“鸿鹄计划1.0”自 2024 年发起的针对风险与合规从业领域的人才培养公益项目，旨在打造一个集教育、实践、成长于一体的综合性平台，通过去行政化、纯公益化、纯市场化的方式，为有志于从事风险与合规工作的青年提供全方位的支持和指导，助力有志青年成长为风险与合规领域的佼佼者，打破资源壁垒，消除信息鸿沟，培养新一代风险与合规专业人才，尤其是涉外企业合规师的选拔与培育【鸿鹄计划1.0】同学报名截止，让我们祝贺36位同学被录取啦！
目前 “鸿鹄计划1.0”正有序、平稳展开：
同学们通过上课、考试、讲评、再测试，不断地提升自身的专业水平、知识和技能，在鸿鹄计划1.0第一课之后，同学们随后参与了第一课的第一次测试【ABC公司贿赂案件调查报告｜鸿鹄计划1.0试卷（1）】，下面是第一课的第二次测试，欢迎围观、自我测试。如果有任何问题，也请与我们联系。 “鸿鹄计划1.0”毕竟是一个新生事物，只有在各方的支持、帮助、批评，甚至鞭笞下，我们才能越办越好！联系电话：朱秘书（13501872121（微信同号））需要我们到公司内训如下内容的，也请联系：
国企合规培训专场｜「合规管理体系建设」暨「ISO 37301贯标辅导」
12月6日线上 | 构建律法新媒体矩阵，深度拓展与广度突围之道！
本次试题给出了Background和Issues，其他Rules, Analysis, Conclusions, Suggestions部分由同学们独立完成，2024年12月26日下午5:00之间交卷
MEMORANDUM
To: | File: | ||
From: | cc: | ||
Subject: | Choice of Chinese Law and Jurisdiction for the Disputes Resolution for INVISIABLE | Date: | December 3, 2009 |
Dear Ms. J,
It was our pleasure receiving your email dated December 1, 2009 regarding the disputes resolution issue, specifically, the choice of Chinese laws and court/arbitration.
Below are the facts indicated by this email:
1. Background:
1.1 Cross-border Purchase and Sale Transaction
The INVISIABLE’s U.S. or Hong Kong entity (not yet decided) (“INVISIABLE Offshore”) intended to sell products to a customer’s Chinese entity (“Customer Onshore”) which has its operations at some industrial park in Shanghai (“Deal”). The Deal includes product specification and delivery issues.
1.2 Product-related Service
Additionally, the INVISIABLE Offshore will probably assist the Customer Onshore in the offloading and handling of the products in Shanghai upon the delivery (“Service”). This work is supposed to be done by the INVISIABLE Offshore’s Chinese entity (“INVISIABLE Onshore”) which is licensed to conduct business in China.
1.3 Issues Arising From the Negotiation-Governing Law and Jurisdiction
For the purpose of this cross-border transaction, the INVISIABLE Offshore and the Customer Onshore are right under the process of negotiating the terms and conditions.
Particularly, the issues with respect to the choice of the governing laws and jurisdiction have arisen from the negotiation. The Customer Onshore is insisting that the Deal shall be governed by PRC laws and subject to the CIETAC arbitration.
1.3.1 Here are the detailed opinions from the Customer Onshore at this point:
(i) For the application of laws, any issue related to both the Deal and the Service must be governed by PRC laws. Of course the NY or DE law can not be applied thereto;
(ii) For the disputes resolution, both the Deal and the Service shall be subject to the CIETAC arbitration. A Hong Kong arbitral tribunal can not hear this dispute with a Chinese party.
1.3.2 While here is the INVISIABLE Offshore’s attitude toward these issues:
(i) For the application of laws, any issues related to the Deal shall be governed by the NY or DE law given the involvement of the INVISIABLE Offshore. However, any issues related to the Service performed by the INVISIABLE Onshore may be governed by PRC laws;
(ii) For the disputes resolution, any issues related to the Deal shall be subject to Hong Kong arbitration while the issues related to the Services may be submitted to CIETAC for arbitration.
1.4 Other Facts
One of the definitive terms for this transaction is DDF (delivery duty free) whereby the Customer Onshore takes title to product before the product enters China (likely at Shanghai port).
2. Issues
2.1 Whether the PRC Court would apply the PRC laws regardless of the Agreement on the Governing Laws and Jurisdiction in the Legal Relationship involving Foreign Element.
2.1.1 The Definition of the Foreign Element
2.1.2 Whether or not the PRC Court has the jurisdiction over a civil legal relationship involving Foreign Element in the event of an existing agreement on the jurisdiction;
2.1.3 Whether or not the PRC Laws shall be applied to a civil legal relationship involving Foreign Element in the event of an existing agreement on the choice of laws;
2.2 Jurisdiction on the Deal and the Service
2.2.1 Whether or not the Deal shall be subject to PRC courts;
2.2.2 Whether or not the Deal shall be subject to the PRC arbitration;
2.2.3 Whether or not a Hong Kong Arbitral Tribunal can hear the disputes concerned with the Deal;
2.2.4 Whether or not the Service shall be subject to PRC courts;
2.2.5 Whether or not the Service shall be subject to the PRC arbitration;
2.2.6 Whether or not a Hong Kong Arbitral Tribunal can hear the disputes concerned with the Service;
2.3 Application of Laws to the Deal and the Service
2.3.1 Whether or not the PRC laws shall be applied to the Deal;
2.3.2 Whether or not the PRC laws shall be applied to Service;
2.3.3 Whether or not the NY or DE law can be applied to the Deal;
2.3.4 Whether or not the NY or DE law can be applied to the Service.
3. Rules
4. Analysis
5. Conclusions
6. Suggestions
