According to the South China Morning Post today of 5 May 2008, direct investment fund CDH Investments and buyout fund Hony Capital - a unit of Legend Holdings, the parent of the world's No. 3 computer maker Lenovo Group - will each set up a mainland registered yuan fund of 5 billion yuan, Caijing magazine reported.
Large institutional investors such as the National Social Security Fund were likely to become founding investors of the funds, which are expected to be completed by the end of this month, it said.
It could be the largest yuan funds to be set up by non-mainland-based private equity firms.
Jason's comments: the PE market has extremely been low in the past five months or since late last year. The "CDH Investment, Hony Capital to set up funds totalling
10b yuan" is no doubt stimulating and encouraging to the low investment market, and also indicate to the greatest extents that the PE market in mainland China is still promising and bright in the near futures or in the long run.
5/03/2008
The 7 Habits of Highly Useless Corporate Lawyers !
1. Be risk-averse at all times. Clients have come to expect this from their lawyers. It's tradition. Honor it.
2. Tell the client only what it can't do. Business clients are run by business people who take risks. They need to be managed, guided, stopped. Don't encourage them.
3. Whatever you do, don't take a stand, and don't make a recommendation. (You don't want to be wrong, do you?)
4. Treat the client as a potential adversary at all times. Keep a distance.
5. Cover yourself. Write a lot to the client. Craft lots of confirming letters which use clauses like "it is our understanding", "our analysis is limited to..." and "we do not express an opinion as to whether..."
6. Churn up extra fees with extra letters and memoranda and tasks. Milk the engagement. (If you are going to be a weenie anyway, you might as well be a sneaky weenie.)
7. As out-house counsel, you are American royalty. Never forget that.
(Notes from "me": "Ernie from Glen Burnie", not his real name, is an unreliable but wise childhood friend who likes the works of Hunter Thompson. EFGB is now a partner at a Washington, DC law firm. For years he has claimed that the following--by an unknown and long-dead lawyer, and dated 1836--was discovered during the 1980s in the ruins of an old Episcopal church in a northern Virginia town near our native DC. I would believe EFGB--except that I doubt that the word "weenie" was much in style in the antebellum American south)
2. Tell the client only what it can't do. Business clients are run by business people who take risks. They need to be managed, guided, stopped. Don't encourage them.
3. Whatever you do, don't take a stand, and don't make a recommendation. (You don't want to be wrong, do you?)
4. Treat the client as a potential adversary at all times. Keep a distance.
5. Cover yourself. Write a lot to the client. Craft lots of confirming letters which use clauses like "it is our understanding", "our analysis is limited to..." and "we do not express an opinion as to whether..."
6. Churn up extra fees with extra letters and memoranda and tasks. Milk the engagement. (If you are going to be a weenie anyway, you might as well be a sneaky weenie.)
7. As out-house counsel, you are American royalty. Never forget that.
(Notes from "me": "Ernie from Glen Burnie", not his real name, is an unreliable but wise childhood friend who likes the works of Hunter Thompson. EFGB is now a partner at a Washington, DC law firm. For years he has claimed that the following--by an unknown and long-dead lawyer, and dated 1836--was discovered during the 1980s in the ruins of an old Episcopal church in a northern Virginia town near our native DC. I would believe EFGB--except that I doubt that the word "weenie" was much in style in the antebellum American south)
4/18/2008
Danone & Wahaha Dispute: Rules of Law May Not Become A Failure !
The Shenzhen Economic Daily of 17 April 2008 made an official comment and review on the subject matter coming to the points, and its contents are cited here for reference.
The Danone and Wahaha' negotiations are still coming to the deadlocks, even though their disputes have always been full of hot points at intervals. Since releasing to the public of the dispute one year ago, the two parties have got used to different sorts of "pouring shits fight". For the time being, Wahaha chairman ZONG, Renqing is deeply involved in the "Tax Evasions Gate', but such kind of fight has also labelled Danone as a "cunning" merchant.
There are no winners in respect for the "flesh fighting war", for Wahaha chairman ZONG, Renqing has suffered from "sick" fame, while Danone has "lost" hearts of the ordinary people. We are happy to see that the Chinese government's stance is still clear and cool about the matter. Media quoted an relevant official from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce as saying yesterday that they can not make any comments on ZONG, Renqing'a personal income tax evasions, but believe that the tax incident and the Danone / Wahaha dispute should not have many connections. For the time being, the Ministry of Commerce(Foreign Investment Division) is performing the governmental duty to mediate therein by offering an negotiation platform. The dispute was originally an economic conflict, then evolved into a "political incident". The Ministry of Commerce's stance has clearly shown its determination of disolving the disputes under the rules of law.
It is no doubt that Wahaha chairman ZONG, Renqing, who has been claiming himself as a "Nationalist Banner Raiser", is in the passive position, for various facts disclosed in the past one year have let the ordinary people cast doubts over the inconsistencies of Mr. ZONG's statement and his actions, e.g. nationalities of ZONG's wife and daughter(s), offshore companies, personal tax evasions at issue, even though all behind may show Wahaha's images, but compared with what Mr. ZONG's highly-profiled statement of "state economic safety", "protections of national brands", etc, all of which have led the ordinary people to form feelings that they have been "made good used of" or "rocked".
The "water mouth fight" has not positioned Danone as a winner, but a loser, for to pour dirty water to the rival party will firstly make dirty of its own hand, too. Danone is also facing a new media challenge. Take the huge amounts of money in relation to Mr. ZONG's "Tax Evasions Gate" for example, the said money was paid by Danone in the form of "service fees", but what is the definition of "service fees" ? Some media state that to analyze the time of payment, the said money could be deemed as commercial bribery. Should the commercial bribery be legally defined and listed, Danone shall not only "shit" Wahaha's chairman ZONG, Qinqing, but also "shit" itself.
The year-long dispute is still of no hope but seemingly indicates mutual failure. Wahaha's chairman ZONG, Renqing may fail, Danone may fail, but the only thing that can not lose is our rules of law.
First of all, there must be a definite definition and explanation about the some hundred millions of evasive taxes. No matter how Mr. ZONG makes explanation in the regard, and despite of the dispute fact between Danone and Wahaha, there can not be any "cunning" things in terms of the tax evasions.
In additions, whether the "service fees" shall be defined as "commercial bribery" shall also require definitions. Once there are sufficient evidences concerned, the responsible persons shall not only be Wahaha chairman ZONG, Renqing, but also Danone.
Last but not the least, from the current Wahaha / Danone dispute, we sincerely hope to be able to establish efficient resolution channels, for it is truly anticipated that there will occasionally be more commercial conflicts among the "national enterprises" and multinational companies, but how to avoid such sorts of commercial disputes to be politicized, and how to build up a fair and transparent dispute resolution option remain to be realistic issues. What has made us feel happy is that the responsible Chinese Ministry of Commerce has been maintaining an objective and rational mind.
The Danone and Wahaha' negotiations are still coming to the deadlocks, even though their disputes have always been full of hot points at intervals. Since releasing to the public of the dispute one year ago, the two parties have got used to different sorts of "pouring shits fight". For the time being, Wahaha chairman ZONG, Renqing is deeply involved in the "Tax Evasions Gate', but such kind of fight has also labelled Danone as a "cunning" merchant.
There are no winners in respect for the "flesh fighting war", for Wahaha chairman ZONG, Renqing has suffered from "sick" fame, while Danone has "lost" hearts of the ordinary people. We are happy to see that the Chinese government's stance is still clear and cool about the matter. Media quoted an relevant official from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce as saying yesterday that they can not make any comments on ZONG, Renqing'a personal income tax evasions, but believe that the tax incident and the Danone / Wahaha dispute should not have many connections. For the time being, the Ministry of Commerce(Foreign Investment Division) is performing the governmental duty to mediate therein by offering an negotiation platform. The dispute was originally an economic conflict, then evolved into a "political incident". The Ministry of Commerce's stance has clearly shown its determination of disolving the disputes under the rules of law.
It is no doubt that Wahaha chairman ZONG, Renqing, who has been claiming himself as a "Nationalist Banner Raiser", is in the passive position, for various facts disclosed in the past one year have let the ordinary people cast doubts over the inconsistencies of Mr. ZONG's statement and his actions, e.g. nationalities of ZONG's wife and daughter(s), offshore companies, personal tax evasions at issue, even though all behind may show Wahaha's images, but compared with what Mr. ZONG's highly-profiled statement of "state economic safety", "protections of national brands", etc, all of which have led the ordinary people to form feelings that they have been "made good used of" or "rocked".
The "water mouth fight" has not positioned Danone as a winner, but a loser, for to pour dirty water to the rival party will firstly make dirty of its own hand, too. Danone is also facing a new media challenge. Take the huge amounts of money in relation to Mr. ZONG's "Tax Evasions Gate" for example, the said money was paid by Danone in the form of "service fees", but what is the definition of "service fees" ? Some media state that to analyze the time of payment, the said money could be deemed as commercial bribery. Should the commercial bribery be legally defined and listed, Danone shall not only "shit" Wahaha's chairman ZONG, Qinqing, but also "shit" itself.
The year-long dispute is still of no hope but seemingly indicates mutual failure. Wahaha's chairman ZONG, Renqing may fail, Danone may fail, but the only thing that can not lose is our rules of law.
First of all, there must be a definite definition and explanation about the some hundred millions of evasive taxes. No matter how Mr. ZONG makes explanation in the regard, and despite of the dispute fact between Danone and Wahaha, there can not be any "cunning" things in terms of the tax evasions.
In additions, whether the "service fees" shall be defined as "commercial bribery" shall also require definitions. Once there are sufficient evidences concerned, the responsible persons shall not only be Wahaha chairman ZONG, Renqing, but also Danone.
Last but not the least, from the current Wahaha / Danone dispute, we sincerely hope to be able to establish efficient resolution channels, for it is truly anticipated that there will occasionally be more commercial conflicts among the "national enterprises" and multinational companies, but how to avoid such sorts of commercial disputes to be politicized, and how to build up a fair and transparent dispute resolution option remain to be realistic issues. What has made us feel happy is that the responsible Chinese Ministry of Commerce has been maintaining an objective and rational mind.
4/13/2008
Marks & Spencer Has Spent 10 Years to Probably Win A VAT Case ! Do You Dare to Easily Make A Lawsuit in Britain or China or Other Jurisdictions ?
According to the South China Morning Post of 11th April 2008, the British leading retail operator of Marks & Spencer will get a full refund of the HK$54.06 million in tax that British authorities charged for years on its teacakes, the European Union's highest court said.
The firm has been fighting with authorities for more than 10 years to get a refund of the value-added tax it paid between 1973 and 1994.
Jason's comments:
1. It is generally the legal right for a corporate / individual person to make a lawsuit in China or in Britain or in any other jurisdictions, but the plaintiff has to think it over and over again whether it is truly necessary and also whether they could prepare or have prepared sufficient amounts of money to pay for their lawyers and may probably endure the years-long time and sufferings before a lawsuit is actually brought to a court.
2. It is no doubt a good alternative to settle a dispute via negotiation and mediation before and during litigation, in order to save time, money. Relatively speaking, to find an acceptable solution may still be much better than pursuing a marathon-long satisfactory judgment, without talking about potential legal risks.
3. Lawyers may help clients, but only the clients themselves have disposals and absolute rights to instruct and lead how to appropriately settle a dispute or tough case to much extent.
The firm has been fighting with authorities for more than 10 years to get a refund of the value-added tax it paid between 1973 and 1994.
Jason's comments:
1. It is generally the legal right for a corporate / individual person to make a lawsuit in China or in Britain or in any other jurisdictions, but the plaintiff has to think it over and over again whether it is truly necessary and also whether they could prepare or have prepared sufficient amounts of money to pay for their lawyers and may probably endure the years-long time and sufferings before a lawsuit is actually brought to a court.
2. It is no doubt a good alternative to settle a dispute via negotiation and mediation before and during litigation, in order to save time, money. Relatively speaking, to find an acceptable solution may still be much better than pursuing a marathon-long satisfactory judgment, without talking about potential legal risks.
3. Lawyers may help clients, but only the clients themselves have disposals and absolute rights to instruct and lead how to appropriately settle a dispute or tough case to much extent.
4/10/2008
American Pfizer Has Recently Failed in Its 9-year-long Lawsuit in China over its Trademark of Viagra
According to the Beijing Youth Daily of 8th April 2008, the American Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Limited has recently be judged to be a loser to a Chinese enterprise by the Beijing Higher People's Court over the Chinese-character trademark ownership of Viagra, and the final judgment rules that Pfizer's requests against a Chinese company can not be upheld and further decides that the Pfizer does not own the trademark ownership of Viagra in mainland China.
In its writs to the Chinese court, Pfizer stated that the trademark related lawsuit started from 1998 when the magic pill of Viagra freshly came into existence, the Cantonese WeiErMan Pharmaceuticals Limited immediately applied to the Chinese trademark authorities for registrations of the Chinese-character trademark of Viagra, resulting in Pfizer unwillingly to register Viagra in China some other Chinese characters of WanAiKe. The Cantonese company not only declared the Chinese-character of Viagra was its own trademark, but also consented other companies to make use of it. Pfizer brought lawsuits to the Chinese court and expected the court to rule that Viagra is a famous trademark unregistered in China, and further rule that the Cantonese company as defendant to compensate Pfizer RMB500,000.
Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court of 1st instance tried the case and decided at last to overrule Pfizer's requests, followed by an appeal to the Beijing Higher People's Court by Pfizer.
Beijing Higher People's Court of 2nd instance, after trying the case, believes that according to the independent protection principal for trademarks, Pfizer does not own relevant interests in the trademark of Viagra in mainland China; in additions, verification of famous trademark is beyond the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the court has recently overruled again the legal requests from Pfizer, ending the 9-year-long trademark lawsuit in China.
In its writs to the Chinese court, Pfizer stated that the trademark related lawsuit started from 1998 when the magic pill of Viagra freshly came into existence, the Cantonese WeiErMan Pharmaceuticals Limited immediately applied to the Chinese trademark authorities for registrations of the Chinese-character trademark of Viagra, resulting in Pfizer unwillingly to register Viagra in China some other Chinese characters of WanAiKe. The Cantonese company not only declared the Chinese-character of Viagra was its own trademark, but also consented other companies to make use of it. Pfizer brought lawsuits to the Chinese court and expected the court to rule that Viagra is a famous trademark unregistered in China, and further rule that the Cantonese company as defendant to compensate Pfizer RMB500,000.
Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court of 1st instance tried the case and decided at last to overrule Pfizer's requests, followed by an appeal to the Beijing Higher People's Court by Pfizer.
Beijing Higher People's Court of 2nd instance, after trying the case, believes that according to the independent protection principal for trademarks, Pfizer does not own relevant interests in the trademark of Viagra in mainland China; in additions, verification of famous trademark is beyond the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the court has recently overruled again the legal requests from Pfizer, ending the 9-year-long trademark lawsuit in China.
Italian Chocolate Firm Ferrero Wins Court Battle Against China Fakes
According to the South China Morning Post of 9th April 2008, A five-year-old Sino-Italian chocolate war has ended, with the mainland's highest court ordering a Chinese manufacturer to stop producing nutty knock-offs of italian giant confectioner Ferrero's signature gold-wrapped chocolates.
The Supreme People's Court also ordered manufacturer Montresor to pay "symbolic" damages of 500,000 yuan(HK$557,104) for making fake Ferrero Rocher chocolates.
Victory was sweet for the Turin-based chocolatier, which said the ruling was important for all Italian firms because copies of "Made in Italy" products were widespread.
"It is already hard for Italian companies, and foreign ones in general, to get into China, overcome resistance put up against foreign produts, build up a commercial network and invest in the country, only to be faced with a strong and invisible enemy such as the counterfeiting industries ," the firm said.
Ferrero Rocher chocolates are a popular gift for mainlanders, especially during the Lunar New Year, and almsot ubiquitous in Hong Kong.
The confectioner said it had spent more than US$1 million battling counterfeiters but would look at further investment on the mainland.
The ruling was applauded as a landmark victory by upmarket brands combating illegal Chinese-made clones, but legal experts said similar judgments in the past had proved hard to enforce.
There are at least 35 chocolate products that look like Ferrero Rocher in mainland supermarkets, according to mainland media reports.
Ferrero began legal action against Montresor and its virtually identical "Tresor Dore" chocolates in 2003, as it was the only imitator judged dangerous enough to take a real bite out of Ferrero's market share.
Montresor registered its Chinese trademark, "Jinsha", an unofficial but popular translation for the Italian chocolates, in the early 1990s. It registered "Tresor Dore" in 2003 for its cheap imitations, which were priced at one-third of the genuine product.
Yet Montresor was named a national prestigious brand and has exported throughout Southeast Asia since 2000.
Jason's comments:
(1)IP infringement lawsuits and other influencial commercial litigation in China may also be time-consunming or as long as the marathon race, this 5-year-long litigation case is just another live example. Please bear in mind that commercial litigation in China is not (much) shorter than Hong Kong or other common law countries.
(2)for international companies related (IP) litigation cases in China, a large porporation of battling fees shall also be prepared in advance, for this particular case, US$1 million is used up, while for the Danone/Wahaha (joint venture / IP disputes) case, US$2 million has been spent by Wahaha so far,...
(3)litigation for justice should continue forward, but fake products may also survive, the playing game of cats and mouses may still be widespread in the developing country of mainland China and other countries or regions with similar economic living standards.
The Supreme People's Court also ordered manufacturer Montresor to pay "symbolic" damages of 500,000 yuan(HK$557,104) for making fake Ferrero Rocher chocolates.
Victory was sweet for the Turin-based chocolatier, which said the ruling was important for all Italian firms because copies of "Made in Italy" products were widespread.
"It is already hard for Italian companies, and foreign ones in general, to get into China, overcome resistance put up against foreign produts, build up a commercial network and invest in the country, only to be faced with a strong and invisible enemy such as the counterfeiting industries ," the firm said.
Ferrero Rocher chocolates are a popular gift for mainlanders, especially during the Lunar New Year, and almsot ubiquitous in Hong Kong.
The confectioner said it had spent more than US$1 million battling counterfeiters but would look at further investment on the mainland.
The ruling was applauded as a landmark victory by upmarket brands combating illegal Chinese-made clones, but legal experts said similar judgments in the past had proved hard to enforce.
There are at least 35 chocolate products that look like Ferrero Rocher in mainland supermarkets, according to mainland media reports.
Ferrero began legal action against Montresor and its virtually identical "Tresor Dore" chocolates in 2003, as it was the only imitator judged dangerous enough to take a real bite out of Ferrero's market share.
Montresor registered its Chinese trademark, "Jinsha", an unofficial but popular translation for the Italian chocolates, in the early 1990s. It registered "Tresor Dore" in 2003 for its cheap imitations, which were priced at one-third of the genuine product.
Yet Montresor was named a national prestigious brand and has exported throughout Southeast Asia since 2000.
Jason's comments:
(1)IP infringement lawsuits and other influencial commercial litigation in China may also be time-consunming or as long as the marathon race, this 5-year-long litigation case is just another live example. Please bear in mind that commercial litigation in China is not (much) shorter than Hong Kong or other common law countries.
(2)for international companies related (IP) litigation cases in China, a large porporation of battling fees shall also be prepared in advance, for this particular case, US$1 million is used up, while for the Danone/Wahaha (joint venture / IP disputes) case, US$2 million has been spent by Wahaha so far,...
(3)litigation for justice should continue forward, but fake products may also survive, the playing game of cats and mouses may still be widespread in the developing country of mainland China and other countries or regions with similar economic living standards.
4/07/2008
Schroders Bets on QDII Funds Growth in Greater China
According to The Standard of 8 April 2008, UK fund firm Schroders hopes to double its managed assets in the next five years from the current US$16 billion(HK$124.8 billion) by tapping growth opportunities in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, its Asia top executive said yesterday.
Bank of Communications Schroders Fund Management Company, its joint venture with BoCom(3328), won approval to launch funds for global securities investment under the QDII(qualified domestic institutional investor) scheme last year.
Schroders Asia Pacific chief executive Lester Gray said the company would launch a new QDII fund this year through the joint venture depending on market conditions.
The fund firm currently has 31 QDII funds through four foreign banks in the mainland.
Gray Expects China investors to be skeptical about offshore in the short term after overseas equity markets peaked at the end of last year, saying it would take time for them to regain confidence.
"It is bad timing," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the QDII product itself. Plus, it has just been six months , too short to tell."
Despite the highly volatile market conditions this year, Gray said the company doesn't see any redemption pressure in the first quarter.
"Retail investors are still confident that things will go better."
Bank of Communications Schroders Fund Management Company, its joint venture with BoCom(3328), won approval to launch funds for global securities investment under the QDII(qualified domestic institutional investor) scheme last year.
Schroders Asia Pacific chief executive Lester Gray said the company would launch a new QDII fund this year through the joint venture depending on market conditions.
The fund firm currently has 31 QDII funds through four foreign banks in the mainland.
Gray Expects China investors to be skeptical about offshore in the short term after overseas equity markets peaked at the end of last year, saying it would take time for them to regain confidence.
"It is bad timing," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the QDII product itself. Plus, it has just been six months , too short to tell."
Despite the highly volatile market conditions this year, Gray said the company doesn't see any redemption pressure in the first quarter.
"Retail investors are still confident that things will go better."
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
