漢漢 坤坤 律律 師師 事事 務務 所所 HAN KUN LAW OFFICES Suite 906, Office Tower C1, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Avenue, Beijing 100738, P. R. China TEL: (86 10) 8525-5500; FAX: (86 10) 8525-5511/ 5522 CONFIDENTIALITY. This document contains confidential information which may also be privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not copy, use, or distribute it. If you have received it in error, please advise Han Kun Law Offices immediately by telephone or facsimile and return it promptly by mail. Thanks. M E M O R A N D U M 备 忘 录备 忘 录 To: Our Friends and Clients 致：致： 我们的朋友和客户 From: Han Kun Law Offices 自：自： 汉坤律师事务所 Date: July 8, 2013 日期：日期： 2013年7月8日 Re: Legal Analysis on Recent Rulings related to VIE Structure 关于：关于： 与VIE架构有关的近期案件的法律分析 It has recently been widely reported that several PRC judicial, arbitral and administrative decisions on cases involving VIEs indicate the PRC governments negative attitude towards the use of VIE arrangements in China. This memorandum will analyze these cases and decisions, distinguish between these cases and a typical VIE structure, and illustrate how these decisions may impact use of VIE arrangements in China. 近期，多家媒体报道了中国法院、仲裁机构和行政机关对一些涉及 VIE 协议的 案件的判决、裁决或决定，认为它们反映了中国政府对 VIE 结构在中国的使用 持否定态度。本备忘录将分析这些案件与典型 VIE 结构的差别以及这些判决、 裁决或决定可能会对 VIE 结构在中国的使用产生的影响。 1. Summary of recent judicial judgments, arbitration awards and administrative decisions concerning the VIE structure 近期近期涉及涉及 VIE 架构架构的法院判决的法院判决、仲裁裁决仲裁裁决及行政决定及行政决定的简述的简述 1.1 Arbitration awards of CIETAC Shanghai in two related cases involving an online game operating company using the VIE structure 贸仲上海分会在两起涉及同一网络游戏运营公司的 VIE结构的案件中的 仲裁裁决 According to an article published in China Business Law Journal, a tribunal of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) Shanghai ruled in 2010 and 2011 in two related cases involving the VIE arrangement of an online game operating company, stating that the VIE agreements were void on the grounds that such arrangement HAN KUN LAW OFFICES 汉坤律师事务所汉坤律师事务所 2 violated the mandatory provisions of administrative regulations prohibiting foreign investors from investing in the online game operation business, and constituted “concealing illegal intentions with a lawful form”. 根据商法月刊发表的一篇文章，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（“贸贸 仲仲”）上海分会某仲裁庭于 2010 年和 2011 年期间，在两起涉及同一家 网络游戏运营公司的 VIE 结构的案件中， 以该 VIE 结构违反了禁止外国 投资者投资网络游戏运营业务的行政法规的强制性规定， 以及构成了 “以 合法形式掩盖非法目的”为由，裁决该案涉及的 VIE 协议无效。 1.2 Judgment of the PRC Supreme Court in the dispute between Chinachem Financial Services and China Small and Medium Enterprises Investment Co., Ltd. over ownership of shares in Minsheng Bank 最高院就华懋金融服务有限公司和中国中小企业投资有限公司之间关于 民生银行股份所有权争议的判决 It was reported that the Supreme Peoples Court of the PRC (the “Supreme Court”) in late 2012 made a ruling on a dispute between Chinachem Financial Services (“Chinachem”), a Hong Kong investor, and China Small and Medium Enterprises Investment Co., Ltd. (“SME Company”), a PRC firm who held shares of Minsheng Bank, a financial institution established in China, on behalf of Chinachem. In 1995, Chinachem entered into a series of agreements with SME Company, including entrustment agreements and loan agreements. According to the loan agreements (the “Minsheng Loan Agreements”), Chinachem provided loans to SME Company for subscribing to shares in Minsheng Bank and the interests of the loans shall equal the dividends obtained from Minsheng Bank. Through the entrustment agreements (the “Minsheng Entrustment Agreements”), Chinachem authorized SME Company to act on its behalf as its proxy with respect to the shares in Minsheng Bank, including holding the shares in Minsheng Bank on behalf of Chinachem, managing and exercising all the rights and interests associated with these shares, and filling in a director position on the board of Minsheng Bank, while SME Company undertook to exercise the voting rights associated with these shares following the instructions of Chinachem. Chinachem soon had a dispute with SME Company over the ownership of the Minsheng Bank shares and the related dividends. The dispute ended up in PRC courts for 12 years until a recent ruling by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that the agreements between Chinachem and SME Company were invalid on the ground that these agreements established an entrustment relationship, which circumvented the PRC laws and regulations on foreign investment in the financial industry and constituted “concealing illegal intentions with a lawful form.” 据报道，2012 年底，中华人民共和国最高人民法院（“最高院最高院”）对华 懋金融服务有限公司（“华懋华懋”）与中国中小企业投资有限公司（“中中 小企业投资小企业投资公司公司”）的争议作出了判决。华懋是一家香港投资者，而中HAN KUN LAW OFFICES 汉坤律师事务所汉坤律师事务所 3 小企业投资公司是一家中国大陆公司，代华懋持有一家中国大陆金融机 构民生银行的股份。1995 年，华懋与中小企业投资公司签署了一系列协 议，包括委托协议以及借款协议。根据借款协议（“民生借款协议民生借款协议”）， 华懋为中小企业投资公司提供借款，用于认购民生银行的股份，借款的 利息等于民生银行的股份红利。根据委托协议（“民生委托协