The Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China (“CMC”) completed its first systematic and comprehensive revision on 28 October 2025, and the revision came into effect on 1 May 2026.More
2026-06-24ARTICLES By Peng Jun, Shen Ziying, and Sun Rui On April 27, 2026, the proposed acquisition of Chinese AI company Manus by Meta was blocked by the Foreign Investment Security Review Working Mechanism Office (the National Development and Reform Commission).More
2026-06-24ARTICLES Ping Zhao, Stella Lu, Ice Zhang, Tianning Jiang On April 22, 2026, the Quebec Superior Court of Canada set aside the arbitral award rendered by arbitrator Michel A. Jeanniot in ARIHQ c. Santé Québec. The Court found that the academic literature and case authorities relied upon in the core legal reasoning of the award either did not exist or were unrelated to the propositions for which they were cited.More
2026-04-29ARTICLES Jun PENG, Ziying SHEN, Rui SUN The acquisition of Manus by Meta has attracted widespread public attention since January. There has been intense discussion among various media outlets and scholars around the underlying compliance issues of the transaction. Information released by relevant Chinese government authorities on 27 April 2026 indicates that the Meta-Manus transaction presents compliance issues in relation to China’s foreign investment security review.More
2026-04-29ARTICLES Cai Shuo, Xing Jingyu The implementation of the Foreign Investment Law has triggered a wave of corporate restructuring among foreign-invested enterprises, while disputes between Chinese and foreign shareholders have become increasingly prominent. This article focuses on two practical issues arising after the implementation of the Foreign Investment Law: the determination of shareholder status for Chinese shareholders whose equity interests were historically registered as zero, and the approval and filing requirements for equity transfers in foreign-invested enterprises.More
2026-04-29ARTICLES Ping Zhao, Mujuan Lin, Stella Lu, Zhuangyi Li, Ice Zhang With the increasing integration of AI into the legal field, the boundaries governing the use of AI tools by both parties and legal counsel have become increasingly prominent. From the perspective of parties, this article takes United States of America v. Bradley Heppner as a point of departure and examines the position that where a party, without the direction of counsel, uses consumer-grade AI platforms to process confidential information, communications between the party and the AI platform are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.More