United States: China VIEs: Recent Developments And Observations

As many of our readers are aware, the "variable interest entity" ("VIE") structure has proven popular over the past decade as a means to facilitate the offshore financing of PRC companies doing business in regulated sectors such as the Internet and value-added telecommunications. A VIE structure typically involves contractual arrangements pursuant to which an offshore entity (typically through one or more wholly foreign-owned enterprise ("WFOE") subsidiaries established in China) controls, and consolidates for financial accounting purposes the operating results of, one or more Chinese onshore operating entities (an "OpCo") whose equity is owned by People's Republic of China ("PRC") nationals.

A number of developments in the past 18 months have led to greater scrutiny of the VIE structure. This Alert reviews a recent decision of the Supreme People's Court in the Chinachem case and an arbitral award in a contract dispute involving a Chinese domestic online gaming company operated by NASDAQ-listed GigaMedia utilizing a VIE structure, and considers the potential impact of these two cases on the use of the VIE structure going forward.1


China's Supreme People's Court rendered a ruling in October 2012 that ended a 12-year dispute between Chinachem Financial Services, a Hong Kong company ("Chinachem"), and China Small and Medium Enterprise Investment Co. Ltd., a mainland Chinese firm ("China SME"). The dispute involved ownership of shares representing a 6.5% stake in the China Minsheng Banking Corporation ("Minsheng") that Chinachem asserted ownership of via an entrustment (委托投资) arrangement. The Court ruled that two deeds of entrustment through which China SME acted as Chinachem's proxy to buy and hold the shares in Minsheng, together with two loan agreements through which Chinachem lent the investment funds to China SME, were entered into with the clear intent of circumventing China's restrictions on foreign investment in China's banking sector and accordingly were invalid and unenforceable under Article 52 of the PRC Contract Law, which provides that contracts are invalid where they "conceal illegal intentions within a lawful form" ("以合法的形式掩盖非法目的"). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Minsheng shares at issue—by then reportedly worth approximately US$700 million compared with Chinachem's original investment of approximately US$11 million in 1995—belonged to China SME. Notably, however, Chinachem was not wholly denied a remedy. In addition to ordering that Chinachem's original US$10,940,000 investment be returned, the Court increased the compensation to be paid by China SME to include 40% of the value of the shares at issue, based on the market price of Minsheng shares in the period leading up to the decision, as well as 40% of the RMB595 million in dividends that had a accrued on the shares at issue. In so ruling the Court applied a fairness principle under both Chinese civil and contract laws to attribute fault to both China SME and Chinachem for entering into an invalid agreement. In so doing, the Court increased substantially the remedy of approximately RMB46 million that had been awarded by the lower court in Beijing.

Various commentators have cited the Chinachem decision as significantly undermining the viability of the VIE structure. We would emphasize, however, that pending further action by PRC regulators, the legal risks and uncertainties associated with the VIE structure have not changed. Moreover, the issues presented in the Chinachem decision differ from those typically associated with VIE structures in a number of important respects.

As noted, at issue in the Chinachem decision was the question of the legal effectiveness under the PRC Contract Law of the entrustment arrangement forming the basis of Chinachem's claim of ownership in the Minsheng shares. Citing 1994 regulations issued by the People's Bank of China, the Court stressed in its decision that when Chinachem first made its investment in Minsheng in 1995, foreign investment in China's banking sector was prohibited and therefore that Chinachem's original investment in Minsheng through China SME violated the "then mandatory provisions of the financial administrative system." The Court also cited 2003 regulations of the China Banking Regulatory Commission that liberalized foreign investment restrictions in the sector but that still required PRC government approval for foreign investments in Chinese banks, noting that Chinachem did not obtain such approval after 2003 for its investment in Minsheng. The Court concluded that the parties must have been aware when they entered into the entrustment arrangement that they violated mandatory legal provisions and therefore that the deeds of entrustment must be legally invalid. The judgment's wording suggests the key fact underlying the Court's ruling was that the parties intentionally breached certain mandatory provisions of Chinese financial regulations in entering into the entrustment arrangement. It is worth noting that this kind of entrustment arrangement has been much less widely used by foreign investors investing in China than the VIE structure, which has enjoyed relatively broad use. As such, the direct legal and practical implications of the Chinachem decision may be limited.

Rather than relying on entrustment structures or other mechanisms to support effective ownership of the equity of the domestic OpCo which typically holds key licenses and assets and generates most of the revenues within the group, the VIE structure employs contractual arrangements that under applicable accounting principles enable the OpCo's operating results to be consolidated for financial accounting and reporting purposes with those of the offshore-held corporate group. In a typical VIE, the intra-company operating agreements are entered into on arm's-length terms based on actual services and support being provided by one group member to another.

In light of these differences, any definitive predictions about the implications of the Supreme People's Court's Chinachem decision for VIE structures are at best premature. The decision does not involve a challenge to the legality of the VIE structure and so offers limited if any guidance as to how the Supreme People's Court might approach enforcement of VIE arrangements if presented with the issue in the future.


Unlike the Chinachem case, the arbitral award rendered in 2011 by the Shanghai Sub-commission of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("Shanghai CIETAC") did involve a VIE structure. According to public reports late last year that first focused attention on the award, the Shanghai CIETAC panel adopted similar reasoning to the Supreme People's Court in its Chinachem decision. Again, however, the decision should be read in context.

GigaMedia Limited, a Singaporean company listed on the NASDAQ ("GigaMedia"), had, via a wholly-owned subsidiary, acquired a controlling interest in T2CN Holding Limited, a British Virgin Islands company ("T2CN") with online gaming operations held via a VIE structure. In July 2010, a dispute arose between GigaMedia and one of the founders of the T2CN gaming business over control of the related OpCo, after GigaMedia's board voted to replace the founder as CEO of its PRC operations. The founder wished to regain control of the OpCo by asserting that the VIE agreements were legally invalid.

The arbitral tribunal found that the GigaMedia VIE structure was designed "to enable the WFOE, which did not have online operation qualifications, to participate in the operation of online games in the PRC and to obtain financial returns therefrom." The tribunal took the view that this arrangement violated provisions of Chinese regulations prohibiting foreign investors from exercising control over online gaming businesses in China and therefore ruled that the VIE agreements were invalid—like the court in the Chinachem decision, relying on Article 52 of the PRC Contract Law, which renders invalid contracts that "conceal illegal intentions within a lawful form."

Shanghai CIETAC's GigaMedia award illustrates a risk that investors using VIE structures have been aware of for some time, namely, the uncertainty of enforceability under PRC law of the inter-company operating agreements. At the same time, it is important to view the award in its proper context.

It bears noting that, at around the time the dispute arose, foreign involvement in China's gaming industry had been singled out by the PRC General Administration of Press and Publication ("GAPP") for scrutiny. In its Circular 13 issued in September 2010, GAPP sought to directly prohibit use of contractual arrangements to indirectly control or participate in online gaming businesses. The GAPP circular implied a scope of jurisdiction with regard to VIE arrangements that to date has not been affirmed by any other PRC government body. As such, the outcome might well have been different if GigaMedia were operating in a different sector. Even in relation to usage of VIEs in the game sector, the award may not be that instructive. The alarm Circular 13 initially caused in the online gaming industry has since abated and Circular 13 has not been actively enforced.

It should also be born in mind that an arbitral award like the one in the GigaMedia case is not a judicial decision but the result of a private dispute resolution proceeding. Arbitral awards, which are generally confidential, may not be a useful guide as to how a court or another arbitral tribunal might approach similar issues.


While raising potential concerns about the future status of the VIE structure in China's regulatory landscape, the Supreme People's Court's Chinachem decision and Shanghai CIETAC's GigaMedia award, by their terms, neither mandate nor contemplate a prohibition of future use of VIEs.

The Chinachem decision addressed an entrustment arrangement that was put in place in 1995 and in our experience has been seldom used by other foreign investors since. In contrast, the VIE structure has been used extensively for over a decade, both for foreign investors to invest into restricted sectors such as value-added telecommunications and education and for Chinese private investors to access capital to grow their business in these same sectors. A recent example is the June 2013 NYSE listing of retail website LightInTheBox, whose PRC operations are structured as a VIE.

What these recent developments do highlight is the importance of careful planning and structuring by foreign investors, when considering a VIE structure, taking account of the specific circumstances. While no measure can eliminate risk entirely and future regulatory developments may in fact necessitate a broader reassessment of the VIE structure, appropriate planning points to consider include:

  • OpCo shareholding should be shared among trustworthy individuals who ideally will not be heavily involved in the operation of the business.
  • It may be feasible to enhance control by appointing trusted individuals to senior management of the OpCo.
  • Commercial agreements should be carefully drafted in order to enhance control and document the funds flows and services elements of the commercial relationships between corporate group members.


1 The text of the GigaMedia arbitration award is not publicly available. This Alert draws on public reports on the GigaMedia arbitration.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions