Analysis of the Compensation Liability of Private Fund Managers for Violations of Information Disclosure Obligations
Preface
In the first four articles of the series on the obligations of private fund managers, we combine relevant judicial precedents, arbitration rulings, and the self disciplinary actions of the China Securities Investment Fund Industry Association (hereinafter referred to as the "China Securities Investment Fund Association") to introduce various situations where private fund managers violate the obligation of suitability management, the duty of diligence in fund investment and post investment management, and the compensation liability that fund liquidation obligations require to fund investors. In this article, we will delve into the situations where private fund managers violate their information disclosure obligations and the corresponding compensation responsibilities.
As mentioned in the previous articles of this series, there are not many regulatory regulations related to private fund investment and post investment, and even if there are, there are relatively few specific operational aspects involved. We understand that this is mainly because there are many factors that determine the implementation of private fund investment and post investment management activities, making it difficult to unify and regulate them at the regulatory system level. However, the information disclosure activities to be discussed in this article are different. We believe that the core purpose of information disclosure in private equity funds is to enable the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the China Association for Market Regulation to more effectively fulfill their responsibilities in supervision, management, and industry self-discipline. More importantly, to enable private equity fund investors to better exercise their right to know and protect their legitimate rights and interests. In view of this, regardless of the type of private equity fund, as well as its fundraising scale and investment scope, a unified set of information disclosure rules can be followed. Therefore, the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) have introduced many regulations and self-discipline rules on information disclosure of private equity funds, including the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Private Equity Investment Funds, the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Private Equity Investment Funds, the Measures for the Administration of Information Disclosure of Private Equity Investment Funds, the Measures for the Registration and Filing of Private Equity Investment Funds, and their supporting filing guidelines and material lists. In addition, various securities regulatory bureaus and China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) have repeatedly imposed administrative supervision and disciplinary actions on fund managers who violate their information disclosure obligations. From this, it can be seen that private fund managers who violate their legal or agreed information disclosure obligations will face administrative and self regulatory measures from the China Securities Regulatory Commission, local securities regulatory bureaus, and the China Securities Regulatory Association. So, if the manager violates the obligation of information disclosure, do they need to bear the responsibility of compensation for losses to investors? We plan to combine judicial precedents related to the information disclosure obligations of private fund managers, introduce and analyze the mainstream views of judicial authorities on the violation of information disclosure obligations by managers and their liability for compensation to investors [3], in order to provide useful references for private fund managers and fund investors.
Case analysis on identifying private fund managers violating information
disclosure obligations
01
The manager shall bear the liability for compensation to investors
1
Defects in information disclosure methods
The case involves the manager disclosing information on the official website of the fund without agreement in the fund contract and without informing the investors, and the disclosure content is also flawed. Combined with the serious mistakes of the manager in the fundraising and investment stages, the court ordered the manager to compensate the investors for all the principal losses incurred
In the contract dispute case between XC Investment Management Co., Ltd. and other parties such as Li (2022) Hu 74 Min Zhong No. 1474, the fund contract involved stipulated that the fund manager should disclose information to investors in writing, but in reality, the fund manager only disclosed information through its official website. The first instance court held that the manager involved in the case neither stated the official website in the fund contract nor informed that the information disclosure method was on the official website. It was inappropriate to disclose relevant information on the official website without the knowledge of the investors. The fund has been terminated, but the returns have not been distributed as agreed, and investors have only recovered a portion of the funds, resulting in actual investment losses. And the case involves serious faults of the manager in terms of suitability obligations, fund investment scope, information disclosure content (detailed below), etc. The court determined that there is a considerable causal relationship between his breach of contract and the losses of the investors, and ultimately ordered the manager to compensate the investors for all principal. The second instance court upheld the original judgment.
The fund manager failed to disclose information in the agreed manner, but provided other convenient ways for investors to obtain information, and the investors also had some fault for not obtaining important information. The court ultimately ordered the manager to compensate the investors with 20% of the unrecovered amount
In the case of dispute over entrusted wealth management contract between Wu and J Investment Management Co., Ltd. (2020) Yue 01 Min Zhong No. 15306, the fund involved is a private securities investment fund. The fund contract stipulates that investors can terminate the fund contract in advance when the cumulative net value of the fund unit is equal to or less than 0.8 yuan. The fund manager shall submit the net asset value information of the fund to investors in a timely manner through agreed forms such as mail, fax, or email; And when significant events occur that may affect the interests of investors, they should also be reported in a timely manner. However, the investors involved in the case did not provide the administrator with information such as a mailing address, fax number, or email address. During the operation of the fund, the manager involved in the case failed to fulfill their information reporting obligations as agreed (although investors can obtain information by logging into the manager's official website or WeChat official account, etc.). Later investors did not exercise their redemption rights in a timely manner when the net asset value of the fund unit in question fell below 0.8 yuan. The second instance court held that the manager involved in the case failed to fulfill the reporting obligation as agreed, which hindered the investors from exercising their right to redeem the fund products in a timely manner. However, the investors also failed to fulfill their assistance obligations to cooperate with the manager involved in the case in fulfilling the aforementioned obligations, and failed to actively understand the unit net value information of the fund products involved. Therefore, both parties have varying degrees of fault and should bear corresponding responsibilities. And the failure of the manager to fulfill reporting obligations does not necessarily lead to increased losses for investors. Taking into account the aforementioned factors, the court ultimately ordered the manager involved in the case to compensate investors with 20% of the unrecovered investment amount calculated based on a net asset value of 0.8 yuan per fund unit, and the remaining losses shall be borne by the investors themselves.
Similar to the facts and judgments of this case, there is also the dispute over the entrusted wealth management contract between Xie and X Investment Management Co., Ltd. (2019) Yue 01 Min Zhong 21112). In this case, the fund manager did not regularly provide investors with fund related information in accordance with the provisions of the fund contract, and did not timely disclose the replacement of the risk control responsible person. The court believes that the above-mentioned actions of the fund manager involved in the case will have a certain impact on the subsequent investment decisions of investors, so it is determined that the fund manager shall bear 20% of the responsibility for the losses incurred by investors who fail to redeem in a timely manner.
2
Defects in information disclosure content
The disclosure by the fund manager does not match the provisions of the fund contract and the actual investment situation of the fund, and the regulatory authority determines that it has not disclosed significant information to investors in accordance with the agreement; Considering the serious mistakes made by the manager during the fundraising and investment stages, the court ordered the manager to compensate the investors for all principal losses incurred
In the contract dispute case between XC Investment Management Co., Ltd. and other parties such as Li (2022) Hu 74 Min Zhong No. 1474, the fund contract involved stipulates that the fund manager shall provide the fund contract, net asset value report, periodic report, etc. to the fund unit holders. However, the manager involved in the case did not disclose the net asset value report, etc. And the disclosed annual reports for different years have different expressions on the same matter, which are inconsistent with the actual investment situation of the fund stated by the manager to the court during the trial process of the case. The manager involved in the case explained the aforementioned differences as the presence of cross investment, reinvestment, and reserved working capital in the investment funds, but did not disclose these situations to the investors together. Therefore, the court determined that the information disclosed did not meet the requirements of authenticity, accuracy, and completeness. The Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau also clearly determined that the manager involved in the case engaged in violations of disclosing significant information to investors as stipulated in the contract. As mentioned earlier, due to the termination of the fund and the failure to distribute profits as agreed, the investor only recovered a portion of the funds, and the court determined that the investor's investment losses had actually occurred. The first and second instance courts, taking into account the serious faults of the managers involved in the case in terms of suitability obligations, fund investment scope, and defects in information disclosure methods, as well as their causal relationship with investor losses, ultimately ordered the managers involved in the case to compensate investors for the remaining investment principal after deducting the settled amount.
3
Lawyer analysis and advice
Based on the above cases, we summarize and analyze the situations identified by the judicial authorities as fund managers violating information disclosure obligations in terms of the methods and contents of information disclosure:
In terms of information disclosure methods, according to the Management Measures for Information Disclosure of Private Investment Funds [4] (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Measures"), the fund contract should specify the methods and other matters in which the information disclosure obligor discloses information to investors. In practice, the Fund Contract generally stipulates that the fund manager shall disclose information to investors through mail, fax, email, SMS, and the information disclosure platform of the China Securities Association. Therefore, first of all, we suggest that private fund managers and investors clearly agree on specific and feasible information disclosure methods in the fund contract based on the actual situation, avoiding vague agreements that disclose information in writing. The agreement on this disclosure method not only causes inconvenience to the fund manager in disclosing information, but also easily leads to unnecessary disputes and disputes. Secondly, private fund managers should strictly disclose in accordance with the contractual provisions to avoid being held liable by investors for compensation due to performance defects. In addition, the fund manager may also agree in the Fund Agreement to efficiently and conveniently disclose information through WeChat, official WeChat accounts, official websites, or third-party platforms. However, it is worth noting that on the one hand, the manager should clearly specify the query methods for the above-mentioned disclosure methods in the Fund Contract, accurately stating the relevant website and operation path. On the other hand, managers should attach importance to the retention of evidence materials, including disclosure and performance, for the aforementioned disclosure methods. If the fund manager entrusts a third-party institution to disclose information on its platform, it should be noted that the entrusted disclosure does not exempt it from its obligation to disclose information to investors according to the fund contract. From the perspective of investors, they should provide accurate contact information in accordance with the fund contract to cooperate with the fund manager for information disclosure. They should actively and proactively understand the operation status of the fund and pay attention to the disclosed fund related information during the process of holding fund shares, rather than just being a hands off shopkeeper. Once it is discovered that the fund manager has not disclosed information as agreed, they should actively contact the manager to claim their rights, in order to avoid financial losses caused by failure to timely obtain relevant key investment information, or being found guilty by the court when suing the manager for compensation.
In terms of information disclosure content, regulations such as the "Information Disclosure Measures", the Guidelines for the Content and Format of Information Disclosure of Private Equity Investment Funds [6], the "Registration and Filing Measures for Private Equity Investment Funds", and the China Securities Regulatory Commission's self-discipline rules clearly stipulate the various information that private equity fund managers should disclose to investors during fund operation. Moreover, the content of information disclosure is also an essential clause in private fund contracts [7]. In practice, the Fund Contract usually specifies the information disclosed by the Fund Manager to investors in a listing manner, and uses "other significant matters that affect the interests of investors" as a fallback agreement. Based on the relevant cases where the court has determined that private fund managers have violated their disclosure obligations, it can be concluded that these "significant matters" may include revocation of fund registration, changes in fund fundraising and usage, significant financial and operational conditions of the invested enterprise, and significant risk control of the fund. To avoid disputes between the fund manager and investors regarding the information disclosure obligations of the fund manager due to unclear provisions on "major matters" in the aforementioned cover clauses, we suggest that the fund manager define "other major matters that affect the interests of investors" as clearly as possible in the fund contract (we understand that such matters should include but are not limited to information related to investment project exit, fund risk control measures, exercise of investor rights, etc.), and clearly stipulate that the fund manager has no obligation to disclose information or matters other than those required by laws, regulations, and self regulatory rules, as well as major matters stipulated in the fund contract, to investors. However, considering that there may be situations during the operation of the fund that cannot be estimated by all parties when entering into the fund contract, for some matters that are not explicitly stipulated in laws, regulations, and self-discipline rules, and there are no special provisions in the fund contract, if the manager, based on their prudent judgment, believes that they are also "significant matters that affect the interests of investors", we still recommend that the fund manager disclose these matters to investors in a timely, accurate, and complete manner to avoid information disclosure breaches to the greatest extent possible.
02
The manager shall not be liable for compensation to investors
1
Related cases
The fund manager disclosed the investment target of the fund in the fund contract, but did not clearly indicate that there is a related relationship between the investment target and it. The court criticized this, but did not support investors' claims to terminate the fund contract, return investment funds, and compensate for interest based on this
In the case of the dispute over the financial entrusted wealth management contract between Zhuang and J Investment Management Co., Ltd. (2021) Yue 03 Min Zhong 36213, it is clearly stated in the fund contract that the fund in question mainly acquires specific income rights held by Company B. The investors involved in the case later claimed to terminate the fund contract on the grounds that the manager in question did not disclose to them that Company B was an affiliated enterprise of the fund manager in question. The first instance court held that the scope of investment and the target company of the investment were clearly stipulated in the fund contract involved, and the investors involved should have a clear understanding of the investment project; And it also did not claim that it was related party transactions that caused its investment losses. The failure of the manager involved in the case to disclose that Company B is an affiliated enterprise does not constitute sufficient reason for the investor to terminate the fund contract. However, when the fund manager engages in related party transactions with the fund, it should provide investors with sufficient explanations and reminders, fulfill higher disclosure obligations, and the improper behavior of the fund manager involved in the case will be criticized by the first instance court. In addition, due to the insufficient evidence provided by the investors involved in the case to prove the other faults of the managers involved, the first instance court ultimately rejected all of the investors' litigation claims. The second instance court upheld the original judgment.
The fund manager failed to timely disclose the obstacles and plans for the exit of the fund investment project, resulting in defects in the performance of information disclosure obligations. However, the fund's losses were caused by normal investment risks, and the court only ordered the manager to refund a portion of the management fee
In the case of dispute over the entrusted wealth management contract between Wang and A Asset Management Co., Ltd. (2019) Hu 0109 Min Chu No. 22016, the fund assets raised by the fund were used to subscribe to the limited partnership shares of Company B, and ultimately invested in the privatization of H-share companies and the listing of A-shares. The fund manager involved in the case only notified investors of the delayed exit plan more than a year after becoming aware of the existence of exit obstacles in the fund investment project. The court believes that although this matter does not affect the amount of funds recovered by investors, the loss of benefits during the period of funds is still a significant matter that should be disclosed. The defendant's disclosure to the plaintiff is obviously delayed and there are performance defects. Considering that the fund manager has not committed any other breach of contract or dereliction of duty, and the court has determined that the losses of the fund product are caused by normal investment risks, the request from investors to refund the subscription principal balance and period interest of the involved manager is not supported. However, considering that the administrator involved in the case has certain flaws in information disclosure, the court has decided to refund a portion of the management fee to the investor.
The fund manager's failure to inform the investors of the search method constitutes a flaw in information disclosure, but the court has determined that there is no direct causal relationship between the flaw and the investor's losses, and the manager involved in the case has no other fault, and the investor's losses cannot be determined. Therefore, the compensation request from the investor is not supported
In the case of [(2022) LMZ No. 579] Ouyang, C Co., Ltd. and other financial entrusted wealth management contract disputes, providing information inquiry service on the Internet was one of the forms of information disclosure agreed in the Fund Contract, but the fund manager involved in the case did not clearly inform investors of the specific inquiry method. Therefore, the first instance court determined that there were information disclosure flaws in the fund manager involved in the case. However, due to the lack of a direct causal relationship between the defect and the investor's losses, the first instance court believes that the investor's claim for compensation from the involved manager on this basis cannot be established. In addition, based on the facts of the case, the court is also unable to determine that the administrator involved in the case failed to fulfill their diligent and responsible management obligations during the investment, exit and liquidation stages. And the investment losses of the investors involved in the case cannot be determined when the fund assets have not been fully repaid. Therefore, the first instance court believes that the investors involved in the case do not yet have the prerequisite to demand that the manager in question compensate them for the investment principal and interest. The second instance court upheld the original judgment.
2
Lawyer analysis and advice
Taking into account the cases where the court did not order the administrator to bear the liability for compensation for investor investment losses, as well as the case where the administrator is required to bear the liability for compensation to investors in the first part of this article, we understand that in investor claims disputes, if the administrator only has defects in the performance of information disclosure obligations and there are no major matters related to investor interests that should have been disclosed but not disclosed, and there are no other illegal or irregular behaviors of the administrator that violate the fund contract or fail to fulfill their duty of diligence, such defects in information are generally difficult to be determined to have a direct causal relationship with investor losses. Therefore, it is difficult for the compensation requests of investors to be supported by the court, such as the (2022) Luminzhong 579 introduced above. Case. However, for private securities investment funds with open arrangements, if investors rely on important information such as the net asset value disclosed by the fund manager to make subsequent investment decisions (such as whether to redeem fund shares), and the fund manager fails to disclose relevant information in accordance with the law, it may be deemed that there is a causal relationship with the losses of the investors. Referring to the cases of (2020) Yue 01 Min Zhong 15306 and (2019) Yue 01 Min Zhong 21112, both courts have ordered the manager involved in the case to bear 20% of the compensation liability for the losses suffered by investors who failed to timely redeem private securities fund shares due to failure to obtain important information.
In addition, it is worth noting that although the court did not order the fund manager to compensate investors for investment losses in the (2021) Yue 03 Min Zhong 36213 case due to the fund manager's failure to clearly indicate to investors that the fund invested in a company with an affiliated relationship. However, significant related party transactions are significant matters that are clearly stipulated in the Information Disclosure Measures to be disclosed to investors in a timely manner. Moreover, regulations such as the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds [8] and the Measures for the Registration and Filing of Private Investment Funds [9], as well as the self-discipline rules of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, emphasize the disclosure of fund related transactions. Therefore, we suggest that fund managers disclose fund related transactions to investors in a legal and compliant manner as stipulated in the fund contract in a timely manner. Otherwise, they may not only face penalties from the China Securities Regulatory Commission and self regulatory measures from the China Association for Market Regulation, but may also fall into investor claims disputes due to defects in information disclosure performance.
Cases related to determining that private fund managers
have not violated their information disclosure obligations
1
Related cases
In the case of a securities investment fund trading dispute between H Co., Ltd., Chang Moumou, and P Co., Ltd. (2020) Hu 74 Min Zhong 461), the case involves an investment in E company by the asset management plan, and E company's equity investment in F company. The asset management contract involved in the case stipulates that the asset manager shall provide the client with a recommendation period report and an operational period report through mail, fax, or email. The operational period report includes the annual project report and the interim report. The manager involved in the case provided the aforementioned information to investors through WeChat and email, and informed F Company of its listing progress and exit matters. In addition, the manager involved in the case publicized the project's annual report, quarterly report, temporary report, delay announcement, liquidation announcement and other report information on its official website and WeChat official account. In addition, according to the information disclosed by the private fund manager of the China Association for Market Regulation, there was no situation where the information disclosure of the asset management plan by the manager involved in the case should have been disclosed but not disclosed. Although the manager involved in the case did not disclose the report in a timely manner and the report content was incomplete when providing it to investors, the manager has timely disclosed it on the website of the China Securities Association in accordance with the Information Disclosure Measures. Investors can log in to the private fund information disclosure backup platform designated by the China Securities Association for information queries. Based on this, the first instance court believes that the administrator in question has basically fulfilled the contractual obligations and relevant regulatory requirements in terms of information disclosure, and there is no substantive breach. However, the administrator of the case was ultimately ordered by the second instance court to assume compensation liability to the investors due to violating the obligation of appropriateness and not fully disclosing investment risks.
2
Lawyer analysis and advice
From the above case, it can be seen that during the trial process, the court will judge whether the information disclosure behavior of the fund manager complies with the provisions of the fund contract and relevant regulatory requirements, and whether it has properly fulfilled its information disclosure obligations. Therefore, we suggest that the fund manager fully, accurately, and completely fulfill the agreed and statutory information disclosure obligations in accordance with relevant provisions such as the Fund Contract and the Information Disclosure Measures. At the same time, pay attention to retaining relevant performance evidence, such as providing agreed fund information through instant messaging tools such as WeChat. The fund manager should pay attention to backing up relevant WeChat chat records. In addition, we suggest that the fund manager strictly follow the requirements of the China Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation (CFPA), promptly open a query account on the CFPA official website information disclosure system platform for investors, and inform investors of the account information and query path in a timely manner. At the same time, the fund manager should disclose relevant information of the fund in the system in a timely, complete, and accurate manner. On this premise, referring to the aforementioned case (2020) Hu 74 Min Zhong 461, even if the manager fails to disclose information in the manner agreed upon in the fund contract, evidence can be provided in relevant disputes to prove that they have made complete, accurate, and timely disclosure in the Xinpi system. Investors can also log in to their accounts at any time to inquire, in order to minimize the possibility of being recognized as a breach of information disclosure by the court.
Epilogue
Information disclosure is not only a high-risk area for private fund managers to be subject to administrative and self regulatory measures, but also a common reason for investors to claim compensation from managers after suffering losses. This serves as a warning that private fund managers should strictly abide by relevant regulatory rules and requirements for information disclosure during fund operation, clearly and specifically agree with investors on necessary matters such as the method, content, and frequency of information disclosure in the Fund Contract, and fulfill their information disclosure obligations to investors in a timely, accurate, and complete manner in accordance with the provisions of the Fund Contract. For disclosure content that is not clearly defined or agreed upon, such as important events and risk information that occur during the operation of the fund, the fund manager should properly disclose information from the perspective of protecting the rights and interests of investors. Otherwise, once the court determines that there is a significant causal relationship between the information disclosure flaws of the fund manager and the property losses of investors, or if the fund manager seriously violates other diligent and responsible obligations in the fund operation process, the court is likely to order the fund manager to compensate investors for investment losses.
[1] The information disclosure obligation of private fund managers discussed in this article mainly refers to the information disclosure that private fund managers should make to fund investors during fund operation.
[2] Local securities regulatory bureaus, such as the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau's decisions numbered [2024] 118 and [2024] 57, as well as the Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau's decisions numbered [2024] 15 and [2023] 173, all state that due to violations of information disclosure obligations by relevant private fund managers in the process of conducting private fund business, the Securities Regulatory Bureau takes administrative regulatory measures such as issuing warning letters. Several disciplinary decision documents issued by the China Association for the Betterment and Progress of Private Equity Fund (CFPA), including CFPA Disciplinary Decisions [2024] No. 78, [2024] No. 73, [2024] No. 69, also indicate that the punished private fund manager has engaged in violations such as failure to properly fulfill information disclosure obligations.
[3] The case analysis in this article mainly discusses the situations where the judicial authorities have determined that private fund managers have violated their information obligations during fund operation in relevant cases. In the cases cited in this article, fund managers may have had many violations and faults. Considering the length and theme of the article, the facts and judicial views we have summarized may not have fully and detailedly explained all the violations and faults of the managers involved in the case, but rather focused on the performance of information disclosure for reference. Please refer to the facts and reasons stated in the final judgment of the relevant case for details.
[4] Article 15 of the Management Measures for Information Disclosure of Private Investment Funds stipulates that the fund contract shall specify the content, frequency, method, responsibility, and channels of information disclosure that the information disclosure obligor shall disclose to investors.
[5] Reference (2022) Hu 74 Min Zhong 1474 Case
[6] Including "Guidelines for the Content and Format of Information Disclosure in Private Equity Investment Funds No. 1" and "Guidelines for the Content and Format of Information Disclosure in Private Equity Investment Funds No. 2- Applicable to Private Equity (including Entrepreneurship) Investment Funds".
[7] According to the revised list of filing materials for private equity investment funds in 2023, the content of private equity fund contracts should include information disclosure content, methods, frequency, and investor inquiry channels.
[8] Article 28 of the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Private Equity Investment Funds: Private equity fund managers shall establish and improve a system for managing related party transactions, and shall not engage in improper transactions or transfer interests between private equity fund assets and related parties. They shall not conceal information through multiple layers of nesting or other means.
Private fund managers who use private fund assets to trade with themselves, investors, other private funds managed by them, other private fund managers controlled by their actual controllers, or other entities with significant interests shall follow the decision-making procedures stipulated in the fund contract and provide relevant information to investors and private fund custodians in a timely manner.
[9] Article 38 of the Measures for the Registration and Filing of Private Equity Investment Funds: Private equity fund managers shall establish and improve a system for managing related party transactions, and clearly stipulate in the fund contract mechanisms for identifying and recognizing related party transactions, making transaction decisions, determining consideration, disclosing information, and avoiding them. Related party transactions shall follow the principles of prioritizing the interests of investors, equality, voluntariness, and equal compensation. Related party relationships shall not be concealed, nor shall they be used to engage in illegal and irregular activities such as improper transactions and interest transmission.
作者简介
Lawyer Yang Chunbao
First level lawyer
Senior Partner of Dentons (Shanghai) Law Firm
Email:
chambers.yang@dentons.cn
Leader of private equity and investment fund professionals in Dacheng China, member of the Capital Market Professional Committee, and member of the Shanghai Foreign Legal Talent Pool. Bachelor of Law from Fudan University (1992), Master of Law from the University of Science and Technology of Sydney (2001), and Master of Law from East China University of Political Science and Law (2001).
Lawyer Yang has been practicing for 29 years, specializing in legal services for private equity funds, investment and financing, and mergers and acquisitions, covering industries such as TMT, big finance, big health, real estate and infrastructure, exhibition industry, and manufacturing. Since 2004, he/she has been selected multiple times on the "Private Equity Fund" and "Company and Business" lists of The Legal 500, and has received special recommendations or comments from Asia Law profiles. Since 2016, he/she has been continuously selected as one of the "100 Outstanding Lawyers in Chinese Business" by the internationally renowned legal media China Business Law Journal, and has been awarded the title of "China's Annual Corporate Law Expert" by Leaders in Law 2021 Global Awards; Ranked in the recommended list of excellent lawyers and law firms recommended by the First China Famous Enterprise Law Society; Has won multiple awards such as the Lawyer Monthly and Finance Monthly China TMT Lawyer Award and the China Mergers and Acquisitions Lawyer Award. Has the qualification to serve as an independent director of a listed company, and is a part-time professor at the Law School of East China University of Science and Technology, a part-time supervisor at the Law School of Fudan University, a part-time graduate supervisor at East China University of Political Science and Law, a lecturer in the Private Equity President Class at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and a lecturer in the Cross border Business Talent Training Class at the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Commerce. Published 16 monographs including "Risk Prevention and Control Operation Practice of Private Equity Investment Funds", "Practical Operation and Case Analysis of Enterprise Legal Risk Prevention and Control", and "Perfect Capital 2: Complete Operation Guide for Corporate Investment and Financing Model Processes". Lawyer Yang's practice areas include companies, investment mergers and acquisitions, and private equity funds. Capital markets, TMT, real estate and construction engineering, as well as dispute resolution in the aforementioned fields.
Lawyer Sun Tian
Partner of Dentons (Shanghai) Law Firm
Email:
sun.zhen@dentons.cn
Prior to practicing, Lawyer Sun worked as an executive assistant to global, Asia Pacific, or China regional presidents or vice presidents in Fortune 500 companies such as Watts, Ingersoll Rand, and Alcatel Lucent in the United States. He has accumulated rich experience in enterprise operations and management, and possesses excellent bilingual communication and coordination skills in both Chinese and English. Lawyer Sun has published "Practical Practice in Risk Prevention and Control of Private Equity Investment Funds" and has published dozens of articles in the fields of mergers and acquisitions, funds, and e-commerce. Lawyer Sun specializes in areas such as private equity investment, corporate mergers and acquisitions, e-commerce, and labor legal affairs.
Li Jiaxin
Law Assistant at Dacheng (Shanghai) Law Firm
Bachelor of Law from Fudan University, has participated in due diligence for selecting fund managers and establishing sub fund projects for multiple parent funds, due diligence for fund investment target companies, and daily legal services related to fund fundraising, investment management, and retirement.
First, please LoginComment After ~