Advisory Board

  • Cai Hongbin
  • Peking University Guanghua School of Management
  • Peter Clarke
  • Barry Diller
  • IAC/InterActiveCorp
  • Fu Chengyu
  • China National Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec Group)
  • Richard J. Gnodde
  • Goldman Sachs International
  • Lodewijk Hijmans van den Bergh
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V.
  • Jiang Jianqing
  • Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Ltd. (ICBC)
  • Handel Lee
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Richard Li
  • PCCW Limited
  • Pacific Century Group
  • Liew Mun Leong
  • Changi Airport Group
  • Martin Lipton
  • New York University
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Liu Mingkang
  • China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC)
  • Dinesh C. Paliwal
  • Harman International Industries
  • Leon Pasternak
  • BCC Partners
  • Tim Payne
  • Brunswick Group
  • Joseph R. Perella
  • Perella Weinberg Partners
  • Baron David de Rothschild
  • N M Rothschild & Sons Limited
  • Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara
  • Temasek International Pte. Ltd.
  • Shao Ning
  • State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council of China (SASAC)
  • John W. Snow
  • Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
  • Former U.S. Secretary of Treasury
  • Bharat Vasani
  • Tata Group
  • Wang Junfeng
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Wang Kejin
  • China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC)
  • Wei Jiafu
  • Kazakhstan Potash Corporation Limited
  • Yang Chao
  • China Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
  • Zhu Min
  • International Monetary Fund

Legal Roundtable

  • Dimitry Afanasiev
  • Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev and Partners (Moscow)
  • William T. Allen
  • NYU Stern School of Business
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Johan Aalto
  • Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd (Finland)
  • Nigel P. G. Boardman
  • Slaughter and May (London)
  • Willem J.L. Calkoen
  • NautaDutilh N.V. (Rotterdam)
  • Peter Callens
  • Loyens & Loeff (Brussels)
  • Bertrand Cardi
  • Darrois Villey Maillot & Brochier (Paris)
  • Santiago Carregal
  • Marval, O’Farrell & Mairal (Buenos Aires)
  • Martín Carrizosa
  • Philippi Prietocarrizosa & Uría (Bogotá)
  • Carlos G. Cordero G.
  • Aleman, Cordero, Galindo & Lee (Panama)
  • Ewen Crouch
  • Allens (Sydney)
  • Adam O. Emmerich
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Rachel Eng
  • WongPartnership (Singapore)
  • Sergio Erede
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Kenichi Fujinawa
  • Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Tokyo)
  • Manuel Galicia Romero
  • Galicia Abogados (Mexico City)
  • Danny Gilbert
  • Gilbert + Tobin (Sydney)
  • Vladimíra Glatzová
  • Glatzová & Co. (Prague)
  • Juan Miguel Goenechea
  • Uría Menéndez (Madrid)
  • Andrey A. Goltsblat
  • Goltsblat BLP (Moscow)
  • Juan Francisco Gutiérrez I.
  • Philippi Prietocarrizosa & Uría (Santiago)
  • Fang He
  • Jun He Law Offices (Beijing)
  • Christian Herbst
  • Schönherr (Vienna)
  • Lodewijk Hijmans van den Bergh
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V. (Amsterdam)
  • Hein Hooghoudt
  • NautaDutilh N.V. (Amsterdam)
  • Sameer Huda
  • Hadef & Partners (Dubai)
  • Masakazu Iwakura
  • TMI Associates (Tokyo)
  • Christof Jäckle
  • Hengeler Mueller (Frankfurt)
  • Michael Mervyn Katz
  • Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs (Johannesburg)
  • Handel Lee
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Martin Lipton
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Alain Maillot
  • Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier (Paris)
  • Antônio Corrêa Meyer
  • Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice (São Paulo)
  • Sergio Michelsen Jaramillo
  • Brigard & Urrutia (Bogotá)
  • Zia Mody
  • AZB & Partners (Mumbai)
  • Christopher Murray
  • Osler (Toronto)
  • Francisco Antunes Maciel Müssnich
  • Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão (Rio de Janeiro)
  • I. Berl Nadler
  • Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP (Toronto)
  • Umberto Nicodano
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Brian O'Gorman
  • Arthur Cox (Dublin)
  • Robin Panovka
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Sang-Yeol Park
  • Park & Partners (Seoul)
  • José Antonio Payet Puccio
  • Payet Rey Cauvi (Lima)
  • Kees Peijster
  • COFRA Holding AG (Zug)
  • Juan Martín Perrotto
  • Uría & Menéndez (Madrid/Beijing)
  • Philip Podzebenko
  • Herbert Smith Freehills (Sydney)
  • Geert Potjewijd
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (Amsterdam/Beijing)
  • Qi Adam Li
  • Jun He Law Offices (Shanghai)
  • Biörn Riese
  • Jurie Advokat AB (Sweden)
  • Mark Rigotti
  • Herbert Smith Freehills (Sydney)
  • Rafael Robles Miaja
  • Robles Miaja (Mexico City)
  • Alberto Saravalle
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Maximilian Schiessl
  • Hengeler Mueller (Düsseldorf)
  • Cyril S. Shroff
  • Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (Mumbai)
  • Shardul S. Shroff
  • Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.(New Delhi)
  • Klaus Søgaard
  • Gorrissen Federspiel (Denmark)
  • Ezekiel Solomon
  • Allens (Sydney)
  • Emanuel P. Strehle
  • Hengeler Mueller (Munich)
  • David E. Tadmor
  • Tadmor & Co. (Tel Aviv)
  • Kevin J. Thomson
  • Barrick Gold Corporation (Toronto)
  • Yu Wakae
  • Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Tokyo)
  • Wang Junfeng
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Tomasz Wardynski
  • Wardynski & Partners (Warsaw)
  • Rolf Watter
  • Bär & Karrer AG (Zürich)
  • Xiao Wei
  • Jun He Law Offices (Beijing)
  • Xu Ping
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Shuji Yanase
  • OK Corporation (Tokyo)
  • Alvin Yeo
  • WongPartnership LLP (Singapore)

Founding Directors

  • William T. Allen
  • NYU Stern School of Business
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Nigel P.G. Boardman
  • Slaughter and May
  • Cai Hongbin
  • Peking University Guanghua School of Management
  • Adam O. Emmerich
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Robin Panovka
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Peter Williamson
  • Cambridge Judge Business School
  • Franny Yao
  • Ernst & Young

Monthly Archives: December 2016

CHINESE UPDATE – Limitations on Overseas Direct Investment, A First Step of Temporary Capital Controls?

Editors’ Note: Contributed by Adam Li, a partner at JunHe, and member of XBMA’s Legal Roundtable. Mr. Li is a leading expert in international mergers & acquisitions, capital markets and international financial transactions involving Chinese companies. This article was authored by Natasha Xie, a partner based in JunHe’s Shanghai offices who specializes in foreign direct investment, M&A, banking and finance.

Main Article:

During this sensitive time when capital control measures are about to come out, through an interview of officials of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”), the Xinhua News Agency on December 8 revealed the details and direction of policy on the recent tightening of overseas direct investment (“ODI“).  The effects on ODI from the tightening of policy restrictions, starting from several months past and up to present, are rapidly magnifying.

At the opening of the news interview, it was stated that cross-border capital flows were generally stable, and according to monitoring, there was no finding that desire for foreign exchange purchases by enterprises or individuals would surge sharply; however, it was pointed out that a large number of ODI projects have already been placed under scrutiny of various departments (i.e., NDRC, MOFCOM, PBOC, and SAFE).  During the interview, SAFE officials pointed out that four categories are considered abnormal circumstances of ODI behavior: (1) newly established enterprises without substance of business carry out overseas investment; (2) the scale of overseas investment is far greater than the registered capital of the domestic parent company, and the operational status as reflected by financial statements of the parent company is not comparable to support the scale of overseas investment; (3) no correlation exists between the main business of the domestic parent company and the overseas investment project; (4) the RMB used for investment obtains from an abnormal source, being suspect of illegally transferring assets for Chinese individuals and illegal operation of underground money exchange.  Having such a wide range for the definitional scope of abnormal behavior is really rare.  From the perspective of SAFE, only enterprises with the capability and qualification can make overseas direct investment, while pooling of funds by individual investors for conducting overseas direct investment does not conform to the so-called “authenticity and compliance” principle.

In addition, this interview once again mentioned the ways of foreign exchange payment violations by individuals, that is by way of split where the annual remittance quotas of other individuals are used in performing fund remittances; as well as the possible consequences of such violations, that is these individuals might be put on an “Attention Name List,” and have their annual remittance quotas for the next two years canceled, and where circumstances are serious, be put on file for punishment.

Our Interpretation: Except for ODIs conducted by enterprises possessing ample financial strength and where the ODI is closely related with the main business of such enterprises, other types of ODI would basically be stopped.  In addition, there is a large possibility that the next step of SAFE will be to take further steps in regulatory and enforcement measures regarding overseas investment by individuals.

 

境外直接投资受限——临时资本管制的第一步?

在这样一个资本管制措施呼之欲出的敏感时刻,新华社于12月8日对国家外汇管理局(“外管局”)有关负责人的新闻专访透露了近期有关境外直接投资(“ODI”)收紧的细节以及政策走向。从几个月前就开始的口径收紧到目前的明令限制,境外直接投资受到的影响正在急剧放大。

新闻专访开篇就称跨境资金流动总体相对稳定,根据监测没有发现企业和个人购汇意愿激增,但随之指出大量境外直接投资项目已经置于各部门(发展改革委、商务部、人民银行、外汇局)的重点审查之下。外管局负责人在专访中指出了四类被认为存在异常情况的境外直接投资行为:(1)刚成立的没有实体业务的企业开展境外投资;(2)境外投资规模远大于境内母公司注册资本,母公司企业财务报表反映的经营状况难以支撑其境外投资的规模;(3)境外投资项目与境内母公司主营业务不存在相关性;(4)用于投资的人民币来源异常,涉嫌为个人向境外非法转移资产和地下钱庄非法经营。上述对异常行为的界定范围之广殊为罕见。在外管局看来,只有有能力和有条件的企业才可以开展境外直接投资,而汇集个人投资者的资金进行境外投资不符合所谓“真实合规”的原则。

此外,该篇专访又再次提到个人对外付汇的违规方式,即通过分拆方式,利用他人的年度用汇额度进行资金汇出,以及此种违规行为的可能后果,即个人可能被列入“关注名单”,取消其之后两年内的便利化购汇额度,情节严重的可以立案处罚。

我们的解读:除非是具备充足资金实力的实体企业进行与其主营业务密切相关的境外直接投资,其他类型的境外直接投资基本上会被叫停。此外,对个人的海外投资,外管局下一步有比较大的可能采取进一步的监管手段和执法措施。

 

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

The Dutch Corporate Governance Code and The New Paradigm

Editors’ Note: This article was co-authored by Martin Lipton, Steven A. Rosenblum, Karessa L. Cain, Sabastian V. Niles and Sara J. Lewis of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Executive Summary/Highlights:

The new Dutch Corporate Governance Code, issued December 8, 2016, provides an interesting analog to The New Paradigm, A Roadmap for an Implicit Corporate Governance Partnership Between Corporations and Investors to Achieve Sustainable Long-Term Investment and Growth, issued September 2, 2016, by the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum. The new Dutch Code is applicable to the typical two-tier Dutch company with a management board and a supervisory board. The similarities between the Dutch Code and the New Paradigm demonstrate that the principles of The New Paradigm, which are to a large extent based on the U.S. and U.K. corporate governance structure with single-tier boards, are relevant and readily adaptable to the European two-tier board structure.

Both the New Paradigm and the Dutch Code fundamentally envision a company as a long-term alliance between its shareholders and other stakeholders. They are both based on the notions that a company should and will be effectively managed for long-term growth and increased value, pursue thoughtful ESG and CSR policies, be transparent, be appropriately responsive to shareholder interests and engage with shareholders and other stakeholders.

Like The New Paradigm, the Dutch Code is fundamentally designed to promote long-term growth and value creation. The management board is tasked with achieving this goal and the supervisory board is tasked with monitoring the management board’s efforts to achieve it.

Click here to read the full article.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

Some Thoughts for Boards of Directors in 2017

Editor’s Note: This article was co-authored by Martin Lipton, Steven A. Rosenblum and Karessa L. Cain of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Executive Summary/Highlights:

The evolution of corporate governance over the last three decades has produced meaningful changes in the expectations of shareholders and the business policies adopted to meet those expectations. Decision-making power has shifted away from industrialists, entrepreneurs and builders of businesses, toward greater empowerment of institutional investors, hedge funds and other financial managers. As part of this shift, there has been an overriding emphasis on measures of shareholder value, with the success or failure of businesses judged based on earnings per share, total shareholder return and similar financial metrics. Only secondary importance is given to factors such as customer satisfaction, technological innovations and whether the business has cultivated a skilled and loyal workforce. In this environment, actions that boost short-term shareholder value—such as dividends, stock buybacks and reductions in employee headcount, capital expenditures and R&D—are rewarded. On the other hand, actions that are essential for strengthening the business in the long-term, but that may have a more attenuated impact on short-term shareholder value, are de-prioritized or even penalized.

This pervasive short-termism is eroding the overall economy and putting our nation at a major competitive disadvantage to countries, like China, that are not infected with short-termism. It is critical that corporations continuously adapt to developments in information technology, digitalization, artificial intelligence and other disruptive innovations that are creating new markets and transforming the business landscape. Dealing with these disruptions requires significant investments in research and development, capital assets and employee training, in addition to the normal investments required to maintain the business. All of these investments weigh on short-term earnings and are capable of being second-guessed by hedge fund activists and other investors who have a primarily financial rather than business perspective. Yet such investments are essential to the long-term viability of the business, and bending to pressure for short-term performance at the expense of such investments will doom the business to decline. We have already suffered this effect in a number of industries.

In this environment, a critical task for boards of directors in 2017 and beyond is to assist management in developing and implementing strategies to balance short-term and long-term objectives. It is clear that short-termism and its impact on economic growth is not only a broad-based economic issue, but also a governance issue that is becoming a key priority for boards and, increasingly, for large institutional investors. Much as risk management morphed after the financial crisis from being not just an operational issue but also a governance issue, so too are short-termism and related socioeconomic and sustainability issues becoming increasingly core challenges for boards of directors.

At the same time, however, the ability of boards by themselves to combat short-termism and a myopic focus on “maximizing” shareholder value is subject to limitations. While boards have a critical role to play in this effort, there is a growing recognition that a larger, systemic recalibration is also needed to turn the tide against short-termism and reinvigorate the willingness and ability of corporations to make long-term capital investments that benefit shareholders as well as other constituencies. It is beyond dispute that the surge in activism over the last several years has greatly exacerbated the challenges boards face in resisting short-termist pressures. The past decade has seen a remarkable increase in the amount of funds managed by activist hedge funds and a concomitant uptick in the prevalence and sophistication of their attacks on corporations. Today, even companies with credible strategies, innovative businesses and engaged boards face an uphill battle in defending against an activist attack and are under constant pressure to deliver short-term results. A recent McKinsey Quarterly survey of over a thousand C-level executives and board members indicates most believe short-term pressures are continuing to grow, with 87% feeling pressured to demonstrate financial results within two years or less, and 29% feeling pressured over a period of less than six months.

Click here to read the full article.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Enter your Email

Preview Newsletter