Our Role: Defense Counsel for Downstream Entities (Company B and Company C)
The Outcome: The court segregated liability between the primary manufacturing source and downstream participants, capping the joint liabilities of Company B and Company C at strictly limited fractions of the total claim.
Case Background & Context
The Plaintiff, a brand owner holding multiple registered trademarks, trade dress rights, and trade name protections, initiated a comprehensive lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Company A, Company B, and Company C. The claim alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition involving products that allegedly used confusingly similar marks, imitated packaging design, and copied promotional narratives. Given the alleged scale of the infringement, the Plaintiff sought a substantial total compensation package exceeding 10 million RMB.
Our firm was retained to represent Company B and Company C, both operating as downstream business entities within the commercial supply chain. The defense strategy centered on establishing a legitimate supply chain source, validating trademark sub-authorization, and proving that these clients had fully satisfied their statutory duty of reasonable care as downstream operators.
Faced with an aggressive multi-defendant lawsuit, our IP litigation team focused on partitioning liability to insulate the downstream clients from the substantial liabilities directed at the primary manufacturer:
Advocating for Judicial Segregation of Liability: We successfully presented arguments distinguishing the legal responsibilities of source manufacturers from those of downstream participants. We established that even if a statutory legitimate source defense is not fully sustained, downstream operators should not automatically bear full joint liability for the entire scope of a manufacturer's large-scale production.
Contextualizing Fault and Operational Scale: Our team introduced detailed evidence regarding the modest operational realities, localized commercial scale, and limited degree of fault of our clients. This effectively guided the court to evaluate the downstream entities independently from the willful intent and manufacturing volume of the primary infringers.
Securing Proportional Accountability: By focusing on the equitable distribution of liability, we countered the Plaintiff's efforts to enforce undifferentiated joint and several liability, anchoring our clients' exposure strictly to their specific degree of commercial involvement.
The Judgment & Commercial Impact
The People's Court affirmed the core principles of our defense regarding liability segregation. While evaluating the significant liability attributed to the principal manufacturing source, the court strictly limited our clients' financial exposure:
Company B’s Liability Capped: Restricted strictly to a nominal and limited portion of the total judgment.
Company C’s Liability Capped: Restricted strictly to a minimal and limited portion of the total judgment.
Why This Matters: This case exemplifies a crucial judicial trend in Chinese intellectual property enforcement: targeting the source of infringement while strictly segregating downstream commercial liability. It provides a valuable precedent for downstream entities facing high-value litigation, demonstrating how a targeted defense strategy can successfully isolate a company’s operational assets and limit financial exposure in complex, multi-party disputes.
Legal Review of the Sun Yang Case: Was There a Better Path? (Ban Reduced from 8 Years to 4 Years and 3 Months)
In September 2018, three International Doping Tests & Management (IDTM) officials conducted an out-of-competition anti-doping test on elite swimmer Sun Yang. Due to Sun’s team questioning the testers’ professional qualifications, refusing to cooperate, and ultimately destroying sample containers, the case went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a high-profile retrial. This resulted in a final four-year and three-month suspension for the athlete.
Setting aside public sentiment and media rhetoric, the core professional questions remain: Could Sun Yang’s legal team have executed a superior defense strategy? Could "defects in testing qualifications" serve as a valid absolute defense under international sports law? This article evaluates these issues through the lens of CAS adjudicative logic, the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), and the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI), offering critical compliance guidance for athletes moving forward.
（Source：ABC News）
I. Core CAS Logic: Sporting Autonomy and Procedural Precedence
CAS arbitration operates strictly under the principle of sporting autonomy, with the WADC and the ISTI serving as its primary constitutional frameworks. Established CAS jurisprudence dictates that an athlete's objections to testing protocols must be funneled exclusively through compliant, pre-defined legal channels:
Conditional acceptance of the test.
Formal contemporaneous written objections on the doping control form.
Retrospective post-test administrative and legal appeals.
Unless the testing authority is conclusively proven to have committed fundamental, malicious procedural fraud, athletes are strictly barred from executing unilateral, self-help confrontational actions—such as destroying biological samples or physically obstructing collection officers—on the mere suspicion of procedural flaws.
Sun Yang’s legal team anchored their defense on the argument that the blood collection nurse was practicing cross-provincially in violation of Chinese domestic administrative laws. However, the CAS Retrial Panel explicitly applied ISTI Article 5.3.3 and Annex H, which stipulate only that blood sampling officers must hold a valid, internationally recognized qualification and a formal written authorization from the testing agency (IDTM).
The tribunal ruled that territorial practice restrictions under China’s Nurses Regulations represent domestic administrative norms and do not invalidate compliance metrics established under international sports law. This highlights a foundational reality in international sports dispute resolution: domestic statutes cannot override international anti-doping treaty frameworks.
（Source:CCTV NEWS）
II. The Qualification Defense: A Lack of Evidentiary Support
The strategy to treat the nurse's cross-provincial practice as an absolute defense failed primarily due to an insufficient evidentiary foundation before the tribunal. While Sun’s team reported the nurse to local Chinese health authorities, those regulatory bodies never issued an official, binding administrative decision confirming a statutory violation. In international arbitration, if a party invokes a violation of domestic law but cannot produce a final, binding determination from the competent state authority proving that breach, the arbitral tribunal will routinely dismiss the argument. Consequently, this core defense lacked legal traction from the outset.
Furthermore, the CAS Retrial Panel re-verified that the ISTI enforces no specialized medical or professional qualification metrics on a "Chaperone" (or Urinalysis Witness). The international standard requires only that the chaperone be an adult, of the same gender as the athlete, and completely free from identifiable conflicts of interest. Because Sun's defense could not demonstrate actual malice, hostility, or a structural conflict of interest on the part of the chaperone, the witness's primary employment background had no bearing on the validity of the doping control session.
（Source:LawInSport）
III. The Fatal Mistake: Escalating Procedural Objections into Substantive Violations
The catastrophic failure of Sun Yang's defense strategy lay in escalating a legitimate procedural objection into a clear substantive violation of international rules. This breakdown manifested across three distinct operational errors:
Blurs in Legal Boundaries: The defense confused the right to dispute a process with the right to physically terminate it. Legitimate disputes require on-site evidence preservation and formal notation on the DCO's forms, not the destruction of biological samples or security standoffs.
Absence of Specialized Sports Law Protocols: The operational directive issued by the athlete's support staff to "withhold the samples" was an intuitive reaction rooted in domestic administrative enforcement logic, completely ignoring the strict liability rules of international sports arbitration.
Emotional Countermeasures Over Strategic Litigation: By converting procedural frustration into physical non-cooperation, the team forfeited their status as compliant actors, completely shifting the burden of proof against them.
（Source:inewsweek.cn）
IV. Replay of the Better Path: The Optimal Legal Framework
Had the athlete's support team been trained in international anti-doping compliance, they would have executed the following sequence to preserve the athlete's career while fully contesting the test's validity:
1. Conditional Acceptance Strategy
The athlete should have declared on-site: "I formally object to the authorization and specific credentials of this testing team. However, to maintain full compliance and protect sample integrity, I will submit to the collection under protest, provided all samples are sealed, co-signed, and photographed by both parties for the record." This approach aligns with the WADA Guidelines and completely insulates an athlete from triggering a refusal charge.
2. Rigorous Evidence Preservation
The support team should have systematically photographed the DCO’s IDTM authorization letter, the nurse’s practice certificate, and the chaperone’s identification, while recording a clear audio log asking the officers to verify their individual project-specific authorizations.
3. Post-Test Administrative Appeal
Within one hour of the session, the team should have contacted the national anti-doping agency and specialized external counsel to file a formal, written jurisdictional objection with IDTM and the international federation (FINA) within 24 hours. So long as the physical samples remain intact, even if the tribunal later rules the testing session valid, the athlete faces no threat of a violation under WADC Article 2.3 (Evading/Refusing Sample Collection) or WADC Article 2.5 (Tampering with Doping Control).
4. The Critical Prohibition
Under no circumstances should a support team open a sealed sample bottle, smash a biological transport container, or seize documentation from a DCO. The moment physical destruction occurs, Articles 2.3 and 2.5 are automatically triggered, both carrying a mandatory baseline sanction of a 4-year suspension for first-time infractions.
（Source：caixin）
V. Key Takeaways from the Reduced Sanction on Retrial
The reduction of Sun Yang's ban from eight years down to four years and three months during the 2021 retrial stemmed entirely from a reassessment of the athlete's intent. The Retrial Panel concluded that the destruction of the collection containers was not part of a premeditated, long-term strategy to evade drug testing or mask a prohibited substance. Instead, it was an immediate reaction sparked by panic and poor advice from his inner circle regarding the testers' credentials.
While this mitigated the "intent" element of the infraction—thereby avoiding the max penalty—the panel firmly reiterated that an athlete's mistaken belief does not excuse the physical destruction of a sample. The baseline four-year penalty was maintained because the act of destroying the container independently satisfied the statutory definition of tampering. This underscores the absolute rule of anti-doping litigation: protect the sample first, litigate the process second.
This case exposes a systemic vulnerability in the operational readiness of elite sports teams. The support staff (including team doctors and managers) relied on localized instincts regarding "unauthorized enforcement" to issue a directive that directly violated global sports regulations. Elite athlete delegations cannot manage anti-doping interventions based on general common sense; they must undergo mandatory, simulated compliance drills to handle these highly technical procedures.
（Source：WADA）
VI. Compliance Guidance and Conclusion
The precedent set by this case provides three non-negotiable compliance rules for international sports organizations and athletes:
The Absolute Structural Boundary: Biological samples must never be compromised or withheld under any circumstances. Physical integrity of the sample is the red line of sports law.
Procedural Recourse Execution: Every procedural anomaly must be detailed in writing on the official DCO forms at the time of the test, creating an unassailable contemporaneous paper trail for subsequent litigation.
Institutional Legal Integration: National sports associations must embed specialized international sports lawyers directly into their traveling delegations, replacing standard administrative staff with compliance experts trained in WADA regulations.
（Source：WADA）
It is well-recognized within international law that the composition of CAS panels and the interpretive control over WADA statutes can present structural hurdles for non-Western athletes—particularly regarding the strict thresholds required to prove mitigating factors like "psychological panic."
Yet, even within an unforgiving regulatory environment, the legal failures executed by Sun Yang's team were entirely preventable. Acknowledging structural biases in global institutions does not absolve a defense team from executing flawed strategies.
Ultimately, rule consciousness in international sports is about navigating procedural justice, not pursuing immediate substantive alignment. Even if an athlete believes a specific test is fundamentally unfair or improperly authorized, they must first comply and subsequently appeal. The institutional limitations of CAS cannot obscure the basic legal missteps made on the night of the test. Respecting the process and following designated legal pathways is the only way to safeguard an elite career from catastrophic, unforced regulatory errors.
Disclaimer & Copyright: This article is co-authored by Mandy Wu and Yu Yuting. The insights shared are for general compliance trends only and do not constitute formal legal advice.As a specialized cross-border legal institution, Neo-Ark Law Firm provides comprehensive global compliance and rights-protection support for expanding enterprises. For more international legal updates, please visit the Neo-Ark Law Firm Official Websites (https://www.neoarklawyers.com/news).
2026-05-06
Cross-Border Trade Dispute: Recovering $230,000 USD and Dispute Costs via SCIA Arbitration
Forum: Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA)
Amount in Dispute: Over $230,000 USD in Outstanding Principal + Contractual Penalties
The Outcome: The Arbitration Tribunal affirmed the breach of contract, sustaining the Claimant's primary claims and granting recovery of the costs incurred in realizing the debt.
Case Background & Context
The Claimant, a Hong Kong-based limited company, executed a Cooperation Confirmation with the Respondent regarding outstanding trade payments. In this agreement, the Respondent formally acknowledged a debt exceeding $230,000 USD and committed to a lump-sum clearance by the end of that month. The contract explicitly stipulated a daily late payment penalty of 5‰ and mandated that the Respondent bear all expenses incurred by the Claimant in realizing the debt.
Following a default on the agreed repayment schedule, our firm was retained by the Claimant to file an arbitration claim before the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) to recover the principal debt, accrued penalties, attorney fees, asset preservation fees, and guarantee costs.
To safeguard the client's financial interests and ensure contractually mandated indemnification, our litigation team executed a precise, evidence-based advocacy strategy during the proceedings:
Enforcing Standards on the Burden of Proof: While the Respondent submitted written statements alleging partial payments and arguing for shared commercial risks, they failed to present supporting evidence or attend the hearing. Our team successfully requested the tribunal to proceed in absentia, establishing that unsubstantiated defenses do not alter formal contractual liabilities.
Securing Contractual Dispute Costs: We presented a detailed account of all ancillary expenses, demonstrating that attorney fees, asset preservation fees, and litigation guarantee fees were necessary, reasonable, and contractually mandated costs arising directly from the breach.
Balancing Contractual Remedies: We advocated for the recognition of capital occupation losses under the contractual penalty clause. This assisted the tribunal in protecting the creditor's rights while ensuring the final adjusted penalty conformed to equitable principles.
The Award & Outcome
The SCIA Arbitration Tribunal adopted the factual basis of our claims and delivered its award in favor of the Claimant:
Principal Debt Affirmed: The Respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding trade debt of over $230,000 USD, along with late payment penalties adjusted reasonably by the tribunal for fairness.
Dispute Expenses Granted: The tribunal held that attorney fees, preservation fees, and guarantee fees constituted necessary expenses for realizing the debt, granting full support to the Claimant's claims for these costs.
Why Clients Trust Us: In cross-border commerce, ensuring that the counterparty covers the costs of legal enforcement is vital for true commercial relief. By successfully recovering the primary debt alongside the associated legal and tactical expenses, our firm protected our client's commercial position, demonstrating our capacity to manage cross-border commercial arbitrations with procedural efficiency.
2026-05-02
Revoking a Public Security Decision in a Cross-Border Case
Case Summary
Dispute Type: PRC Administrative Litigation
Matter: Judicial Review of a Public Security Bureau’s Non-Punishment Decision
Key Elements: Cross-Border Third Party (Hong Kong SAR Resident), Evidentiary Alignment, Enforcement of Statutory Duties
The Outcome: The People's Court lawfully revoked the administrative decision and ordered the public security authority to re-examine the case.
Case Background & Context
The dispute arose from a physical altercation between the Plaintiff and a Third Party who is a permanent resident of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Following the incident, which resulted in injuries to the Plaintiff, the local public security bureau conducted an investigation and subsequently issued a Decision on Non-Administrative Punishment.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit, challenging the completeness of the investigative proceedings, including the collection of critical evidence, witness verification, and the evaluation of conflicting statements.
The Legal Progression: Evidentiary Alignment & Statutory Duty
During the court proceedings, the focus shifted to empirical consistency and the statutory duties of the administrative body:
Synchronization of Objective Evidence: The evidence demonstrated that the Plaintiff’s injuries directly aligned with the comprehensive medical records, clinical diagnoses, and injury photographs.
Evaluation of Factual Explanations: In response to the Third Party’s defense that the physical contact was merely an intervention to prevent a suicide, the legal analysis demonstrated that this explanation could not logically reconcile with the nature and location of the Plaintiff's multi-site injuries.
Enforcement of Investigative Duty: The statutory framework of PRC Administrative Litigation Law dictates that administrative bodies maintain a clear duty to comprehensively and objectively investigate disputes. The court affirmed that an absence of direct surveillance records does not relieve an authority from its obligation to thoroughly reconcile conflicting narratives and establish clear factual grounds.
The Verdict & Outcome
The People's Court determined that the administrative authority's initial factual determination was incomplete and that the application of law required correction.
Consequently, the court delivered its judgment: lawfully revoking the challenged Non-Punishment Decision and ordering the public security authority to re-evaluate the case and render a new decision based on a comprehensive investigation.
Why This Matters: This case establishes a clear benchmark for how intricate medical evidence and conflicting statements must be evaluated under judicial review in administrative matters. It underscores that public security authorities must fully execute their investigative mandates to safeguard the legitimate rights of individuals.
2026-05-01
$2 Billion Deal Halted! Legal Red Lines for Chinese AI Enterprises Going Global via the Manus Case
The regulatory paradigm for artificial intelligence (AI) transactions has fundamentally transformed. On April 27, 2026, a brief yet historic announcement sent shockwaves through the global technology ecosystem: the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) issued a definitive prohibition on the foreign acquisition of the Manus project, ordering the immediate rescission and unwinding of the transaction.
Marking the very first publicly blocked foreign acquisition in the AI sector, this enforcement action abruptly terminated a "blockbuster marriage" valued at over $2 billion that had been announced at the end of last year. What specific legal red lines were crossed in this landmark case? More importantly, what urgent compliance warnings does it hold for Chinese technology companies executing international expansion strategies?
Crucially, the NDRC specifically targeted the "foreign acquisition of the Manus Project." The deliberate use of the term "project" rather than "company" indicates that regulators view Manus not merely as a single corporate entity, but as an interconnected "community of interests" woven from core algorithms, technical talent, intellectual property, underlying source code, and global commercial operations.
（Source:NDRC）
I. Background
Manus is an AI Agent framework initially researched and developed entirely within mainland China by its Chinese founders and engineering team. Engineered to dynamically call multiple digital tools to execute complex, multi-step tasks, its core technology, early-stage computing power, and training datasets all originated within China. Upon its release, it achieved viral global acclaim, with beta access codes reportedly trading for tens of thousands of RMB on secondary markets. Its parent enterprise, Butterfly Effect, carried out its core research and development across dedicated facilities in Beijing and Wuhan, establishing its primary intellectual assets firmly within Chinese borders.
On December 31, 2025, U.S. technology conglomerate Meta officially announced its acquisition of Manus for a valuation exceeding $2 billion, marking the third-largest M&A transaction in Meta's corporate history. However, this cross-border transaction was rapidly halted by state regulatory intervention.
（Source:Meta Announcement）
II. The "De-China" Strategy Executed by Manus
Prior to the finalization of the acquisition, the transaction parties executed an aggressive restructuring strategy designed to sever connections with the Chinese market:
Corporate Redomiciliation: Relocated global headquarters to Singapore, transferring the primary operating entity to a newly incorporated Singapore firm, Butterfly Effect Pte. Ltd.
Talent Migration: Dismantled a substantial portion of the mainland China-based engineering teams and relocated core R&D personnel overseas.
Market Severance: Decommissioned and terminated all product access and services within the mainland China region to physically isolate domestic operational footprints.
Complete Equity Divestment: Structured the post-merger governance framework to retain zero equity, ownership, or voting rights for the original Chinese stakeholders.
（Source:South China Morning Post）
III. Which Legal Red Lines Were Crossed?
How did a transaction that effectively managed to bypass traditional antitrust thresholds and standard foreign M&A triggers end up directly prohibited? While the Meta-Manus deal was structurally engineered to sit below traditional market-share anti-monopoly filing metrics, it was completely blocked under national security review protocols due to the acute risks surrounding core AI technologies and data sovereignty.
Regulators directed their enforcement focus at three substantive compliance failures:
1. Technology Export Control and the "Deemed Export" Doctrine
Because the core algorithms, neural architecture, and foundational code of Manus were engineered inside China by a domestic team, they fall squarely under the regulatory purview of the Catalogue of Technologies Prohibited or Restricted from Export of China. The attempt to transfer these assets via personnel relocation, code sharing, and corporate restructuring was interpreted as a substantive technology export.
This enforcement action highlights a shift toward "piercing the corporate veil" in technology asset oversight. Regulators focused strictly on the timeline, methodology, and nature of the assets being moved rather than where the holding company happened to be incorporated. Under the Export Control Law, the doctrine of "Deemed Export" dictates that even if an entity is legally domiciled in Singapore, providing controlled technology originally developed in China to a foreign entity or citizen constitutes a regulated export event.
2. Illicit Cross-border Data Transfer
The foundational models of Manus were trained utilizing massive datasets extracted from within mainland China. To the extent that these training corpuses contain personal data or protected data categories, transferring the underlying models and technologies to a foreign corporation triggers severe cross-border data transfer violations.
Redomiciling to Singapore does not absolve an enterprise from historical data compliance liabilities. Furthermore, the post-merger routing of data from the Singapore entity to Meta’s infrastructure in the United States established an entirely new cross-border data pipeline requiring mandatory state data security assessments—a protocol the transacting parties failed to execute.
The NDRC ultimately invoked Articles 4, 12, and 19 of the Measures for the Security Review of Foreign Investment. Exercising mandatory review jurisdiction over transactions deemed to impact national security, regulators determined the cross-border acquisition to be a threat to state interests and issued a definitive prohibition order.
（ Source:manus.im）
IV. The Jurisdictional Controversy: Substance Over Form
The central legal debate surrounding the Manus case is clear: Does China maintain legal jurisdiction to block a transaction involving an entity that has already shifted its legal registration and physical operations completely outside Chinese borders?
Modern regulatory enforcement demonstrates that state jurisdiction is no longer tethered exclusively to formal corporate registration or the physical location of an executive team. Instead, jurisdiction is asserted based on the technology, talent, and data retaining a substantive nexus to China. Because Manus's early-stage development occurred in China and its core training data was derived from Chinese infrastructure, its technological footprint remains structurally tied to national interests. Legal frameworks including the Measures for the Security Review of Foreign Investment, the Catalogue of Technologies Prohibited or Restricted from Export, and the Foreign Trade Law provide a rock-solid statutory foundation for this jurisdictional reach.
（Source:manus.im）
V. Mandatory "Divestiture of Control" and Functional Rollback
Unlike specialized export control orders or data-specific corrective fines, the "Foreign Investment Security Review" pathway leveraged by the NDRC focuses fundamentally on the absolute divestiture of corporate and operational control. The regulatory toolkit utilized here demands total, structural "functional rollback."
In the context of the Manus ruling, compliance remediation requires an absolute unwinding of the deal's architecture:
Legal & Governance Restructuring: Complete rescission of the $200 million+ transaction, full return of financial consideration, and total restoration of the pre-acquisition equity and ownership structure.
Severance of Practical Control: Establishing an audited inventory of controlled technical assets to completely sever Meta’s access to core code, model weights, and proprietary R&D datasets. This includes a strict mandate to disable, roll back, or completely re-train any "contaminated" model iterations influenced by Manus's proprietary assets post-acquisition.
Personnel Isolation: Imposing strict operational firewalls to prevent the core engineering team from providing any non-public technical assistance or consulting to the foreign acquirer.
Independent Technical Audits: Deploying third-party forensic IT auditors to verify that the unwinding is fully executed on a source-code level, neutralizing any grey areas where the transaction is canceled but the technology remains mirrored abroad.
VI. Insights & Compliance Suggestions
The Manus case indicates that regulatory oversight has evolved from monitoring transaction outcomes to scrutinizing operational processes. The physical migration of engineers, the automated synchronization of code repositories, and even remote server access privileges can all be legally classified as substantive technology exports.
Before executing cross-border investments, joint ventures, or M&A transactions, technology enterprises must implement comprehensive internal risk-screening mechanisms. These processes should explicitly evaluate:
Whether proprietary algorithms match technical benchmarks listed in the Catalogue of Technologies Prohibited or Restricted from Export.
Whether training data contains protected personal data or important industrial data.
Whether the proposed transaction structure could be interpreted as an artificial arrangement designed to circumvent export controls.
2. Re-engineer Transaction Structures around Compliance
Attempting to utilize corporate redomiciliation or talent relocation as a form of "structural camouflage" does not bypass regulatory scrutiny; instead, it demonstrates an intent to evade oversight, which heavily increases regulatory enforcement risks. Compliance must be treated as a foundational element of the deal architecture from day one, rather than an afterthought or a post-closing remediation item.
3. Maintain Continuous and Proactive Regulatory Dialogue
Technology firms operating in highly sensitive sectors should establish open communication channels with competent regulatory bodies. Developing a relationship rooted in transparency and proactively seeking pre-clearance guidance remains the most effective strategy for mitigating cross-border transaction risks.
Conclusion
From the blocked acquisition of Manus to the global rise of domestic open-source architectures like DeepSeek, we are witnessing a profound structural shift toward technology sovereignty. Regulatory authorities are look past superficial corporate facades to scrutinize the foundational mechanics of technology assets: where a project originated, where its data flows, and who exercises ultimate control.
This landmark case serves as a definitive notice that the era of unregulated global expansion for technology firms has ended. We have entered a new era where cross-border compliance must lead the way.
Disclaimer & Copyright: This article is co-authored by Mandy Wu and Yu Yuting. The insights shared are for general compliance trends only and do not constitute formal legal advice.As a specialized cross-border legal institution, Neo-Ark Law Firm provides comprehensive global compliance and rights-protection support for expanding enterprises. For more international legal updates, please visit the Neo-Ark Law Firm Official Websites (https://www.neoarklawyers.com/news).
Skip to content 
