Hague Service of Process on Chinese Defendants
This post describes how to properly effect service of process on a Chinese company or individual under the Hague Convention.
This post describes how to properly effect service of process on a Chinese company or individual under the Hague Convention.
In its design and use of the National Security Law, Beijing has been quite transparent. The question for foreign businesses is whether they are willing to be as clear-eyed.
The shift away from the unipolar and free trade-oriented world of the 1990s and early 2000s to the peer competition-driven managed trade and industrial policies of today has resulted in an increasingly restrictive and protected U.S. import environment. The significantly stepped-up enforcement activity that characterizes this trend has, in turn, increased compliance risk for U.S. importers. This post will attempt to help U.S. importers mitigate some of that compliance risk through a set of up-to-date import practice tips.
For international businesses, the takeaways should be clear. First, the trend of increasing oversight of business activities by the Chinese authorities continues. As readers of this blog will have noted, this is a recurring theme in much recent Chinese legislation, even that coming out of the special administrative regions, such as Macau's new gaming law. Second, engaging in monopolistic practices in China is now a riskier endeavor, with increased penalties for companies and personal liabilities for responsible officers. When dealing with competitors and trading partners, businesses must beware the AML and give it a wide berth to any activity that could be construed as a monopolistic practice.
Increasing enmity between China and the West, stemming from China’s increasingly aggressive actions regarding Taiwan, China’s COVID-zero policy and a whole host of other issues facing foreign companies that do business in or with China, has caused foreign companies that do business in or with China to reassess. See Nancy Pelosi’s Visit to Taiwan is
For the past several months we have been engaged in many transactions relating to China with companies still doing business in China. These companies recognize both the business opportunities and the business risks. (Those who do not fully understand the risks are still doing their business deals without the help of a lawyer on the front end, which means we usually hear from them when something has gone wrong.)
With all that has been happening, the international manufacturing lawyers at my law firm have been getting a steady stream of phone calls and emails from companies looking to leave China and many of those companies are curious about Mexico.
Macau has a new gaming law as of June 21, 2022. On that day, Macau’s Legislative Assembly approved Law No. 7/2022, which amends a 2001 law. While the legal framework for gambling remains fundamentally unchanged, the amended law offers a hint of what is to come, not just for Macau’s casinos, but for Macau itself.
Back in 2020 I wrote a series of three blog posts titled “China Cybersecurity: No Place to Hide”. And two years before that, we started writing about China’s Personal Information Security Specification. On July 7, 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) issued the Measures for the Security Assessment of Outbound Data Transfers (Security Assessment
CEOs and senior managers have been struggling to make good decisions about supply chain and factory sites, and a lot of their research is pointing to Mexico as a likely candidate. The problem facing decision-makers is that the China-Mexico comparison is not apples to apples (DO NOT make avocado-lychee reference). Even though the same output is leaving the factory gate in each economy, your challenges in setting up and managing operations in China and Mexico could not be more different.