plexus net
Conny Schneider, Unsplash

Tuesday, November 11, 2025
6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Pacific
7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Mountain
8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Central
9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern
10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Hong Kong (Wednesday, November 12th)

Register Here

About the Program

On May 21, 2025, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed the Stablecoins Bill, establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins – cryptocurrencies whose value is tied to an external asset or commodity. The Stablecoin Ordinance took effect on August 1, 2025, positioning Hong Kong as a leading hub for digital finance.

In the United States, President Donald Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) into law on July 18, 2025. This landmark legislation will begin transforming the traditional paper currency payment system into a digital economy, reshaping how market participants buy and sell goods and services.

Designed for legal, compliance, and financial professionals, the program will cover the following key topics in the virtual currency/crypto industry:

  • Market Movements & Volatility
  • Regulatory & Policy Shifts
  • Institutional Adoption & ETFs
  • Technology & Blockchain Innovations
  • DeFi & Stablecoins

Speakers

Gordon Peery, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Jing Li, Consultant, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Elsa Zhang, Founder & CEO, DECA Capital
Arthur Lam, Co-Founder & CEO, Negawatt Utility Limited
Carrie Law, CEO & Director, WOW IMPACT GROUP

Register Here

If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Shah at ashah@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

Learn more about our derivatives practice. 

To request CLE credit please fill out the attendance verification form here. To comply with State CLE Requirements, CLE forms requesting credit in IL or CA must be received before the end of the month in which the program took place. Credit will not be issued for forms received after such date. For all other jurisdictions forms must be submitted within 10 business days of the program taking place or we will not be able to process the request.

Our live programming is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, and NY (for both newly admitted and experienced).  Credit will be applied as requested, but cannot be guaranteed for TX, NJ, GA, NC and WA. The following jurisdictions may accept reciprocal credit with our accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, AR, CT, HI and ME. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used for self-application. CLE decisions are made by each local board, and can take up to 12 weeks to process. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

Please note that programming under 60 minutes of CLE content is not eligible for credit in GA. programs that are not open to the public are not eligible for credit in NC.

1757518612-2466-3181-lxb_photoFUVKEii8BpUlxb_photo-
Nguyen Phan Nam Anh, Unsplash

One of the earliest issues to decide on a hospitality renovation abroad – whether it’s a branded resort in Europe, a hotel in Asia, or a mixed-use property in Latin America – is the selection of the appropriate project contracts.  The design and construction contracts in wide use in the US are sometimes appropriate for adaptation for use abroad.

This was the focus of our recent webinar, Adapting Standard Construction Forms for Use in Overseas Hospitality Renovations. Below, we outline several of the most significant considerations that arise when U.S. forms cross international borders.

Standard Forms in Different Jurisdictions

In the United States, forms from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and ConsensusDocs are the most widely used for construction projects, supported by a deep body of case law with respect to the AIA suite of contract forms.

Outside the U.S., however, other industry forms are available.  Examples include:

  • FIDIC – rarely used on hospitality projects unless part of a large-scale mixed-use development.
  • Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) – the principal suite of construction contracts in the UK.
  • New Engineering Contract (NEC) – frequently employed for public sector projects.
  • Canadian Construction Documents Committee (CCDC) – consensus-based contracts common across Canada.

These forms reflect regional practices, risk allocations, and regulatory environments that may differ significantly from U.S. norms.

Areas of Divergence

Several key issues arise when adapting U.S. forms for international hospitality renovation projects:

  • Local Law Requirements: Employment rules, licensing laws, building codes, and anti-corruption statutes can impose obligations directly on owners. Financial security instruments also differ—bank guarantees are more common abroad than U.S.-style surety bonds.
  • Risk Allocation: The distribution of risk in U.S. forms does not always align with expectations overseas, where owners or contractors may bear greater responsibilities under local practice.
  • Dispute Resolution: Internationally, arbitration is the preferred forum for construction disputes. Institutions such as the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, and HKIAC are commonly chosen, as well as country-based arbitral tribunals, and awards are broadly enforceable under the New York Convention.

Conclusion

Standard forms such as AIA and ConsensusDocs provide a familiar starting point in the United States, but they do not automatically fit the needs of overseas hospitality projects. Understanding regional frameworks, legal requirements, and dispute resolution mechanisms is essential when renovating or developing properties abroad. Careful alignment of these elements can help ensure that projects proceed smoothly and that agreements are enforceable across borders.

1755803169-2461-1630-lxb_photopREq0ns_p_Elxb_photo-
Conny Schneider, Unsplash

Asia-Pacific
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Hong Kong and China Standard Time (UTC+8)
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Australian Eastern Standard Time (UTC+10)

US
Tuesday, September 2, 2025
6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Pacific Time (UTC-7)

Please note: A recording of this presentation will be made available for those who cannot attend live.

Register Here

About the Program

This webinar will explain how historic new law will present business opportunities for market participants in two of the world’s largest economies.

On May 21, 2025, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed the Stablecoins Bill, establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins – cryptocurrencies whose value is tied to an external asset or commodity. The Stablecoin Ordinance took effect on August 1, 2025, positioning Hong Kong as a leading hub for digital finance.

In the United States, President Donald Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) into law on July 18, 2025. This landmark legislation will begin transforming the traditional paper currency payment system into a digital economy, reshaping how market participants buy and sell goods and services.

Designed for legal, compliance, and financial professionals, the program will cover:

  • A primer on cryptocurrency with a focus on stablecoins, including new issuers, new uses, and the law that governs issuance and use;
  • Key features of the US GENIUS Act and the Hong Kong Stablecoin Ordinance;
  • Practical business implications for issuers, exchanges, institutional and retail investors, banks and competitors of banks, and the consumer; and
  • Emerging global trends, cross-border considerations, and predictions for future developments, along with guidance on how to prepare.

There will be an opportunity for questions following the presentation.

Speakers

Gordon Peery, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Jing Li, Consultant, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Register Here

If you have any questions, please contact JoAnna Barbero at jbarbero@seyfarth.com and reference this event.To comply with State CLE Requirements, CLE forms requesting credit in IL or CA must be received before the end of the month in which the program took place. Credit will not be issued for forms received after such date. For all other jurisdictions forms must be submitted within 10 business days of the program taking place or we will not be able to process the request.

Our live programming is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, and NY (for both newly admitted and experienced). Credit will be applied as requested, but cannot be guaranteed for TX, NJ, GA, NC and WA. The following jurisdictions may accept reciprocal credit with our accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, AR, CT, HI and ME. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used for self-application. CLE decisions are made by each local board, and can take up to 12 weeks to process. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

Please note that programming under 60 minutes of CLE content is not eligible for credit in GA. programs that are not open to the public are not eligible for credit in NC.

Morning Opera
Photoholgic, Unsplash

On 6 August 2025, the High Court of Australia (Australia’s most senior court) handed down the landmark decision in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2025] HCA 29, reshaping the risk environment for global employers who make redundancies in their businesses in Australia, i.e., eliminate certain positions or roles in the business, potentially resulting in the employees holding those roles losing their jobs. The decision has particular implications for businesses that rely on a mix of employees and contractors.

What was the case about?

Helensburgh Coal, operating the Metropolitan Coal Mine, made 22 employees redundant during a restructure prompted by a downturn in demand after COVID-19. However, the company continued to engage two contractor companies to provide conveyor belt maintenance services at the mine. The affected employees made unfair dismissal claims, arguing that they could have been redeployed to perform the work undertaken by the contractor workforce – that is, the contractor work could have been “in-sourced” to the redundant employees to allow them to continue in employment.

Under the Fair Work Act, an employee cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim if their employment ended as a result of “genuine redundancy”. One of the central questions for the Fair Work Commission (Australia’s labor relations tribunal) in determining whether a redundancy is a “genuine redundancy” is whether it would have been “reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed” within the employer’s business or the business of an associated entity. There has been a general understanding that this concept is limited to assessing whether there are any vacant positions available – without the need to look at whether operations could be restructured to allow the redundant employees to continue working.

The question was therefore whether Helensburgh Coal needed to consider replacing the contractor workforce with the redundant employees, or whether it only needed to look at whether there were any vacant positions for the redundant employees.

What did the High Court decide?

The High Court decided that, when determining what was “reasonable in all the circumstances”, the Fair Work Commission can consider whether the employer could have made changes to its enterprise to create or make available a position for a redundant employee. This means that, contrary to the previously commonly understood position, “redeployment” isn’t limited only to vacant positions – whether a redeployment would have been reasonable depends, at least in part, on whether it would have been reasonable for the employer to reorganise its business to make a position available.

What does the decision mean for international employers in Australia?

The decision does not mean there is an obligation to replace contractors with redundant employees in every situation. But, we can expect that employees and unions will press employers to look more closely at whether they could reorganise their business to find positions for redundant employees – especially where the employer is using contractors or third parties to provide labor on an ongoing basis and the work being done by those workers could be done by employees (even if they need to be retrained).

When going through a redundancy process, to minimise legal risk, employers with operations in Australia will need to:

  1. look at the way in which they structure their overall business operations – including parts of the business where ongoing contractors are used – when considering whether redundant employees could be redeployed. It is not enough just to look at whether there are any vacant positions available;
  2. consider reasonable changes that they might be able to make to their operations so that the redundant employees could be redeployed – including whether contractors or labor hire workers could be replaced by the redundant employees;
  3. if the employer decides not to make a change to the way in which it operates its business, make sure the reasons for doing so are commercial and sensible, and document them;
  4. remember that – in most situations – employers will need to consult with the affected employees as part of the redundancy process. Engaging with employees and unions during the consultation process can help flush out some of these issues. Employers will need to be open to considering proposals put by employees and their unions.
1753821188-2453-7714-lxb_photoqpWRtUL6NQ4lxb_photo-
Andrew Jephson, Unsplash

On 1 January 2024, Foreign State Immunity Law of The People’s Republic of China (“FSIL”) came into effect, changing and clarifying the position of sovereign immunity under the laws of Hong Kong and mainland China.

Before the FSIL, the sovereign immunity position under the laws of China was that a state and its property enjoyed absolute immunity in foreign courts, including immunity from jurisdiction and from execution. The courts in China had no jurisdiction over a foreign state or government, nor had they ever entertained any case in which a foreign state or government was sued as a defendant or any claim involving the property of any foreign state or government, irrespective of the nature or purpose of the relevant act or use of the property.

Now, the FSIL introduces key statutory exemptions from the immunity enjoyed by foreign states in PRC civil proceedings, many of which are similar to exemptions found in the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (which you can read more about here). 

Exceptions to immunity from PRC court proceedings

(i)   Commercial activities exemption — a foreign state will not enjoy immunity from suit before the PRC courts in respect of proceedings arising from “commercial activities” provided that those commercial activities (i) are conducted with an organisation or individual of any other state (which would include the PRC) and (ii) either take place within the territory of the PRC or (if not) produce “direct effect” in the territory of the PRC.

(ii)  Express waiver (immunity from suit) — a foreign state will not enjoy immunity from suit where it has expressly submitted in writing to the jurisdiction of the courts of the PRC with respect to a particular matter or case, for example through a contract or treaty. It is also possible for a foreign state to implicitly waive immunity from suit, for example if it brings proceedings on the substance of a dispute.

(iii) Arbitration-related proceedings in commercial transactions — where an arbitration relates to a dispute arising out of a commercial activity between a foreign state and an organisation or an individual of any other state (including the PRC), a foreign state will not be able to claim immunity from suit in related court proceedings concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement, the recognition and enforcement of the award, the setting aside of the award and other matters related to arbitration prescribed by law to be reviewed by the court.  

Exceptions to immunity from execution

(iv) Property for commercial use — property located in the PRC that is being used for “commercial activities” and is related to a PRC judgment will no longer be immune from judicial enforcement in the PRC.

(v)  Express waiver (immunity from execution) — a foreign state will not enjoy immunity from execution where it expressly waives such immunity in writing, including by treaty or contract.

The evolution of the sovereign immunity position in Hong Kong is a bit complicated. Before July 1, 1997, Hong Kong courts applied a restrictive state immunity doctrine. However, since the resumption of Chinese sovereignty on July 1, 1997, Article 19, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law has excluded matters of foreign affairs and defense from the jurisdiction of the municipal courts of Hong Kong.

As established by the leading case Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates [2011] HKCFA 41, Hong Kong is legally bound to follow the rules and policies of mainland China on foreign state immunity. In the Congo case, the majority followed an interpretation issued by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress upon the request of the court to the effect that the doctrine of absolute state immunity, as then adopted by mainland China, was to be applied in Hong Kong.

In an announcement dated 4 September 2023, the Chinese authorities confirmed the Hong Kong SAR should follow the rules and policies in the FSIL. This means Hong Kong will have to shift from an absolute to a restrictive approach in applying foreign state immunity, opening up the possibility of suing foreign states for their commercial activities in Hong Kong.

Another welcome change in Hong Kong is the possibility of express contractual waivers, which were previously ineffective, as any waiver of immunity is required to be made “in the face of the court” at the time when the court was asked to exercise jurisdiction, as stated in the Congo case. 

Since foreign states are not immune from suit in respect of arbitration-related court proceedings that arise out of commercial activities or investment disputes, creditors will be able to enforce awards from commercial or investment arbitrations against commercial assets of foreign states in both mainland China and Hong Kong by applying to recognise and register the awards as judgments, provided that the awards arise out of the foreign state’s commercial activities.

Last but not least, it is important to note that Hong Kong law distinguishes the foreign state immunity regime which specifically applies to foreign states and their entities, from “crown immunity” under which the Chinese Government and its controlled institutions are immune from the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts and execution against their assets. In determining whether a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) is entitled to crown immunity, a “control test” will be applied to ascertain the nature and degree of control that could be exercised by the Chinese authorities, as confirmed in the case TNB Fuel Services SDN BHD v. China National Coal Group Corporation [2017] HKCFI 1016. Accordingly, Chinese commercial state-owned enterprises (SOEs) generally do not enjoy crown immunity in Hong Kong, much like most foreign SOEs.

1753369339-2445-6167-lxb_photojOqJbvo1P9glxb_photo-
Ian Taylor, Unsplash

In light of recent disputes, international construction firms are rethinking how they draft force majeure and price escalation provisions to better address tariff-induced cost increases. While traditional force majeure clauses often focus on physical impossibility or natural disasters, they should now explicitly include governmental actions such as the imposition or increase of tariffs.

Legal and Contractual Repercussions

For contractors and suppliers, the tariff resurgence has triggered a cascade of legal and commercial consequences. First, fixed-price contracts are now high-risk instruments. Without robust material escalation clauses, contractors face margin compression or even breach scenarios. Additionally, in existing contracts and for new projects alike, force majeure and hardship clauses are under renewed scrutiny. Parties are increasingly invoking these provisions to renegotiate terms or seek relief from performance obligations.

Of importance to consider are the dispute resolution mechanisms. These—especially arbitration clauses—are being tested as parties seek remedies for tariff-induced cost overruns and delays.

Strategic Responses for Resiliency

To mitigate exposure, those involved in the development and construction of projects in the U.S. are adopting several strategic measures to respond to the tariff turbulence that apparently is going to continue for some time to come.

First, companies are revisiting supply chain structures to prioritize tariff-exempt or domestic sourcing where feasible.

In addition, when possible, companies are embedding tariff risk into preconstruction due diligence, including scenario modeling and legal stress testing.  Some are also using AI tools to try to model and mitigate risks.

Finally, when needed, parties are looking at renegotiating joint venture and subcontractor agreements to allocate tariff-related risks more equitably.

Tips For Drafting Force Majeure Clauses To Address Tariff Turbulence:

Considerations to include in contracts to assist in the management of these tariff-related risks include addressing tariffs through by using broad government action language, considering a tiered risk sharing mechanism, evaluating the change in law clauses, and substitution clauses. In addition, consideration should be given to supplementing the termination clause or adding in language to address termination due to tariff increases, to ensure that any impossibility argument can be bolstered.

  • Define “governmental action” broadly to include tariffs, trade restrictions, and import/export controls.
  • Include a materiality threshold, such as a percentage increase in cost, to trigger relief.
  • Specify remedies, such as renegotiation, suspension, or termination rights.
  • Coordinate with price escalation clauses to avoid overlap or ambiguity.

Sample clause language:

“If, after the Effective Date, any governmental action—including but not limited to the imposition of new tariffs or duties, or the increase of existing tariffs—results in a cumulative increase of more than [10%] in the cost of materials required for the Work, the Contractor shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment in the Contract Price. The first [10%] of such increase shall be borne by the Contractor, and any increase beyond that threshold shall be subject to cost-sharing or reimbursement by the Owner, as mutually agreed.”

This approach balances risk by encouraging contractors to manage moderate fluctuations while providing relief for extraordinary cost surges. It also fosters transparency and collaboration between parties when navigating unpredictable trade environments. The tariff turbulence in U.S. trade is expected to continue and savvy parties in the construction industry will do well to plan ahead, consider the terms of their current contracts, and seek to ensure tariff turbulence risks are covered in negotiating new contracts.

Want to learn more? Watch our recent webinar.

1749233259-2434-2696-lxb_photo5h_dMuX_7RElxb_photo-
Li Yang, Unsplash

The year 2024 witnessed various changes in employment law in the People’s Republic of China. This article summarizes the key developments from the past year and offers an outlook on the changes we have seen and further anticipate as we move through 2025.

January

On 10 January 2024, the Ministry of Emergency Management of the People’s Republic of China issued new workplace health and safety regulations: Regulations on Penalties for Production Safety Accidents, which apply to all employers. The regulations clarify the specific meaning of the four situations referred to as “delayed reporting, omission reporting, false reporting, and concealment reporting.” They also specify who may be held accountable and outline a range of fines – up to RMB 20 million- based on the severity of the accident. The new regulations took effect on 1 March 2024 and establish clearer accountability for reporting workplace accidents.

March

On 22 March 2024, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued Provisions on Promoting and Regulating Cross-Border Data Flows, clarifying scenarios that are exempt from security appraisals for cross-border data transfers, as a new step for the Chinese government to adjust control models in the field of cross-border data transfers.

The Provisions on Promoting and Regulating Cross-Border Data Flows introduce the following categories of “exemption scenarios”, under which pre-export data procedures are exempt:

  1. data collected and generated in activities such as international trade, cross-border transportation, academic cooperation, transnational manufacturing, and marketing, which is provided abroad and does not contain personal information or important data;
  2. personal information collected and generated overseas, transmitted to China for processing, and then provided abroad, where no domestic personal information or important data is introduced during processing;
  3. where it is necessary to provide personal information abroad to conclude or perform a contract in which an individual is a party, such as cross-border shopping, mailing, remittances, payments, account opening, flight and hotel bookings, visa processing, and examination services;
  4. where it is necessary to provide employees’ personal information abroad for cross-border human resource management in accordance with legally formulated labor rules and collective contracts;
  5. where it is necessary to provide personal information abroad in emergencies to protect the life, health, and property safety of natural persons;
  6. data processors, other than critical information infrastructure operators cumulatively providing personal information of fewer than 100,000 individuals (excluding sensitive personal information) abroad since January 1 of the current year; and
  7. data processors in free trade zones providing data abroad that is not on the negative list.

This regulation signals that the Chinese government has relaxed its control over cross-border data transfers, exempting many common international affairs scenarios from the cross-border data transfer rules.

April

On 15 April 2024, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, and the All-China Women’s Federation jointly released an update on typical cases to safeguard the rights and interests of women and children. The typical case of protecting the special rights of “three period” female employees highlights the effective use of public interest litigation by the procuratorate to protect the special rights of female employees during pregnancy, maternity, and lactation (“three period”). Chinese laws clearly prohibit employers from reducing wages, dismissing, or unilaterally terminating the employment of female workers during any of the three periods. Through detailed investigations and collaboration with government agencies, the procuratorate reinforced legal protections for women, ensuring their rights are better safeguarded.

These cases highlight the importance for employers to pay attention to specific legal protections for female employees during the three periods and the need to establish corresponding internal policies and procedures applicable to “three period” employees.

On 26 April 2024, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, Ministry of Finance, and the State Taxation Administration, jointly issued favorable policies in terms of unemployment insurance.

Key measures include: (1) continuing the reduced unemployment insurance contribution rate for employers and employees of 1% (in total, reduced from the original 1.5%) until 31 December 2025; and (2) extending the unemployment insurance job stabilization refund for eligible enterprises – a policy first introduced in September 2023 in favor of employers- under this policy, large enterprises could receive up to 30% and small and medium-sized enterprises up to 60% of their previous year’s unemployment insurance contributions; however, note that this program expired on 31 December 2024.

This serves as a reminder that employers can utilize these favorable policies to reduce their costs in terms of unemployment insurance.

On 30 April 2024, the Supreme People’s Court released six typical cases of labor disputes, summarized as follows:

  1. an employer abused a contractor relationship to avoid employment;
  2. upon the expiry of the second labor contracts, the employee keeps the discretion to require a permanent labor contract;
  3. a court ruled that the scope of a non-compete obligation should be limited to a reasonable extent;
  4. investing in the employer’s competitor by an ex-employee’s spouse constituted a breach of the non-compete obligation of the employee;
  5. an employee leaving the employer refused to conduct a job handover which led to losses; accordingly, the court ruled that the employee should compensate the employer and;
  6. an employee’s legal right to take paid paternity leave after the birth of his child cannot be rejected by his employer.

These cases not only involve the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of workers but are also closely related to the overall economic and social development of China.

June

On 14 June 2024, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security amended the Measures for the Application and Distribution of Unemployment Insurance Benefits, and the revised Measures took effect immediately. To implement the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law, the Ministry has decided to amend Article 27 of the Measures to add litigation as a means to resolve disputes over unemployment insurance benefits.  This signaled that going forward employees may bring more litigation in terms of unemployment insurance.

September

On 13 September 2024, the State Council’s Measures on Gradual Delay of the Statutory Retirement Age were approved. From 1 January 2025, the statutory retirement age will gradually be delayed over a 15-year period, to 63 for men, 55 for women in blue-collar jobs, and 58 for women in white-collar jobs. The minimum period to make contributions into pension funds in order to receive a monthly pension will also gradually increase from 15 to 20 years, starting from January 2030.

Flexible retirement shifts the retirement age from a fixed date to a range, which may increase management costs and complexity for employers. HR departments will need to verify employee information, consult with employees on retirement dates, and ensure timely processing to avoid errors. Employers may also consider adjusting their HR strategies – including recruitment, training, and promotion – to adapt to the varied retirement timelines.

Local practice for such new legislation includes, upon mutual agreement between employers and employees, employees’ statutory retirement age could be postponed up to 3 years.

On 27 September 2024, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Ministry of Finance issued the Provisional Measures on Basic Endowment Insurance Disability Benefits for Enterprise Employees. The measures, which came into effect on 1 January 2025, fill the gap in protection for employees who become ill or disabled due to non-work-related causes before reaching the statutory retirement age, providing them with stable financial support.

December

On 10 December 2024, China rolled out a personal pension scheme in response to its aging population. All workers participating in urban employee or resident basic pension insurance can now join this supplementary pension scheme through designated online platforms or banks and enjoy applicable tax incentives, including deductible contributions and reduced withdrawal tax rates. This nationwide rollout incentivizes long-term retirement savings and provides employees with broader access to diverse financial products for pension planning. The scheme was implemented on 15 December 2024.

On 11 December 2024, the National Health Commission, in conjunction with the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federation of Trade Unions, issued an updated Occupational Disease Classification and Directory. The updated Occupational Disease Classification and Directory expands from 10 categories and 132 diseases to 12 categories and 135 diseases, including four open-ended provisions. It will come into effect on 1 August 2025.

2025 Outlook

We continue to anticipate various developments and changes in employment law in the People’s Republic of China in 2025, including the following:

  • The statutory retirement age began to gradually increase with effect from 1 January 2025.
  • Also on 1 January 2025, the Provisional Measures on Basic Endowment Insurance Disability Benefits for Enterprise Employees came into effect.
  • In December 2024, the National Health Commission issued an updated Occupational Disease Classification and Directory, which expands the scope of occupational diseases. This update will come into effect on 1 August 2025.
  • It is expected that the expansion of public interest litigation will play a role in enforcing labor protections, particularly for vulnerable employee groups such as female workers. This shift will allow advocacy groups and trade unions to initiate legal actions on behalf of these employees, ensuring that their rights are protected.
  • It is expected that strengthened workplace safety regulations will be implemented in high-risk industries like mining and power engineering, with stricter safety standards, more frequent inspections, and harsher penalties for non-compliance. Employers in these sectors will need to enhance their safety protocols, provide regular training, and ensure proper compliance to avoid legal consequences and safeguard workers’ health and safety.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from their professional advisers. 

Passport and Documents
Kelly Sikkema, Unsplash

You may have a judgment from a United States court against a Chinese company, and are about to contemplate the possibility of enforcing it in the far east.  Prior to the commencement of your enforcement journey, perhaps you wonder if this judgment could be enforced at all and if so, whether it would be a costly exercise? Well, due to the one-country-two-systems policy in place, one should first identify if the enforcement target is in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“SAR”) or Mainland China. Depending on the location of the target, the procedure, consideration and outcome could be different.

Enforcing U.S. Judgments in Hong Kong SAR

Generally speaking, foreign judgments may be enforced in Hong Kong either through the statutory route (Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (“FJREO”)) or the common law route. Whilst the FJREO covers 15 foreign countries such as Australia, Singapore, France and Germany, it does not include the United States. In the absence of any statutory mechanism to register judgments from the U.S., an American judgment holder could only rely on the common law regime, i.e., commence fresh proceedings by way of a Writ of Summons seeking to recognize the foreign judgment.

In order to be recognized as a Hong Kong judgment via the common law route, one must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court the following questions:

  • The foreign judgment must be final and conclusive;
  • The foreign judgment be in the nature of a money award; and
  • The foreign judgment must be “in personam”, i.e., against an individual or entity.

While the Hong Kong court will not re-try the case, the judgment debtor may raise defenses such as lack of jurisdiction, fraud or natural justice to strategically delay or even challenge the enforcement process.

Once an order recognizing the judgment is granted, the judgment creditor may proceed to enforce the judgment, depending on the types of assets available. Some common enforcement actions in Hong Kong are garnishee orders (i.e., to garnish properties from third parties who are indebted to the judgment debtor; for example, monies in a bank account) and charging orders (i.e., to place a charge over the properties of the judgment debtor, which requires subsequent application for a court order for sale), provided that it is known to the judgment creditor the whereabouts of the assets.

It is therefore advisable for judgment creditors to conduct an asset search against a judgment debtor prior to any enforcement actions. At times, a judgment creditor may also need to seek from the court an oral examination order against the director of a company to obtain information on the whereabouts of the assets. 

Enforcing U.S. Judgments in Mainland China 

If the target company is situated in Mainland China, the position would be very different. Enforcement of foreign judgments in Mainland China is governed by the Chinese domestic law, in particular the Civil Procedure Law (“CPL”). Currently, the CPL provides that a Chinese court may enforce a foreign judgment either through (i) an international convention or bilateral treaty (not applicable to the U.S.) or (ii) the principle of reciprocity.

Historically, it was extremely difficult to enforce any foreign judgments in Mainland China, but in recent years, there appears to have been a change in the attitude of the Chinese courts. Since 2017, there have been several successful cases where the Chinese courts recognized and allowed the enforcement of U.S. judgments based on the principle of reciprocity. Unfortunately, the principle of reciprocity is not defined by law and may be subject to different interpretations depending on the attitudes of the local courts. Broadly speaking, the interpretation of reciprocity has been that if a Chinese judgment has in the past been enforced in a particular state in the U.S., the Chinese local court would be more receptive to allow the enforcement of a U.S. judgment from that particular state in Mainland China.

China amended its Civil Procedure Law in 2023 to provide for wider coverage of enforceable foreign judgments. Notwithstanding the changes, the principle of reciprocity has yet to be widely adopted by the Chinese courts, leaving the situation uncertain and difficult for a U.S. judgement creditor.

Conclusion

The recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments in Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China are quite different: it is more judgment creditor-friendly in Hong Kong, whereas the position remains uncertain in Mainland China, although enforcement may nonetheless be available. Extra attention should be given when drafting the dispute resolution clause of a contract, and parties should consider whether court litigation is most appropriate forum (as opposed to arbitration, which is generally enforceable by virtue of New York Convention) should you be in a dispute against a Chinese, non-Hong Kong party.

Hong Kong neons
Nic Low, Unsplash

Asia-Pacific
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Hong Kong and China Standard Time (UTC+8)
12.00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Australian Eastern Standard Time (UTC+10)

U.S.
Monday, June 16, 2025
7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Pacific Time (UTC-7)

Register Here

About the Program

Hong Kong’s employment law landscape is both nuanced and evolving, shaped by statutory frameworks, common law principles, and international influences. As a dynamic global business hub, Hong Kong continues to refine its legal protections for employees while maintaining flexibility for employers. From statutory entitlements and workplace protections to termination procedures and dispute resolution, the legal environment demands that employers stay informed and agile.

This webinar will provide a practical overview of the key legal principles and processes that govern employment relationships in Hong Kong, helping employers and professionals better understand their responsibilities within the broader legal context.

Topics include:

  • The Legal Framework: Understand the key statutes and common law principles governing employment in Hong Kong, including the Employment Ordinance and other critical legislation.
  • Employment Structures: Learn about different types of employment contracts, the concept of “continuous contract”, and statutory entitlements such as rest days, statutory holidays, annual leave, sickness allowance, maternity and paternity leave.
  • Termination and Disciplinary Procedures: Gain insights into lawful termination practices, summary and constructive dismissal.
  • Employee Rights and Protections: Discover how Hong Kong law addresses workplace safety, anti-discrimination, and equal opportunity.
  • Dispute Resolution: Get an overview of the mechanisms available for resolving employment disputes, including the roles of the Labour Department, Labour Tribunal, Equal Opportunities Commission and other relevant bodies.

Please bring your questions! We will leave time at the end of our session for Q&A.

Who should attend: HR Directors, Employment Counsel, General Counsel and others with responsibility for workforces in Hong Kong.

Speakers

Kathryn Weaver, International Employment Partner in Seyfarth’s Hong Kong office
Joni Wong, International Employment Associate, Seyfarth Shaw

Register Here

If you have any questions, please contact Natalie Ng at nng@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

Learn more about our International Employment Law practice.

Pinned locations on map of globe.
Andrew Stutesman, Unsplash

In today’s global workplace, managing sexual harassment complaints is no longer a matter confined to a single jurisdiction. As companies expand across borders, their legal obligations become increasingly complex. A recent Seyfarth Shaw webinar brought together employment law experts from the US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, and Latin America to explore the challenges of conducting cross-border investigations into sexual harassment.

The key takeaway? There is no universal playbook. Each jurisdiction brings its own legal framework, cultural expectations, and procedural nuances. For multinational employers, understanding these differences is not just helpful—it’s essential to managing risk and ensuring fairness.

A Patchwork of Legal Duties and Definitions

Across jurisdictions, the legal duty to prevent harassment varies significantly. The UK has recently introduced a positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, requiring proactive risk assessments and preventative measures, much like health and safety obligations. This marks a move from reactive compliance to active prevention.

In Italy, Mexico, and Brazil, the obligation is framed within broader duties to take all necessary measures to protect employee health and safety. France goes further by incorporating the duty in the Labor Code and mandating disciplinary action against perpetrators. France also requires that the sexual harassment has happened at least twice unless the act relates to obtaining a sexual act, which is limited to a single act.

Spain also requires employers to prevent sexual harassment but has also introduced new obligations under its “Only Yes Means Yes” law, requiring employers to implement training and protocols to prevent sexual violence in the workplace.

In contrast, the US legal framework is rooted in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and shaped by decades of case law. However, recent political developments have introduced uncertainty, particularly around protections for gender identity and sexual orientation. The legal landscape remains dynamic, and employers must stay vigilant.

The Fragile Shield of Legal Privilege

One of the more challenging aspects of cross-border investigations is managing legal privilege.  In the UK and US, privilege is a well-established principle, but how it is applied in the context of an investigation will vary depending on whether the privilege relates to attorney advice or attorney work product.  In jurisdictions like France and Spain, the concept of legal privilege is defined differently and is governed by the rules of confidentiality and professional secrecy. However, what material is protected will vary depending on whether the lawyer is external or an in-house and the application of this principle varies between EU states.

This creates a strategic challenge: conducting a thorough investigation while minimizing the risk of exposing sensitive information to the public. The solution often lies in the early involvement of external counsel, the preservation of confidentiality, which includes limiting the circulation of material in-house.

Timing Is Everything

In some jurisdictions, timing can make or break an investigation. Although all jurisdictions encourage investigations to be conducted promptly and diligently.  France and Spain, for example, impose strict deadlines for initiating disciplinary action once an employer becomes aware of misconduct. In Spain, these can be as short as 10 days. But what constitutes “awareness” is often debated. Employers must be able to demonstrate that they had sufficient knowledge to act and justify any delay.

Companies should start investigations promptly and document every step. Delays can undermine the credibility of the process and expose the company to legal risk.

Jurisdictional Overlap and Legal Complexity

When misconduct involves employees from multiple countries, determining which law applies becomes a critical and complex question. The location of the incident, the residence of the complainant and the accused, and the governing law of their employment contracts all play a role. Often, multiple legal systems must be considered simultaneously.

This reinforces the need for a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional approach to investigations. Failing to align with local legal requirements can compromise the investigation and limit the company’s ability to take effective action.

Confidentiality Isn’t Optional

In many jurisdictions, once a complaint is made, the employer has a legal obligation to act even if the complainant requests confidentiality or later withdraws the complaint. Ignoring such a report is not an option. In the UK, for example, the duty to prevent harassment means that employers must investigate to understand the risk and take appropriate action.

This underscores the importance of having clear, well-communicated policies and trained HR professionals who can manage these situations with sensitivity and legal awareness.

Cultural Norms vs. Legal Standards

Cultural context can influence how behavior is perceived, but it does not override legal standards. In many jurisdictions, the focus is on the impact of the behavior on the victim, not the intent of the accused. While cultural norms may be considered when determining the severity of disciplinary action, they do not excuse inappropriate conduct.

Employers must ensure that their global workforce understands and adheres to a consistent standard of workplace behavior, regardless of local customs.

Retaliation and Redundancy: A Legal Minefield

One of the most sensitive areas in cross-border investigations is the risk of perceived retaliation. If an employee who has raised a complaint is later selected for redundancy or disciplinary action, the company must be able to demonstrate that the decision was based on objective, unrelated criteria.

In jurisdictions like Spain, France, and Italy, the burden of proof often shifts to the employer once a retaliation claim is raised. This makes documentation, transparency, and multi-person decision-making essential. Even the appearance of retaliation can damage trust and lead to costly litigation.

Practical Next Steps for Managing Risk in Cross-Border Investigations

To protect the interests of all parties involved in what are often complex and sensitive matters, requires careful planning and early engagement with local in-house experts or counsel.  Each jurisdiction presents its own legal landscape and procedural nuances, which rarely align neatly with global policies or internal protocols. Missteps at the outset can have serious consequences, including the risk of undermining a company’s legal position.

 In-house counsel and HR professionals should consider the following practical steps:

  1. Review global grievance and disciplinary polices to ensure they allow flexibility to defer to local policies where it is necessary to comply with local laws.
  2. Conduct a jurisdictional risk assessment and engage local counsel early to accurately interpret and apply relevant local laws.
  3. Do not assume US law and policies will automatically apply to conduct committed overseas by employees of a US company.  Often multiple jurisdictions will be engaged.
  4. Initiate investigations promptly upon becoming aware of potential misconduct. Document the timeline of awareness, decisions made and actions taken to justify any delays. A clear audit trail is essential to defend against claims of inaction or procedural unfairness.
  5. Provide targeted training to key stakeholders so they understand the jurisdiction specific timelines and procedural requirements for investigations and disciplinary processes.