乐鱼赌博文章中心详情

【记录】备忘录memo金杜法律备忘录模板

2024年07月02日 乐鱼赌博

  April 29, 20

  PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

  Memorandum to Jeff Wood, Esq.

  Debevoise Plimpton Hong Kong

  Chinese Court’s Jurisdiction Over AT T

  Background

  You have asked us to advise whether a Chinese court would have Jurisdiction over ATT in the following transaction ATT plans to invest in a Chineseforeign joint venture company the Joint Venture Company through Pudong LLC, an offshore special purpose vehicle to be established and wholly owned by it. Once established, Pudong LLC will enter into a joint venture agreement the Joint Venture Agreement with two Chinese parties to form the Joint Venture Company. At the request of the Chinese parties, ATT intends to provide a guarantee in the form of a comfort letter the Letter to ensure the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement. The Letter a copy of which having been provided to us expressly provides that it is governed by New York law and subject to the jurisdiction of New York or Federal courts in the United States. The letter is proposed to be signed by ATT and countersigned by the Chinese parties to the Joint Venture Agreement.

  Question

  The question is whether ATT will be subject to the jurisdiction of a Chinese court by executing the Letter in the manner as described above.

  Short Answer

  If a dispute arises from the interpretation or performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, a claim is made against Pudong LLC before a Chinese court having jurisdiction over the claim, it is likely that ATT will be named as an indispensable party and the Chinese court may decide that, since the Letter is part and parcel of the Joint Venture Agreement, the court should have jurisdiction over ATT.

  Analysis

  Under Chinese law, contracts or agreements such as the Joint Venture Agreement which will be filed with the relevant Chinese governmental authorities for the establishment of companies such as the Joint Venture Company must be governed by Chinese law. As a parallel, China’s Civil Procedural Law provides that, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise from the interpretation and performance of a contract such as the Joint Venture Agreement. Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law states Actions concerning disputes arising from the performance of contracts for Chineseforeign equity joint ventures, or Chineseforeign cooperative exploration and development of the natural resources in the PRC shall fall under the jurisdiction of PRC courts.

  Since ATT, by virtue of the Letter, provides a guarantee for the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement, it is likely that ATT will be named as an indispensable party to the dispute. If so, the question is whether the Chinese court will decide that it has jurisdiction over ATT even though ATT does not have any presence in China other than providing the guarantee.

  Under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law, a foreign person may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese court if, among other things, i it has a representative office in China, or ii it is a party to a contract which is the subject matter of the litigation, or iii it has assets located in China that can be attached. For example, parties to the Joint Venture Agreement will have to choose Chinese law as the governing law and, in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over a dispute arising from the Joint Agreement by virtue by virtue of Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law and over the parties if any of the conditions set forth under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law is met. On the other hand, Chinese law also permits parties to a contract to choose the governing law and the forum of dispute resolution including foreign courts if such a choice is not with the mandatory rules under Chinese law that provide otherwise.

  Conclusion

  Based upon the above analysis, we are of the view that the Letter, as so drafted, in and by itself does not constitute a contract that is mandatorily governed by Chinese law or over which the Chinese court will have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising therefrom. Chinese courts should honor the parties’ choice of law and jurisdiction in respect of the Letter. On the other hand, however, if the Chinese court determines that a dispute arising from the Letter constitutes a dispute of the Joint Venture Agreement, it may decide that it has jurisdiction over ATT.

  Suggestions

  In view of the above analysis, we would suggest the following First, parties to the Joint Venture Agreement agree that any dispute arising therefrom should be submitted to arbitration before a well established international arbitration institution, such as the London Court of International Arbitration or the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration. By law, Chinese courts should honor the parties’ choice of arbitration and reject filing of a lawsuit by any of such parties in respect of a dispute arising from the Joint Venture Agreement.

  Second, the language of the Letter should be adjusted so as to eliminate any suggestion or impression that ATT is the actual party in lieu of Pudong LLC that makes the investment in the Joint Venture Company.

  Third, subject to the agreement among the Parties, the Letter should be as explicit as possible that the guarantee by ATT is a general guarantee, and not a joint and several guarantee. Under Chinese law, in the absence of a joint and several guarantee, a party may not sue the guarantor until and unless it has exhausted its remedies against the primary obligor. This may add some additional protection for ATT.

  If you have any questions, please feel free to call any of the undersigned.

  Xiaoming Li 861065541155

  Zhang Yi 8668410088

  Quan Ruixue 861065541155

  CC Francis Linm

上一篇:【攻略】西京医院实施西北首例3D打印技术辅助下国产人工全踝关节置换术 下一篇:【文章】2024省公务员行测 判断考点题型形式变化