Recently,Beijing Gaopeng Law Firm was entrusted by a domestic company to represent the company in a compliance investigation by the World Bank Group's Integrity Bureau into suspected fraudulent practices in bidding activities for a project involving World Bank loans,and ultimately obtained the result of a case without penalty.As the attorney for this case,we hope to share our experience in handling this case with you,in order to help Chinese companies facing similar cases better respond to the investigation.

Private placement fund refers to an investment fund established in the People's Republic of China by raising funds from investors in a non-public manner.For investors,private equity funds have become an important financial investment method due to their greater flexibility and concealment,high risk but also high income opportunities.As long as there are risks involved in investment,according to relevant regulations,private equity institutions must not promise investors that the investment principal will not be lost or that they will promise a minimum return.However,there are still private equity institutions that,through related party guarantees,related party commitments to repurchase,and other methods,commit to maintaining capital and income in disguised form,and cheat investors through illegal propaganda,leading to investors not fully aware of the risks involved in blind investment,ultimately leading to investment losses.

2018 Annual Report on Monopoly Agreement Enforcement Cases
A 10-year review of monopoly agreement enforcement cases
Beijing Gaopeng Law Firm
Senior Partner Tan Yajun Lawyer

1、Brief Introduction to the Case
The plaintiff A Construction Engineering Co.,Ltd.and the defendant B Real Estate Co.,Ltd.signed and filed a Construction Engineering Construction Contract for a certain project on May 1,2011 through the bidding process.The filing contract agreed that the dispute resolution method was"applying to an arbitration committee for arbitration".On July 20,2011,the two parties signed a separate Construction Engineering Construction Contract,The contract stipulates that the dispute resolution method is"if mediation fails,bring a lawsuit to the people's court with jurisdiction in a certain city according to law.".The two parties actually performed in accordance with the"Construction Contract for Construction Projects"signed on July 20th,2011.After the project involved in the case was completed and passed the completion acceptance,the two parties confirmed that the settlement cost was RMB 72200000 yuan.The defendant still owed the plaintiff RMB 8700000 yuan for the project,which was not paid.Repeated demands were unsuccessful.Therefore,the defendant will be informed to the People's Court of C with jurisdiction at the project location.Before the first hearing,the defendant raised an objection to the court,Considering that the case should be arbitrated by an arbitration commission in accordance with the dispute resolution method agreed upon in the filed bid winning contract,we request that the plaintiff's lawsuit be dismissed.

It is a normal phenomenon for shareholders and directors of a company to have differences of opinion on daily business management decisions.The collision and communication of different opinions can also help improve the ability and level of shareholders,directors,and company management to analyze and solve problems to a certain extent.However,if differences or contradictions develop to a level that cannot be reconciled,resulting in a deadlock in the operation of the company,the underlying issues reflected may be a lack of scientific design at the top level of the company or a lack of trust in each other's capabilities among shareholders and partners.The transformation of the Supreme Law from a single"dissolution of a company"in the"Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China"(II)to the application of a multi stage dispute resolution mechanism in the"Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China"(V)is also intended to promote the internal ability of companies to start from deeper causes,By restructuring the top-level design and consolidating the trust foundation between shareholders,we can fundamentally rebuild the resolution mechanism for decision-making differences,avoid the occurrence of company dissolution,ensure the sound development of the enterprise,and promote the stable operation of the social economy.

2018 is an important year for China's anti monopoly law enforcement.Firstly,2018 marks the tenth anniversary of the implementation of the Anti monopoly Law.Secondly,2018 has undergone significant changes in the anti monopoly law enforcement agencies,from the previous pattern where the National Development and Reform Commission,the Ministry of Commerce,and the State Administration of Industry and Commerce were responsible for anti monopoly law enforcement,to the unified responsibility of the State Administration of Market Supervision for anti monopoly law enforcement.Therefore,relevant business concentration There is a unified regulatory body for the review of monopoly agreements and abuse of market dominance.As of November 2018,the reform of the antimonopoly law enforcement agencies at the level of the General Administration of Market Supervision has been completed.The establishment of the General Administration of Market Supervision is expected to further promote the integration and allocation of resources,which is conducive to further unification and strengthening of antimonopoly law enforcement.

"The United States is now imposing tariffs on goods valued at$11 billion in the EU!"US President Trump threatened to tax EU products on social media on the 9th in retaliation for EU subsidies to Airbus.In response,the European Union said it would soon take retaliatory measures.US media say it is difficult to break out a comprehensive trade war between the US and Europe,but this matter undoubtedly further complicates bilateral economic and trade negotiations and will harm the already shaken US Europe relationship.

Suggestions on reviewing the legality of the"Administrative Measures for the Identification,Investigation and Punishment of Illegal Acts in Construction Project Contracting and Contracting"issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development:

At the beginning of 2019,the State Administration of Market Supervision announced the"Provisions on Prohibiting Monopoly Agreements(Draft for Comments)",which provides more comprehensive provisions on prohibited monopoly agreements,and the introduction of the"safe harbor"system is one of its very distinctive features.The introduction of safe harbor rules makes monopoly agreements that do not constitute significant restrictions on competition presumed not to exclude or restrict competition,thereby benefiting from the exemption of"safe harbor".The following is an interpretation of the specific provisions on the safe harbor system in the"Provisions on the Prohibition of Monopoly Agreements(Draft for Comments)",and a comparative analysis with similar foreign legislation.