Chinese businesses tend to favor offshore jurisdictions for setting up joint venture (JV) structures, but deadlock can ensue if partners differ into a dispute.
A litany of offshore legal tools exists, from provisions in the JV's constitutional documents to the appoint of a receiver to restore control to the wronged party.
However, the process for deploying these options differ based on each jurisdiction, and it is advisable to seek counsel before acting on any strategy.
In U.S. Chapter 11 cases (especially those involving unsecured creditors), non-traditional asset sources often offer the best hope of recovery.
Assets based in China can present surprising asset recovery opportunities for U.S. creditor committees.
There is a range of options at a committee's disposal to unlock value from claims against PRC entities, and experience, creativity and local support on both sides of the Pacific are essential to securing monetization.
Relations between India and the U.S. have recently experienced a few blows, including the termination of the former's preferential trading status with the U.S.
For future Indian defendants, it will be of paramount importance to understand the strategies and tactics of U.S. enforcement agencies in charge of bribery, national security and fraud investigations.
When regulators come knocking, those who choose to sit idly by will find themselves at a disadvantage.
A recent meeting between antitrust enforcers from South Korea and the U.S. signals an increase in future collaboration between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) on cross-border criminal antitrust enforcement.
A greater degree of DOJ-KFTC collaboration will result in increasingly complex multinational antitrust litigation.
When these enforcers take collaborative actions, targets will require equally coordinated defense strategies - likely combining the knowledge of both Korea and U.S. antitrust specialists.
International creditors continue to face significant challenges when monetizing claims against debtors based in the People's Republic of China.
Actions such as a standalone freezing injunction can be used in English common law jurisdictions to freeze assets that are held by innocent third parties.
Injunctions and receiverships can be made without giving notice to the debtor, bestowing the "element of surprise."
The U.S. government has set its sights on market manipulation and “spoofing” among both traditional and digital currency traders.
For the trading firms and other market participants who could be in the government’s crosshairs, now is the time to plan how you will respond to a subpoena.
Traders and trading firms that find themselves on the receiving end of a subpoena related to spoofing or market manipulation should not immediately assume that cooperation is the best or only way to respond.
One of the most common forms of fraud affecting businesses worldwide is Business Email Compromise (BEC).
Often based in Asia, BEC fraudsters are known to use a network of underground moneychangers to move stolen funds rapidly beyond the reach of victims.
When affected, victims need to match the speed of the criminals, acting across multiple jurisdictions and with the full set of legal tools necessary to trace, freeze and recover assets effectively.
There are many reasons why sovereign debtors can be challenging targets.
The right combination of high-pressure tactics, coupled with aggressive, creative, multijurisdictional strategies, can force sovereign debtors to take a seat at the bargaining table.
Here are specific examples of effective techniques from recent successful matters where legitimate claims were recovered against sovereign entities.
Rising cyber security breaches place global companies at risk.
The New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) recently imposed new regulations requiring companies to certify compliance with their cybersecurity programs by February 15 of every year.
To prevent a breach, noncompliance or litigation, Chinese companies with U.S.-incorporated subsidies ought to ensure their programs comply with these new regulations.
The U.S. government has made its intentions clear that it will investigate and prosecute PRC-based companies and individuals that it believes employ illegal tactics to compete with U.S. companies in key sectors.
Future U.S. actions could come from any number of directions.
Whatever action comes next, a cross-border perspective and willingness to represent PRC-side clients against the U.S. government will be essential to an effective response.
Innovative Israeli technology companies are inherently disadvantaged when facing litigation against larger parties with deeper pockets.
Litigation funding can bridge the resource gap between smaller technology companies and the multi-national companies (MNCs) who may disregard their rights.
Litigation funding benefits smaller Israeli companies seeking to protect their rights. It also provides start-ups and growth-stage technology companies with the necessary resources to develop a strong case without being impeded by high costs.
A recent decision involving document disclosure in offshore courts presents an opportunity for PRC-based companies to obtain business intelligence.
This decision — which was made in the English Court of Appeal and will likely influence offshore jurisdictions and Hong Kong — has shed light on how nonparties can get copies of court documents, evidence, written arguments and judgments.
To leverage the opportunity effectively, local expertise of offshore court processes and this new decision, in addition to on-the-ground support in PRC, will be needed.
While a divorce for the ultra-wealthy might be local, monetizing the resulting judgment requires sophisticated cross-border expertise.
A timely, proactive and creative asset recovery strategy leads to more money faster.
Obtaining a court judgment against the recalcitrant debtor is just the start of a global game of chess in which experience, creativity and global reach are essential.
