From ballpoint pens to highway bridges – government agencies spend billions each year through public procurement. So it is no wonder that Western companies are repeatedly outraged by China’s procurement practices. Agencies in the People’s Republic favor domestic companies. And abroad, Chinese companies undermine fair competition with dumping prices. But the EU now wants to remedy the situation. A new instrument aims to make the European procurement market fairer and force China to open its market. However, the question whether this will succeed remains open, analyzes Amelie Richter.
Hundreds of millions of people in China are affected by Covid lockdowns. In Shanghai, food and medicine even became scarce at one point. Instead, citizens received mass quantities of traditional herbal mixtures. These supplies are probably intended to achieve two things: They are supposed to demonstrate that the government is doing something for its citizens and can provide them with medicine. And they promote the international reputation of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as an alternative to Western science.
But these herbal capsules are also controversial in the country, reports Fabian Kretschmer. Their effect has not been proven by studies, instead, they may even have side effects. For manufacturers, however, it is a billion-dollar business.
Chinese companies snatch up public construction tenders for giant bridges in Croatia, while EU companies are not even allowed to bid on similar projects in the People’s Republic. This is exactly what the International Procurement Instrument (IPI) is supposed to change. With this new EU regulation, the Commission wants to break up the Chinese procurement market. At the same time, it wants to put cheap bids from China at a disadvantage in public tenders. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the IPI in June. All that is then needed is the green light from the EU Council before this new instrument can be formally adopted and implemented.
The plan is: If a non-EU country such as the People’s Republic refuses to open its public procurement market to EU bidders to the same extent as the EU, sanctions may be imposed. Bids from China could either be completely excluded from a tender or receive a surcharge. An exclusion would require a qualified majority among the EU governments. That is two-thirds of all member states. If, on the other hand, only a price surcharge is sought, authority lies with Brussels However, this cannot happen overnight and not for every tender:
In China, there is so far “no intention to open the market,” said Daniel Caspary (CDU), MEP responsible for the IPI, at a press conference after the agreement of the EU Parliament and the EU Council. He said the EU’s goal with the new instrument is not to close the European market to third countries, but rather to encourage other countries to open up. But, “we want to be defensible in case of doubt and exert pressure,” Caspary said. He emphasized that China also intends to draw know-how into its own country with cheap foreign contracts.
The big question, however, is whether such punitive measures will actually cause China to open up its public tenders to Europeans. Juergen Matthes of the German Economic Institute remains skeptical. “I think basically it’s difficult to assess the impact.” Matthes currently sees two contradictory developments in the People’s Republic that influence the EU’s desired outcome with the IPI: On the one hand, he says, there have been small liberalization steps in China, such as for foreign investment and joint venture regulations or under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement. There is also some progress on the International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions, at least on paper, Matthes said. “That’s one side where we’ve definitely seen positive developments here and there in recent years.”
On the other hand, China wants to become more self-sufficient. Among other things, it is promoting this through its “Made in China 2025” policy, according to the economist. In this regard, Beijing has its eye on a number of high-tech areas, including medical technology. “Here, there were even further restrictions on public procurement through domestic content requirements,” Matthes said.
According to these regulations on domestic value creation, preference should be given to products and manufacturers from the People’s Republic in public procurement. Provinces such as Zhejiang and Guangdong, for example, have published white lists for the import of medical products. State hospitals in these provinces are not allowed to purchase imported medical products that are not on this list. Matthes is certain that foreign companies will find it even harder in the future to secure contracts in areas with a focus on domestic content.
The market for public procurement of medical equipment is a prime example of China’s increasingly autarkic policy: “Chinese imports of medical technology goods from the EU, the US, and Switzerland have declined in the past year. Moreover, the fall in Chinese imports of medical technology can especially be observed in the medical technologies that went through centralized state procurement,” researchers of the think tank European Center for International Political Economy wrote in a study. For this study, medical technology public tenders in China were examined. According to the study, Chinese companies were able to win 68 percent of all tenders in the period observed between 2019 and 2021 – and the trend is rising, ECIPE writes.
Because the IPI could create more reciprocity, Matthes is cautiously optimistic overall: “The chances of something happening in China to the advantage of European companies in public procurement are definitely greater with IPI than without.”
Matthes also believes that this instrument is also indispensable for the EU market, because Chinese suppliers often enter the procurement market with dumping prices. This could be prevented if the EU actually implements the IPI – after unsuccessful negotiations with China. Moreover, the unity displayed by the EU alone would be a signal to Beijing. Even if EU representatives stress that it is not a “Lex China”.
How Brussels’ requirements will ultimately be reflected in public procurement is still an open question, says Matthes. “That also depends on how the administrative experts in the local municipalities put the IPI into practice in their public tenders.” A critical debate about China’s role in the European economy could lead to more sensitivity to Chinese dumping bids in the process, he adds. Matthes, therefore, advocates more China expertise at the regional and local levels, where decisions are made.
Critics consider the new procurement instrument to increase protectionism on the part of the EU. They fear that the instrument will close off EU markets to China without any positive change in the People’s Republic. The claim that the Chinese market is not open enough for EU companies is a “distortion of facts,” said Peng Gang, the minister responsible for trade at the EU representation of China, during an online event of the EU-China Business Association (EUCBA).
Companies from the EU have a good reputation in China and are therefore in high demand. This even goes so far that Chinese local governments “discriminate” against domestic companies because they prefer to work with foreign suppliers, says Peng Gang. “The IPI has not been implemented yet, only time will tell what the impact will be.”
When the authorities sealed off Shanghai, people soon complained about the breakdown in food supplies. But even though fresh vegetables and cooking oil were only delivered sporadically, all of the nearly 26 million residents received a herbal mixture of licorice roots and apricot seeds. “Lianhua Qingwen” (连花清瘟) is the name of the medicine. It is a remedy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).
Zoe Zong and her four roommates also received six packets of this herbal mixture. “Actually, we didn’t take the medicine, because according to the social media I follow, it doesn’t help cure Covid symptoms or prevent infection,” says Zong, who has been locked in her Shanghai apartment for more than three weeks. “We think the government should be more focused on people’s actual needs,” she says.
And the young Chinese is not alone in her skepticism. “Lianhua Qingwen” is quite controversial. Singapore health authorities have not approved the drug for the treatment of Covid because there is no scientific evidence of its efficacy. “We strongly advise members of the public not to fall prey to unsubstantiated claims or spread unfounded rumors that herbal products can be used to prevent or treat COVID-19,” Singapore authorities stated. An independent study is now underway to investigate the herbal mixture, but results are not expected for some time. Meanwhile, warnings also came from official sources in the USA and Australia.
Lianhua Qingwen might have an effect. It is traditionally considered antipyretic and beneficial against cold symptoms, and also anti-inflammatory. Chinese studies were able to identify positive effects even before the Corona pandemic. However, the crucial question remains open whether it is more effective than the conventional drugs used against fever and inflammation, such as ibuprofen. Potential side effects have also not been sufficiently identified.
But China continues to stick to the controversial practice. And this has not least also industrial-political reasons: Since the Covid pandemic, the government has now rediscovered its interest in TCM. As early as 2020, Covid hospitals in Wuhan used herbal mixtures in the treatment of infected patients. China’s English state media have also been promoting the practice internationally, especially in the global South, as a low-cost alternative to Western medicine.
Meanwhile, private entrepreneurs are benefiting handsomely from the trend. When all Hong Kong residents were supplied with “Lianhua Qingwen” during the Omicron wave, stock prices of the company “Yiling Pharmaceutical” went through the roof. The net worth of the founding family headed by 73-year-old Wu Yiling suddenly surged by $4.5 billion.
Wu, who is one of the 500 richest people in the world, launched “Lanhua Qingwen” in the wake of the Sars epidemic in 2003. At that time, he was even elected by the Communist Party to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. In 2009, he ultimately became a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering Sciences – the highest honor for a scientist in the People’s Republic of China.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the market for traditional Chinese medicine already exceeds $60 billion. “The idea behind promoting this medical market is that some very highly effective medicines will eventually become part of the mainstream for medical treatment – not just domestically, but internationally,” says David Palmer, a sociologist at the University of Hong Kong.
But in the case of “Lianhua Qingwen,” this has met with considerable criticism, even in China. On the one hand, the now increasingly observed side effects are criticized, including damage to the liver and kidneys. Additionally, several scientists have complained that the systematic distribution of the herbal mixtures to millions of people in the lockdown puts additional strain on already strained supply capacities.
At least the controversial drug has received the blessing of China’s leading epidemiologist, Zhong Nanshan. He was recently even awarded the “Order of the Republic” by President Xi Jinping. What the 85-year-old scientist has kept secret, however: His foundation has received donations from TCM producer Yiling Pharmaceutical amounting to the equivalent of more than €200,000. Fabian Kretschmer
Sinolytics is a European consulting and analysis company specializing in China. It advises European companies on their strategic orientation and concrete business activities in the People’s Republic.
Production stop and supply chain problems – What does the lockdown mean from a legal perspective?
Since late March, the 26 million metropolis of Shanghai has been subject to lockdown regulations, which have had an extreme impact on local residents as well as thousands of companies in the Shanghai metropolitan area. For the business community, the lockdown means a standstill or severely restricted operational business, disrupted supply chains, absence of staff and other obstacles. To minimize the damage, the Chinese central and local governments try to support the economy with the help of various emergency measures. Despite this assistance, companies face numerous issues that cannot be addressed with direct government support alone.
How should the production stop in Shanghai be dealt with? What is the current legal situation in this regard?
Pandemic control measures are based primarily on China’s Emergency Response Law, Law on Prevention and Treatment on Infectious Diseases, and local regulations such as the Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on Public Health Emergency Management. In theory, companies and individuals can take legal action against unlawful government actions under these regulations. However, the likelihood of successfully enforcing legal remedies is very low due to the importance of the “fight” against COVID-19. At best, action against such measures may only be successful in cases of particularly blatant legal violations (such as the sealing of buildings in evident violation of fire protection regulations). As a rule, however – including from a strategic perspective – the path of mitigating damage within the framework of applicable laws is preferable. Here, companies focus on compensating for lost revenue through temporary cost reductions, as well as capitalizing on government support.
Numerous emergency measures have meanwhile been enacted at both national and local level, primarily aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In Shanghai, for example, a package of 17 financial support measures has been passed. These include measures to facilitate loan financing for SMEs. However, it is unclear whether foreign companies will also be able to benefit from these measures, particularly in the case of new loans.
On the expenditure side, the reduction of staff costs, rents and taxes plays a major role.
What are the risk mitigation options regarding persistent supply chain issues?
Despite the “closed-loop”, one of the biggest problems is that companies are unable to obtain urgently required parts and raw materials, are unable to obtain their own goods from their own factories, or can only do so with great difficulty. Shanghai has now issued a so-called “white list” listing 666 companies, which is to be extended to 1,188 companies that will be allowed to resume business operations. In addition, it is possible to apply for so-called transport passes for essential goods, pharmaceuticals, food and strategic reserves, power supply, key information technology and foreign trade. However, only a very small number of companies currently benefit from this.
A major follow-up problem is the possible breach of contractual obligations in the supply chain. Whether the situation can be mitigated on the basis of “force majeure” depends entirely on individual circumstances and the content of the contract in question. If there are no contractual provisions and the respective contract is subject to Chinese law, force majeure exists under the Chinese Civil Code if the epidemic or the resulting measures are an event that is objectively unforeseeable, unavoidable, and unmanageable.
In principle, the COVID-19 pandemic was classified as force majeure by the Legislative Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress in early 2020. However, in a notice dated April 10, 2022, the Shanghai Supreme People’s Court emphasized that in individual cases, the causality and proportion of the pandemic for the complete or partial inability to fulfill a contract must be taken into account above all, and appropriate distribution of interests must be sought. For this reason, it is advisable to seek contact with contractual partners first before taking unilateral action, as partners may also suffer under the impact of government measures. At present, the only option open to companies is to prepare both operationally and strategically that measures will stay in effect for the time being, which includes contractual risk-sharing.
Sebastian Wiendieck is a lawyer and partner at Rödl & Partner in China. In Shanghai, he and his team mainly provide legal services to German and European companies that are represented in China by subsidiaries and branch offices or want to enter the Chinese market in other ways.
Felix Engelhardt is a German lawyer and a Senior Associate at Rödl & Partner in Shanghai. Since 2018, he has been providing legal counsel to foreign companies in various areas of their business in China, in particular on investment, commercial and corporate law issues, intellectual property protection as well as cybersecurity and data protection.
Starship Enterprise? Not quite. What you see is a room in which the sensors and cameras of self-driving cars are adjusted. “Apollo” is the software platform of Beijing-based AI company Baidu. It aspires to become the Android of autonomous driving. However, there is plenty of international competition, for example from Google.
From ballpoint pens to highway bridges – government agencies spend billions each year through public procurement. So it is no wonder that Western companies are repeatedly outraged by China’s procurement practices. Agencies in the People’s Republic favor domestic companies. And abroad, Chinese companies undermine fair competition with dumping prices. But the EU now wants to remedy the situation. A new instrument aims to make the European procurement market fairer and force China to open its market. However, the question whether this will succeed remains open, analyzes Amelie Richter.
Hundreds of millions of people in China are affected by Covid lockdowns. In Shanghai, food and medicine even became scarce at one point. Instead, citizens received mass quantities of traditional herbal mixtures. These supplies are probably intended to achieve two things: They are supposed to demonstrate that the government is doing something for its citizens and can provide them with medicine. And they promote the international reputation of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as an alternative to Western science.
But these herbal capsules are also controversial in the country, reports Fabian Kretschmer. Their effect has not been proven by studies, instead, they may even have side effects. For manufacturers, however, it is a billion-dollar business.
Chinese companies snatch up public construction tenders for giant bridges in Croatia, while EU companies are not even allowed to bid on similar projects in the People’s Republic. This is exactly what the International Procurement Instrument (IPI) is supposed to change. With this new EU regulation, the Commission wants to break up the Chinese procurement market. At the same time, it wants to put cheap bids from China at a disadvantage in public tenders. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the IPI in June. All that is then needed is the green light from the EU Council before this new instrument can be formally adopted and implemented.
The plan is: If a non-EU country such as the People’s Republic refuses to open its public procurement market to EU bidders to the same extent as the EU, sanctions may be imposed. Bids from China could either be completely excluded from a tender or receive a surcharge. An exclusion would require a qualified majority among the EU governments. That is two-thirds of all member states. If, on the other hand, only a price surcharge is sought, authority lies with Brussels However, this cannot happen overnight and not for every tender:
In China, there is so far “no intention to open the market,” said Daniel Caspary (CDU), MEP responsible for the IPI, at a press conference after the agreement of the EU Parliament and the EU Council. He said the EU’s goal with the new instrument is not to close the European market to third countries, but rather to encourage other countries to open up. But, “we want to be defensible in case of doubt and exert pressure,” Caspary said. He emphasized that China also intends to draw know-how into its own country with cheap foreign contracts.
The big question, however, is whether such punitive measures will actually cause China to open up its public tenders to Europeans. Juergen Matthes of the German Economic Institute remains skeptical. “I think basically it’s difficult to assess the impact.” Matthes currently sees two contradictory developments in the People’s Republic that influence the EU’s desired outcome with the IPI: On the one hand, he says, there have been small liberalization steps in China, such as for foreign investment and joint venture regulations or under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement. There is also some progress on the International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions, at least on paper, Matthes said. “That’s one side where we’ve definitely seen positive developments here and there in recent years.”
On the other hand, China wants to become more self-sufficient. Among other things, it is promoting this through its “Made in China 2025” policy, according to the economist. In this regard, Beijing has its eye on a number of high-tech areas, including medical technology. “Here, there were even further restrictions on public procurement through domestic content requirements,” Matthes said.
According to these regulations on domestic value creation, preference should be given to products and manufacturers from the People’s Republic in public procurement. Provinces such as Zhejiang and Guangdong, for example, have published white lists for the import of medical products. State hospitals in these provinces are not allowed to purchase imported medical products that are not on this list. Matthes is certain that foreign companies will find it even harder in the future to secure contracts in areas with a focus on domestic content.
The market for public procurement of medical equipment is a prime example of China’s increasingly autarkic policy: “Chinese imports of medical technology goods from the EU, the US, and Switzerland have declined in the past year. Moreover, the fall in Chinese imports of medical technology can especially be observed in the medical technologies that went through centralized state procurement,” researchers of the think tank European Center for International Political Economy wrote in a study. For this study, medical technology public tenders in China were examined. According to the study, Chinese companies were able to win 68 percent of all tenders in the period observed between 2019 and 2021 – and the trend is rising, ECIPE writes.
Because the IPI could create more reciprocity, Matthes is cautiously optimistic overall: “The chances of something happening in China to the advantage of European companies in public procurement are definitely greater with IPI than without.”
Matthes also believes that this instrument is also indispensable for the EU market, because Chinese suppliers often enter the procurement market with dumping prices. This could be prevented if the EU actually implements the IPI – after unsuccessful negotiations with China. Moreover, the unity displayed by the EU alone would be a signal to Beijing. Even if EU representatives stress that it is not a “Lex China”.
How Brussels’ requirements will ultimately be reflected in public procurement is still an open question, says Matthes. “That also depends on how the administrative experts in the local municipalities put the IPI into practice in their public tenders.” A critical debate about China’s role in the European economy could lead to more sensitivity to Chinese dumping bids in the process, he adds. Matthes, therefore, advocates more China expertise at the regional and local levels, where decisions are made.
Critics consider the new procurement instrument to increase protectionism on the part of the EU. They fear that the instrument will close off EU markets to China without any positive change in the People’s Republic. The claim that the Chinese market is not open enough for EU companies is a “distortion of facts,” said Peng Gang, the minister responsible for trade at the EU representation of China, during an online event of the EU-China Business Association (EUCBA).
Companies from the EU have a good reputation in China and are therefore in high demand. This even goes so far that Chinese local governments “discriminate” against domestic companies because they prefer to work with foreign suppliers, says Peng Gang. “The IPI has not been implemented yet, only time will tell what the impact will be.”
When the authorities sealed off Shanghai, people soon complained about the breakdown in food supplies. But even though fresh vegetables and cooking oil were only delivered sporadically, all of the nearly 26 million residents received a herbal mixture of licorice roots and apricot seeds. “Lianhua Qingwen” (连花清瘟) is the name of the medicine. It is a remedy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).
Zoe Zong and her four roommates also received six packets of this herbal mixture. “Actually, we didn’t take the medicine, because according to the social media I follow, it doesn’t help cure Covid symptoms or prevent infection,” says Zong, who has been locked in her Shanghai apartment for more than three weeks. “We think the government should be more focused on people’s actual needs,” she says.
And the young Chinese is not alone in her skepticism. “Lianhua Qingwen” is quite controversial. Singapore health authorities have not approved the drug for the treatment of Covid because there is no scientific evidence of its efficacy. “We strongly advise members of the public not to fall prey to unsubstantiated claims or spread unfounded rumors that herbal products can be used to prevent or treat COVID-19,” Singapore authorities stated. An independent study is now underway to investigate the herbal mixture, but results are not expected for some time. Meanwhile, warnings also came from official sources in the USA and Australia.
Lianhua Qingwen might have an effect. It is traditionally considered antipyretic and beneficial against cold symptoms, and also anti-inflammatory. Chinese studies were able to identify positive effects even before the Corona pandemic. However, the crucial question remains open whether it is more effective than the conventional drugs used against fever and inflammation, such as ibuprofen. Potential side effects have also not been sufficiently identified.
But China continues to stick to the controversial practice. And this has not least also industrial-political reasons: Since the Covid pandemic, the government has now rediscovered its interest in TCM. As early as 2020, Covid hospitals in Wuhan used herbal mixtures in the treatment of infected patients. China’s English state media have also been promoting the practice internationally, especially in the global South, as a low-cost alternative to Western medicine.
Meanwhile, private entrepreneurs are benefiting handsomely from the trend. When all Hong Kong residents were supplied with “Lianhua Qingwen” during the Omicron wave, stock prices of the company “Yiling Pharmaceutical” went through the roof. The net worth of the founding family headed by 73-year-old Wu Yiling suddenly surged by $4.5 billion.
Wu, who is one of the 500 richest people in the world, launched “Lanhua Qingwen” in the wake of the Sars epidemic in 2003. At that time, he was even elected by the Communist Party to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. In 2009, he ultimately became a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering Sciences – the highest honor for a scientist in the People’s Republic of China.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the market for traditional Chinese medicine already exceeds $60 billion. “The idea behind promoting this medical market is that some very highly effective medicines will eventually become part of the mainstream for medical treatment – not just domestically, but internationally,” says David Palmer, a sociologist at the University of Hong Kong.
But in the case of “Lianhua Qingwen,” this has met with considerable criticism, even in China. On the one hand, the now increasingly observed side effects are criticized, including damage to the liver and kidneys. Additionally, several scientists have complained that the systematic distribution of the herbal mixtures to millions of people in the lockdown puts additional strain on already strained supply capacities.
At least the controversial drug has received the blessing of China’s leading epidemiologist, Zhong Nanshan. He was recently even awarded the “Order of the Republic” by President Xi Jinping. What the 85-year-old scientist has kept secret, however: His foundation has received donations from TCM producer Yiling Pharmaceutical amounting to the equivalent of more than €200,000. Fabian Kretschmer
Sinolytics is a European consulting and analysis company specializing in China. It advises European companies on their strategic orientation and concrete business activities in the People’s Republic.
Production stop and supply chain problems – What does the lockdown mean from a legal perspective?
Since late March, the 26 million metropolis of Shanghai has been subject to lockdown regulations, which have had an extreme impact on local residents as well as thousands of companies in the Shanghai metropolitan area. For the business community, the lockdown means a standstill or severely restricted operational business, disrupted supply chains, absence of staff and other obstacles. To minimize the damage, the Chinese central and local governments try to support the economy with the help of various emergency measures. Despite this assistance, companies face numerous issues that cannot be addressed with direct government support alone.
How should the production stop in Shanghai be dealt with? What is the current legal situation in this regard?
Pandemic control measures are based primarily on China’s Emergency Response Law, Law on Prevention and Treatment on Infectious Diseases, and local regulations such as the Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on Public Health Emergency Management. In theory, companies and individuals can take legal action against unlawful government actions under these regulations. However, the likelihood of successfully enforcing legal remedies is very low due to the importance of the “fight” against COVID-19. At best, action against such measures may only be successful in cases of particularly blatant legal violations (such as the sealing of buildings in evident violation of fire protection regulations). As a rule, however – including from a strategic perspective – the path of mitigating damage within the framework of applicable laws is preferable. Here, companies focus on compensating for lost revenue through temporary cost reductions, as well as capitalizing on government support.
Numerous emergency measures have meanwhile been enacted at both national and local level, primarily aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In Shanghai, for example, a package of 17 financial support measures has been passed. These include measures to facilitate loan financing for SMEs. However, it is unclear whether foreign companies will also be able to benefit from these measures, particularly in the case of new loans.
On the expenditure side, the reduction of staff costs, rents and taxes plays a major role.
What are the risk mitigation options regarding persistent supply chain issues?
Despite the “closed-loop”, one of the biggest problems is that companies are unable to obtain urgently required parts and raw materials, are unable to obtain their own goods from their own factories, or can only do so with great difficulty. Shanghai has now issued a so-called “white list” listing 666 companies, which is to be extended to 1,188 companies that will be allowed to resume business operations. In addition, it is possible to apply for so-called transport passes for essential goods, pharmaceuticals, food and strategic reserves, power supply, key information technology and foreign trade. However, only a very small number of companies currently benefit from this.
A major follow-up problem is the possible breach of contractual obligations in the supply chain. Whether the situation can be mitigated on the basis of “force majeure” depends entirely on individual circumstances and the content of the contract in question. If there are no contractual provisions and the respective contract is subject to Chinese law, force majeure exists under the Chinese Civil Code if the epidemic or the resulting measures are an event that is objectively unforeseeable, unavoidable, and unmanageable.
In principle, the COVID-19 pandemic was classified as force majeure by the Legislative Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress in early 2020. However, in a notice dated April 10, 2022, the Shanghai Supreme People’s Court emphasized that in individual cases, the causality and proportion of the pandemic for the complete or partial inability to fulfill a contract must be taken into account above all, and appropriate distribution of interests must be sought. For this reason, it is advisable to seek contact with contractual partners first before taking unilateral action, as partners may also suffer under the impact of government measures. At present, the only option open to companies is to prepare both operationally and strategically that measures will stay in effect for the time being, which includes contractual risk-sharing.
Sebastian Wiendieck is a lawyer and partner at Rödl & Partner in China. In Shanghai, he and his team mainly provide legal services to German and European companies that are represented in China by subsidiaries and branch offices or want to enter the Chinese market in other ways.
Felix Engelhardt is a German lawyer and a Senior Associate at Rödl & Partner in Shanghai. Since 2018, he has been providing legal counsel to foreign companies in various areas of their business in China, in particular on investment, commercial and corporate law issues, intellectual property protection as well as cybersecurity and data protection.
Starship Enterprise? Not quite. What you see is a room in which the sensors and cameras of self-driving cars are adjusted. “Apollo” is the software platform of Beijing-based AI company Baidu. It aspires to become the Android of autonomous driving. However, there is plenty of international competition, for example from Google.
