Mr. Chambers Yang has obtained favorable awards for both of the two major commercial arbitration cases represented by him from China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).

One of the arbitration is regarding a dispute on share purchase. The client represented by Mr. Yang is the applicant of this case, which is a multinational solar company listed on NYSE and other stock market (“Client A”). Several years ago, the Client A established a joint venture with a Chinese company. The JV had made great development through years of operation, but due to a serious conflict of management ideas between Client A and the Chinese company, both parties decided to terminate the cooperation by transferring all shares of the JV hold by Client A to the Chinese company. The parties agreed that part of the share purchase amount shall be paid in cash, and the rest amount, which shall be decided by Client A, shall be paid in the form of polysilicon material. The JV was transferred to a domestic company after execution of the Share Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”), while more than RMB 137 million of share purchase amount were still unpaid. However, the Chinese company started to neglect all communication attempts and even refuse to respond to Client A. Under such circumstances, Client A had to file arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement stipulated in the SPA, and claim for all share purchase amount to be paid in cash. As respondent, the Chinese company presented more than ten opinions as their defense, including claiming that the SPA was invalid, and the rest share purchase amount has been transferred to prepayment of polysilicon. Mr. Yang’s team analyze the SPA and its supplementary agreement and point out that Client A shall have the option to choose cash as the payment under the SPA, and such option notice had been served to the Chinese company. After more than one year’s procedure, the arbitration tribunal of this case rendered the final award in favor of Client A, and ordered the Chinese company to pay all share purchase amount in cash and to afford all arbitration fee for this case.

The other arbitration is regarding product quality dispute, in which Mr. Yang represented the respondent of this case (“Client B”). Client B is a foreign invested brand management company, which is the agent and distributor of several international luxury brands. Client B signed an agreement with a retailer to authorize the retailer to sell clothing of an international brand. In August 2010, Client B decided to terminate both parties’ cooperation, due to the bad performance of the retailer. Both parties had signed another agreement to transfer the relevant retail store from the retailer to Client B, as well as to deal with the aftermath. However, in February 2011, the retailer filed arbitration against Client B, claiming to return more than 2400 pieces of clothing in stock, for the reason of product defects and negative media reports. The retailer also applied for freezing millions of bank deposit of Client B. Mr. Yang’s team presented many evidences to refute the retailer’s claims and thoroughly analyzed the cooperation and termination of the parties, the laws and regulations on quality defects, and the background and motivation of the retailer to file the arbitration. Mr. Yang also filed counterclaims on behalf of Client B. As a result, the arbitration tribunal rejected all claims submitted by retailer, as well as ordered the retailer to compensate Client B for the lawyer fees it had paid for this case.