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

Regions

Spotlight on Boards

Editor’s Note: This article was authored by Martin Lipton of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Spotlight on Boards

The ever-evolving challenges facing corporate boards prompt periodic updates to a snapshot of what is expected from the board of directors of a major public company—not just the legal rules, or the principles published by institutional investors and various corporate and investor associations, but also the aspirational “best practices” that have come to have equivalent influence on board and company behavior. Today, boards are expected to:

  • Recognize the heightened focus of investors on “purpose” and “culture” and an expanded notion of stakeholder interests that includes employees, customers, communities, the economy and society as a whole and work with management to develop metrics to enable the corporation to demonstrate their value;
  • Be aware that ESG and sustainability have become major, mainstream governance topics that encompass a wide range of issues, such as climate change and other environmental risks, systemic financial stability, human capital management, worker retirement, supply chain labor standards and consumer and product safety;
  • Oversee corporate strategy (including purpose and culture) and the communication of that strategy to investors, keeping in mind that investors want to be assured not just about current risks and problems, but threats to long-term strategy from global, political, social, and technological developments;
  • Work with management to review the corporation’s strategy, and related disclosures, in light of the annual letters to CEOs and directors, or other communications, from BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, and other investors, describing the investors’ expectations with respect to corporate strategy and how it is communicated;
  • Set the “tone at the top” to create a corporate culture that gives priority to ethical standards, professionalism, integrity and compliance in setting and implementing both operating and strategic goals;
  • Choose the CEO, monitor the CEO’s and management’s performance and develop and keep current a succession plan;
  • Have a lead independent director or a non-executive chair of the board who can facilitate the functioning of the board and assist management in engaging with investors;
  • Together with the lead independent director or the non-executive chair, determine the agendas for board and committee meetings and work with management to ensure that appropriate information and sufficient time are available for full consideration of all matters;
  • Determine the appropriate level of executive compensation and incentive structures, with awareness of the potential impact of compensation structures on business priorities and risk-taking, as well as investor and proxy advisor views on compensation;
  • Develop a working partnership with the CEO and management and serve as a resource for management in charting the appropriate course for the corporation;
  • Oversee and understand the corporation’s risk management and compliance efforts and how risk is taken into account in the corporation’s business decision-making; respond to red flags if and when they arise;
  • Monitor and participate, as appropriate, in shareholder engagement efforts, evaluate corporate governance proposals, and work with management to anticipate possible takeover attempts and activist attacks in order to be able to address them more effectively, if they should occur;
  • Meet at least annually with the team of company executives and outside advisors that will advise the corporation in the event of a takeover proposal or an activist attack;
  • Be open to management inviting an activist to meet with the board to present the activist’s opinion of the strategy and management of the corporation;
  • Evaluate the individual director’s, board’s and committees’ performance on a regular basis and consider the optimal board and committee composition and structure, including board refreshment, expertise and skill sets, independence and diversity, as well as the best way to communicate with investors regarding these issues;
  • Review corporate governance guidelines and committee workloads and charters and tailor them to promote effective board and committee functioning;
  • Be prepared to deal with crises; and
  • Be prepared to take an active role in matters where the CEO may have a real or perceived conflict, including takeovers and attacks by activist hedge funds focused on the CEO.

To meet these expectations, major public companies should seek to:

  • Have a sufficient number of directors to staff the requisite standing and special committees and to meet investor expectations for experience, expertise, diversity, and periodic refreshment;
  • Compensate directors commensurate with the time and effort that they are required to devote and the responsibility that they assume;
  • Have directors who have knowledge of, and experience with, the corporation’s businesses and with the geopolitics developments that affect it, even if this results in the board having more than one director who is not “independent”;
  • Have directors who are able to devote sufficient time to preparing for and attending board and committee meetings and engaging with investors;
  • Provide the directors with the data that is critical to making sound decisions on strategy, compensation and capital allocation;
  • Provide the directors with regular tutorials by internal and external experts as part of expanded director education and to assure that in complicated, multi-industry and new-technology corporations, the directors have the information and expertise they need to respond to disruption, evaluate current strategy and strategize beyond the horizon; and
  • Maintain a truly collegial relationship among and between the company’s senior executives and the members of the board that facilitates frank and vigorous discussion and enhances the board’s role as strategic partner, evaluator, and monitor.

Martin Lipton

 

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.

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.

CHINESE UPDATE – Bond Market Enforcement to be Unified under the CSRC

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 Ms. Man Wu, counsel at JunHe. Ms. Wu has ample experience in drafting rules as well as the investigation and supervision of different entities, such as listed companies, securities companies and fund management companies. Ms. Wu also worked for the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) for 13 years before joining JunHe.

Bond Market Enforcement to be Unified under the CSRC

On December 3, 2018, the People’s Bank of China (the “PBOC”), the China Securities Regulatory Commission (the “CSRC”) and the National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”), were authorized by the State Council to jointly issue their Opinions Concerning the Relevant Issues on Further Strengthening Law Enforcement in Bond Market (the “Opinions”). The issuing of the Opinions takes place within the current environment of “Strong Regulation” and is an indication of the State Council’s intention to build a coherent law enforcement framework for the bond markets by strengthening cooperation among the financial regulatory authorities.

China has long had two separate and differentiated bond markets – the interbank bond market and the exchange bond market – each regulated by various regulatory bodies. While not intending to alter any existing administrative and self-regulatory powers and responsibilities, the Opinions stipulate that the CSRC should be responsible for the enforcement of any illegal activities that might occur in both markets. The CSRC has previously investigated various one-off instances of violations within the bond markets. The issuing of the Opinions signifies the intention to establish a more systematic and long-term approach, thereby providing a stronger guarantee of law enforcement in the interbank bond market.

The Opinions include various important provisions, as follows:

I. Clarifying the Scope of Law Enforcement and Punishment Measures

The CSRC’s newly-unified law enforcement framework will cover all categories of bonds traded in the interbank and exchange bond markets, including corporate bonds, enterprise bonds, financial bonds and debt financing instruments issued by non-financial enterprises. The Securities Law will be the applicable law for defining violations of laws and regulations and any pertinent penalties for information disclosure, insider trading or market manipulation. It is our observation that the Opinions may imply that the definition of “Securities” within the Securities Law should be expanded to include all instruments issued in the interbank bond market.

The Opinions stipulate that any illegal activity on the part of commercial banks or securities companies in their underwriting of the various categories of bonds shall be punished in accordance with Article 191 of the Securities Law. It is noteworthy that Article 191 of the Securities Law indicates that the penalties are applicable to securities companies, but does not refer to commercial banks per se. Since the Legislation Law and the Administrative Penalty Law provide limitations on the extent to which administrative regulations can be used to impose administrative punishment and on the type and strength of such administrative punishment, it remains to be seen whether and how the CSRC will implement Article 191 of the Securities Law to punish commercial banks for any violations in underwriting of bonds.

In addition, the Opinions also provide that should the CSRC discover that a serious violation has been committed, it may impose a securities market ban on the relevant person for a given period, up to a lifetime ban. Violators could be prohibited from working in the securities business for any employer, current or future, and serving as a director, supervisor or senior executive with an employer or any other listed companies or non-listed public companies. Should the CSRC suspect that a crime has been committed, the relevant information will be provided to the public security agencies for further investigation, who if necessary will impose the applicable criminal punishment.

II. Elements to Facilitate Unified Law Enforcement by CSRC

The Opinions expressly stipulate three key elements to facilitate the CSRC’s unified enforcement power over the bond markets:

Firstly, for the purpose of law enforcement for the bond markets, the CSRC shall have the powers to implement the measures listed in Article 180 of the Securities Law, including conducting onsite inspections, investigating and collecting evidence, making inquiries of entities and individuals related to any matters under investigation, checking and duplicating all relevant documents and materials, freezing or seizing properties or important evidence that is concerned, and restricting the purchase and sales of securities.

Secondly, the CSRC shall have the power to acquire trading records, registration, custodianship and settlement documents and information disclosure or other evidencing documentation from bond market self-disciplinary organizations, exchanges, trading platforms, registration, custodian and settlement institutions and other institutions participating in the market. If necessary, the CSRC may acquire the personal credit reports, social insurance, customs and tax payment records, AIC registration documents, correspondence records or other information about entities and individuals involved in the matter under investigations from the relevant authorities or institutions in accordance with the law.

Thirdly, any entities or individuals under investigation are obliged to provide assistance with such investigations. Should they fail to provide the required assistance, the CSRC may propose that the relevant financial regulatory authority or competent department should order the entity or organization to which such individual belongs to impose a disciplinary punishment, or propose to cancel the individual’s post-holding qualification or even ban the person from working in the finance industry.

III. Setting out the Regulators’ Collaboration Mechanism

The Opinions set out a clear requirement to build a collaboration mechanism, under which the PBOC and the NDRC shall collaborate with the CSRC to strengthen the CSRC’s law enforcement in the bond markets, including establishing mechanisms to be able to jointly discuss cases, issuing written opinions to the CSRC on case-related technical issues and assisting in handling the work involved in administrative reconciliation and litigation. The Opinions also require the PBOC and the NDRC to promptly convey relevant evidence on any bond violations to the CSRC.

According to the CSRC’s Bulletin on Law Enforcement in Bond Market issued on December 3, during 2018 the CSRC investigated six bond market violation cases, including those relating to fraud issuance, false statement and market manipulation. We anticipate that having issued the Opinions, and with the regulators’ collaborative mechanisms in place, the bond markets will henceforth face a more severe enforcement environment. The CSRC is expected to further strengthen their investigations and to take additional efforts to uncover any violations in both the interbank and exchange bond markets.

We will continue to monitor any developments related to the law enforcement of bond markets and look forward to sharing them with our valued clients.

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