With the issuance of the Guiding Opinions on Regulating the Asset Management Business of Financial Institutions (the New Rules) in April 2018, the asset management industry formally welcomed the era of “grand unified” regulation. The provisions of the New Rules on breaking “rigid payment” became the focus of attention from the end of 2017, when the central bank sought public comment. In response to a reporter’s question, a relevant senior official of the central bank stressed that when a financial institution “accepts an appointment to manage wealth on a client’s behalf”, it is additionally required to genuinely realize “seller is to duly fulfill its responsibilities and buyer is to himself bear the liability”, returning asset management business to its original principles.
New asset management rules and “three types of shareholders”
“Three types of shareholders” usually refer to shareholders involved in asset management products such as the contractual-type private funds, the asset management plans, and the trust plans. According to the basic requirements of the current securities law, company law and IPO rules, the stability of the equity structure and the clarity of the controlling shareholder and the actual controller are the basic auditing conditions, so the enterprises which intend to be listed and in which there are “three types of shareholders” usually will be subject to strict and prudent supervision and verification by the regulatory authorities. Meanwhile, due to the influence of the policy factor of the National Equities Exchange and Quotation (NEEQ), the “three types of shareholders” problem is particularly prominent in the enterprises to be listed in the NEEQ.
In China, the protection of trade secrets are mainly based on the prevailing Anti-unfair Competition Law, while most of the real life standards derive from the judicial practice. The inherent characteristics of trade secrets cases also mean that difficulties exist in judicial practice for protecting the trade secrets.
Development difficulties for leftover “uncleared land” projects
In the 1990s, for a large number of urban renewal projects, governments everywhere adopted the “grant of uncleared land” method to reduce the preliminary land grant costs and lessen fiscal pressures, by granting the land uncleared to the real estate developer, who would be responsible for completing the demolition, relocation, compensation and resettlement work. With the gradual maturity of the “bid invitation/auction/listing” model of granting state-owned land, new projects involving “uncleared land” have become rare in recent years. However, many such projects that have long lain idle due to funding, returns, market forecast or other such reasons still remain in many places.
Labour Disputes: Connecting Arbitration and Litigation
As a procedural requirement under the Chinese legal framework for labour dispute resolution, a labour dispute must be referred to the labour dispute arbitration commission before it can be submitted to a court of competent jurisdiction. The arbitral award for a labour dispute is not final, which is in sharp contrast to the awards for ordinary commercial disputes. The major purpose of this procedural requirement is to divert the large number of labour disputes to multiple channels, especially to mediators that are expected to play a dominant role in settlement of these cases.
A cross-border dispute resolution mechanism for Belt and Road
Since President Xi Jinping’s advocating the establishment of a “silk road economic belt” and the creation of a “21st Century maritime silk road”, numerous countries and international organizations around the globe have been actively participating in the development of the Belt and Road.