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)
  • 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

Foreign Investment

U.S. UPDATE – 2019 Checklist for Successful Acquisitions in the United States

Editors’ Note: This submission updates a checklist co-authored by Messrs. Emmerich and Panovka, members of XBMA’s Legal Roundtable, with their colleagues at Wachtell Lipton, Jodi J. Schwartz, Scott K. Charles, David A. Katz, Andrew J. Nussbaum, Ilene Knable Gotts, Mark Gordon, Joshua R. Cammaker, William Savitt, Andrea K. Wahlquist, Karessa L. Cain, T. Eiko Stange, Joshua M. Holmes, Eric M. Rosof, Gordon S. Moodie, Emil A. Kleinhaus, Edward J. Lee, Raaj S. Narayan and Matthew T. Carpenter.

Cross-Border M&A –
2019 Checklist for Successful Acquisitions in the United States

M&A in 2018 began with a bang, with more than $350 billion of deals in January 2018 – a January level not seen since 2000 – and much chatter that M&A volume for the year could hit an all-time record. As it turned out, 2018 was a tale of two cities, with M&A continuing at a torrid pace during the first half of the year, and falling off markedly during a second half of geopolitical tension and market volatility. Overall, M&A volume for 2018 reached a very robust $4 trillion, but fell short of overtaking deal volume in 2007 and 2015. M&A being lumpy and unpredictable as ever, 2019 has opened with a number of notable deals, not least the sale of Celgene to Bristol-Myers Squibb for $95 billion, somewhat defying gloomy predictions for the year.

As for cross-border deals, interestingly, a record $1.6 trillion (39%) of last year’s deals (including six of the 10 largest deals) was cross-border M&A, despite growing trade tensions and anti-globalist rhetoric.

Acquisitions of U.S. companies continued to dominate the global M&A market in 2018, representing 43% of global M&A volume ($1.7 trillion), higher than the average over the last decade. Approximately 16% of U.S. deals involved non-U.S. acquirors. German, French, Canadian, Japanese and U.K. acquirors accounted for approximately 60% of the volume of cross-border deals involving U.S. targets, and acquirors from China, India and other emerging economies accounted for approximately 10%.

Whatever 2019 does bring – in addition to trade tensions and protectionist rhetoric, cyber insecurity, slowdowns in China and a number of other emerging economies, gloom about the interest rate and debt financing pictures in the U.S., geopolitical risks all around the world, and inevitable but as-yet-unknown curve balls from politicians – we expect the pace of cross-border deals into the U.S. to remain strong. And, as always, transacting parties who are smart and well prepared – particularly when engaging in cross-border deals with all of their cultural, political and technical complexity – will do better. Advance preparation, strategic implementation and deal structures calibrated to anticipate likely concerns will continue to be critical to successful acquisitions in the U.S. In light of the recent changes to the CFIUS regime (discussed below), careful attention to CFIUS, well in advance of any potential acquisition, is obviously essential.

To continue reading, please click here.

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.

CHINESE UPDATE – Brief Commentary on the Foreign Investment Law

Contributed by: Adam Li, JunHe LLP (Shanghai)

Editors’ Note: Contributed by Adam Li, a partner at JunHe and a 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 Mr. Zheng Yu, a partner at JunHe. Mr. Zheng has broad experience advising multinational companies on their business and investment projects in China, including complex foreign direct investments, cross-border M&A, dispute resolution (arbitration and litigation), corporate compliance, employment issues and tourism real estate projects in China.  Xiao Wang, an associate at JunHe, also contributed to the article.

Brief Commentary on the Foreign Investment Law (Draft)
Changes, Highlights and Expectation

On December 26, 2018, the National People’s Congress published the Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft) (the “New Draft”) in order to solicit public opinion. The New Draft is a revised version of an earlier draft of the Foreign Investment Law, originally issued by the Ministry of Commerce for public comment almost four years ago (the “First Draft”). The New Draft is significantly shorter than the earlier version, comprising just 39 articles, compared with the 170 articles that made up the First Draft. This would seem to indicate that the overall legislative goal for the Foreign Investment Law has shifted from its previous highly detailed operational approach to one that is now focused on principles and guidance.

This article provides an overview of the structure of the New Draft, particularly in relation to the major changes since the First Draft, analyzes some key elements, and provides comments and suggestions as to how the New Draft might be improved.

1.  – Structure of the New Draft

1.1 – Sections

The New Draft comprises five main sections:

  1. Definition and scope of foreign investment
  2. Investment promotion
  3. Investment protection
  4. Investment administration
  5. Legal liability

1.2 – Major Differences from the First Draft

The following table provides a summary of the content of each of the five main sections of the New Draft and highlights the key differences when compared with the First Draft.

Main Content

New Draft

Major Differences

from First Draft

Definition

The New Draft defines foreign investment (Article 2) as “any investment activity directly or indirectly carried out by foreign natural persons, enterprises or other organizations (“foreign investors”) within the territory of China”.

Specifically, the New Draft describes three types of investment activities that represent foreign investment:

  1. Foreign investors, separately or jointly, investing in new construction projects, establishing foreign-invested enterprises, or increasing investment in invested enterprises, in mainland China;
  2. Foreign investors acquiring, by means of merger and acquisition, shares, equity interests, shares of property or other similar interest in enterprises in mainland China; and
  3. Foreign investors making investments in mainland China through other means as provided by laws, administrative regulations or State Council provisions.

Whereas in the First Draft, foreign investors included “governments of other countries or regions as well as their affiliated departments or offices”, they are not mentioned in the New Draft, and so it is not clear whether they will be permitted to conduct foreign investment in the updated version.

Compared with the First Draft, the scope of foreign investment in the New Draft is significantly narrower, and, with the exception of the “catch-all clause”, is limited to foreign investors’ establishment of foreign-invested enterprises in mainland China by means of new set-up (i.e. greenfield investment) or merger/acquisitions.

The activities included in the First Draft listed below are no longer classified as foreign investment under the New Draft:

  1. Provide financing with a term of more than one year to an enterprise in China in which it owns shares, equity interests, shares of property or other similar interests;
  2. Obtain concession rights to (a) explore and exploit natural resources, or (b) construct or operate infrastructure within the territory or jurisdiction of mainland China;
  3. Acquire real estate rights, such as land use rights or building ownership in mainland China;
  4. Control or own interests of domestic enterprises by contract, trust or other means; and
  5. Transactions conducted outside mainland China shall be considered a foreign investment if such transactions will result in the transfer of the de facto control of a domestic enterprise to a foreign investor.

Investment Promotion

The New Draft emphasizes the aim of establishing a stable, transparent and predictable investment environment (Article 3), and clarifies that national policies in support of the development of enterprises shall apply to foreign-invested enterprises consistently with how they are applied to domestic-invested ones (Article 9). It was not clear in the First Draft whether national policies in support of the development of enterprises would be consistently applied to foreign-invested enterprises.

Investment Protection

The New Draft provides protection for investment in respect of state expropriation, profit remittance, intellectual property rights protection, technology transfer, administrative interference, governmental commitments and foreign investors’ complaints, namely that:

  1. The state shall not expropriate foreign investments. Should expropriation be required in the public interest, such expropriation shall be conducted in accordance with legal procedures and fair and reasonable compensation should be provided (Article 20);
  2. Foreign investors’ capital contributions, profits and capital gains may be freely remitted outside China in RMB or foreign currency (Article 21);
  3. The intellectual property rights of foreign investors and foreign-invested enterprises shall be protected in accordance with the law. The terms for any technology cooperation shall be determined through negotiation between the parties to the investment. Administrative means shall not be used to compel the transfer of technology (Article 22);
  4. Foreign investment rules formulated by the Chinese government and its relevant departments shall be in compliance with laws and regulations, and shall not illegally (i) impair the legitimate rights of or impose additional obligations on foreign-invested enterprises; (ii) set any conditions for market access or exit, or (iii) intervene or influence normal production and operation activities of foreign-invested enterprises (Article 23);
  5. Local governments and their relevant departments shall strictly abide by all policy commitments made in accordance with law, and contracts concluded according to law. If any amendment to such commitments or contracts is required in the national or public interest, such amendment must be conducted through legal procedures and within authorized jurisdiction. Any loss to foreign investors or foreign-invested enterprises incurred thereof shall be compensated (Article 24); and
  6. The complaint submission and handling mechanism for protecting rights of foreign-invested enterprises shall be improved (Article 25).
Compared with the First Draft, the New Draft points out and emphasizes for the first time the following responsibilities of governments to protect foreign investment:

  1. Administrative means shall not be employed to compel the transfer of technology;
  2. Foreign investment rules shall be formulated in compliance with laws and regulations; and
  3. Government shall strictly keep all policy commitments made in accordance with law, and perform all contracts concluded according to law.

Investment Administration

The New Draft specifies three investment administrative systems for foreign investment:

  1. Pre-establishment National Treatment and Negative List administrative system (Article 27);
  2. Foreign Investment Information Reporting system (Article 31); and
  3. Foreign Investment National Security Review system (Article 33).
The New Draft sets out only the principles that underlying the three administrative systems for foreign investment. The First Draft, by contrast, provided highly detailed, practicable provisions for each of the three systems in respect of specific content, conditions, application requirements, elements for review, review procedures, time limits, etc. The implementation of the three systems under the New Draft will be dependent upon the concurrent formulation and implementation of any relevant supporting regulations.

Legal Liability

The New Draft stipulates the following legal consequences for any violation of the negative list or laws and regulations:

  1. Violation of the Negative List
    Foreign investors shall be ordered to make rectification or stop investment activities, or dispose of shares and assets within the prescribed time limit, or take other necessary measures to restore to the original state prior to investment. If there have been any gains derived from such investment, such gains shall be considered illegal and confiscated by the government.
  2. Violation of laws and regulations
    Foreign investors shall be subject to investigation in accordance with laws, blacklisted in credit information systems, and subject to sanctions taken by relevant authorities.

Compared with the First Draft, the New Draft does not stipulate any legal consequences for the violation of Information Reporting or the National Security Review system. In addition, administrative sanctions are also removed from the possible legal consequences of a violation of the negative list. Under the First Draft, this could have resulted in a fine of between RMB 100,000 and RMB 1,000,000, or up to 10% of the illegal investment amount.

 

2. – Highlights of the New Draft

Among the highlights of the New Draft are the clear responses to various long-held concerns from foreign investors and foreign-invested enterprises, which should go some way to improving the environment for foreign investment and shoring up foreign investors’ confidence in investing in China. They include:

2.1 – National treatment: Unless otherwise stipulated by laws or administrative regulations, national policies to support of the development of enterprises will apply in the same way to foreign-invested enterprises as they do to domestic-invested ones (Article 9);

2.2 – Prevention of compulsory technology transfer: The terms of any technology cooperation associated with foreign investment shall be determined by all investment parties through negotiation. Administrative means should not be used by administrative agencies or their officers to compel the transfer of technology transfer (Article 22); and

2.3 – Governmental commitment: Local governments and their relevant departments shall strictly keep all policy commitments made according to law, and perform contracts concluded according to law (Article 24).

3. – Comments and Suggestions to Improve the New Draft

While the New Draft incorporates various advances, we believe there remain further opportunities for improvement or clarification in order to ensure the clear operability of the New Draft after its formal issue:

1. – Definition of “Foreign Investor” and “Foreign Investment” (Article 2, Paragraph 2) For the purpose of this law, foreign investment refers to any investment activity directly or indirectly carried out by foreign natural persons, enterprises or other organizations (“foreign investors”) within the territory of China”, including…

Comments/Suggestions

We believe that the current definitions of “foreign investor” and “foreign investment” are insufficiently clear, and that as they stand, they may cause confusion in practice. The main issues are:

(i)       It is not clear whether “foreign investors” includes foreign or regional governments, and international organizations.

(ii)     Since, in addition to direct investment, the definition of investment includes “indirect investment”, it is not clear whether for an investment in China, the identity of its foreign investor shall be determined by such investor’s ultimate controlling shareholder.

(iii)   It needs to be clarified whether an investment made in China by an overseas company that is controlled by a Chinese company will be classified as “foreign investment”.

We believe that it is necessary to clarify in the New Draft whether the identity of a “foreign investor” will be determined by the place of registration of the foreign investor that directly holds shares, equity or interest of the invested enterprise in China, or by the place of registration of the ultimate controller of such foreign investor. If it is the latter, a definition of “control” is also required.

Given the increasing number of overseas investments emanating from China, a lack of such criteria may lead to severe confusion regarding whether investment in China conducted by overseas companies directly or indirectly controlled or wholly-owned by Chinese enterprises or natural persons will be governed by the Foreign Investment Law.

Moreover, with increasing numbers of Chinese citizens migrating overseas and foreign citizens becoming resident in China, we suggest that there is a need for clarification as to whether an enterprise invested in China by foreign individuals that acquire Chinese nationality or by Chinese citizens that obtain foreign nationality shall be governed by the Foreign Investment Law.

2. – Disclosure of Judicial Awards (Article 10, Paragraph 2) Regulatory documents and judicial awards in relation to foreign investment shall be timely disclosed to the public pursuant to laws.

Comments/Suggestions

We suggest the need to clarify that the disclosure of judicial awards related to foreign investment shall not apply to cases involving state secrets or business secrets.

3. – Negative List (Article 27)

Foreign investors shall not invest in prohibited areas on the negative list for foreign investment access.  

Foreign investors investing in restricted areas in the negative list for foreign investment access shall comply with the conditions provided by the negative list.  

Foreign investment in areas outside the negative list for foreign investment access shall be administered under the principle of consistent treatment for domestic and foreign investment.

Comments/Suggestions

Since the scope of foreign investment negative lists applied in free trade zones is different from that of the national version, we suggest there is a need to clarify that the negative list of the relevant free trade zone shall prevail if it is different from the national version.

4. – National Security Review (Article 33) China shall establish a foreign investment national security review system to perform security reviews on foreign investment that affects or may affect national security. National security decisions made according to the law shall be final.

Comments/Suggestions

The New Draft only provides that there shall be a foreign investment national security review system, without further specifying any detailed rules, such as in terms of the scope and content of the review, requirements of application documents, procedure or time limit of the review, etc. Currently, the only rules that regulate a national security review of foreign investment are the Notice of the General Office of State Council on the Establishment of a Security Review System Pertaining to Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors[1] and the Notice of the General Office of State Council on the Promulgation of the Trial Measures on National Security Review for Foreign Investments in Pilot Free Trade Zones[2]. There is no clear legal basis for a national security review of foreign-invested enterprises that will be newly incorporated outside free trade zones. We suggest that an ancillary foreign investment national security review regulation shall be formulated and implemented simultaneously with the Foreign Investment Law.

In addition, with the New Draft indicating that a review decision shall be “final”, we suggest there is a need to clarify whether “final” should be taken to mean that a decision cannot be appealed, whether through administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation.

Furthermore, as a national security review is an important element in the administrative system for foreign investments, in order to ensure its effective compliance and implementation, we suggest that the legal consequences of any violation of the national security review filing obligation be provided in the Foreign Investment Law.

5. – Transition from the Laws on FIEs This law shall come into force as from MM/DD/YYYY, on which the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Sino-foreign Equity Joint Ventures, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Wholly Foreign-owned Enterprises and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Sino-foreign Cooperative Joint Ventures shall be repealed simultaneously.

Comments/Suggestions

Following the reforms to the system for filing foreign-invested enterprises and the introduction of the negative list, foreign-invested projects outside the scope of the negative list have been required only to file, with the set-up of such enterprises governed by the Provisional Measures on Administration of Filing for Establishment and Change of Foreign-Invested Enterprises (Amended version)[3]. Foreign-invested projects that fall within the negative list shall still be subject to approval and governed by the three separate laws that apply to the three kinds of foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs), and to the respective implementation regulations.

With the three laws on FIEs and their implementation regulations due to be repealed simultaneously upon the effectiveness of the Foreign Investment Law, it will be necessary to issue a regulation for approval of foreign investment projects that are subject to approval under the negative list. This will provide a clear legal basis for implementing the relevant approval requirements, procedures, time limit, etc. applicable to foreign investment projects under the negative list after the three laws on FIEs have ceased to be effective.

6. – Governing Law of Joint Venture Contract and Cooperative Contract N/A

Comments/Suggestions:

Article 12 of the Implementing Regulation of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Sino-foreign Equity Joint Ventures provides that, “the formation of a joint venture contract, its validity, interpretation, execution and the settlement of disputes under it shall be governed by the Chinese law.” Article 55 of the Implementing Regulation of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Sino-foreign Cooperative Joint Ventures provides that, “the formation of a cooperative contract, its validity, interpretation, execution, and the settlement of disputes under it shall be governed by Chinese law.”

The above regulations shall be repealed once the Foreign Investment Law comes into effect. In the absence of any rules in the New Draft regarding the law governing joint-venture contracts, cooperative contracts or relevant share transfer contracts, it remains unclear whether the parties to joint venture or cooperation contracts will be free to choose themselves which is the governing law, pursuant to the PRC Contract Law. We suggest that this point be further clarified in the Foreign Investment Law.

7. – Applicability of Foreign Investment Law to Investors from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan N/A

Comments/Suggestions:

The definition of “foreign investor” in the New Draft does not cover investors from Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan, whose investments in mainland China were previously considered to be “foreign investment”. Therefore, we suggest that the Foreign Investment Law clarify whether the law shall apply, by reference, to investment in mainland China made by investors from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

 

4. – Outlook

President Xi Jinping announced at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Boao Forum for Asia that China will take major measures to expand its opening up and create a more attractive investment environment. The issuance of the Foreign Investment Law will be an important step in China’s ongoing objective to open up and to attract more foreign investment. We hope the New Draft can be further improved in order to ensure that the Foreign Investment Law is able to support the attainment of these goals.

JunHe will closely follow the progress of this important legislation and provide relevant updates accordingly.

[1] Guo Ban Fa [2011] No. 6

[2] Guo Ban Fa [2015] No. 24

[3] 2017 Decree No. 2 of Ministry of Commerce, July 30, 2017

 

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.

GLOBAL M&A Statistical Update – XBMA Annual Review for 2018

Editors’ Note: The XBMA Review is published on a quarterly basis in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of trends and developments. In order to facilitate meaningful comparisons, the Review has utilized generally consistent metrics and sources of data since inception. We welcome feedback and suggestions for improving the XBMA Review or for interpreting the data.
Executive Summary/Highlights:
  • Global M&A volume in 2018 reached US$4.0 trillion, a level achieved only once before in the last decade (2015).
  • 2018 was a notably strong year for cross-border M&A, despite escalating trade tensions and anti-globalist rhetoric. US$1.6 trillion (39%) of deals in 2018 were cross-border transactions, approximating recent highs in terms of both dollar value and percentage of global deal volume.
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical’s US$77 billion cross-border acquisition of Shire was the largest deal of the year in global M&A. 2018’s other cross-border mega-deals included T-Mobile and Deutsche Telekom’s US$60 billion deal with Sprint and Comcast’s US$48 billion acquisition of Sky.
  • M&A was propelled by strong economic growth and an abundance of corporate cash (including from tax reform in the U.S.), the continued availability of inexpensive debt through Q3, and strategic imperatives to address or anticipate technological disruption. In the second half of 2018, however, global trade tensions, rising interest rates in the U.S., and equity market volatility combined to slow global M&A activity from its record-setting pace.
  • With Bristol-Myers Squibb’s US$95 billion acquisition of Celgene announced just after year end, M&A in 2019 looks to be off to a promising start, although it is too early to tell if the torrid pace of M&A over the past few years will continue unabated in 2019.

Click here to see the Review.

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

CHINA UPDATE – China is Taking Solid Steps to Open its Banking Sector

Editors’ Note: Chen Yun is a partner specializing in banking, finance and foreign exchange law. Wang Rong and Liang Yixuan also contributed to this article.

After the promulgation of the State Council’s Decision on Amending the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) on the Administration of Foreign Funded  Banks (Consultation Paper) (the “Administrative Regulations Consultation Paper”) in late October 2018, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (“CBIRC”) released the Decision on Amending the Implementation Rules of the Regulations of the PRC on the Administration of Foreign Funded Banks (Consultation Paper) (the “Implementation Rules Consultation Paper”, together with the Administrative Regulations Consultation Paper, the “Consultation Papers”) on 28 November 2018 to solicit public opinions.

The main purposes of amending these two legislations, which are of ultimate importance to the supervision of foreign funded banks (“FF Banks”) are to put into practice the country’s opening-up policies in the banking sector, to make law to implement the opening-up measures in the banking sector, which have been repeatedly referred to by senior government officials in various summits and public speeches, and to further liberalize the foreign investment in China’s banking sector.

The amendments made by the Consultation Papers focus on the following aspects:

  • Allowing foreign banks to maintain PRC branches (“FB Branches”) and locally incorporated banks in China (“FB LIBs”) at the same time
  • Lifting the restrictions on the conducting of the RMB business by FB Branches and FB LIBs
  • Broadening the business scope of FB Branches and FB LIBs
  • Relaxing the operating funds requirements for FB Branches

Ⅰ. Institutions Subject to the Regulation of the Consultation Papers

As early as 17 August 2018, CBIRC abolished the Administrative Measures on Equity Investment by Foreign Funded Financial Institutions in Chinese Funded Financial Institutions, and removed the 25% ceiling of foreign shareholding in a Chinese funded commercial bank by amending the Implementation Measures of the Administrative Licensing Items for Chinese Funded Commercial Banks.  It is also stipulated that a commercial bank will be regulated as the category of the bank as the one when and into which the foreign investment is made.

Therefore, foreign banks may set up from scratch joint-venture FB LIBs (“JV Banks”) or wholly foreign owned FB LIBs (“WFOBs”) regulated as FF Banks, or may otherwise become, by way of making investments into Chinese funded commercial banks, the shareholders of joint-venture banks with more than 25% foreign ownership or wholly foreign owned banks, which are converted from and regulated as Chinese funded commercial banks.

Notwithstanding the above, the institutions subject to the regulation of the Consultation Papers remain those regulated as FF Banks, namely WFOBs, JV Banks, FB Branches and PRC representative offices of foreign banks. As far as joint-venture banks or wholly foreign owned banks converted from and regulated as Chinese funded commercial banks as the result of the investment by foreign banks are concerned, the Consultation Papers do not apply.

Ⅱ. Allowing Foreign Banks to Maintain FB Branches and FB LIBs at the Same Time

One of the most appealing changes made by the Consultation Papers is that foreign banks would be allowed to maintain both FB LIBs (i.e. WFOBs and JV Banks regulated as FF Banks) and FB Branches) at the same time. As a result, foreign banks would no longer be forced to make a hard choice between local incorporation and keeping FB Branches.

Back in late 2006, when converting their FB Branches into WFOBs, foreign banks were allowed to retain an FB Branch to carry on their foreign exchange (“FX”) wholesale business for a certain period of time (i.e. a transition period), in order to facilitate the to-be-established WFOBs to meet the relevant regulatory indicators requirements and to facilitate the retained branch to phase out the outstanding FX wholesale business, only that such retained branch shall be closed upon the expiry of the transition period.

However, in the Implementation Rules of the Regulations of the PRC on the Administration of Foreign Funded Banks which was promulgated on 1 July 2015 and took effect on 1September of the same year, the relevant provisions on the retention of an FX wholesale business branch upon local incorporation of foreign banks were deleted, thus made such approach no longer workable.  In practice, CBIRC (then the China Banking Regulatory Commission) also rejected the application from any foreign bank for retaining an FX wholesale business branch when converting its FB Branches into a WFOB.

This policy change directly led to the delay in the local incorporation process of some foreign banks since, without the FX wholesale business branch retained, their to-be-established WFOBs may not meet the specific regulatory indicators requirements.

Now, the change made by the Consultation Papers allowing foreign banks to maintain both FB LIBs and FB Branches (although the Consultation Papers require that in such circumstances, the FB Branches would only be allowed to conduct the wholesale business, with a substantial breakthrough being that such wholesale business covers not only FX business but also RMB business) at the same time would make it easier for foreign banks to enter into the China market.

It is worth mentioning that the Consultation Papers also set out prohibitions or restrictions on the independence and the risk isolation mechanism of the management, personnel, business, information and related party transactions of FB LIBs and FB Branches.

Ⅲ. Lifting the Restrictions on the Conducting of the RMB Business

With regard to the RMB business, the following material changes are made by the Consultation Papers:

  • The “waiting period” (i.e. a period of time for which an FB LIB or an FB Branch shall open business before applying for conducting the RMB business) for the RMB business of FB LIBs and FB Branches is cancelled;
  • The minimum amount required for FB Branches to accept the fixed term deposit from Chinese citizens is lowered from RMB 1 million to RMB 0.5 million;
  • FB LIBs or FB Branches are allowed to conduct the preparatory work for the RMB business simultaneously with that for setting up FB LIBs or FB Branches, and to submit the application for the opening of the RMB business simultaneously with that for the business opening of FB LIBs and FB Branches. Thus, the RMB business may be opened Day One when FB LIBs and FB Branches open their businesses; and
  • In the case of multiple FB Branches, the managing FB Branch may authorize other FB Branches to conduct the RMB business as long as the managing FB Branch itself has obtained the RMB business license.

Ⅳ. Broadening the Business Scope

The Administrative Regulations Consultation Paper includes “acting as the issuance agent, payment agent and/or underwriter of Chinese government bonds” into the business scope of FB LIBs and FB Branches. Thus, the business scope of an FB LIB is substantially the same as that of a Chinese funded commercial bank.

In addition, the Implementation Measures Consultation Paper restates that the following types of business of FB LIBs and FB Branches are subject to the afterwards reporting requirement only, which was provided in the Circular on the Conducting of Certain Businesses by Foreign Funded Banks (the “Circular”) issued by the General Office of CBIRC on March 10, 2017 and now documented into a regulation by CBIRC: (1) acting as the issuance agent, payment agent and underwriter of Chinese government bonds; (2) providing custody, escrow and guardianship services; (3) providing consultancy services such as financial advisory services; (4) providing overseas wealth management services for and on behalf of the clients; and (5) such other businesses as CBIRC may deem to be subject to the afterwards reporting requirement.

Furthermore, the Implementation Measures Consultation Paper restates the regulations of the Circular allowing the intra-group cooperation (namely, allowing FB LIBs and FB Branches to cooperate with their parent bank groups to provide comprehensive financial services to Chinese enterprises in offshore bond issuance, listing, acquisition, financing and the like by taking the advantages of their global service networks.

Ⅴ. Relaxing the Operating Funds Requirements for FB Branches

In respect of the operating funds requirements of FB Branches, the Consultation Papers have made the following adjustments as well:

Ⅵ. Other Changes and Our Observations

Apart from the above significant changes, the Consultation Papers also make certain changes in the areas such as the outsourcing activities conducted by FB LIBs and FB Braches and their termination and liquidation.

Although the Consultation Papers are subject to the solicitation of public opinions before finalization, one can be assured that China is on the track of more opening-ups in its banking sector.

With abundant experience of assisting foreign funded financial institutions in setting up their PRC presences, carrying on their business in compliance with the law, exploring new business boundaries and seeking business cooperation, King & Wood Mallesons is right here standing by to hold your hands crossing the jungle!

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.

GLOBAL STATISTICAL UPDATE – XBMA Quarterly Review for Third Quarter 2018

Editors’ Note: The XBMA Review is published on a quarterly basis in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of trends and developments. In order to facilitate meaningful comparisons, the XBMA Review has utilized generally consistent metrics and sources of data since inception. We welcome feedback and suggestions for improving the XBMA Review or for interpreting the data.
Executive Summary/Highlights:
  • Global M&A in 2018 is at record levels, and at the current pace could approach 2007’s all-time high of almost US$5 trillion.
  • Cross-border dealmaking has surged, with the volume of cross-border M&A over the first three quarters of 2018 already far surpassing that of all of 2017.
  • Likewise, the market for mega-deals remains strong, and each of the three largest deals announced in 2018 is larger than any deal announced in 2017.
  • European M&A volume has already exceeded US$940 billion through the first three quarters of 2018, well in excess of any full year since the beginning of 2009, including 2015 when European M&A reached a recent peak of US$914 billion.
  • Dealmaking has been helped by the strong global economy, robust corporate earnings, the continued availability of relatively inexpensive debt capital, the search for growth through acquisition of new products or markets and the need to adapt to technological disruption. A significant wild card that may dampen or disrupt the trend is the risk of a serious trade war or other geo-political instability.

Click here to see the Review.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA, 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