment within three months. This on cases that would take three years in the United States. ?

I very recently discussed the differences between litigation in China and litigation in the United States in a Wall Street Journal article I wrote, entitled, "Chinese Companies Court Disaster" and in much greater depth in an article for Bloomberg Legal, entitled,?Suing Chinese Companies: The New Wave." [subscription required] For the full Bloomberg article, in serialized form, check out the following:

I am always marveling at how quickly litigation moves in China and I am often tout it as the fastest and best (and many times only) solution for obtaining injunctive relief against a Chinese company. Then again, we had one really big case in China where the judge obviously did not want to rule and for years, he just kept telling my client and the opposing party to settle it. ?

A recent China Blawg Post,?How Long Can a Litigation Proceeding Be in China??does a nice job pointing out how foreign company litigation in China can move really quickly, but definitely does not always. ?

Under China Civil Procedure Law, a domestic case is generally tried and completed within six (6) months for the trial of first instance starting from the date of successful filing of the case with the court, and within three (3) months for the trial of second instance (appellate court). However, for a foreign-related case, the Civil Procedure Law simply provides that such cases are not subject to such time limits as applicable to domestic cases without further prescribing how long such proceedings in respect of such foreign-related cases should be. In practice, such provisions are interpreted as that such lawsuits can be an open-ended proceedings.

Indeed. Very frequently, I am approached by international clients complaining that they get trapped in China courts due to prolonged legal proceedings with no idea when it comes to an end. And there are cases in which I represent foreign parties that have lasted much longer than six (6) months even though the case appeared not difficult. This has led to grievances on the part of foreign parties that often find that institution of a lawsuit in China has added salt to their own injuries.

The post then posits the solution in most situations?to be to "choose arbitration for dispute resolution in lieu of litigation in courts." The post then notes, however, that i"t is not that every foreign-related case has been protracted indefinitely. Courts in those big metropolitan cities in China, such as Shanghai, Beijing, may prove to be quiet efficient in some cases."

And that is the point.

The point is that in writing a contract, one must always think ahead in writing its dispute resolution clause and in each case, focus on what will likely be the best solution for the client. There is no one size fits all.?

I gave a speech the other day to the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals meeting on the legal issues involved in outsourcing to an emerging market country. In that speech, I had this to say about choosing the forum for your disputes:

How about putting in your contract that you can sue your Vietnamese vendor in the United States? You’d get your $3 million from them easy if you could sue here, right? Wrong. If you sue here, you might very well get a U.S. judgment for $3 million, but will you ever collect on it? Vietnam, China, Russia, even Japan: none of those countries will just take a U.S. judgment and turn it into a domestic judgment in those countries such that you will be able to enforce it against your vendor there.?

My firm constantly gets calls from American lawyers wanting to retain us to collect on a U.S. judgments they have received against Chinese or Russian companies. The American lawyers have usually charged their clients a pretty fair sum and they think all that is left for them to do is to take that judgment to a Chinese or Russian court. There, they think, they will get their U.S. judgment automatically converted into a Chinese or a Russian judgment and then they will get their money.

But it doesn’t work that way. Your United States judgment pretty much has zero value in either China or Russia, and in most other places in the world as well.

In fact, Chinese and Russian companies love it when you put a United States litigation requirement in your contract with them because they know that their own courts won’t enforce against them whatever judgment you may get. And even if you later realize that suing in the United States is not the way to go and you choose to sue the Chinese or Russian company in its home country, the court there will almost certainly toss your case out for being in the wrong jurisdiction because you signed a contract agreeing to sue in the United States.

So you have to be very careful not to write a contract that essentially blocks you from ever suing on it. And of course, on the flip side, if you put the United States in your contract as the jurisdiction for disputes, the foreign company can easily sue you right here.

Arbitration is oftentimes your best option and should in many cases go into your contract. Almost every country is a signatory to the New York Convention on Arbitration Awards, which means it will enforce U.S. and other foreign arbitration awards.

But arbitration has its shortcomings and sometimes you are better off putting a foreign court as your venue for resolving disputes. For example, if your biggest fear is your outsourcing company running off with your IP or your trade secrets, the fastest and best way to stop that is usually through the courts in the country in which your outsourcing company is based. Choosing the venue oftentimes comes down to figuring out the worst thing that could happen to you and then choosing the best venue for dealing with that.

You can read that entire speech here.

So what then is the answer as to what your contract with a Chinese company should be saying regarding where to pursue disputes? Chinese courts? The courts in your own country? Arbitration?

It depends....

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

The Chinese Dream And The Rise of China's Middle Class.

This review was written by Miriam Roth, who recently joined our?international law firm as a legal assistant/paralegal. Miriam graduated this year with a degree in English Literature from the University of Maryland. ?When not working with us, she is an assistant editor at PIF Magazine.

By Miriam Roth

In her newly published book, The Chinese Dream, Helen Wang explores the rise of China’s new middle class: an up-and-coming force that is growing and changing at an unprecedented rate, and also opening a Pandora’s Box of social, political, and environmental issues. As this powerful demographic continues to grow, Chinese ideas and values are becoming increasingly important on a global scale. But to many Westerners, especially those who fear Chinese competition, those ideas can seem strange or threatening.

Taking this reality into account, Wang argues that “oneness” -- understanding and collaboration between East and West -- can and should happen. And the key to this “oneness,” she suggests, might well lie in the very differences that have alienated us in the past.

Having grown up in China and lived most of her adult life in the U.S., Wang speaks from a uniquely informed perspective. Not only is she fluent in both English and Mandarin, but she also clearly understands the subtleties of each nation’s attitudes and values. The Chinese Dream shows the depth of her knowledge in these areas.

But besides her professional expertise, Wang is a talented storyteller with a knack for turning the abstract into the tangible. A truly enjoyable read, the book brings foreign concepts to life through a blend of facts, reflections, and personal experiences.

Wang manages to make sense out of modern-day China’s most baffling paradoxes. Especially interesting is her discussion of the ways in which communist and capitalist values coexist within a single nation -- even within individual minds. Interviewees like Wu Haitao, a Party member who plays the American stock market, show a culture that, Wang explains, is full of ambiguity. One cannot read this book without putting at least a dent in the idea of a stereotypical Chinese.

The Chinese Dream looks at the tensions that trouble China and its relationship with the world: the tensions between old and new, collectivism and individualism, growth and preservation, East and West. Wang understands that though these issues are not going to disappear and may be handled badly, she nonetheless presents a hopeful picture of the future.

?

Wang’s call for unity never suggests that total agreement can or should be possible. Instead, she argues that ideological struggle is necessary for positive change. She explains how, like Yin and Yang, conflicting countries and ideologies can interact to form a more balanced whole. The U.S. and China, for instance, can capitalize on their different economic policies to counteract their respective trends of overconsumption and over-saving. In this and other ways, the two countries can benefit from one another, not despite, but because of their differences.

The Chinese Dream describes countless possibilities for shared growth, on both national and international levels. For those looking to gain a deeper understanding of modern Chinese society, and those looking to prepare for a new age of globalized collaboration, Helen Wang’s The Chinese Dream is an exciting and timely resource.

?

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How To Sue A Chinese Company. Part IV. Arbitration In The U.S. And Suing In China.

This is part IV of our series on how to sue a Chinese company. This is the final post in our series addressing what to do to secure redress against a Chinese company that owes you money or has wronged you. It is based on an article I recently had published (along with one of my law firm's new associates, Rebecca Carlson) in Bloomberg Law Reports [one week trial subscription required] and on an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal, entitled," Chinese Companies Court Disaster." Please note that instead of using footnotes, this post use brackets, [], instead.

Part I focused on how to effect service of process on a Chinese company pursuant to the Hague Convention and on the jurisdictional issues involved in suing a Chinese company. Part II focused on how to conduct discovery against a Chinese company. Part III?was on?overall litigation strategies and on how to enforce your judgment against a Chinese company. This final post will focus briefly on arbitrating against a Chinese company in the United States and also on suing a Chinese company in China.

Arbitration in the United States

China is a signatory to the 1958 Convention on the?Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral?Awards, so its courts typically do enforce foreign?arbitral awards from recognized arbitral bodies.?

Suing in China

If suing a Chinese company in the United States?does not make sense, pursuing litigation in China?may. Though China's court system is very different?from that to which American lawyers are?accustomed, it is more navigable than many?American lawyers believe it to be. Foreign?companies can and do regularly win cases against?Chinese companies in Chinese courts. Before suing?in a Chinese court, though, it is important to?understand some basics about its court system.

First, though Chinese courts will enforce the law?prescribed in a contract, their analysis will have?Chinese characteristics. Chinese judges place more?emphasis on the overall context and "fairness" of?the case and much less upon legal technicalities?than their American counterparts. For example, if a?company executes a contractual obligation poorly?because of an incompetent or uncaring employee, a?U.S. court would almost certainly hold the company?liable for all damages arising from the breach. A?Chinese court, on the other hand, might limit?damages, because a Chinese judge might consider it?unfair to penalize a company for the incompetence?of one employee.

Second, Chinese courts prohibit nearly all discovery.?Companies suing in China without a strong case at?the outset seldom prevail.

Third, Chinese courts base their rulings almost?exclusively on documentary evidence as opposed to?testimony. [See?Margaret Y.K. Woo and Yaxin Wang, Civil?Justice in China: An Empirical Study of Courts in Three?Provinces].

Fourth, settlement is very rare in Chinese business?litigation matters. The cost of litigating is low, and?once a complaint has been filed, Chinese culture is?such that the company will lose face if it settles. In?this regard, it is preferable to lose the case and to?blame it on the judge than to settle and be viewed?as having been at fault.

Fifth, Chinese courts rarely award high damages.?Chinese companies generally operate at very low?margins and Chinese courts are loath to avoid?harming a functioning business or causing layoffs. In?particular, Chinese judges are hesitant to award?damages for lost profits or for pain and suffering.?The damages available in U.S. courts are simply not?awarded by Chinese courts.

Sixth, collectability on judgments in China is?improving, but it is still not to the level of the?United States. [See?Randall Peerenboom, Between Global?Norms and Domestic Realities: Judicial Reforms in China].

?Chinese courts often lack the?authority over and fail to receive the assistance?from other law enforcement agencies necessary to?force collection on their judgments. In addition,many Chinese companies find it more cost effective?to simply avoid the judgment by shutting down and?re‐opening under a new name.

Conclusion

Though suing Chinese companies in U.S. courts can?be advantageous, it is not always possible and it?does not always make sense. When suing in a U.S.?court either cannot be done or does not make?sense, it does make sense to weigh the option of?suing in China. Suing and collecting from a Chinese?company is typically not going to be easy as suing?and collecting from a domestic company, but the?chances of success against a Chinese company in?both the United States and in China will usually?warrant pursuing litigation in one country or the?other.

We will return you now to our regular programming.

The above excerpt comes from an article originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. and has been reprinted with permission. The opinions expressed are those of the author. ? 2010 Bloomberg Finance L.P.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How To Sue A Chinese Company. Part III. Litigation Strategies And Enforcing Judgments.

This is part III of our series on how to sue a Chinese company. This series of posts addresses what to do to secure redress against a Chinese company that owes you money or has wronged you. It is based on an article I recently had published (along with one of my law firm's new associates, Rebecca Carlson) in Bloomberg Law Reports [one week trial subscription required] and on an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal, entitled," Chinese Companies Court Disaster." Please note that instead of using footnotes, this post use brackets, [], instead.

Part I focused on how to effect service of process on a Chinese company pursuant to the Hague Convention and on the jurisdictional issues involved in suing a Chinese company. Part II focused on how to conduct discovery against a Chinese company. This post focuses on overall litigation strategies against Chinese companies and on enforcing judgments against them. ?

Litigation Strategies

U.S. companies hold many advantages over Chinese?companies in U.S. litigation. In today's political?climate, American jurors generally view Chinese?companies unfavorably. Moreover, Chinese?companies' tendency to skirt American discovery?rules, if brought to the court's attention, have the?potential to cost the Chinese company valuable?credibility. See also Chinese?Companies Court Disaster, Wall Street Journal, August?18, 2010.?Finally, Chinese companies tend to?underestimate the importance of U.S. trial court?decisions in fact‐finding, often holding back until?appeal:

Appeals in China are usually de novo,?meaning that if a trial‐court judge disagrees?with your version of the facts, you can make?another attempt to tell your side of the?story at the appellate level. But in the U.S.,?appeals courts take as a given the trial?court's findings of fact and will hear only?disputes about the trial judge's?interpretation of legal questions. This?means that in America you rarely get more?than one chance to put forth your version?of the facts, so you had better do it right?the first time. In China the fight often?begins only once a case hits the appeals court.

Enforcing U.S. Judgments In China

U.S. judgments have virtually no value in China.?Neither a treaty nor a reciprocal arrangement exists?between China and the United States regarding the?recognition or enforcement of judgments in civil?matters. Chinese courts simply disregard U.S.?judgments.

If the Chinese company has assets in the United?States, or in another country that generally enforces?U.S. judgments (such as the United Kingdom,?Canada or South Korea), suing in a U.S. court may be best way to proceed. Otherwise, the?judgment of a U.S. court is of little to no use.

Tomorrow's post will be the fourth and final post in this series and it will focus on suing Chinese companies in China and in arbitration. ?

?

The above excerpt comes from an article originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. and has been reprinted with permission. The opinions expressed are those of the author. ?? 2010 Bloomberg Finance L.P.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How To Sue A Chinese Company. Part IV. Arbitration In The U.S. And Suing In China.

This is part IV of our series on how to sue a Chinese company. This is the final post in our series addressing what to do to secure redress against a Chinese company that owes you money or has wronged you. It is based on an article I recently had published (along with one of my law firm's new associates, Rebecca Carlson) in Bloomberg Law Reports [one week trial subscription required] and on an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal, entitled," Chinese Companies Court Disaster." Please note that instead of using footnotes, this post use brackets, [], instead.

Part I focused on how to effect service of process on a Chinese company pursuant to the Hague Convention and on the jurisdictional issues involved in suing a Chinese company. Part II focused on how to conduct discovery against a Chinese company. Part III?was on?overall litigation strategies and on how to enforce your judgment against a Chinese company. This final post will focus briefly on arbitrating against a Chinese company in the United States and also on suing a Chinese company in China.

Arbitration in the United States

China is a signatory to the 1958 Convention on the?Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral?Awards, so its courts typically do enforce foreign?arbitral awards from recognized arbitral bodies.?

Suing in China

If suing a Chinese company in the United States?does not make sense, pursuing litigation in China?may. Though China's court system is very different?from that to which American lawyers are?accustomed, it is more navigable than many?American lawyers believe it to be. Foreign?companies can and do regularly win cases against?Chinese companies in Chinese courts. Before suing?in a Chinese court, though, it is important to?understand some basics about its court system.

First, though Chinese courts will enforce the law?prescribed in a contract, their analysis will have?Chinese characteristics. Chinese judges place more?emphasis on the overall context and "fairness" of?the case and much less upon legal technicalities?than their American counterparts. For example, if a?company executes a contractual obligation poorly?because of an incompetent or uncaring employee, a?U.S. court would almost certainly hold the company?liable for all damages arising from the breach. A?Chinese court, on the other hand, might limit?damages, because a Chinese judge might consider it?unfair to penalize a company for the incompetence?of one employee.

Second, Chinese courts prohibit nearly all discovery.?Companies suing in China without a strong case at?the outset seldom prevail.

Third, Chinese courts base their rulings almost?exclusively on documentary evidence as opposed to?testimony. [See?Margaret Y.K. Woo and Yaxin Wang, Civil?Justice in China: An Empirical Study of Courts in Three?Provinces].

Fourth, settlement is very rare in Chinese business?litigation matters. The cost of litigating is low, and?once a complaint has been filed, Chinese culture is?such that the company will lose face if it settles. In?this regard, it is preferable to lose the case and to?blame it on the judge than to settle and be viewed?as having been at fault.

Fifth, Chinese courts rarely award high damages.?Chinese companies generally operate at very low?margins and Chinese courts are loath to avoid?harming a functioning business or causing layoffs. In?particular, Chinese judges are hesitant to award?damages for lost profits or for pain and suffering.?The damages available in U.S. courts are simply not?awarded by Chinese courts.

Sixth, collectability on judgments in China is?improving, but it is still not to the level of the?United States. [See?Randall Peerenboom, Between Global?Norms and Domestic Realities: Judicial Reforms in China].

?Chinese courts often lack the?authority over and fail to receive the assistance?from other law enforcement agencies necessary to?force collection on their judgments. In addition,many Chinese companies find it more cost effective?to simply avoid the judgment by shutting down and?re‐opening under a new name.

Conclusion

Though suing Chinese companies in U.S. courts can?be advantageous, it is not always possible and it?does not always make sense. When suing in a U.S.?court either cannot be done or does not make?sense, it does make sense to weigh the option of?suing in China. Suing and collecting from a Chinese?company is typically not going to be easy as suing?and collecting from a domestic company, but the?chances of success against a Chinese company in?both the United States and in China will usually?warrant pursuing litigation in one country or the?other.

We will return you now to our regular programming.

The above excerpt comes from an article originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. and has been reprinted with permission. The opinions expressed are those of the author. ? 2010 Bloomberg Finance L.P.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How To Sue A Chinese Company. Part II. Discovery.

This is part II of our series on how to sue a Chinese company. This series of posts addresses what to do should you want to seek redress against a Chinese company that owes you money or has wronged you. It is based on an article I recently had published (along with one of my law firm's new associates, Rebecca Carlson) in Bloomberg Law Reports?[one week trial subscription required] and on an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal, entitled," Chinese Companies Court Disaster."?Please note that instead of using footnotes, this post use brackets, [], instead.

Part I focused on how to effect service of process on a Chinese company pursuant to the Hague Convention and on the jurisdictional issues involved in suing a Chinese company. This part II focuses on how to conduct discovery against a Chinese company. ?

Discovery

Once a U.S. company succeeds in serving a Chinese?company in a U.S. lawsuit, discovery can begin.?Because the Chinese company is now party to a U.S.?lawsuit, it is technically bound by normal discovery?rules. However, discovery in China can be difficult.?Apart from the restrictions placed on discovery by?the Chinese government, Chinese companies are?not accustomed to U.S.‐style discovery, and they?often consider compliance to be optional.

Deposition Discovery

China prohibits even voluntary depositions from?being taken on its soil. In its declaration on?accession to the Hague Convention on the Taking of?Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters,?China stated it did not consider itself bound by?Articles 16‐22 of the Convention, portions of which?would grant consular officers the right to oversee?depositions. In 1989, China permitted a limited?deposition in the matter before the U.S. District?Court for the Northern District of California. U.S. v.?Leung Tak Lun, et al., 944 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1991).?However, China advised the United States that the?particular grant of authority for that deposition?should not be regarded as a precedent. Indeed,?there is no subsequent record of China permitting a?deposition. At worst, conducting a deposition in?China may lead to arrest, detention, or expulsion.

Instead, the best way to depose a China‐based?witness is for the witness to come to the United?States. However, if the witness is unable or?unwilling to do so, there are several additional?options available. One common method is to fly the?potential deponent to Hong Kong or to a neighboring country and conduct the deposition?there, either in person or telephonically from the?United States. [telephonic depositions require court approval?from the U.S. court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure?30(b)(4)]?Another possibility is to conduct a?telephonic deposition of the witness in China. But?because even a telephonic deposition technically?occurs entirely within China, it almost certainly?runs afoul of China's prohibition.

Document Discovery

Under the Hague Convention on Evidence, China?has agreed to allow some limited discovery of?documents. Articles 1 and 2 of that Convention?provide for document discovery by means of a?Letter of Request issued by the court where the?action is pending and transmitted to the "Central?Authority" of the jurisdiction where the discovery is?located. The Central Authority is then responsible?for transmitting the request to the appropriate?judicial body for a response. However, Article 23?permits a signatory country to "declare that it will?not execute Letters of Request issued for the?purpose of obtaining pre‐trial discovery of?documents as known in Common Law countries."?China has executed such a declaration and,?therefore, document discovery for trial purposes is?permissible. The "fishing expedition" discovery for?which the United States has become known,?however, is not.

Yet even for the document discovery authorized in?China, it is unlikely that the Chinese Central?Authority will instruct a Chinese court to compel?production. The U.S. State Department made the?following accurate summary of how China tends to?respond to U.S. court document discovery requests:

While it is possible to request compulsion of?evidence in China pursuant to a letter?rogatory or letter of request (Hague?Evidence Convention), such requests have?not been particularly successful in the past.?Requests may take more than a year to?execute. It is not unusual for no reply to be?received or after considerable time has?elapsed, for Chinese authorities to request?clarification from the American court with?no indication that the request will?eventually be executed. See?"China Judicial Assistance" by the U.S.?Department of State.?

Part III of this series will focus on litigation strategies when suing a Chinese company and enforcing U.S. judgments against such companies. Part IV will discuss arbitrating against Chinese companies and suing them in China.

?

The above excerpt comes from an article originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. and has been reprinted with permission. The opinions expressed are those of the author. ? 2010 Bloomberg Finance L.P.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How To Sue A Chinese Company. Part IV. Arbitration In The U.S. And Suing In China.

This is part IV of our series on how to sue a Chinese company. This is the final post in our series addressing what to do to secure redress against a Chinese company that owes you money or has wronged you. It is based on an article I recently had published (along with one of my law firm's new associates, Rebecca Carlson) in Bloomberg Law Reports [one week trial subscription required] and on an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal, entitled," Chinese Companies Court Disaster." Please note that instead of using footnotes, this post use brackets, [], instead.

Part I focused on how to effect service of process on a Chinese company pursuant to the Hague Convention and on the jurisdictional issues involved in suing a Chinese company. Part II focused on how to conduct discovery against a Chinese company. Part III?was on?overall litigation strategies and on how to enforce your judgment against a Chinese company. This final post will focus briefly on arbitrating against a Chinese company in the United States and also on suing a Chinese company in China.

Arbitration in the United States

China is a signatory to the 1958 Convention on the?Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral?Awards, so its courts typically do enforce foreign?arbitral awards from recognized arbitral bodies.?

Suing in China

If suing a Chinese company in the United States?does not make sense, pursuing litigation in China?may. Though China's court system is very different?from that to which American lawyers are?accustomed, it is more navigable than many?American lawyers believe it to be. Foreign?companies can and do regularly win cases against?Chinese companies in Chinese courts. Before suing?in a Chinese court, though, it is important to?understand some basics about its court system.

First, though Chinese courts will enforce the law?prescribed in a contract, their analysis will have?Chinese characteristics. Chinese judges place more?emphasis on the overall context and "fairness" of?the case and much less upon legal technicalities?than their American counterparts. For example, if a?company executes a contractual obligation poorly?because of an incompetent or uncaring employee, a?U.S. court would almost certainly hold the company?liable for all damages arising from the breach. A?Chinese court, on the other hand, might limit?damages, because a Chinese judge might consider it?unfair to penalize a company for the incompetence?of one employee.

Second, Chinese courts prohibit nearly all discovery.?Companies suing in China without a strong case at?the outset seldom prevail.

Third, Chinese courts base their rulings almost?exclusively on documentary evidence as opposed to?testimony. [See?Margaret Y.K. Woo and Yaxin Wang, Civil?Justice in China: An Empirical Study of Courts in Three?Provinces].

Fourth, settlement is very rare in Chinese business?litigation matters. The cost of litigating is low, and?once a complaint has been filed, Chinese culture is?such that the company will lose face if it settles. In?this regard, it is preferable to lose the case and to?blame it on the judge than to settle and be viewed?as having been at fault.

Fifth, Chinese courts rarely award high damages.?Chinese companies generally operate at very low?margins and Chinese courts are loath to avoid?harming a functioning business or causing layoffs. In?particular, Chinese judges are hesitant to award?damages for lost profits or for pain and suffering.?The damages available in U.S. courts are simply not?awarded by Chinese courts.

Sixth, collectability on judgments in China is?improving, but it is still not to the level of the?United States. [See?Randall Peerenboom, Between Global?Norms and Domestic Realities: Judicial Reforms in China].

?Chinese courts often lack the?authority over and fail to receive the assistance?from other law enforcement agencies necessary to?force collection on their judgments. In addition,many Chinese companies find it more cost effective?to simply avoid the judgment by shutting down and?re‐opening under a new name.

Conclusion

Though suing Chinese companies in U.S. courts can?be advantageous, it is not always possible and it?does not always make sense. When suing in a U.S.?court either cannot be done or does not make?sense, it does make sense to weigh the option of?suing in China. Suing and collecting from a Chinese?company is typically not going to be easy as suing?and collecting from a domestic company, but the?chances of success against a Chinese company in?both the United States and in China will usually?warrant pursuing litigation in one country or the?other.

We will return you now to our regular programming.

The above excerpt comes from an article originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. and has been reprinted with permission. The opinions expressed are those of the author. ? 2010 Bloomberg Finance L.P.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How To Sue A Chinese Company. Part III. Litigation Strategies And Enforcing Judgments.

This is part III of our series on how to sue a Chinese company. This series of posts addresses what to do to secure redress against a Chinese company that owes you money or has wronged you. It is based on an article I recently had published (along with one of my law firm's new associates, Rebecca Carlson) in Bloomberg Law Reports [one week trial subscription required] and on an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal, entitled," Chinese Companies Court Disaster." Please note that instead of using footnotes, this post use brackets, [], instead.

Part I focused on how to effect service of process on a Chinese company pursuant to the Hague Convention and on the jurisdictional issues involved in suing a Chinese company. Part II focused on how to conduct discovery against a Chinese company. This post focuses on overall litigation strategies against Chinese companies and on enforcing judgments against them. ?

Litigation Strategies

U.S. companies hold many advantages over Chinese?companies in U.S. litigation. In today's political?climate, American jurors generally view Chinese?companies unfavorably. Moreover, Chinese?companies' tendency to skirt American discovery?rules, if brought to the court's attention, have the?potential to cost the Chinese company valuable?credibility. See also Chinese?Companies Court Disaster, Wall Street Journal, August?18, 2010.?Finally, Chinese companies tend to?underestimate the importance of U.S. trial court?decisions in fact‐finding, often holding back until?appeal:

Appeals in China are usually de novo,?meaning that if a trial‐court judge disagrees?with your version of the facts, you can make?another attempt to tell your side of the?story at the appellate level. But in the U.S.,?appeals courts take as a given the trial?court's findings of fact and will hear only?disputes about the trial judge's?interpretation of legal questions. This?means that in America you rarely get more?than one chance to put forth your version?of the facts, so you had better do it right?the first time. In China the fight often?begins only once a case hits the appeals court.

Enforcing U.S. Judgments In China

U.S. judgments have virtually no value in China.?Neither a treaty nor a reciprocal arrangement exists?between China and the United States regarding the?recognition or enforcement of judgments in civil?matters. Chinese courts simply disregard U.S.?judgments.

If the Chinese company has assets in the United?States, or in another country that generally enforces?U.S. judgments (such as the United Kingdom,?Canada or South Korea), suing in a U.S. court may be best way to proceed. Otherwise, the?judgment of a U.S. court is of little to no use.

Tomorrow's post will be the fourth and final post in this series and it will focus on suing Chinese companies in China and in arbitration. ?

?

The above excerpt comes from an article originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. and has been reprinted with permission. The opinions expressed are those of the author. ?? 2010 Bloomberg Finance L.P.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How To Sue A Chinese Company. Part II. Discovery.

This is part II of our series on how to sue a Chinese company. This series of posts addresses what to do should you want to seek redress against a Chinese company that owes you money or has wronged you. It is based on an article I recently had published (along with one of my law firm's new associates, Rebecca Carlson) in Bloomberg Law Reports?[one week trial subscription required] and on an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal, entitled," Chinese Companies Court Disaster."?Please note that instead of using footnotes, this post use brackets, [], instead.

Part I focused on how to effect service of process on a Chinese company pursuant to the Hague Convention and on the jurisdictional issues involved in suing a Chinese company. This part II focuses on how to conduct discovery against a Chinese company. ?

Discovery

Once a U.S. company succeeds in serving a Chinese?company in a U.S. lawsuit, discovery can begin.?Because the Chinese company is now party to a U.S.?lawsuit, it is technically bound by normal discovery?rules. However, discovery in China can be difficult.?Apart from the restrictions placed on discovery by?the Chinese government, Chinese companies are?not accustomed to U.S.‐style discovery, and they?often consider compliance to be optional.

Deposition Discovery

China prohibits even voluntary depositions from?being taken on its soil. In its declaration on?accession to the Hague Convention on the Taking of?Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters,?China stated it did not consider itself bound by?Articles 16‐22 of the Convention, portions of which?would grant consular officers the right to oversee?depositions. In 1989, China permitted a limited?deposition in the matter before the U.S. District?Court for the Northern District of California. U.S. v.?Leung Tak Lun, et al., 944 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1991).?However, China advised the United States that the?particular grant of authority for that deposition?should not be regarded as a precedent. Indeed,?there is no subsequent record of China permitting a?deposition. At worst, conducting a deposition in?China may lead to arrest, detention, or expulsion.

Instead, the best way to depose a China‐based?witness is for the witness to come to the United?States. However, if the witness is unable or?unwilling to do so, there are several additional?options available. One common method is to fly the?potential deponent to Hong Kong or to a neighboring country and conduct the deposition?there, either in person or telephonically from the?United States. [telephonic depositions require court approval?from the U.S. court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure?30(b)(4)]?Another possibility is to conduct a?telephonic deposition of the witness in China. But?because even a telephonic deposition technically?occurs entirely within China, it almost certainly?runs afoul of China's prohibition.

Document Discovery

Under the Hague Convention on Evidence, China?has agreed to allow some limited discovery of?documents. Articles 1 and 2 of that Convention?provide for document discovery by means of a?Letter of Request issued by the court where the?action is pending and transmitted to the "Central?Authority" of the jurisdiction where the discovery is?located. The Central Authority is then responsible?for transmitting the request to the appropriate?judicial body for a response. However, Article 23?permits a signatory country to "declare that it will?not execute Letters of Request issued for the?purpose of obtaining pre‐trial discovery of?documents as known in Common Law countries."?China has executed such a declaration and,?therefore, document discovery for trial purposes is?permissible. The "fishing expedition" discovery for?which the United States has become known,?however, is not.

Yet even for the document discovery authorized in?China, it is unlikely that the Chinese Central?Authority will instruct a Chinese court to compel?production. The U.S. State Department made the?following accurate summary of how China tends to?respond to U.S. court document discovery requests:

While it is possible to request compulsion of?evidence in China pursuant to a letter?rogatory or letter of request (Hague?Evidence Convention), such requests have?not been particularly successful in the past.?Requests may take more than a year to?execute. It is not unusual for no reply to be?received or after considerable time has?elapsed, for Chinese authorities to request?clarification from the American court with?no indication that the request will?eventually be executed. See?"China Judicial Assistance" by the U.S.?Department of State.?

Part III of this series will focus on litigation strategies when suing a Chinese company and enforcing U.S. judgments against such companies. Part IV will discuss arbitrating against Chinese companies and suing them in China.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How To Sue A Chinese Company. Part I. Jurisdiction And Service Of Process.

Let's face it, even in a down economy, suing Chinese companies is a growth area. On top of that, it is fun and lucrative. My firm originally made its mark handling international litigation and of late, it is litigation against Chinese companies that is feeding our rapid growth. We just hired two more full time lawyers (more on that in a later post) and both will be mostly focused on our international litigation and arbitration practice.?

What it takes to litigate against Chinese companies is one of my favorite speaking topics because so many lawyers get it wrong and are surprised to hear what it takes to get it right. Rule number one on that front is not to just go off and sue in a United States court based on the assumption that a U.S. court judgment will have any value in terms of actually collecting money. For more on the value (or lack thereof) of simply suing a Chinese company in a U.S. court, check out the following:

So what should you do if you are owed money by or have been wronged by a Chinese company??

I recently wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal, entitled, "Chinese Companies Court Disaster:?Doing business in America means also learning how to navigate the U.S. legal system." That article focuses on the increasing number of lawsuits being brought by foreign companies against Chinese companies and on how poorly most Chinese companies are handling those lawsuits. In response to that article, Bloomberg Law Reports[subscription required] and requested I write an article setting out how to handle litigating and arbitrating against Chinese companies. ?

I brought in one of our new international litigation lawyers, Rebecca Carlson, to assist me with this article and Bloomberg published it a few weeks ago in Volume 3, No. 7 edition of?the Bloomberg Law?Reports—Asia Pacific, and our freeze on?our being able to cite to that article has now ended. That being the case, and it being a long article, we are going to post it in serial form here on the blog. Please note that instead of using footnotes, we will use brackets, [], instead.

So without further ado, here is part I.

Introduction

The rapid increase in business transactions between?Chinese and American companies has been ?matched by a concomitant rise in legal disputes.?Attorneys who have dealt with such litigation?recognize a pervasive impediment to successful?resolution: the daunting task of collecting on any?judgments achieved. Chinese courts do not enforce?U.S. judgments and they have only recently?acquired sufficient power to fully enforce their own?domestic awards.

It is typically most effective, therefore, to sue a?Chinese company in the United States, provided?that the Chinese company has assets in the United?States or in a country that recognizes U.S?judgments. If the Chinese company has no such?assets, suing in China may be the only choice.

This article will clarify the challenges of litigating?against Chinese companies and will offer guidance?in overcoming these challenges both in the United?States and in China.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is a fundamental issue in international?legal disputes. Suing a Chinese company in the?United States requires the typical contact inquiry?involved in suing any foreign company. See Asahi?Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California,?Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102 (1987); Glencore Grain?Rotterdam B.V. v. Sinvnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284?F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002). An American company?usually faces no jurisdictional bar to suing a Chinese?company in Mainland China. [Chinese courts have jurisdiction over?international cases involving a foreign plaintiff against a?Chinese company. Civil Procedure Law of the People's?Republic of China, Articles 3 and 237.]

However, it is?important to research where the company is based:?Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan are?different jurisdictions entirely.

Suing in the United States

If a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a Chinese?company, litigating and winning against that?company in a U.S. court is, with a few exceptions,?comparable to suing any other company. The most?notable differences typically arise in service of?process, discovery, litigation strategy, and, if?necessary to execute the judgment in China,?enforcement.

Service of Process

China is party to the Hague Convention on Service?Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in?Civil and Commercial Matters. [http://www.hcch.net/upload/conventions/txt14en.pdf] ? Therefore,?service?on a Chinese company must fully comply with this?Convention.?Service under the Hague Convention on Service is?effected through the designated Chinese Central?Authority in Beijing, which is the Bureau of?International Judicial Assistance, Ministry of Justice?of the People's Republic of China. The U.S. company?must submit the following to the Ministry of Justice:

(1) a completed United States Marshall Form USM‐94 [available?at?http://www.usmarshals.gov/forms/usm94.pdf]?(2) the original English version of the?documents to be served (the summons must have?the issuing court's seal); (3) the Chinese translation?of all documents to be served; and (4) a photocopy?of each of these documents. Note that because the?USM‐94 will not be served, translation is not?necessary. In addition to the documents, a payment?of approximately US$100 by an international?payment order must be sent with the service?request, payable to the Supreme People's Court of?the People's Republic of China. [Although China did not make a specific?reservation regarding translations when it acceded to the?Hague Convention on service, China's Central Authority?has advised the U.S. Embassy in Beijing that documents?to be served in China must be translated into Mandarin?Chinese. Since it is China's Central Authority that effects?service of process, the best approach is to comply with?its requirements.]

The Ministry of Justice will then send the service?documents to the appropriate local court, and that?court will finally effect service. In the authors'?experience, Chinese courts are often fairly slow to?send out service. If the Chinese company being sued?is a powerful local entity, the service may be even?slower. However, repeatedly calling and emailing?both the court itself and the Ministry of Justice can?often expedite service. Service normally takes?around one to three months.

Service on a Chinese company by mail is not?effective and U.S. courts have held that China's?formal objection to service by mail under Article?10(a) of the Convention is valid. See DeJames v.?Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F.2d 280 (3d Cir.?1981), cert. den., 454 U.S. 1085; Dr. Ing H.C. F.?Porsche A.G. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 755?(1981).?

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Chinese Business Law and Practice. Santiago, Chile, November 25-26, 2010.

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (Catholic University of Chile) ?is putting on a China law seminar in Santiago, Chile, later this month. The seminar will take place on November 24 and November 25 and I am confident it will be excellent. For more information on the conference go here?and to register go here. My confidence stems from my having known for years the person behind this event, Marcos Jaramillo, and having complete faith?(in the secular sense of the word) that he will not do anything less than a superlative job. ?I have known Marcos since he was in the private practice of law at one of Santiago's top law firms and was known in Chile as the "China lawyer." Marcos now teaches Chinese and Japanese Law at the Catholic University of Chile.

The seminar bills itself as “a practical and in-depth analyses of the latest legal and tax issues facing companies with operations or business opportunities in China” and it is going to consist of the following speakers and topics:

• Ms. Hua Yang (Attorney, Grandall Law Group, Beijing): Launching a Business in China

• Mr. Hongliang Wang (Professor, School of Law, Tsinghua University, Beijing): Contracts in China

• Ms. Yuan Gao (Attorney, WilmerHale, Beijing): Taxes for Foreign Enterprises and Foreign Individuals in China

• Mr. Jaime Ubilla (Attorney, UB & Co., Shanghai): Manufacturing, Processing, and Sourcing. Technology Projects and Joint Ventures

• Mr. Hernan Felipe Errazuriz (Former Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs; Partner, Guerrero, Olivos, Novoa, Errazuriz Abogados): Chilean Foreign Policy Towards China and Asia

• Ms. Hua Yang (partner, Grandall Law Group, Beijing): Labor Law in China

• Mr. Weixing Shen (PhD, Vice Dean, School of Law, Tsinghua University, Beijing): Property Law in China, Practical Issues

• Mr. Donald Clarke (Professor, The George Washington University, Washington DC): Transnational Litigation Involving China

• Mr. Odean Volker (Attorney, Haynes & Boone LLP, Houston): Commercial Dispute Resolution, Enforcing Commercial Rights and Litigation in China -- Use of Arbitration

I know Professor Clarke and I know him to be hugely knowledgeable about transnational litigation and I have read one of Professor Wang's artilces on Chinese litigation and found it excellent. I am also impressed at how many people have come so far to speak at this event.?

Again, click here for more information. And if you go, tell Marcos that Dan sent you.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Son of official Chinese Government uses because to cut short to innocent students down. There, I said it.

I like 99.9% of our readers and hate one percent. Than others. 01% understands pretty two people whose comments I almost every day and I always delete the comment.

One of these people is constantly complains about our lack of coverage of the India and assigns it to my other Indians.This guy (I guess it's a guy) for any reason any seems to understand that it is a blog on the law of China, not on India .Dude, if you want more the India, I suggest you start your own blog just India.

The other person is always leave comments completely irrelevant to the position, tackle to ignore the Chinese people doing everyday things horribles.Cette person believes that whenever someone in China is something awful (as of kindergartners stems) I should use as an opportunity to write about the decline of society China caused by an economy which submits the (tongue, mine not) and my inability to write about these things means I complicit with beholden to the Chinese Government I wrote an email calm and somewhat rational to the e-mail address, that person uses his (yet again, I guess it's a male) comments, but - no surprise - proved to his e-mail address be false.I have just a comment from him today, stressing my cowardice of failing to report on the manner in which the son of some Chinese Government apparatchik somewhere had Faucher a student with his car.

I do not write such things, because although I find their incredibly interesting from a psychological perspective (I was for many years, hooked to the true crime books), I do not think that they provide an overview of China and I myself do not understand everything real to provide these soit.La type incidents China has 1.3 billion people, and that means that it will produce a number of horrific people do horrible things YH ' I just figure that our readers is fully include only and do not need some lawyer saying that.

I don't know what else to say...

This entry transmitted via the service for full-text RSS - if this is your content and you read on someone to another site, please read our FAQ page fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Article five filters features: After Hiroshima - non-rapport Cancer Catastrophe of Fallujah.

View the original article here