備忘錄-memo-金杜法律備忘錄模板(共3頁(yè))

1、精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上距信紙?zhí)ь^下邊緣1.30cm空 一 行April 29, 2005空 一 行PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIALMemorandum to:Jeff Wood, Esq.Debevoise & Plimpton (Hong Kong)空 兩 行Chinese Courts Jurisdiction Over AT &T*此為提綱挈領(lǐng)之部門(mén)，可促使作者在之后的法律分析中緊扣題目，故有書(shū)寫(xiě)此部分必要空 兩 行空 一 行Background右邊距為3.00cm左邊距為3.00cm*凡冒號(hào)、句號(hào)等表示一句終了的標(biāo)點(diǎn)之后均空兩格You have

2、 asked us to advise whether a Chinese court would have Jurisdiction over AT&T in the following transaction: * AT&T plans to invest in a Chinese-foreign joint venture company (the “Joint Venture Company”) through Pudong LLC, an offshore special purpose vehicle to be established and wholly own

3、ed by it. * Once established, Pudong LLC will enter into a joint venture agreement (the “Joint Venture Agreement”) with two Chinese parties to form the Joint Venture Company. At the request of the Chinese parties, AT&T intends to provide a guarantee in the form of a comfort letter (the “Letter”)

4、 to ensure the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement. The Letter (a copy of which having been provided to us) expressly provides that it is governed by New York law and subject to the jurisdiction of New York or Federal courts in the United States. The letter

5、 is proposed to be signed by AT&T and countersigned by the Chinese parties to the Joint Venture Agreement.QuestionThe question is whether AT&T will be subject to the jurisdiction of a Chinese court by executing the Letter in the manner as described above.*客戶時(shí)間有限，有時(shí)只需要簡(jiǎn)短的結(jié)論性回答Short Answer*If

6、a dispute arises from the interpretation or performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, a claim is made against Pudong LLC before a Chinese court having jurisdiction over the claim, it is likely that AT&T will

7、 be named as an indispensable party and the Chinese court may decide that, since the Letter is part and parcel of the Joint Venture Agreement, the court should have jurisdiction over AT&T.上邊距為3.00cm* 建議寫(xiě)此部分Analysis*Under Chinese law, contracts or agreements such as the Joint Venture Agreement wh

8、ich will be filed with the relevant Chinese governmental authorities for the establishment of companies such as the Joint Venture Company must be governed by Chinese law. As a parallel, Chinas Civil Procedural Law provides that, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among t

9、he parties, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise from the interpretation and performance of a contract such as the Joint Venture Agreement. Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law states: “Actions concerning disputes arising from the performance of contracts for Ch

10、inese-foreign equity joint ventures, or Chinese-foreign cooperative exploration and development of the natural resources in the PRC shall fall under the jurisdiction of PRC courts.”Since AT&T, by virtue of the Letter, provides a guarantee for the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations unde

11、r the Joint Venture Agreement, it is likely that AT&T will be named as an indispensable party to the dispute. If so, the question is whether the Chinese court will decide that it has jurisdiction over AT&T even though AT&T does not have any presence in China other than providing the guar

12、antee.Under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law, a foreign person may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese court if, among other things, (i) it has a representative office in China, or (ii) it is a party to a contract which is the subject matter of the litigation, or (iii) it has assets

13、located in China that can be attached. For example, parties to the Joint Venture Agreement will have to choose Chinese law as the governing law and, in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over a dispute arising from the Joint Agreement by virtue by virtu

14、e of Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law and over the parties if any of the conditions set forth under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law is met. On the other hand, Chinese law also permits parties to a contract to choose the governing law and the forum of dispute resolution (including foreig

15、n courts) if such a choice is not with the mandatory rules under Chinese law that provide otherwise.* 建議寫(xiě)此部分ConclusionBased upon the above analysis, we are of the view that the Letter, as so drafted, in and by itself does not constitute a contract that is mandatorily governed by Chinese law or over

16、which the Chinese court will have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising therefrom. Chinese courts should honor the parties choice of law and jurisdiction in respect of the Letter. On the other hand, however, if the Chinese court determines that a dispute arising from the Letter constitutes

17、a dispute of the Joint Venture Agreement, it may decide that it has jurisdiction over AT&T.*此部分的寫(xiě)作可視情況及客戶的要求而定，一般來(lái)說(shuō)應(yīng)該給出中肯而切實(shí)的建議Suggestions*In view of the above analysis, we would suggest the following: First, parties to the Joint Venture Agreement agree that any dispute arising therefrom should

18、be submitted to arbitration before a well established international arbitration institution, such as the London Court of International Arbitration or the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration. By law, Chinese courts should honor the parties choice of arbitration and reject filing of

19、 a lawsuit by any of such parties in respect of a dispute arising from the Joint Venture Agreement.Second, the language of the Letter should be adjusted so as to eliminate any suggestion or impression that AT&T is the actual party (in lieu of Pudong LLC) that makes the investment in the Joint Venture Company.Third, subject to the agreement