Case Introduction:
On a winter night in 2017,Duan and several of his friends had dinner together,and after three rounds of drinking,several of them chatted happily.They planned to go to a lobster restaurant for a"second scene".After several people drove to the lobster restaurant,they met Tian and others who were passing by after a dinner with their company colleagues.The two sides had some communication due to parking space issues.Originally,this was a beautiful evening,and both parties came back from a dinner with their friends or colleagues,"Both of them should be in a good mood,but it may be because both of them were a bit drunk and spoke freely.First,there was some argument,which escalated into a push.During this period,Duan was pushed to the ground by Tian,and Duan was very angry.After getting up,he used his strength to brandish a punch in Tian's face.Unexpectedly,this punch made Tian hit a hard object on the head,causing brain injury,and later died after being rescued.".After the incident,Duan did not escape,waiting for the police to arrive and following the police to the public security organ for investigation.The public security organ detained Duan for intentional injury leading to death.

Legal website today published an article recently written by Xia Zemin,former vice chairman of the Yangzhou Municipal Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and chief consultant of the Beijing Gaopeng(Yangzhou,Taizhou)Law Firm,titled"Research on the Punishment of Administrative Breach of Faith from the Perspective of Administrative Rule of Law".The author hopes that all friends will study this issue together to promote the construction of the rule of law and social credit system.

According to the author,with the needs of social development and urban construction,urban renewal/old reconstruction has led to a large number of demolition.From slogans such as"Don't envy the mandarin ducks,don't envy the immortals,just envy the house,draw a circle,write in the middle of the circle,and be happy every day from now on",and"Tear apart the characters,spray,and run happily",it can be seen that some people expect demolition.Today,many people have made their fortune through demolition,and"demolition rights and interests"have become the inevitable property of some people who have been demolished,resulting in an increasing number of disputes,even at the expense of litigation.

[Content Abstract]:Since 2016,Chinese enterprises have been issuing bonds abroad in full swing.Based on the experience of long-term overseas bond projects undertaken by Chinese enterprises,the author intends to explore the focus of legal services provided by domestic lawyers in overseas bond issuance from the perspective of the concept of overseas bonds,pre issuance procedures,issuing entities,bond ratings,issuance rules and methods,capital repatriation,issuance period,and other key points,With a view to providing better legal services for lawyers in such projects in the future.

Recently,South Korea announced that it would abandon its status as a developing country in the WT0.This is another important country that has made relevant decisions since Brazil publicly announced its abandonment of its status as a developing country in March this year.This move is another major event following the memorandum written by Trump to US Trade Representative Robert Lethezer in July this year(which states that the US will unilaterally abandon its support for 35 developing countries such as China,South Korea,Brazil,Hong Kong,Singapore,Qatar,and the United Arab Emirates in 90 days'time),This also shows that the United States is strengthening its efforts to forcefully promote changes in the WTO principles of special and differential treatment for developing countries.

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.