Conservatory Measures and Recognition and Enforcements of Judgements: Foreign Redemption Rights and Cross-Border Guarantee under Red-chip Structure I. BACKGROUND Some PRC enterprises raise US dollar funds by incorporating a parent company in the Cayman Islands and setting up a red-chip structure[1]. The financing agreements and the constitutional documents of the Cayman parent company delineate a series of preferred rights granted to investors, including, inter alia, a redemption right. Concurrently, the PRC enterprise may obtain loans from the PRC financial institutions with a joint and several guarantee from the Cayman parent company or the operating entities in the PRC, or a guarantee through share charges of the Cayman parent company by its shareholders, pledges of equity interests in onshore operating entities indirectly held by the Cayman parent company, or collateralizations of the assets of the operating entities in the PRC. The “PRC” or “China” means the People’s Republic of China, and for purpose of this article, does not include the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Hong Kong”), the Macao Special Administrative Region, and Taiwan. This article primarily focuses on the issues that may arise in the context of a red-chip structure and cross-border collateral transactions, specifically when investors outside the PRC seek to exercise their redemption rights or when the PRC financial institutions intend to enforce their secured claims. It examines the potential implications concerned with judicial conservatory measures taken in the PRC and Hong Kong, recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards of arbitration institutions in Hong Kong and foreign countries, court judgements decided by the courts of Hong Kong and foreign countries, and relevant determinations and procedures in judicial practice. II. INTRODUCTION TO OFFSHORE REDEMPTION RIGHTS AND CROSS-BORDER COLLATERAL TRANSACTIONS When a PRC enterprise engages in offshore US dollar financing, the investors of the Cayman parent company and the founders of the PRC enterprise typically enter into a series of financing documents. Such documents predominately include a Share Purchase Agreement, a Shareholders’ Agreement, Articles of Association of the Cayman parent company, and a Right of First Refusal Agreement. The investors of the Cayman parent company may domicile in the PRC, as well as from other countries or regions. Pursuant to the financing agreements and applicable laws of the Cayman Island, such investors or shareholders with redemption rights are entitled to require the Cayman parent company or its founders to redeem their shares in the event of a material breach of the financing agreements by the founders, the Cayman parent company, other subsidiaries or the PRC operating entities of the Cayman parent company, a significant violation of applicable laws, or a failure of the Cayman parent company to complete an initial public offering within a specified period after the investors acquire shares of the Cayman parent company[2]. In practice, the preferred rights of the shareholders of the Cayman parent company, including the redemption right, are primarily set forth in the Shareholders’ Agreement and the Articles of Association of the Cayman parent company. The wordings of such provisions are substantially consistent within various financing documents. In the circumstance that a discrepant elaboration of the preferred rights exists in the Shareholders’ Agreement and the Articles of Association, the shareholders of the Cayman parent company will agree that the preferred rights specified in the Shareholders’ Agreement shall prevail. The financing documents raising US dollar funds commonly stipulate that disputes be resolved under the laws of Hong Kong, with a jurisdiction granted to an offshore arbitration institution, such as the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. Each of the Share Purchase Agreement, Shareholders’ Agreement, and Right of First Refusal Agreement also includes identical dispute resolution clauses, ensuring the consistency across these key transactional documents. Parallel with the offshore U.S. dollar financing, the PRC enterprises often apply for loans from the PRC financial institutions to support their day-to-day operations. The borrower is the operating onshore entity, while the guarantors include the offshore Cayman parent company and its PRC operating entities. In such case, the guarantee agreement entered into between the PRC financial institution and the offshore guarantor generally provides that, in the event that the borrower defaults on its obligations under the loan agreement, both of the onshore and offshore guarantors will assume a joint and several liability for the borrower’s debts. Moreover, it is predominate in practice that the governing law of the guarantee agreement is the laws of the PRC. The underlying disputes arising from the guarantee agreement and the loan agreement are to be resolved through litigations in a PRC court with the jurisdiction where the financial institution domiciles in the PRC or through arbitrations before a competent arbitration center. Ultimately, a cross-border debt financing is obtained by the PRC enterprise through a loan extended by the PRC financial institution with an overseas guarantee from an offshore entity/assets. The PRC enterprises under the red-chip structure often face significant performance and revenue pressures from offshore investors germane to a return on investment within a specified time frame. In the meantime, the PRC operating entities are under the pressure to repay loans to the PRC financial institutions. It is possible that the PRC enterprise is in default on either its offshore or onshore financing obligations, or breaches terms of the financing agreements. In such circumstances, investors holding preferred shares in the Cayman parent company may, in order to mitigate the risk of such default, exercise their redemption rights pursuant to the financing documents and/or, in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions under the offshore financing documents, initiate arbitrations under the laws of Hong Kong in front of an offshore arbitral tribunal to obtain supportive awards for upholding their preferred rights. Likewise, onshore creditors of the PRC enterprise may, pursuant to the loan agreement and guarantee agreements, bring legal action or seek arbitration in the PRC against the borrower and the guarantors under the laws of the PRC for the non-repayment of loans. III. ARE THE REDEMPTION RIGHTS OF OFFSHORE SHAREHOLDERS AND THE PRIORITY OF CLAIMS BROUGHT BY THE PRC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS RECOGNIZED BY LAWS OF THE PRC AND CONSISTENT WITH JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN THE PRC? A.Interim Relief and Conservatory Measures 1.Conservatory Measures within the PRC Under the laws and regulations of the PRC, there are two types of conservatory measures, viz., conservatory measures in pre-litigation and litigation proceedings, both of which are judicial procedures administered by the courts. The key difference between the two proceedings lies in the substantive and procedural preconditions. For conservatory measures in the pre-litigation proceeding, the substantive precondition requires that “urgent circumstances exist, and failure to apply for immediate protection measures may cause irreparable harm to the applicant’s legal rights,” while the procedural precondition is that the application must be made “prior to formally initiating a lawsuit or arbitration,” and the applicant must “commence the lawsuit or arbitration within thirty (30) days after the PRC court grants the conservatory measures,” otherwise the PRC court will revoke such judicial measures. The conservatory measures in the litigation proceeding, on the other hand, are taken when the PRC court freezes assets within the PRC upon the acceptance of a lawsuit by or after the case has been filed with the PRC court. Thus, a creditor shall resort to civil judicial proceedings to seek a judicial conservatory measure when such creditor seeks to freeze a debtor’s assets within the PRC. Furthermore, we also note that albeit some guarantee agreements signed between the PRC financial institutions and offshore guarantors specify that any dispute arising from the guarantee agreement shall be submitted to an arbitration institution in the PRC, judicial conservatory measures are still subject to the leave of the PRC courts in accordance with the PRC laws. We also observe that offshore financing agreements primarily specify any disputes to be submitted to arbitration institutions situated in Hong Kong. In such circumstance, can creditors apply for freezing a debtor’s assets within the PRC? According to the Arrangement on Reciprocal Assistance in Court-Ordered Conservatory Measures in Arbitration between the PRC and Hong Kong (the “Arrangements of Conservatory Measures”), effective from October 1, 2019, parties to a Hong Kong arbitration may apply for conservatory measures with the PRC courts, provided that the seat of the arbitration is Hong Kong and the arbitration institution is located or has a permanent office in Hong Kong (a “Hong Kong Arbitration Institution”). So far the following arbitration institutions in Hong Kong have been confirmed by the Hong Kong government to the PRC Supreme People’s Court: Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Hong Kong Arbitration Centre, ICC International Court of Arbitration Office for Asia, Hong Kong Maritime Arbitrators Association, South China (Hong Kong) International Court of Arbitration, and eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre Limited. Under Article 3 of the Arrangements of Conservatory Measures, if a party submits an application for conservatory measures prior to the acceptance of the arbitration request by a Hong Kong Arbitration Institution, the PRC court that has granted the conservatory measures shall revoke such conservatory measure if the PRC court does not receive any proof of the arbitration case being accepted by the Hong Kong Arbitration Institution within thirty (30) days after the conservatory measures are granted. According to the above provisions, even on the application of a party with a Hong Kong Arbitration Institution for the leave of conservatory measures over assets in the PRC, in practice, an arbitration shall first be accepted in Hong Kong. In such event, the PRC court may not revoke the conservatory measure. To recapitulate the aforementioned proceedings, regardless of whether the creditor is within or outside the PRC, the protection and preservation of assets situated within the PRC must be realized through the civil judicial proceedings and with the leave by the PRC courts. 2.Interim Relief and Judicial Conservatory Measures in Hong Kong Under the provisions of the Arrangements of Conservatory Measures, parties to an arbitral proceeding administered by an arbitration institution in the PRC may, prior to the issuance of the arbitral award, apply to the Court of First Instance[3] of the High Court of Hong Kong for granting conservatory measures (including injunctions and other interim relief[4]) pursuant to the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) and the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4). Such applications for interim measures, whether before or during the arbitral proceedings, and the leave of such measures granted by the court, do not conflict with the arbitration agreement. Assuming the dispute resolution mechanism in the financing agreements and guarantee agreements between the PRC financial institutions and the PRC operating entities is to submit related disputes to an arbitration institution in the PRC, the PRC financial institutions may, pursuant to the Arrangement of Conservatory Measures, apply to the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong for granting the preservation of assets located in Hong Kong. B.The Priority of Creditor’s Rights under the Legal Framework of the PRC Under the laws and regulations of the PRC, the priority of claims can be categorized into substantial priority and procedural priority. With regard to claims filed by the PRC financial institutions, substantial priority primarily refers to the order of realizing secured interests (such as, inter alia, mortgages on real property, share charges, or pledges of deposit certificates), and procedural priority pertains to the order of granting judicial conservatory measures. Assuming that the shareholders of the Cayman parent company exercise their redemption rights in accordance with the financing documents and the Cayman parent company fails to redeem any shares held by the shareholders, such shareholders thus turn into creditors of the Cayman parent company subject to applicable laws. As the redemption right of such shareholders is not recognized as secured interests under the laws of the PRC, such redemption right does not entail any substantial priority. For the priority in judicial conservatory proceedings, the analysis is contingent upon specific circumstances, more precisely, if the debtor is a corporate entity and is adjudicated bankrupt by the PRC court, the procedural priority in obtaining judicial conservatory measures is significant. After satisfying the rights with substantive priority (primarily being secured interests), the remaining assets shall be distributed sequentially to creditors under the protection of judicial conservatory measures in accordance with the hierarchy of relevant effective and enforceable judicial decisions. In the second scenario, if the debtor is a corporate entity and is declared bankrupt by the PRC court, the priority of judicial preservation is irrelevant. The corresponding assets, following the satisfaction of claims with substantial priorities (such as secured interests or employee claims), will be distributed pro rata among all ordinary creditors who have obtained enforceable judicial decisions, in accordance with the proportion of the total amounts under their claims. In the event that the debtor is a natural person or other organizational entity (such as branches of social groups or representative offices that are duly set up) and not eligible for bankruptcy proceedings under the laws of the PRC, distribution of assets will be fulfilled through judicial enforcement proceedings. Following the satisfaction of claims with substantial priority (primarily secured interests), the residual assets will be allocated pro rata to all ordinary creditors who have obtained effective judicial decisions, based on the proportionality of the total amount of their claims. As the redemption right of shareholders of the Cayman parent company is not recognized as secured interests under the PRC laws, no substantial priority is vested in such redemption right. Whether such preemptive right with a procedural priority needs to be analyzed in conjunction with the circumstances of the debtor and the debt repayment proceedings in each case. IV. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS ISSUED OUTSIDE THE PRC As aforementioned, in the financing documents of a red-chip structure, dispute resolution is usually arbitrations or litigations outside the PRC, thus, creditors may obtain foreign arbitral awards or foreign court judgments outside of the PRC. Since the operating entity under the red-chip structure is located within the PRC, a creditor may need to recourse to such operating entity and apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and foreign court judgments by the PRC courts. Regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, since the PRC is a signatory state to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958 New York Convention) (the “New York Convention”)[5], and according to Article 304 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the PRC to be enforced by the PRC courts in accordance with international treaties signed or participated in by the PRC or based upon the reciprocal treatments, Article V of the New York Convention shall apply in the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. A.Enforcement and Recognition of Arbitral Awards Issued in Hong Kong The China government has extended the territorial application of the New York Convention to Hong Kong by the resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong since July 1, 1997, and manifested that such extension of territorial application is subject to the statement originally made by China upon accession to the New York Convention, viz., the reciprocity reservation and commercial reservation.[6]According to such manifestation, the PRC courts cannot recognize and enforce the arbitral awards made in Hong Kong based upon the New York Convention. To lay a solid legal foundation for reciprocally recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards issued in the PRC and Hong Kong, the PRC Supreme People’s Court announced in the Arrangements of the PRC Supreme People’s Court on the Reciprocal Enforcement of Arbitration Awards by the PRC and the Hong Kong in 2000, as amended in 2020 (collectively, the “Arrangements”). The arbitral awards issued in Hong Kong will be recognized and enforced in accordance with such Arrangements. B.Enforcement and Recognition of Arbitral Awards Issued in Foreign Countries Under the New York Convention, grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards include: (i) invalidity of the arbitration agreement, (ii) failure of a proper notification of the arbitration procedure, (iii) the dispute not falling into the scope of the arbitration, (iv) violations of the parties’ agreement or the laws of the country where the arbitration is seated concerning the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure, (v) the award being non-binding or having been set aside or suspended, (vi) the dispute being non-arbitrable, and (vii) the recognition and enforcement being contrary to public policy. In addition, for a foreign arbitral award to be recognized and enforced by the PRC courts, the following conditions must also be satisfied: the arbitration must be in a commercial nature[7],recognition and enforcement of such arbitral award falls into the reserved reciprocity made by the PRC[8], the application must be filed with a competent PRC court, and the arbitral award must comply with other procedural requirements under the PRC Civil Procedure Law. Save that seven (7) grounds for the refusals of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards specified in Article V of the New York Convention are exhaustive and exclusive, judicial practice in the PRC indicates that the grounds on which the PRC courts refuse to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards are in consistence with Article V of the New York Convention[9]. V. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF COURTS JUDGEMENTS ISSUED OUTSIDE THE PRC As disputes arising from the red-chip structure may be resolved by court decisions issued outside the PRC, for instance, the exercise of the redemption right being adjudicated by the court of the Cayman Island, it may trigger the recognition and enforcement of judgements or verdicts issued by courts outside the PRC by the PRC courts. As China government has not ratified the “Hague Convention on Choice of Court,” the PRC has not approved any international treaties specifically governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. A.Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements of Hong Kong Courts Arrangements for Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Cases between Courts of the PRC and Hong Kong (the “Recognition and Enforcement Arrangements”) has been implemented from January 29, 2024. The Recognition and Enforcement Arrangements provide legal basis for reciprocally recognizing and enforcing the civil and commercial judgements that have been effective and issued in the PRC and Hong Kong. The “effective judgements” as defined in the Recognition and Enforcement Arrangements refer to, with regard to the judgements rendered in the PRC, judgments of appellate courts, judgments of first instance for which appeal is not allowed or the statutory of limitation lapsed, and the aforementioned judgments issued during the trial supervision procedures, and with regard to the judgements rendered in Hong Kong, judgments made by the Court of Final Appeal, the Court of Appeal of the High Court, the Court of First Instance, the District Court, the Labour Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal, the Small Claims Tribunal or the Competition Tribunal, each of which judgements made in the PRC or Hong Kong has already come into force. Pursuant to Article 10 of the Recognition and Enforcement Arrangements and Article 250 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, the period, procedure and method of applying for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of a judgment shall be governed by the law of the requested party. To apply for recognizing and enforcing an effective judgement rendered by Hong Kong courts, the time frame is two years and subject to suspension of the statute of limitation in the PRC. If the parties once reached into an agreement of the Arrangements for Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Cases under Agreed Jurisdiction between Courts of the PRC and Hong Kong for certain case prior to the effectiveness of the Recognition and Enforcement Arrangements, such agreement shall apply and be binding for the case. B.Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements of Foreign Courts The recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in the PRC are governed by Articles 298 to 303 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law. Grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce foreign court judgments include: (i) lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court, viz., the foreign court either lacks jurisdiction over the case according to its laws, or even if it has such jurisdiction, there exists an insufficient connection to the underlying case, or a violation of exclusive jurisdiction rules of the PRC or any agreement between the parties to submit to an exclusive jurisdiction; (ii) improper service of process, for instance the respondent has not been lawfully summoned, or although lawfully summoned, the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case, or a party lacking legal capacity was not properly represented; (iii) fraudulent judgment where the judgment or ruling was obtained through fraudulent means; (iv) parallel proceedings existing in the PRC or a parallel recognition or enforcement of the judgment existing in the PRC; and (v) violation of the laws of the PRC, viz., where the judgment violates PRC’s fundamental legal principles or jeopardizes national sovereignty, security, or public interest of the PRC. In addition to the absence of the above grounds of refusals, foreign court judgments can be recognized and enforced in the PRC only if “international treaties” and “reciprocity relationships” exist between the PRC and the relevant foreign country. Given the limited number of signatory states to bilateral treaties, the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in the PRC predominately relies on the “reciprocity principle.” Historically, the PRC courts have adhered to the “factual reciprocity principle,” viz., a foreign court judgment will be recognized if the foreign country has previously recognized judgments of the PRC courts. However, with a more lenient approach being adopted in foreign legislative and judicial practice, the PRC courts have increasingly shifted to the practice of “presumed reciprocity” and “legal reciprocity.” This trend is exemplified in the Conference of Minutes of the National Courts on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials, published in January 2022. The PRC Supreme People’s Court issued a guiding Case No. 235 titled “S Shipping Co., Ltd. Requests for Recognition of Foreign Court Civil Judgment.”[10]The opinions of the PRC Supreme People’s Court in this case affirmed that when the PRC courts review requests of the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil judgments, the existence of reciprocity of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements between such foreign state and the PRC is not conditioned on whether the corresponding foreign court has previously recognized and enforced the judgments issued by the PRC courts. In the circumstance that, assuming under the laws of the relevant foreign state, civil judgments of the PRC courts can be recognized and enforced, and that state has not refused recognition or enforcement of the judgements issued by the PRC courts for a lack of reciprocity, a reciprocity relationship may be presumed by the PRC courts. This case confirms that the PRC courts have adopted the “presumed reciprocity” and “legal reciprocity” approaches in practice when determining the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. VI. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PRC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LENDING TO ONSHORE COMPANIES UNDER RED-CHIP STRUCTURE Pursuant to the judicial guidance and press releases of 2023 Guiding Cases of the Shanghai Financial Court[11], the requisite formalities for the execution of onshore loan agreements, guarantee agreements, or surety agreements by an overseas guarantor or surety must be determined in accordance with the laws of the Cayman Islands, or the jurisdiction under which the guarantor or the surety is incorporated. The Shanghai Financial Court further emphasized that the issue of foreign exchange compliance under the PRC laws in the context of overseas guarantees provided by grantors in the PRC for loans issued by the PRC financial institutions to debtors outside the PRC is not in the purview of the PRC court during the trial or in the judgement. The onus of adhering to foreign exchange regulatory requirements lies with the debtor, guarantor, or surety, who shall perform obligations under the effective judgement and comply with the relevant foreign exchange management or filing procedures as mandated by the appropriate regulatory authorities. In light of prevailing judicial practice, when financial institutions file a case against a guarantor or surety in the context of the guarantee provided by entities outside the PRC for the loans issued by the PRC financial institutions to the debtor within the PRC, the PRC courts may generally refrain from scrutinizing the foreign exchange compliance. By taking into account the complexity and the evolving trend of legal practice in the PRC, we will further shed lights on dispute resolutions and conservatory measures in respect of cross-border transactions. [1] Although President Biden signed an executive order in 2023 prohibiting U.S. venture capital firms from investing in high-tech projects related to China, the red-chip structure remains the primary corporate framework for the PRC companies seeking to list indirectly in the United States. For a detailed discussion of the red-chip structure and the flow of capital, readers may refer to the author’s article on the primary models of domestic enterprises’ offshore listings and the regulatory framework governing outbound capital flows, available at https://law.asia/models-foreign-listing-domestic-enterprises-regulation-outbound-funds/. [2] In its analysis in D. E. Shaw Composite Investments Asia 10 (Cayman) Ltd. v. Grand State Investments Ltd. (FSD 11/2021 (RPJ)), the Cayman Islands Court noted that, in the context of similar U.S. dollar financing transactions, the documentation typically conditions the Cayman parent company’s right to exercise the redemption option upon the availability of “legally available funds” to the Cayman parent company, thereby ensuring that such funds are both legally permissible and available for such purpose. [3] As defined by the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609). [4] See the Arrangements of Conservatory Measures. [5] In December 1986, China officially acceded to the New York Convention, while making a reciprocity reservation and a commercial arbitration reservation. The New York Convention formally came into effect in China on April 22, 1987. [6] Available at https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=11&menu=579&opac_view=-1. [7] Section II of the Notice of the Accession to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards by China issued by the PRC Supreme People’s Court (Fa [1987] No. 5) (the “Notice”) stipulates that “in accordance with the commercial reservation made by the PRC upon its accession to the Convention, the Convention applies only to disputes arising from contractual and non-contractual commercial legal relationships as defined under the PRC laws. The term “contractual and non-contractual commercial legal relationships” specifically refers to economic rights and obligations arising from contracts, torts, or relevant legal provisions, such as disputes relating to the sale of goods, leasing of property, construction contracts, processing and contracting, technology transfer, joint ventures, cooperative operations, exploration and development of natural resources, insurance, credit, labor services, agency, consulting services, as well as passenger and cargo transport by sea, civil aviation, railways, highways, product liability, environmental pollution, maritime accidents, and ownership disputes, but does not include disputes between foreign investors and host governments. [8] Section I of the Notice stipulates that “in accordance with the reciprocity reservation made by the PRC upon its accession to the Convention, the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of another contracting state shall be governed by the provisions of the Convention. Where the provisions of the Convention differ from those of the PRC Civil Procedure Law (Trial Implementation), the provisions of the Convention shall apply. If arbitral awards made in the territory of non-signatory states seek the recognition and enforcement by the PRC courts, such recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Article 204 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law (Trial Implementation).” (Article 299 of the current PRC Procedure Law) [9] Weizuo Chen, Principles of the New York Convention and Categorization of Reasonings of Typical Cases in the Application of the New York Convention by PRC Courts, China Law Comments (November 1, 2024), https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fLOS90gLDcHv0lLh1ntK-w. [10] As approved by the PRC Supreme People’s Court Judicial Committee and published on November 25, 2024. [11] The 5th session of guiding cases announced by the Shanghai Financial Court, a Hong Kong branch of the PRC financial institution v. a Shanghai corporation in respect of guarantee agreement. 律师简介 Willow Wei Dacheng Shanghai Partner willow.wei@dentons.cn Willow Wei is a seasoned lawyer focusing on the areas of cross-border transactions, capital market, private equity investment, cross-border financing and banking, investment compliance and dispute resolutions. Ms. Wei used to practice at Shanghai Offices of two US law firms for many years. Annie Geng Dacheng Shanghai Partner (under filing) fang.geng@dentons.cn Annie Geng specializes in resolving complex and difficult commercial and financial disputes. Annie Geng is well-versed in litigation and arbitration laws and regulations. She has extensive experience in litigation and arbitration in the fields of financial disputes and commercial investment and financing disputes. She can combine good business thinking with relevant laws and regulations to resolve disputes for clients and safeguard their interests. 特别声明： 本文仅代表作者个人观点，不代表大成律师事务所或其律师出具的任何形式的法律意见或建议。如需转载或引用该文章的任何内容，请与我们取得联络，未经同意不得转载或使用。转载或引用时须注明出处。