In the wake of the financial crisis, some international investors of wholly foreign owned enterprises (WFOEs) have found themselves short of cash to fulfill their funding commitments. A WFOE’s business license may be revoked for such failure to fund while significant taxes, debts and employee salaries may remain unpaid. In this China update, we highlight the potential liabilities and risks under such circumstances for WFOE insiders such as investors, senior managers and directors.
WFOEs are limited liability companies; as such, with the exception of cases involving intentional fraud or underpayment of registered capital, insiders are generally shielded from direct or personal exposure. The issue of “piercing the corporate veil” may, however, arise when proper liquidation procedures are not followed. This, in turn, may expose insiders to potential civil, administrative or even criminal, liabilities.
What happens after revocation of a WFOE’s business license?
A WFOE’s business license may be revoked, among other reasons, for failure to pay registered capital or to complete annual review by government authorities. However, revocation of a business license, in and of itself, does not necessarily result in the termination of a WFOE or relieve it from its legal liabilities. Therefore, completion of the liquidation procedures is essential to prevent piercing of the corporate veil.
If a WFOE’s business license is revoked for gross violations of Chinese laws or regulations, the legal representative—often the chairman of the board, managing director or general manager as stipulated in the articles of association—may be placed on a nation-wide blacklist. This, effectively, would prevent such a person from registering as a director, manager or supervisor of another company for a period of three years.
What is an insider’s potential exposure if a WFOE is not duly liquidated?
If a WFOE is not duly liquidated, its investors could be liable for paying any of its unpaid taxes, debts, employee salaries or social insurance contributions. Its senior managers or directors could also be exposed to criminal liabilities. The thresholds that trigger criminal liabilities are relatively low. For example, the threshold for tax evasion through illegal transfer of assets is RMB10,000 (US$1,581) and the threshold for contract fraud is RMB20,000 (US$3,162). Further, investors could be held liable, beyond their capital contributions under civil or administrative statutes, for paying thousands of dollars in fines and back payments.
In addition, investors of a WFOE not duly liquidated may also encounter barriers to making future investments in China. This issue has been addressed more recently at the local and municipal levels. For example, in 2011, Nantong and Yangzhou, two cities in Jiangsu Province, implemented measures to specifically prevent investors of internationally-invested companies (including WFOEs) that were not properly liquidated from making investments in other companies.
Could a travel restriction be placed on foreign insiders?
The Chinese authorities have been mindful of the increasing losses to domestic creditors and employees from improperly liquidated WFOEs. As a measure of relief to local stakeholders, the government has issued, and is more likely to enforce, a more aggressive legislation recently promulgated to ban international insiders that pose a flight risk from leaving China. Such individuals facing civil lawsuits or criminal charges or having unfulfilled employee payment obligations, could be subject to a no-departure restraining order in China until such matters are settled. Their personal assets may also be frozen and subject to seizure.
Chinese authorities have also issued certain guidelines addressing the improper departure of foreign investors and their appointed foreign directors/managers from China. The guidelines encourage Chinese parties to seek overseas enforcement of civil judgments against foreign parties based on civil and commercial judicial assistance treaties. Chinese authorities may also be able to exercise extradition rights against foreign insiders suspected of tax evasion based on criminal judicial assistance treaties and extradition treaties.
Celebrating 30 Years in Asia
In 2012, Sidley is celebrating 30 years in Asia; we are one of very few U.S. law firms to have maintained a continuous presence in the region for three decades. The firm first established an office in Asia in Singapore in 1982, and now also has offices in Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Sydney and Tokyo. Today, the firm has 160 legal professionals based in the Asia Pacific region, 27 of whom are partners. Over the past three decades, the firm has built an impressive client base of corporate and financial clients. Sidley is now considered one of the leading firms in the region, with recommended practices and recognized lawyers in the fields of M&A, private equity, capital markets, investment funds, dispute resolution and international arbitration, regulatory and life sciences.
Our China Practice
Sidley was among the first U.S. law firms to recognize the importance of having a presence in China. Our Hong Kong office opened in 1994, followed by one in Beijing in 1996 and one in Shanghai in 1999. Our professionals advise clients on U.S., Hong Kong and English law and speak fluent English as well as fluent and native Mandarin and Cantonese.
Over the years, we have nurtured long-term relationships with our clients, advising on solutions that make a difference to their business. We routinely represent multinational clients on matters that arise in connection with establishing, managing, financing and operating their business activities in China. We have extensive experience in joint venture and FDI matters and provide invaluable insight, information and analysis with respect to corporate, commercial, intellectual property, labor, real estate, trade and tax matters. As well as assisting local, regional and multinational clients with their presence in China, we also assist Chinese companies with their business and projects outbound from China. This includes M&A, financing, joint ventures and international trade matters, as well as cross-border litigation, regulatory and compliance issues. Our extensive experience of working in China covers a comprehensive range of industry sectors such as finance and regulatory; life sciences; real estate; power, energy and natural resources; telecommunications; transportation; construction; metals and mining; manufacturing; and insurance.
This article is adapted by the authors from one first published in the June 2012 issue of China Law & Practice. This version is published here with the kind permission of the editor.
To receive future copies of China updates via email, please send your name, company name and email address to Lisa Kong at email@example.com.
For further information, please contact the following partners:
Tang Zhengyu, Shanghai +86.21.2322.9318, firstname.lastname@example.org
Thomas W. Albrecht, Hong Kong +852.2509.7607, email@example.com
Henry Ding, Beijing +86.10.5905.5599, firstname.lastname@example.org
This Sidley update has been prepared by Sidley Austin LLP for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers.
Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, 212.839.5300 and One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, 312.853.7000. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.