Photo of Michael Zhang

On December 24, 2021, China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC”) issued draft rules and measures on the direct and indirect offshore listings of onshore companies for public comments.  The deadline for submitting public comments is January 23, 2022.
Continue Reading China Securities Regulatory Commission Issued Proposed Rules on Offshore Listing

When Chinese investors are considering US targets, it is important to keep in mind the requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (“HSR Act”). For deals meeting certain thresholds, the HSR Act requires the parties to submit HSR filings to FTC and DOJ, pay a filing fee, and wait 30 days before closing. The purpose of this is to permit FTC and DOJ to investigate the potential antitrust and competition issues before the transaction closes. Failure to make a filing and/or observe the 30-day waiting period can have severe consequences. Currently, the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance is $43,792 per day.
Continue Reading HSR Considerations For Chinese Investors In U.S. Companies 投资美国企业的中国投资者在HSR申报中需要注意的问题

Year 2020 definitely is a milestone year for China in building up and strengthening its regulatory legislation in the field of international trade.  Following the Regulations on Unreliable Entity List (“UEL”), the Export Control Law came out on October 17 and will come into effect on December 1, 2020.  Obviously, this Export Control Law of the PRC (“Export Control Law”) is one of the most important bricks to China’s regulatory Great Wall in the ongoing trade war to protect its key national security and interests.

Here is our quick bird’s-eye view of this new Export Control Law and some preliminary thoughts on its possible impact to the future cross-border transactions and multinationals’ China operations.
Continue Reading New Export Control Law: China Strengthens its Regulatory “Great Wall”

On September 19, 2020, China took a new strategic position in its ongoing trade confrontation with the United States. The Ministry of Commerce of the PRC (“MOFCOM”) issued Regulations on Unreliable Entity List (“UEL”) and drew wide public attention to the beginning of the PRC government’s retaliation against the Trump Administration’s recent restrictions on Chinese entities including Huawei, TikTok and WeChat. It is notable that MOFCOM deliberated with more than a year of internal discussion before implementing the UEL.
Continue Reading Certainties and Uncertainties Under China’s New Unreliable Entity List

The China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone (PFTZ) officially launched on September 29th, granting 25 Chinese and overseas companies licenses to register in the PFTZ on its first day. The General Plan for the PFTZ was announced on September 27th, with implementation rules and specific regulations to come in October. It was first approved on August 22nd, 2013 by the State Council, promising favorable currency, tax, interest rate, and other policies that will promote business activity in Shanghai and Greater China, particularly in finance, shipping, trade, logistics, and real estate industries. The PFTZ covers a total of 28 km2, encompassing four existing bonded zones in Shanghai- Yangshan Free Trade Port, Waigaoqiao Free Trade Zone, Waigaoqiao Bonded Logistics Zone and Pudong Airport Comprehensive Free Trade Zone.
Continue Reading Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone (PFTZ)

On August 7, 2013, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) fined six powdered milk companies – five foreign and one Hong Kong-based – RMB668 million (approximately US$109 million) for engaging in anti-competitive practices and illegal price-fixing, the largest fine ever for an Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) violation in China.
Continue Reading China Hands Milk Producers the Largest Anti-Monopoly Violation Fine

On March 29, 2013, the Guangdong High People’s Court ruled that Tencent, Inc. (“Tencent”) did not violate China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”). In the first lawsuit of its kind, Beijing Qihoo Technology Co. Ltd. (“Qihoo”) sued Tencent under the AML, claiming Tencent was engaging in anti-competitive behavior. They sought ¥150 million in damages and an injunction against Tencent.
Continue Reading Qihoo 360 v. Tencent: A Landmark Decision under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law