Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: September-October 2020 by Holland & Knight

期刊

Table of Contents CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................3 USMCA REPLACES NAFTA: AN OVERVIEW OF KEY PROVISIONS .....................................................4 USMCA 取代 NAFTA：关键条款概述 ......................................................................................................10 NEGOTIATION AND DRAFTING ISSUES SURROUNDING FORCE MAJEURE PROVISIONS .............16 有关不可抗力条款的协商和起草问题........................................................................................................20 MAJORITY AND MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS RELATIONSHIPS: DUTIES TO THE BUSINESS AND EACH OTHER .........................................................................................................................................23 大股东和小股东的关系：对企业和彼此的义务 .........................................................................................25 LITIGATION UNDER THE CCPA: TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS ON NEW CASE FILINGS..............27 CCPA 下的诉讼: 新案件提出的趋势及观察..............................................................................................32 ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ..................................................................................................................37 有关本期刊 ..............................................................................................................................................37 ABOUT THE AUTHORS..........................................................................................................................37 关于本期作者 ...........................................................................................................................................37

China Practice Newsletter Holland & Knight is a U.S.-based global law firm committed to provide high-quality legal services to our clients. We provide legal assistance to Chinese investors and companies doing business or making investments in the United States and Latin America. We also advise and assist multinational corporations and financial institutions, trade associations, private investors and other clients in their China-related activities. With more than 1,400 professionals in 27 offices, our lawyers and professionals are experienced in all of the interdisciplinary areas necessary to guide clients through the opportunities and challenges that arise throughout the business or investment life cycles. We assist Chinese clients and multinational clients in their China-related activities in areas such as international business, mergers and acquisitions, technology, healthcare, real estate, environmental law, private equity, venture capital, financial services, taxation, intellectual property, private wealth services, data privacy and cybersecurity, labor and employment, ESOPs, regulatory and government affairs, and dispute resolutions. We invite you to read our China Practice Newsletter, in which our authors discuss pertinent Sino-American topics. We also welcome you to discuss your thoughts on this issue with our authors listed within the document.

霍兰德奈特律师事务所是一家位于美国的全球性法律事务所，我们致力于向客户提供高质量的法律服务。我们向在美国及拉丁美洲进行商业活动或投资的中国投资人及公司提供他们所需的各类法律协助。我们也向跨国公司、金融机构、贸易机构、投资人及其他客户提供他们于其与中国相关活动中所需的咨询和协助。我们在 27 个办公室的 1400 多名对各领域有经验的律师及专业人员能够协助客户处理他们在经营或投资过程中所遇到的各种机会及挑战。我们向中国客户及从事与中国有关活动的跨国客户提供法律协助的领域包括国际商业、企业并购、科技法律、医疗法律、房地产、环保法律、私募基金、创投基金、金融法律服务、税务、知识产权、私人财富管理法律服务、信息隐私及网络安全、劳动及雇佣法律、员工持股计划、法令遵循及政府法规、及争议解决。我们邀请您阅读刊载我们各作者就与中美有关的各议题所作论述的 China Practice 期刊。我们也欢迎您向本期刊的各作者提供您对各相关议题的看法。

USMCA Replaces NAFTA: An Overview of Key Provisions By Carlos Vejar, Seth M.M. Stodder, Octavio Lecona, Leslie Palma, Jose Luis Villareal, Maria Teresa Quintero Godinez, Alberto Esenaro, Juan Pablo Moyano, Laura Yvonne Zielinski and Ronald A. Oleynik

HIGHLIGHTS  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) went into effect on July 1, 2020, replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Because many of NAFTA's obligations will survive identically under USMCA, maintaining existing free trade access of goods and most services in the region, this Holland & Knight alert focuses on the new and amended provisions that will require immediate or midterm attention on behalf of USMCA private sector actors (current NAFTA users). ____________________ After 26 and a half years, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has practically ceased to exist as of July 1, 2020,1 and has been replaced by United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Because many of NAFTA's obligations will survive identically under USMCA,2 maintaining existing free trade access of goods and most services in the region, this Holland & Knight alert focuses on the new and amended provisions that will require immediate or midterm attention on behalf of USMCA private sector actors (current NAFTA users), acknowledging that many of the obligations under the USMCA are not addressed to the public but to the three USMCA government authorities.3 In addition, this alert briefly summarizes how the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be implementing the USMCA.

RULES OF ORIGIN AND ORIGIN PROCEDURES Chapters 4 and 5 of the USMCA contain the provisions that regulate the rules of origin and origin procedures that will apply to all goods exported within North America. USMCA relaxes rules of origin for certain sectors (i.e., chemical, Arabic gum, etc.), and tightens them for others (i.e., automotive, steel). Automotive rules of origin incorporate new requirements, such as a high percentage of regional steel and aluminum content, and a first-of-its-kind labor content rule with minimum wage requirements, which among other things constitute completely new requirements that were nonexistent in any previous free trade agreements. USMCA will also increase the de minimis percentage from 7 percent to 10 percent of all non-originating materials to consider a product as originating (Article 4.12), and new products classifications such as "recovered material" or "remanufactured good"4 that were not covered by NAFTA are now introduced and will likely facilitate trade of such goods. USMCA abandons the NAFTA certificate of origin prescribed format, allowing the use of invoices or any other type of document as long as it contains a set of minimum requirements (Article 5.2); a new special verification of origin mechanism is established for the textile sector (Articles 5.9 and 6.6); and under USMCA, importers may also complete the certification of origins of imported goods (Article 5.2).

CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION AND TRADE FACILITATION USMCA refers to Express Shipments that require expedited customs procedures and will not be subject to customs duties or taxes if valued below fixed amounts of US$800 for the United States; US$117 for customs Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

duties and US$50 for taxes, for Mexico; and CA$150 for customs duties and CA$40 for taxes, for Canada (Article 7.8).

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT Chapter 13 of USMCA remains quite similar to NAFTA Chapter X, although it no longer applies to Canada. Chapter 13 now openly allows Parties to maintain measures that provide preferential treatment for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), subject to certain requirements applicable to the extent possible and if appropriate (Article 13.20). As part of its modernization, USMCA recognizes the use of electronic means and electronic tendering procedures, and includes obligations against corruption, fraud or other wrongful acts including those from enterprises or natural persons, participating in government procurement (Article 13.17).

LABOR USMCA incorporates a Chapter on the labor provisions (NAFTA labor provisions were contained in a parallel side agreement, North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation or NAALC), allowing the use of the USMCA State-to-State dispute settlement mechanism (Chapter 31) if labor violations referred therein are recurrent and affect trade or investment activities. USMCA labor provisions impose a significant shift from the outdated and longtime unused NAALC provisions, and is probably one of the most emblematic improvements of the USMCA, reaffirming each Party obligations as members of the International Labor Organization. It allows for public submissions from persons of a Party on matters related to the Chapter, which shall be considered by each Party providing a public and timely response (Article 23.11). USMCA emphasizes Mexico's obligations in terms of freedom of association and collective bargaining. Specifically, Annex 23-A sets out specific obligations for the effective recognition of those rights. Child labor and forced or compulsory labor is also addressed and provides for the effective abolition such practice; as well as the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor. Private actors will have to be aware of this new obligations, particularly in Mexico. Enterprises doing business in Mexico will have to ensure that they comply with all the obligations set forth in the Mexican legislation as specified in the USMCA. They will need to ensure that the collective bargaining agreements meet specific requirements (i.e., majority of workers support, through exercise of a personal, free, and secret vote). They will also need to provide workers with a copy of their collective bargaining agreement, which will need to be accessible to individual workers prior to any vote. They will also need to ensure compliance with obligations imposed on the employers (i.e., noninterference in union activities, avoidance of coercion against workers, nondiscrimination, prohibition of refusing to bargain collectively with legitimate union, etc.) and will also need to make sure to provide employees with specific rights (i.e., the right to organize, form and join the union of their choice, the right to collective bargaining, etc.). Additionally, Annex 31-A establishes a "rapid response labor mechanism" between Mexico and the U.S., under which denial of free association and collective bargaining of workers under Covered Facilities5 can be subject to remedies, which will be lifted after remediation. "Remedies may include suspension of preferential tariff treatment for goods manufactured at the Covered Facility or the imposition of penalties on goods manufactured at or services provided by the Covered Facility." (Article 31-A.10) Annex 31-B provides for a similar mechanism between Mexico and Canada.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Considered as a high-standard Intellectual Property (IP) chapter, USMCA revamps the outdated 18 IP Articles under NAFTA Chapter XVII, with 89 new articles, plus annexes, contained in Chapter 20. This is probably the Chapter with more notable changes compared to its NAFTA predecessors. Patents will have an additional protection if subject to "unreasonable" delays in patent examination; stronger protections for pharmaceutical and agricultural innovators were included; copyrights terms will be at least a life of author plus 70 years, or 70 years from publication of works (increasing by 20 years the World Trade Organization minimum standard); it will be possible to apply civil and criminal penalties for circumventing technology protections such as digital locks (often found in digital music, movies and books), and industrial designs will be able to obtain a 15-year extension of protection. The IP Chapter contemplates rights on the internet, such as establishing copyright "safe harbors" to allow legitimate online internet intermediaries to continue their activities, meanwhile providing IP protection without being affected for users infringements; and recognizing the "notice and takedown" systems to allow the removal of contents infringing IP rights when notified by right holders or its representatives (Article 20.87-88). IP Chapter will also protect Geographical Indications (GIs) (Geographical names that protect the quality, reputation and distinctiveness of a product from such regions, such as Florida oranges), maintaining a balance with the right to continue using generic or customary names, which may be protected in other jurisdictions, and which may be protected through a Trademark (Chapter 20, Section E). USMCA IP holders will also benefit from enhanced protection of trademarks, including non-traditional marks (such as sounds and scents), as visual perception is no longer required to protect a sign as a trademark (Chapter 20, Section C). The Chapter also demands ex officio protection against counterfeit or pirated goods under customs authority control (Article 20.82), and by criminalizing and imposing sanctions for unauthorized recording (camcording) of movies (frequently used to sell pirated movies online); and for satellite and cable signal theft (Article 20.84). Finally, Section I of Chapter 20 establishes a comprehensive protection for trade secrets6 being used without authorization (including by state-owned enterprises).

DIGITAL TRADE Chapter 19 was impossible to achieve at the time NAFTA was negotiated. USMCA digital trade provisions include prohibiting customs duties on electronically transmitted products (computer program, text, video, image, sound recording or other product that is digitally encoded, produced for commercial sale or distribution, and that can be transmitted electronically â&#x20AC;&#x201C; See. Article 19.1 definitions as it does not include digitalized representation of financial instruments including money); and limits on source code disclosure requirements (Article 19.11), allowing for free data flows by prohibiting data localization requirements (Article 19.12). The Digital Trade Chapter contains an interesting feature on trade administration documents (forms issued or controlled by a Party that must be completed by or for an importer or exporter in connection with the import or export of goods), requiring each Party to endeavor to accept a trade administration document submitted electronically as the legal equivalent of the paper version of that document. Although the language is not mandatory this will probably facilitate trade between the parties (Article 19.9).

INVESTMENT Probably the most significant change made to the investment Chapter (XI under NAFTA, 14 under USMCA), is contained in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. USMCA contains more limited protections than those contained in NAFTA. Investors (except for those in certain industries such as oil and gas, power generation, telecommunications, transportation and infrastructure sectors that have signed government contracts with Mexico) will be subjected to a 30-month litigation period in Mexican courts before being able to bring an arbitration claim against the government. Investors may still raise claims under NAFTA Chapter XI with respect to legacy investments up to three years after NAFTA's termination and the entry into force of the USMCA. Legacy investments are defined as investments that were made between NAFTA's entry into force (on Jan. 1, 1994) and its termination, that were still in existence when the USMCA entered into force. The three-year window does not apply to proceedings that are currently pending nor to any claims that have already been initiated. Although the ISDS provisions does not apply for Canada, Mexican and Canadian investors will still have the option to recur to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) ISDS chapter to file disputes against each other (but there will be no USMCA disputes under Canada and the United States).7

ENERGY Unlike NAFTA, which dedicated a specific section to the energy sector, the USMCA appears to limit its regulation to Chapter 8, focused mainly on the Mexican hydrocarbons sector. Under Article 8.1, the USMCA recognizes: a) Mexico's sovereign right to reform its legal regime (which implies due process to the existing one), and b) Mexico's ownership of all hydrocarbons. In this regard, subject to some caveats, hydrocarbons investments by U.S. investors will still be entitled to the full protection of the USMCA, as long as they are made through governmental contracts. Furthermore, future modifications to the legal regime may be limited in their application based on similar or parallel reservations that exist in other treaties already ratified by Mexico. 8 In other sectors of energy, a case-by-case analysis would be necessary, as general protection to investments are in force, and the considerations for government procurement and activities of state-owned enterprises.9

TELECOMMUNICATIONS Unlike NAFTA, USMCA Chapter 18 covers mobile service providers promoting reasonable rates of international mobile roaming services (Article 18.25), and binds Mexico to its 2013 telecommunications constitutional reforms, which provides for an independent regulatory commission, established interconnection obligations, avoid anti-competitive measures and non-discriminatory repurchases rates (See Chapter 18, footnote 6). USMCA includes for the first time the term of "major supplier," which is defined as a supplier that has the ability to materially affect the terms of participation (having regard to price and supply) in the relevant market for public telecommunications services as a result of 1) control over essential facilities, or 2) use of its market's position. These provisions will guarantee major competitiveness in this sector.

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMES) This Chapter is a first for the United States, which attempts to promote cooperation to increase SME's trade and investment opportunities under the USMCA (Canada and Mexico already share similar obligations under the CPTPP). Chapter 25 is mostly cooperative and information sharing between USMCA Parties and SMEs with a robust trilateral Committee that may provide interesting results to benefit SMEs to take advantage of the Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

USMCA provisions. SMEs representatives are envisaged to be part of an annual "dialogue" to provide views and information to the SME Committee (Article 25.5). Article 25.6 identifies obligations of the USMCA that also refer to enhance cooperation among the parties on SMEs.

IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the USMCA will proceed in phases. On the U.S. side, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued its final "Implementing Instructions" on June 30, 2020,10 which outline how CBP will implement the USMCA for the first six months until Dec. 31, 2020. As stated in the Implementing Instructions, "CBP understands that the trade may need time to adjust business practices to comply with the new requirements under the USMCA." So, for the first six months, CBP will "show restraint in enforcement" during this period – focusing instead on "supporting the trade's efforts to fully comply with USMCA requirements, including providing webinars and other outreach efforts to educate the trade on the new Agreement." CBP states that, in decided whether to initiate an enforcement action within the first six months, it will "take into account the difficulties importers may face in complying with the new rules, as long as importers are making satisfactory progress toward compliance and are making a good faith effort to comply with the rules to the extent of their ability." Brenda Smith, CBP's Executive Assistant Commissioner for Trade, has amplified this collaborative message in social media posts she issued July 1, 2020 – providing helpful instructions and links to the CBP implementation page on her LinkedIn profile.11 In addition, on July 1, 2020, CBP published in the Federal Register its "Interim Final Rule," implementing the rules of origin provisions of the USMCA, and providing further guidance to the trade on how the U.S. will implement the agreement.12 CBP also invites public comment on this Interim Final Rule, with comments due by Aug. 31, 2020. Canada has also issued new Uniform Regulations for Rules of Origin, as well as providing guidance on other aspects of the USMCA – on a website devoted to implementation of the new agreement.13 On June 30, 2020, Mexico published in the Mexican Official Gazette: 1) the General Rules regarding the application of the customs provisions of the USMCA14; 2) the rates of the import tax related to goods originating from North America15; the export and import quotas of non-originating textile and clothing goods, which may receive preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA16; and 3) the General Rules of International Trade for 2020.17

CONCLUSION While the overall changes from NAFTA to USMCA are relatively minor, certain areas of trade did get needed upgrades. As discussed above, the changes can be significant for a particular industry or transaction. Reviewing these changes and factoring them into your business's plans for the future will be important in order to take advantage of positive changes, and to avoid compliance problems where additional burdens have been included. For more information or questions about the USMCA, contact the authors or member of Holland & Knight's Mexico City office.

____________________ Notes 1

There are some overlapping or transitional NAFTA obligations that will remain available such as the Investor State Arbitration under NAFTA Chapter XI for three years after July 1, 2020 (Annex 14-C of the USMCA); Transitional regimes for vehicles under NAFTA Article 403.6 (USMCA, Footnote 81); and other "Transitional Provisions" listed in Article 34 of the USMCA. Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

See Holland & Knight's previous alert, "Is Your Company Prepared to Comply with the New USMCA?," Dec. 18, 2019.

This alert is not considered as a detailed and complete review of all new USMCA Chapters and obligations, it merely highlights in general terms those that help to illustrate the relevance of reviewing the Agreement from a private sector actor perspective involved in cross-border trade or investment activities in the North American region. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) defines remanufactured goods as "…entirely or partially composed of recovered materials; and: (a) has a similar life expectancy and performs the same as or similar to such a good when new and (b) has a factory warranty similar to that applicable to such a good." 4

Covered Facilities are facilities in the territory of a Party that produces a good or supplies a service traded between Parties or produces a good or supplies a services that competes in the territory of a Party with a good of services of the other party and is s facility in a sector that produces manufactured goods (aerospace, steel and aluminum, autos and auto parts, cosmetic products, etc.), supplies services, or involves mining. (see Article 31-A.15) 6

A trade secret is information that is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question; has actual or potential commercial value because it is secret; and has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret. (See Article 20.72 definitions) 7

See Holland & Knight's previous alert "Mexico Keeps Investment Disputes Mechanism Under New USMCA," Oct. 5, 2018. 8

Energy provisions are found within different USMCA Chapters (market access, rules of origin, investment, etc.)

See Holland & Knight's previous alert, "Demystifying Energy Investment Disputes in Mexico Through the New USMCA," April 30, 2019. 10

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, United States-Mexico-Canada Implementing Instructions (on the CBP website's page devoted to USMCA implementation). 11

See LinkedIn profile of Brenda Smith, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Interim Final Rule, "Implementation of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA) Uniform Regulations Regarding Rules of Origin," 85 Fed. Reg. 39690 (July 1, 2020). 13

See Government of Canada, Website on CUSMA.

See Diario Oficial de la Federación.

USMCA 取代 NAFTA：关键条款概述原文作者: Carlos Vejar 、Seth M.M. Stodder 、Octavio Lecona 、Leslie Palma 、 Jose Luis Villareal 、 Maria Teresa Quintero Godinez 、Alberto Esenaro 、 Juan Pablo Moyano 、 Laura Yvonne Zielinski 及 Ronald A. Oleynik

重点摘要  美国-墨西哥-加拿大协定（USMCA）于 2020 年 7 月 1 日生效，取代了北美自由贸易协定（NAFTA）。  由于《北美自由贸易协定》的许多义务在 USMCA 下同样有效，该地区货物和大多数服务的现有自由贸易准入得以继续维持，而本 Holland & Knight 提示文章重点关注那些需要 USMCA 下的私营部门业者（目前适用北美自由贸易协定规定的业者）立即或在中期关注的新的和修订的条款。 ____________________ 经过 26 年半的时间，《北美自由贸易协定》（NAFTA）自 2020 年 7 月 1 日起实际上已不复存在 1，取而代之的是美国-墨西哥-加拿大协定（USMCA）。由于《北美自由贸易协定》的许多义务在 USMCA 下同样有效，2 该地区货物和大多数服务的现有自由贸易准入得以维持。在认知 USMCA 的许多义务并非针对公众，而是针对 USMCA 的三个政府当局 3，本 Holland & Knight 提示文章重点关注那些需要 USMCA 下的私营部门业者（目前适用《北美自由贸易协定》规定的业者）立即或在中期关注的新的和修订的条款。此外，本提示文章简要总结了美国海关和边境保护局（CBP）将如何实施 USMCA。

原产地规则和程序 USMCA 第 4 章和第 5 章规定了适用于北美所有出口货物的原产地规则和原产地程序。USMCA 放宽了某些行业（如化工、阿拉伯胶等）的原产地规则，并对其他行业（如汽车、钢铁）收紧了原产地规则。汽车原产地规则纳入了新的要求，例如高比例的地区钢铁和铝含量，以及首创的具有最低工资要求的劳动力含量规则，这些都构成了以前任何自由贸易协定中都不存在的全新要求。 USMCA 还将把考虑产品原产地时可忽略不计的非原产材料比例从 7%提高到 10%（第 4.12 条），并且现在引进了《北美自由贸易协定》未涵盖的新产品分类，如“回收材料”或“再制造货物”4，并可能促进此类货物的贸易。 USMCA 放弃了《北美自由贸易协定》的原产地证书的格式规定，允许使用发票或任何其他类型的文件，只要其中包含一套最低要求（第 5.2 条）；为纺织业建立了一个新的特别原产地核查机制（第 5.9 和 6.6 条）；根据 USMCA，进口商还可以完成进口货物的原产地证明（第 5.2 条）。

海关管理和贸易便利化 USMCA 指的是需要加快海关手续且无需缴纳关税或税额的特快件：在美国为价值低于 800 美元固定金额的的特快件；在墨西哥为关税 117 美元、税收 50 美元的特快件；在加拿大为关税 150 加元、税收 40 加元的特快件（第 7.8 条）。

政府采购 USMCA 的第 13 章与《北美自由贸易协定》第 10 章相当相似，尽管它不再适用于加拿大。第 13 章现在公开允许缔约方保留为中小型企业提供优惠待遇的措施，但须遵守在可能的情况下适用的某些要求（第 13.20 条）。作为其现代化的一部分，USMCA 承认使用电子方法和电子招标程序，并包含防止参与政府采购的企业或自然人的包括腐败、欺诈或其他不法行为的义务（第 13.17 条）。

劳动 USMCA 包含了一章关于劳工条款（《北美自由贸易协定》的劳工条款包含一平行的补充协议，即北美劳工合作协议或 NAALC），如果其中提到的劳工违规行为是经常性的，并影响贸易或投资活动，允许使用 USMCA 国与国之间的争端解决机制（第 31 章）。 USMCA 的劳动条款对过时和长期未使用的 NAALC 条款进行了重大转变，这可能是 USMCA 最显著的改进之一，重申了各方作为国际劳工组织成员的义务。它允许一缔约方的人就与本章有关的事项公开提出意见，而每一缔约方应考虑作出公开和及时的答复（第 23.11 条）。 USMCA 强调墨西哥在结社自由和集体谈判方面的义务。具体而言，附件 23-A 规定了有效承认这些权利的具体义务。以处理童工和强迫或强制劳动的问题，并规定需有效地废除这种做法，以及消除一切形式的强迫或强制劳动。私营业者必须意识到这一新的义务，特别是在墨西哥。在墨西哥开展业务的企业必须确保遵守 USMCA 具体提到的墨西哥法律规定的所有义务。他们需要确保集体谈判协议符合具体要求（即取得大多数工人通过个人、自由和无记名投票的支持）。他们还需要向工人提供一份集体谈判协议的副本，在任何投票之前，工人个人都必须能够查阅。他们还需要确保遵守加诸于雇主的义务（即不干涉工会活动、避免对工人施加胁迫、不歧视、禁止拒绝与合法工会进行集体谈判等），还需要确保向雇员提供特定的权利（即组织、组建和加入自己选择的工会的权利、集体谈判的权利等）。此外，附件 31-A 在墨西哥和美国之间建立了一个“快速反应劳工机制”，5 根据该机制，对受保护设施下工人的自由结社和集体谈判的拒绝可以采取补救措施，而补救后补救措施将予移除。”补救措施可包括暂停在受保设施内制造的货物的优惠关税待遇，或对在受保设施内制造的货物或提供的服务处以罚款。”（第 31- A.10 条）附件 31-B 规定了墨西哥和加拿大之间的类似机制。

知识产权作为一个高标准知识产权（IP）章节，USMCA 修改了《北美自由贸易协定》第 17 章下过时的 18 条知识产权条款，在第 20 章中增加了 89 条新条款和附件。与《北美自由贸易协定》的前身相比，这一章可能有更显著的变化。如果在专利审查中出现“不合理”的延误，专利将得到额外的保护；包括对制药和农业创新者的更强有力的保护；著作权保护期限至少是作者的生命加上 70 年，或是作品出版后的 70 年（比世界贸易组织的最低期限延长 20 年）。对于规避数字锁（通常在数字音乐、电影和书籍中发现）等技术保护措施的行为，将可能进行民事和刑事处罚，而工业设计将能够获得 15 年的保护期。

知识产权一章考虑了互联网上的权利，例如建立著作权“安全港”，允许合法的在线互联网中介机构继续其活动，同时提供知识产权保护而不受用户侵权的影响；承认“通知和删除”制度，以允许在权利持有人或其代表通知时删除侵犯知识产权的内容（第 20.87-88 条）。知识产权章节还将保护地理标志（GIs）（保护产品质量、声誉和独特性的地理名称，如佛罗里达柳橙），与继续使用通用名或习惯名的权利保持平衡，这些权利可能在其他司法管辖区受到保护，并可通过商标予以保护（第 20 章，E 节）。 USMCA 知识产权持有人还将受益于加强对商标的保护，包括非传统商标（如声音和气味），因为不再需要视觉感知来保护标志作为商标（第 20 章，C 节）。该章还要求在海关当局的管制下，对假冒或盗版商品行为提供当然保护（第 20.82 条），并对未经授权录制（录像）（经常用于在线销售盗版电影）以及卫星和有线信号盗窃（第 20.84 条）的行为进行刑事定罪和制裁。最后，第二十章第一节规定了对未经授权（包括国有企业）使用的商业秘密的行为 6 的全面保护。

数字贸易在《北美自由贸易协定》谈判时，第 19 章是不可能实现的。USMCA 数字贸易条款包括禁止对电子传输产品（即为商业生产及销售的以数字编码作成并可通过电子方式传输的计算机程序、文本、视频、图像、录音或其他产品 —请见第 19.1 条定义；但不包括以数字化方式表示的包括货币的金融工具）征收关税；以及对源代码披露要求的限制（第 19.11 条），通过禁止数据本地化要求允许数据自由流动（第 19.12 条）。数字贸易一章包含贸易管理文件（由一方签发或控制的表格，必须由进口商或出口商填写，或为进口商或出口商填写与货物进出口有关的表格），要求各缔约方努力接受以电子方式提交的贸易管理文件，而与该文件纸质版有同等法律效力。虽然该语言不是强制性的，但这可能会促进双方之间的贸易（第 19.9 条）。

投资对投资章节的最大修订（《北美自由贸易协定》下的第 11 章，USMCA 下的第 14 章）可能是对包含投资者与国家争端解决（ISDS）条款的修订。与《北美自由贸易协定》相比，USMCA 包含了更多有限的保护。投资者（石油和天然气、发电、电信、运输和基础设施行业的投资者除外）将在墨西哥法院受到 30 个月的诉讼期，然后才能向政府提出仲裁索赔。在《北美自由贸易协定》终止和 USMCA 生效后的 3 年内，投资者仍可根据《北美自由贸易协定》第 11 章就遗留投资提出索赔。遗留投资是指在《北美自由贸易协定》生效（1994 年 1 月 1 日）至《北美自由贸易协定》终止之间进行的投资，且在《北美自由贸易协定》生效时仍然存在的投资。三年期限不适用于目前进行中的诉讼，也不适用于已经提出的任何索赔。虽然 ISDS 条款不适用于加拿大，但墨西哥和加拿大投资者仍有权选择重新使用跨太平洋伙伴关系全面渐进协议（CPTPP）ISDS 章节，以相互提起争议（但在加拿大和美国，不会有 USMCA 争议）。7

权权利（这意味着现有法律制度的正当程序），以及 b）墨西哥对所有碳氢化合物的所有权。在这方面，根据一些警告，美国投资者的碳氢化合物投资仍然有权得到 USMCA 的充分保护，只要这些投资是通过政府合同进行的。此外，根据墨西哥已经批准的其他条约中存在的类似或平行保留，今后对法律制度的修改可能会受到限制。8 在其他能源部门，有必要进行个案分析，因为对投资的一般性保护是有效的，并考虑到政府采购和国有企业的活动。9

电信与《北美自由贸易协定》不同，USMCA 第 18 章涵盖了促进国际移动漫游服务合理费率的移动服务提供商（第 18.25 条），并约束墨西哥遵守其 2013 年电信宪法改革，其中规定了独立的监管委员会，确立了互联互通的义务，避免了反竞争措施非歧视性回购率（见第 18 章附注 6）。USMCA 首次将“主要供应商”一词包括在内，该术语被定义为：由于 1）对基本设施的控制，能够对公共电信服务相关市场的参与条款（在价格和供应方面）产生重大影响的供应商，或 2）利用其市场地位。这些规定将保证这一部门的主要竞争力。

中小企业这一章对美国来说是第一次，它试图促进合作，以增加中小型企业在 USMCA 下的贸易和投资机会（加拿大和墨西哥已经在 CPTPP 下分担类似的义务）。第 25 章主要是 USMCA 缔约方和中小企业之间的合作和信息共享，其中一个强大的三方委员会可能会提供有趣的结果，使中小企业能够利用 USMCA 的规定。预计中小企业代表将参加年度“对话”，向中小企业委员会提供意见和信息（第 25.5 条）。第 25.6 条确定了 USMCA 的义务，其中也提到加强各方在中小企业方面的合作。

实施 USMCA 的实施将分阶段进行。在美国方面，美国海关与边境保护局（CBP）于 2020 年 6 月 30 日发布了最终 “实施指令”，10 其中概述了美国海关与边境保护局在 2020 年 12 月 31 日前的前六个月如何实施《美国海关与边境保护法》。正如实施说明中所述，“美国海关与边境保护局理解，贸易可能需要时间来调整商业惯例，以符合 USMCA 的新要求。”因此，在头六个月，在此期间，美国海关与边境保护局将“在执法方面表现出克制”，而将重点放在“支持贸易界努力完全遵守 USMCA 的要求，包括提供网络研讨会和其他外联活动，教育贸易界了解新协议。”美国海关与边境保护局表示，在决定是否在头六个月内采取强制执行行动时，它将“考虑到进口商在遵守新规则方面可能面临的困难，只要进口商在遵守新规则方面取得了令人满意的进展，并在其能力范围内真诚地努力遵守规则。”美国海关与边境保护局（CBP）负责贸易的执行助理专员史密斯（Brenda Smith）在 2020 年 7 月 1 日发布的社交媒体帖子中详细阐述了这一合作信息，并在 LinkedIn 个人资料中提供了有用的说明和到美国海关与边境保护局实施页面的链接。11 此外，2020 年 7 月 1 日，美国海关与边境保护局于联邦公报中公布其“暂行最终规则”，即《美国海关及边境保护局原产地规则》的规定，并就美国将如何实施该协定向贸易界提供进一步指导。12 美国海关与边境保护局还邀请公众对该暂行最终条例发表意见，并在 2020 年 8 月 31 日之前提出意见。加拿大还发布了关于原产地规则的新的统一条例，并在一个专门负责执行新协定的网站上就 USMCA 的其他方面提供指导。13 2020 年 6 月 30 日，墨西哥在《墨西哥政府公报》上发表了：1）关于适用 USMCA14 海关规定的一般规则；2）原产于北美的货物的进口税税率 15；非原产纺织品和服装的进出口配额，根据 USMCA16 可享受优惠关税待遇；以及 3）2020 年国际贸易通则。17

结论虽然从《北美自由贸易协定》到 USMCA 的总体变化相对较小，但某些贸易领域确实得到了必要的升级。如上所述，这些变化对特定行业或交易可能具有重大意义。审视这些变化并将其纳入企业未来计划中是很重要的，这样才能利用积极的变化，并避免会产生包含额外负担的法律合规问题。有关 USMCA 的更多信息或问题，请联系作者或 Holland & Knight 墨西哥城办公室的成员。

____________________ 附注 1 有些重叠或过渡性的《北美自由贸易协定》义务仍将有效，例如

2020 年 7 月 1 日后三年内根据《北美自由贸易协定》第十一章进行投资者-国家仲裁（USMCA 附件 14-C）；根据《北美自由贸易协定》第 403.6 条（USMCA，附注 81）规定的车辆过渡制度；以及 USMCA 第 34 条所列的其他“过渡条款”。 2 参见

Holland & Knight 之前的提示文章：“贵公司是否准备好遵守新的 USMCA？"，2019 年 12 月 18 日。

3 这一提示文章不应被视为对

USMCA 所有新章节和义务的详细和完整的审查，它只是概括地强调那些有助于说明从涉及北美地区跨境贸易或投资活动的私有业者角度审查该协定的相关性的内容。 4（美国海关与边境保护局）将再制造货物定义为“……全部或部分由回收材料组成；并且：（a）具有类似的预期寿命，并

且在新的情况下，其性能与此类货物相同或相似；以及（b）具有与适用于此类货物的工厂保修类似的工厂保修。” 5 涵盖设施是指在一方境内生产货物或提供双方之间交易的服务，或生产货物或提供服务，在一方领土内与另一方的服务竞

争的设施，是生产制成品（航空航天、钢铁和铝，汽车和汽车零部件、化妆品等），提供服务，或涉及采矿。（见第 31A.15 条） 6 商业秘密是指作为一个整体或在其组成部分的精确配置和组装方面，在通常处理所涉信息的圈子内的人中不为一般人所知

或不易获得的秘密信息；由于其为秘密而具有实际或潜在的商业价值；并已在该情况下，由合法控制该信息的人采取合理步骤对其保密。（见第 20.72 条定义） 7 参见

Holland & Knight 的先前的提示文章：“墨西哥根据新 USMCA 保持投资争端机制”，2018 年 10 月 5 日。

8 能源条款可在 9 参见

USMCA 的不同章节中找到（市场准入、原产地规则、投资等）

Holland & Knight 先前的提示文章：“通过新的 USMCA 揭开墨西哥能源投资争端的神秘面纱”，2019 年 4 月 30 日

。 U、美国海关和边境保护局、美国墨西哥和加拿大执行指令（在美国海关与边境保护局网站上，专门介绍美国海关和边境保护局的实施）。 10

11 参见美国海关和边境保护局贸易执行助理专员布伦达·史密斯的

LinkedIn 简介。

12 见《美国海关和边境保护局暂行最终条例》，《美利坚合众国、墨西哥合众国和加拿大（USMCA）关于原产地规则的统

一条例的实施》，联邦法规汇编第 85 册第 39690 页（2020 年 7 月 1 日）。 13 见加拿大政府的

CUSMA 网站。

14 见墨西哥联邦政府公报。

15 见墨西哥联邦政府公报。 16 见墨西哥联邦政府公报。 17 见墨西哥联邦政府公报。

Negotiation and Drafting Issues Surrounding Force Majeure Provisions By Charles A. Weiss The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many companies and lawyers to check the force majeure provisions of contracts and consider the rights and remedies available under them. Many articles have been written on enforcing, avoiding and otherwise litigating these provisions in the context of the present pandemic. By contrast, this article is oriented toward drafting force majeure provisions. Like many of the "boilerplate" provisions toward the back of most contracts, the import and nuance of force majeure provisions may not get the care and attention devoted to the front portions of the agreement, or may be "left to lawyers" to address and negotiate. This article aims to shed some light on this often-overlooked provision and point out several of the issues that should be considered in negotiations and drafting.

BACKGROUND The basics of U.S. contract law find their roots in English common law. Even now, the standard casebooks used in law schools' first-year contracts courses feature a number of English cases. By contrast, the phrase and concept of "force majeure" are literally and figuratively foreign to the common law of contracts, coming to us from French civil law. Because the concept is foreign, lawyers who review or draft contracts governed by U.S. law should start with the assumptions that 1) principles of force majeure will not be implied in a contract that does not expressly provide for them, and 2) U.S. courts will interpret and apply force majeure provisions narrowly. The discussion in this article is based generally on New York law. The reader is reminded that each U.S. state has its own principles of contract law and rules of construction, and cautioned that most rules have exceptions.

WHAT IS FORCE MAJEURE? The literal translation of force majeure is "superior force." In general, it is understood to mean events that are 1) unanticipated, 2) beyond the control of the contracting parties, and 3) of a nature that render a party's performance of its contractual obligations impossible. Typical examples include earthquakes or extreme weather (often referred to as acts of God), strikes or other labor disruption, and war. Force majeure provisions in contracts often provide a list of force majeure events, e.g., "war, terrorism, earthquakes, hurricanes, acts of government, fire, strikes, and such other acts or events that are beyond the control of parties." In New York, at least, the catch-all phrase at the end of this exemplary provision is typically read narrowly to include only events that are close to those specifically enumerated. For example, a tsunami may qualify because it is caused by an earthquake, but a tornado that is not spawned by a hurricane likely would not. Nor would an epidemic be likely to qualify, although an "act of government" such as a quarantine that is imposed because of an epidemic would seem to be expressly included. Parties will sometimes draft a force majeure provision that seeks to avoid the narrow construction applied in New York. For example, this provision from a commercial lease was quoted in a complaint filed in New York state court by a tenant against its landlord seeking a declaration that the events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic entitled it to a rent abatement:

"Force Majeure" shall mean fire, casualty, any strike, lock-out or other labor trouble, governmental preemption of priorities or other controls in connection with a national or other public emergency or shortages of fuel, supplies or labor resulting therefrom, or any other cause, whether similar or dissimilar, beyond Landlord's or Tenant's reasonable control, as the case may be; or any failure or defect in the supply, quantity or character of electricity or water furnished to the Premises, by reason of any requirement, act or omission of the public utility or others serving the Building with electric energy, steam, oil, gas or water, or for any other reason whether similar or dissimilar, beyond Landlord's or Tenant's reasonable control, as the case may be. [emphasis added] The cases also generally hold that an event that would otherwise constitute a force majeure will not be treated as such if it was existing or contemplated at the time the agreement was reached, or if the point of the agreement was to deal with the event. For example, severe weather will not be a force majeure event in the case of an agreement to furnish emergency generators to an area threatened by an impending hurricane. The advisability of including a force majeure provision in a contract is addressed below. However, the attorney who concludes that including one is desirable should be careful to draft broadly enough to capture as many contingencies as necessary to serve the client's purpose.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A FORCE MAJEURE EVENT? Generally speaking, the occurrence of a force majeure event will not excuse a party's nonperformance simply because it makes performance more difficult or expensive. Rather, performance will be excused only if the force majeure event renders it virtually impossible. The distinction is sometimes expressed as the difference between performance being impossible versus performance being impractical. For example, a musician who lives in California and agrees to perform at a concert in New York probably intends to travel by air. If air travel is suspended because of a strike that has been announced in advance, it may still be possible to meet the commitment by taking a train or bus. Although the travel would be inconvenient and unpleasant, it would not be virtually impossible. By contrast, if the musician is scheduled to perform in California on Friday and in New York on Saturday, severe weather that grounds all air traffic would make it truly impossible to arrive on time for the concert in New York, because air travel is the only way to arrive on time. The difference between impossibility and difficulty can also be explored in the context of a fixed-price supply agreement. If a force majeure event reduces the availability of the supplier's raw materials and thus drives up their price, the supplier may lose money by performing, but its performance remains possible. By contrast, if the raw material is entirely unavailable because of a complete disruption of supply caused by a force majeure event, the supplier's performance would be truly impossible. A U.S. court hearing a case in which a party asserts a force majeure provision in defense to a contract claim will adjudicate these issues. Using a pandemic as an example of an asserted force majeure event, it is unlikely that the existence of the pandemic would be subject to genuine dispute. However, the court would have to determine, likely as a legal matter as opposed to a factual question, if a pandemic is within the force majeure categories in the parties' contract. Assuming that it qualifies, the court would still have to adjudicate as factual issues 1) if the pandemic actually prevented the defaulting party's performance of its obligations under the contract, and 2) whether the defaulting party met its duty (if provided in the contract) to try to perform notwithstanding the constraints imposed by the pandemic, e.g., in the case of a supply agreement, by sourcing needed raw materials from an alternate supplier that was itself able to remain in operation. If the contract is governed by U.S. law and the dispute is heard by a U.S. court, the court is not likely to accept a "force majeure certificate" issued by the defaulting party's home jurisdiction as relieving that party of its obligation to prove the

factual bases of the defense, although it could consider it in conjunction with all other evidence presented by the parties.

DO YOU WANT A FORCE MAJEURE PROVISION IN YOUR AGREEMENT? The purpose of a force majeure provision is to absolve a contracting party from ordinary breach-of-contract liability if its performance of the contract is rendered virtually impossible by occurrence of a force majeure event. Properly understood, it is simply one of many ways to manage and allocate risk in a commercial agreement. Too often, however, it is included without thought as part of an agreement's boilerplate in a manner that creates inconsistencies with other provisions of the agreement or frustrates the parties' intent. Consider, for example, an agreement for lease of a warehouse. A well-drafted lease will provide for the case in which the warehouse is destroyed or rendered unusable by a fire or natural disaster. Inclusion of a boilerplate force majeure provision may create ambiguity and lead to a dispute as to which provision should control. Similarly, a long-term supply agreement often provides for the adjustment of price based on the cost of raw material or processing expenses, and generally deals with the allocation of risk if the supplier is unable to perform. From the purchaser's perspective, the cause of a disruption may be irrelevant, i.e., the purchaser does not care whether the cause of a disruption is a force majeure event or an ordinary breakdown of the supplier's manufacturing equipment. The supplier might be considered to be more blameworthy if it suffered a mechanical breakdown because it failed to properly maintain its equipment, as opposed to damage caused by severe weather, but there is no concept in contract law of moral fault. Either way, the purchaser is not being supplied with the product it needs. To be sure, "freedom of contract" means that the parties may choose to provide in their agreement that the risk of supply disruptions will be allocated in different ways depending on the cause of the disruption, but there is no reason to assume that a boilerplate force majeure provision — or indeed that any force majeure provision — will represent the optimal solution. A final example are the many kinds of contracts that require the payment of money. The simple case is an ordinary note executed by the borrower as part of a commercial loan. The lender would prefer to maintain the borrower's obligation to timely repay the loan as unconditional, and not qualify that obligation with a force majeure provision.

CHOICES TO MAKE IN NEGOTIATING A FORCE MAJEURE PROVISION Assuming that the client's business interest are served by including a force majeure provision in a contract — which as discussed above may not be the case — the following are some points to be considered when negotiating and drafting.  Are the enumerated kinds of events, and those very similar to them, intended to be exclusive or only illustrative? As noted above, some courts (including New York) will apply a narrow construction of the type of events that constitute a force majeure. If the decision is made to include events that are not listed, the draft provision should clearly provide for this.  Is the goal to excuse all performance by both parties during the period of a force majeure event, or only certain performance by one of the parties? For example, in the case of a multiproduct supply agreement, it could be that the supplier is unable to provide some but not all of the products. Depending on the nature of the products, it could make sense to suspend the supplier's obligation to supply all of the products, or it may be preferable to require the supplier to continue supplying the products that are not affected by the force majeure event. Similarly, it may be desirable to suspend or maintain different obligations to make payments required under a contract.

 Keep in mind that economic burdens caused by a force majeure event may not relieve the burdened party from continuing performance. Again in the example of a supply agreement, a retailer may find itself without a viable market for its goods if a force majeure event closes its stores. But this does not necessarily make it impossible for the retailer to keep taking delivery of (and keep paying for) goods that are the subject of the supply agreement. Contingencies such as this are better addressed in specific provisions of the agreement that, e.g., permit the purchaser to suspend deliveries on notice to the supplier.  Consider whether the suspension of performance caused by a force majeure event should be time limited. A party may be willing to accept a force majeure provision that affords its counterparty the right to suspend or delay performance for a limited period of time, but not for lengthy or indefinite periods.  Some force majeure provisions permit one or both parties to terminate the agreement if performance remains suspended for more than a specified period of time. This kind of provision can be mutual or onesided. Consider also consequences of termination in this instance, e.g., what rights and obligations (if any) survive termination under these circumstances, and what remedies (if any) are available following termination. The kinds of events that may qualify as a force majeure range from the moderately predictable (floods in certain river valleys or deltas) to the unpredictable (whether a particular coastal city will be hit with a major tropical cyclone), and from the intensely local (a factory is destroyed in a fire) to worldwide (COVID-19 pandemic). Obvious risks and contingencies — such as the inability of a supplier to deliver — can be addressed in a specific manner, and the parties may conclude that the consequences that flow from this should not depend on whether the cause of the supplier's inability is a true force majeure as opposed to some other event that is not within the supplier's reasonable control. Ideally, a force majeure provision should not substitute for the work of considering reasonably predictable reasons that a party may be unable to perform its contractual obligations, or addressing the situation in which a party remains able to perform but the business purpose of its performance is frustrated by external factors. Nor should a party include a force majeure provision in a new contract by copying the boilerplate of a prior contract without considering its business necessity and implications, or accept without critical thought a counterparty's argument during negotiations that "this is something that's always done." Like many other contractual terms, a force majeure provision is at bottom a way to allocate risk. Thinking about it as such may help the contract drafter decide whether such a provision is advisable at all, and if so to refine its content to protect the client's business goals.

有关不可抗力条款的协商和起草问题原文作者：Charles A. Weiss COVID-19 大流行已导致许多公司和律师检查合同中的不可抗力条款，并考虑合同项下的权利和救济措施。在当前的大流行背景下，已经有许多关于执行或避免不可抗力规定、和以其他方式对这些规定进行诉讼的文章。相比之下，本文的重点是起草不可抗力条款。就像大多数合同后面的许多“模板”条款一样，不可抗力条款的重要性和细微差异可能无法如协议前面的条款得到注意和关注，或者可能就“留给律师”来处理和协商。我们的目的是阐明这一经常被忽视的条款，并指出协商和起草时应考虑的几个问题。

背景美国合同法的基础源于英国普通法。即使到现在，法学院第一年合同法课程中使用的标准案例课本也包含许多英国案例。相比之下，“不可抗力”的用语和概念在字面上和比喻意义上都与普通法的合同法无关，它来自法国民法。由于该概念是外国的，因此正在审查或起草受美国法律约束的合同的律师应从以下假设开始：1）没有明确规定不可抗力原则的合同不会隐含不可抗力原则，并且 2）美国法院将狭义地解释和适用不可抗力条款。本文中的讨论通常基于纽约州法律。提醒读者美国每个州都有其自己的合同法原则和构成规则，并提请注意大多数规则都有例外。

什么是不可抗力？不可抗力的字面直译是“超越的力量”。一般而言，应理解为是指具备下列三要素的事件： 1）不可预料；2）超出缔约方控制范围；以及 3）使得一方不可能履行其合同义务。典型的例子包括地震或极端天气（通常称为天灾）、罢工或其他劳动中断以及战争。合同中的不可抗力条款通常会提供不可抗力事件列表，例如“战争、恐怖主义、地震、飓风、政府行为、火灾、罢工以及各方无法控制的其他行为或事件”。在纽约，至少在上述范例条款结束部分的兜底文字通常会被狭窄地解读为只包括那些接近上述具体列举的事件。例如，海啸可能是符合规定的不可抗力事件，因为它是由地震所引起的，但不是因为飓风产生的龙卷风可能不算不可抗力事件。尽管流行病本身可能不算是不可抗力事件，但因为流行病而实施的隔离等“政府行为”似乎是明确被包括在不可抗力事件之中。缔约方有时会起草避免在纽约被狭义解释的不可抗力条款。例如，一租户在纽约州法院针对其房东提交的一份起诉书中引用了商业租赁合同中的不可抗力条款（如下），请求法院宣告其有权因 COVID-19 大流行的事件减租： “不可抗力”应指火灾、毁坏、任何罢工、停工或其他劳工问题、政府为国家或其他公共紧急情况有关的事件所采取的优先预防手段或控制措施，或由此导致的燃料、物资或劳动力短缺，或超出出租人或承租人的合理控制范围（视情况而定）的任何其他原因（无论是否是类似或不同的原因）；或由于公用事业公司或其他为建筑物提供电能、蒸汽、油、气或水的任何要求、作为或不作为，向房屋提供的电力或水的供应、数量或性质出现任何故障或缺陷，或超出出租人或承租人的合理控制范围（视情况而定）的任何其他原因（无论是否是类似或不同的原因）。[着重强调] 这些案件还通常认定，如果在达成协议时已经存在或正在考虑不可抗力的事件，或者协议的目的为处理该事件，则该事件不会构成不可抗力的事件。例如，在同意将应急发电机安装在即将来临的飓风威胁的地区的情况下，恶劣的天气不会成为不可抗力事件。 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

是否建议在合同中加入不可抗力条款将在下文中讨论。但认定并建议在合同中加入不可抗力条款的律师，应该谨慎起草足够宽泛的草案，以涵括尽可能多的偶发事件而达到客户的目的。

不可抗力事件的影响是什么？一般而言，不可抗力事件的发生不会仅仅因为一方的履约变得更加困难或昂贵而成为其不履约的借口。相反地，只有在不可抗力事件使履行几乎不可能的情况下才可以免除履约责任。这种区别有时被明文界定为履行不可能与履行实际有困难的差异。例如，居住在加州并同意在纽约的音乐会上表演的音乐家可能打算乘飞机旅行。如果由于提前宣布罢工而中止了航空旅行，那么仍然有可能通过乘坐火车或巴士来实现承诺。尽管旅行会带来不便和不适，但实际上并非完全不可能。相比之下，如果音乐家预定在周五在加州演出，在星期六在纽约演出，那么恶劣的天气导致所有空中交通瘫痪，将使他真的不可能准时到达纽约举行音乐会，因为只有飞机旅行才是可以准时到达的方式。不可能和困难之间的区别也可以在固定价格供应协议的背景下进行探讨。如果不可抗力事件降低了供应商原材料的可获取性并因此推高了其价格，则供应商可能会因履约而蒙受损失，但其履行仍然可能。相比之下，如果由于不可抗力事件导致供应完全中断而无法完全获得原材料，则供应商的履行确实是不可能的。美国法院在审理涉及一方以不可抗力条款辩护合同主张的案件时，将裁定这些问题。以大流行作为不可抗力事件为例，大流行的存在与否本身不太可能会是个争议。但是，可能作为一个法律事项而非事实问题，法院必须确定流行病是否在当事方合同的不可抗力类别之内。假定是的话，法院将仍然必须裁定以下事实问题：1）大流行是否事实上阻止了违约方履行合同项下的义务，以及 2）尽管受到大流行的限制，违约方是否尽其义务以设法履行（如果合同有规定的话），例如在供应协议的情况下，通过能继续营运的其他供应商那里采购所需的原材料。如果合同受美国法律管辖，并且争议由美国法院审理，则法院不太可能接受违约方所在地司法管辖区签发的“不可抗力证书”作为免除该方义务的抗辩事实依据。尽管它可以与当事方提出的所有其他证据一起考虑。

您是否希望协议中加入不可抗力条款？不可抗力条款的目的是免除一方当事人因不可抗力事件而无法履行合同时的一般违约责任。适当的理解，它只是商业协议中管理和分配风险的众多方法之一。然而，通常情况下，它被作为协议模板文件的一部分而不加考虑，从而造成与协议其他条款的不一致或违背了当事人的意图。例如，以仓库租赁协议为例，一个完善起草的租约将规定仓库因火灾或自然灾害被毁或无法使用时因如何处理。而加入一个不可抗力的模板条款可能会产生歧义，并导致应该适用哪个条款的争议。同样地，长期供应协议通常规定根据原材料成本或加工费用调整价格，并且通常会规定供应商无法履行义务时风险应如何分配。从购买方的角度来看，中断的原因可能无关紧要，即购买方不在意中断的原因是不可抗力事件还是供应商制造设备的普通故障。与恶劣天气造成的损坏相比，如果供应商因未能妥善维护其设备而发生机械故障，则可能被认为更应受到责怪（虽然合同法中没有道德过错的概念）。不管怎样，购买方都得不到所需的产品。诚然，“合同自由”意味着双方可以选择在协议中规定，供应中断的风险将根据中断的原因以不同的方式进行分配，但是，没有理由假定不可抗力模板条款或任何不可抗力条款将是最好的解决方案。最后一个例子是规定付款的各种合同。简单的情况是借款人因商业贷款签署了一一般票据。贷款人倾向于维持借款人无条件及时偿还贷款的义务，并且不以不可抗力条款限定该义务的履行。 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

协商不可抗力条款时应做出的选择假定通过在合同中加入不可抗力条款可以达到客户的商业利益（如上所述，情况有可能并非如此），以下是协商和草拟不可抗力条款时应考虑的一些要点。  列举的事件以及与事件非常相似的事件是否旨在排他或仅用于说明？如上所述，一些法院（包括纽约州的法院）将对构成不可抗力的事件类型做出狭义的解释。如果决定不可抗力事件应包括未列出的事件，则起草时应对此做出明确规定。  目的是免除双方在不可抗力事件期间的所有履行行为，还是仅其中一方的某些履行行为？例如，在多产品供应协议的情况下，可能是供应商无法提供部分但并非全部产品。根据产品的性质，有可能中止供应商供应所有产品的义务，或者更好的是要求供应商继续供应不受不可抗力事件影响的产品。同样地，更好的作法可能是中止或维持付款义务。  请记住，不可抗力事件造成的经济负担并不能减轻负担方继续履行的义务。同样地，在供应协议的例子中，如果不可抗力事件导致其商店关闭，零售商可能会发现自己的商品没有了可以生存的市场空间。但是，这并不一定表示零售商不可能继续接受供应合同所规定的商品的交付（并持续付款）。例如，允许购买方在通知供应商后暂停交货。  考虑由于不可抗力事件造成的中止履行是否应该有时间限制。一方可能愿意接受不可抗力条款，如该条款赋予其对方在有限的时间内（而不是长期或无限期）中止或延迟履行其义务的权利。  某些不可抗力条款允许一方或双方在超过一定时间后仍然中止履行的情况下解除合同。这种规定可以是对双方都适用的，也可以只适用于单方的。在这种情况下，还应考虑解除的后果，例如，哪些权利和义务（如有的话）在解除后仍然有效、以及解除后有什么救济措施（如有的话）。可能构成不可抗力的事件类型的范围从一定程度可预测的事件（例如在某些河谷或三角洲发生的洪水事件）到不可预测的事件（例如某一特定的沿海城市是否会受到主要热带气旋袭击）、以及从仅局限于某一地区的事件（例如某一工厂在大火中被摧毁）到可影响全世界的事件（COVID-19 大流行）。明显的风险和偶发事件（例如供应商无法交付）可以通过特定方式解决，且各方可能决定由此产生的后果不应取决于造成供应商无法履约的原因是否是一真正的不可抗力事件，而不是供应商不能合理控制的其他事件。理想情况下，不可抗力条款不应取代需要考虑到可能造成一方当事人无法履行其合同义务的可合理预见的原因的工作、或取代处理一方当事人仍有能力履行但外部因素造成其履行的商业目的落空的情况的工作。一方当事人也不应在不考虑其商业必要性和影响的情况下复制先前不可抗力模板条款于新的合同中，也不应在协商过程中不经批判思考就接受对方所提 “向来都是这样加上不可抗力条款的作法”的论点。与许多其他合同条款一样，不可抗力条款归根结底是一种分配风险的方式。这样考虑可能有助于合同起草人决定是否合适加入该条款，而如是话，对其内容进行完善以保护客户的商业目的。

Majority and Minority Shareholders Relationships: Duties to the Business and Each Other By Michael J. Zdeb The relationship of shareholders in private, closely held companies to each other as well as the business involve important implications not only in the establishment of the business but as well in its operations. The general rule in most states is that the holder of the majority of the voting shares controls the corporation. The majority being the holder of more than 50 percent of the voting power. This is equally true with the limited liability companies. The members holding a majority of interests can effectively control the business (Majority Rule). The majority therefor can, absent cumulative voting, elect the board of directors or board of managers and control the affairs of the business. The holders who are in the minority effectively can be left without a voice in the affairs of the business. The exceptions to this general position include corporations with cumulative voting; in some states certain fundamental decisions (sale, merger, dissolution; known as Fundamental Decisions) require two-thirds votes and, businesses where the holders have entered into agreements then control voting. It is worth noting that cumulative voting may enable a minority of shares to elect a minority of the board of directors, with the number of directors being the result of a formula on the voting. For example, if a shareholder holds one-third of the voting shares, in an election of three or more directors, the shareholder would be able to elect one director. Shareholder agreements can address the election of the board and not infrequently, minority investors negotiate the ability to nominate and elect a director as a representative. Fundamental Decisions include those that amend the formation documents filed with the state; the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the business; the merger of the business or, the dissolution of the corporation. Fundamental Decisions requiring a special vote also provide a minority with the ability to dissent and force a buyout of the shares. It effectively gives the minority an ability to exit the business and have the interest valued in an appraisal proceeding with the court. It is important to note that the standard of value employed by a court in an appraisal proceeding is not the commonly known standard of "fair market value." Instead the standard of value applied is "fair value." Generally, "fair value" as a standard will produce a valuation significantly greater than "fair market value." With closely held, private companies, there is rarely a market for the shares or interests of the minority position holders. The minority then may be in a position of having no effective voting rights and no market in which to sell the shares. Unlike shareholders in a publicly traded company who can disagree and sell their shares, the minorities' capital remains locked in the closely held business. As a result, the minority can be in a vulnerable position if the majority chooses a course of action that is adverse to the interests or opinion of the minority. This vulnerability has led many state courts to treat the relationships in closely held, private companies differently than how the duties and relationships in publicly traded companies are viewed. Some jurisdictions, however, will treat the relationships among the shareholders similar to the approach with publicly traded corporations. In particular, this is the approach in Delaware and states that follow its corporate law and decisions. Consequently, the law of the jurisdiction in which the business is incorporated or formed is an important consideration, as that is the law that will govern the relationships of the shareholders to the business as well as each other.

When the majority or those in control take actions that are adverse to the interests of the minority holders, there can be situations in which the minority may have recourse in the courts. In all states, the courts impose "fiduciary duties" on the majority to act in the interests of the business. The majority has duties of loyalty (related to self-dealing), due care (informed and not reckless decisions) and to exercise the authority of the board in good faith. These duties are owed to the corporation. However, a number of states impose these duties in a way that the duties run directly to the minority as well as to the business as a whole (Direct Duties). When the duties run directly to the minority, actions by the board that violate one or more of the duties mentioned above, can allow the minority to bring an action (lawsuit) directly against the majority for breach of fiduciary duty. In addition, a majority of the states have provisions that allow for the minority to sue to dissolve the corporation or force the majority to buyout the minority, if the majority has "oppressed" the interests of the minority (Oppression). Oppression occurs when the majority exercises the authority of the board to take actions that are "unfairly prejudicial" to the minority or which defeat their reasonable expectations. The two theories of Direct Duties and Oppression are seen as limitations on the otherwise exclusive authority of the majority to control the business. It also is the case that in some states, the minority may have a duty to the corporation. This has arisen in situations where the minority has used its position to injure the business, such as refusing to a restructure of the business for financing in order to force a buyout at a higher price. This also has occurred where a 50 percent shareholder left the business and immediately created a competing business. The legal theory is that the ability to control a decision may be held under the circumstances by the minority, and therefore the exercise of that ability has to consider the prospect of a duty to the other shareholders. It is important both in negotiating investments in and the setup of a business to consider the effect of the various relationships, duties and the potential areas of dispute that could arise. Planning the manner of voting and the remedies for disagreements can go a long way to avoid these types of issues, which when they arise can be expensive to resolve in court. A number of topics should be considered. The list of topics can include the following subjects:  The election of the directors or managers and whether the minority will have a right to nominate and elect one or more.  Approval of Fundamental Decisions with a voting percentage that may vary from the rules of the particular state.  The ability of the minority to dissent on a Fundamental Decision and require an appraisal proceeding. This can be addressed by provisions that require the minority to vote along with the majority on a sale of merger.  What types of disputes that may arise and require a buyout of the minority. Dispute resolution mechanisms can be created to resolve differences. In addition if there is to be a buyout, what will be the means of determining the value. Such provisions should address not only the terms of payment but in many respects more importantly the "standard of value." For example, should the standard used be "fair market value" or "fair value." If a similar standard is not used, would some other formula relevant to the business or industry be used. In many respects, a shareholder agreement that addresses many of these types of issues upfront can avoid disputes later or at least provide a way to address the disputes that do arise.

大股东和小股东的关系：对企业和彼此的义务原文作者：Michael J. Zdeb 私人闭锁型公司股东之间以及他们与企业之间的关系不仅对企业的建立，而且对企业的经营都有重要的影响。大多数州的一般规则是多数有表决权股份的持有人对公司具有控制权。大多数是指拥有 50%以上的投票权。对有限责任公司（LLC）而言也是如此。因而持有多数股份权益的公司成员可以有效地控制公司业务（即多数控制原则）。多数股东可以在没有累积投票权的情况下选举董事会或者经理委员会，并控制公司的事务。实际上可造成少数的股东在企业事务中失去发言权。此一般情形的例外情况包括规定实施累积投票制的公司、在某些州某些公司的重大决议（出售、合并、解散；称为重大决议）需要三分之二以上的表决通过、以及公司所有人已签订控制投票权的协议的企业。值得注意的是，累积投票制可以使少数股东选出根据投票公式算出的人数的董事会少数成员。例如，如果一个股东持有三分之一有表决权的股份，在选举三名或更多董事时，该股东将能够选出一名董事。而股东协议可以解决董事会的选举问题，并在不少的情况下少数股东通常会谈判要求取得提名和选任一名董事的权利。重大决议包括修改需向州提交的设立文件、出售企业的全部或大部分资产、企业的合并或公司解散。需要特别表决的重大决议也为少数股东提供了异议和强制收购股份的能力。它有效地提供少数股东退出企业的能力，并利用法院的评估程序对股份权益进行估价。需要注意的是，法院在评估程序中采用的价值标准不是一般知道的“公平市价”标准，而采用的价值标准是“公允价值”。一般而言，如采用“公允价值”作为标准，其估价将显著高于 “公平市场价值” 对于私人闭锁型公司，少数股东的股份权益很少有其市场。这可能造成少数股东即没有有效的投票权也没有出售股份的市场。与上市公司的股东可以在不同意公司的决策时出售自己的股票不同，少数股东的资本仍被锁定在闭锁的企业中。因此，如果多数股东选择了一种不利于少数股东利益或意见的作法方向时，少数股东人可能处于弱势地位。这种弱势地位导致许多州法院以不同于对待公开上市公司的义务和关系的方式来对待私人闭锁型公司的关系。然而，一些司法管辖区还是以类似于对待上市公司的做法处理私人闭锁型公司股东之间的关系。特别是，这是特拉华州及参照其公司法和决定的其他州的做法。因此，企业设立或成立所在司法管辖区的法律是一个重要的考虑因素，因为该法律将规范股东与企业以及股东彼此之间关系。当多数或有控制权的股东采取有损少数股东利益的行动时，可能会出现少数股东可以向法院申请救济的情况。在所有州，法院都对多数股东加诸了“信托义务”，要求他们依企业的利益行事。多数股东有忠诚义务（这与自我交易有关）、适当谨慎的义务（即做出知情而非鲁莽的决策）和以诚信方式行使董事会权力的义务。这些都是对公司负有的义务。然而，一些州规定这些义务直接是对少数股东以及企业整体负有的义务（即直接义务）。当这些义务是直接对少数股东负有时，董事会违反上述一项或多项义务行为时，将允许少数股东就违反信托义务直接对多数股东提起法律行动（即诉讼）。

此外，大多数州都有规定如果多数股东“压迫”了少数股东的利益（压迫），少数股东得提出解散公司的诉讼或强迫多数股东收购少数股东的股份。当多数股东行使董事会的权力而采行对少数股东具有“不公平的偏见”或违背他们合理期望的行动时，将会发生压迫的情况。直接责任和压迫这两种理论被视为对多数股东控制企业的专有权力的限制。在有些州，少数股东可能对公司负有责任。这种情况发生在少数股东利用其地位损害企业的情况下，例如拒绝为融资而重组企业，以迫使他们的股份得以被更高的价格收购。当 50%的股东离开公司并立即创建了一个竞争企业时，也会发生这种情况。此法律理论认为，在这种情况下少数股东可能拥有阻挠一项公司决议被做出的能力，因此，少数股东行使这种能力时必须考虑对其他股东负有的义务。在协商投资和设立企业的过程中，考虑各种关系、义务和可能出现争议的潜在领域将造成的影响是重要的。规划投票方式和对分歧的补救办法可以在很大程度上避免这些类型的问题，而这些问题一旦出现，在法庭上解决可能会很昂贵。因此应该考虑一些议题。这些议题可以包括以下事项：  董事或经理的选举，以及少数股东是否有权提名和选举一名或多名董事或经理。  对重大决议的赞成投票比例可能不同于特定州的相关规定。  少数股东对重大决议提出异议并要求进行评估程序的能力。这可以通过规定在合并收购的情况下少数股东必须配合多数股东一起投票的方式来解决。  可能出现哪些需要收购少数股东股份的纠纷。可以建立争端解决机制来解决分歧。此外，如果要进行收购少数股东的股份，该如何确定其价值。这种规定不仅应涉及付款条件，而且在许多方面更重要的是“价值标准 ”。例如，使用的标准是“公平市价”还是“公允价值”。如果不使用类似的标准，是否会使用与企业或行业有关的其他公式。在许多方面，提前解决许多此类问题的股东协议可以避免以后发生纠纷，或者至少为解决这些实际会发生的纠纷提供了一种途径。

Litigation Under the CCPA: Trends and Observations on New Case Filings By Mark S. Melodia, Ashley L. Shively, Mark H. Francis and Paul Thompson Jr.

HIGHLIGHTS  Despite significant restrictions on private rights of action, more than 50 lawsuits have invoked the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) since it took effect on Jan. 1, 2020, nearly all of them class actions.  While the CCPA is expected to play an important role in future data breach cases given the availability of statutory damages, plaintiffs' right to litigate alleged CCPA violations in other contexts will face strong opposition, and this may be the most important CCPA issue in the coming six to 12 months.  With the California Attorney General's enforcement activities beginning on July 1, 2020, businesses need to manage potential liability exposure on two fronts, and it is currently unclear which front will pose the bigger risk. _____________________ The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA or Act) went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. A first-of-its-kind law in the United States, the CCPA grants California residents expansive rights over businesses' collection, use and sharing of their personal information. The Act provides California residents with the right to seek access to, or deletion of, their personal information, as well as the right to object to the sale or sharing of such information with third parties. For the most part, the CCPA vests enforcement authority with the California Attorney General (CA AG),1 and certain critical compromises were struck during the CCPA's dramatic legislative process in 2018 and 2019 to limit private enforcement for other violations:  First, the law expressly provides that a private right of action is available only for certain data breach incidents "and shall not be based on violations of any other section of" the CCPA. The Act further states that "[n]othing in this title shall be interpreted to serve as the basis for a private right of action under any other law."2  Second, although data breach suits may be brought on an individual or class-wide basis for actual damages incurred or statutory damages,3 a consumer seeking statutory damages must first provide the intended defendant with 30 days' advance written notice of the alleged violations of the CCPA, and if the business cures the alleged violation and provides an express written statement to that effect, the would-be plaintiff may not initiate an action for statutory damages.4 Many requirements of the CCPA have been the subject of legal debate since the law passed, and the precise contours of enforcement has been a popular topic.5 There was, however, generally broad consensus that consumers would swiftly embrace the availability of statutory damages, and, be equally quick to challenge the limits of the CCPA's private right of action. It is therefore no surprise that in the seven months since the CCPA went into effect, approximately 50 private lawsuits have been filed that cite the CCPA in some respect as a basis for suit. Roughly half of these lawsuits were filed in connection with data breaches. Plaintiffs in the other cases premise claims on alleged violations of consumer rights, often asserting that noncompliance with the CCPA, by extension, constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) or other causes of action. Unsurprisingly, these suits are generally filed as class actions. Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

CCPA SUITS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH SECURITY INCIDENTS The CCPA adds an attractive new dimension to data breach class action cases. Plaintiffs have traditionally struggled to establish that a particular security incident was the proximate cause of monetary damages or some other actual injury recognized by law. This hindered plaintiffs' ability to establish Article III standing in federal court and present a viable damages theory. The CCPA is the first generally applicable data breach law in the United States to offer statutory damages as an alternative to establishing actual damages. In the new wave of CCPA data breach cases, plaintiffs have generally pleaded a right to statutory damages, and also often seek restitution and an injunction against defendants' continued (allegedly) improper handling of personal information.6 Only a small percentage of cases allege actual damages as a result of the purported incident.7 The data breach lawsuits plead violations under the CCPA with various degrees of specificity. Most cases allege a data breach and then generally contend that the breach was a violation of the CCPA without offering further detail.8 In this context, the CCPA claim is typically asserted along with other common data breach claims including negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the UCL.9 Other cases are pleaded with greater specificity and allege that the plaintiffs gave the defendant notice prior to filing suit.10 In at least several instances, however, it does not appear that plaintiffs waited the requisite 30 days before filing suit.11 A number of cases also assert a violation of California's UCL based on a violation of the CCPA arising from a data breach.12 The UCL defines "unfair competition" broadly to "mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by [California's false advertising law]."13 Private parties may seek injunctive relief and restitution under the UCL.14 These claims, therefore, necessarily seek validation from the courts that the UCL is an appropriate vehicle through which an underlying CCPA violation can be asserted in a private action (this is discussed further below).

CCPA SUITS UNRELATED TO SECURITY INCIDENTS Notwithstanding the CCPA's narrow private right of action, a variety of other lawsuits have been filed alleging violations of the law. VIOLATIONS OF THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The plaintiffs in several recently filed lawsuits have brought claims directly under the CCPA for alleged violations of the Act's notification requirements.15 In these cases, the plaintiffs typically allege that the defendants' website or application collected more personal information than was disclosed and/or used consumers' personal information in a manner that was inconsistent with the representations in the defendants' privacy policy. The plaintiffs often seek injunctive relief and actual damages.16 For example, one complaint provides that the defendant's app prompted the plaintiff to connect the app to her social media account. 17 Once connected, the defendant allegedly shared the plaintiff's personal information collected while she used the app with the social media platform. The plaintiff further alleges that such sharing occurred without the notification required under the CCPA.18 Claims such as these outright ignore the CCPA's restriction that a consumer may only bring a private right of action for certain data breaches. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

UCL CLAIM PREMISED ON VIOLATION OF THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS In other cases, plaintiffs have pleaded their claims under the UCL, premised on alleged violations of the CCPA's notice requirements.19 Plaintiffs in these cases essentially argue that a CCPA violation is a de facto violation of the UCL.20 For example, one complaint alleges that the defendant "scraped" hundreds of websites for consumers' personal information (which the defendant later sold) without consent and in violation of the CCPA's notification requirements.21 The plaintiffs proceed to argue that a violation of the CCPA's notification requirements, is by extension, a violation of the UCL.22 As with the UCL data breach claims, UCL claims premised on alleged notification violations thus implicitly seek judicial approval to expand CCPA enforcement — notwithstanding the Act's clear instruction that "[n]othing in this title shall be interpreted to serve as the basis for a private right of action under any other law."23 CLAIMS ALLEGING GENERAL VIOLATION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS Other cases avoid making a claim under any specific provision of the CCPA; plaintiffs instead plead facts regarding a defendant's use of personal information and allege a violation of state privacy rights, for instance under the California Constitution.24 In one such case, the plaintiffs seek an injunction, and to the extent that the defendant fails to respond to the plaintiffs' letter giving notice to CCPA violations, the plaintiffs also seek actual, punitive and statutory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs.25 Similar to the UCL-based claims, these claims appear to invite the courts to rely upon the CCPA as a vehicle to establish privacy standards for which liability can be justified under other applicable laws. All of these claim theories venture into unchartered territory. These cases continue to be filed and as they work their way through California's federal and state courts, it remains to be seen how judges will rule on motions to dismiss such claims.

ASSERTING VIOLATIONS OF THE CCPA IN BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS LITIGATION Class action plaintiffs do not have a monopoly on creativity. One recently filed case is between competing businesses engaged in market research that involves the collection and sale of personal information.26 The plaintiff alleges that the defendant (the plaintiff's former business partner and now competitor) violated the CCPA by failing to provide sufficient notice of its privacy practices to consumers, and as a result, has gained an unfair and unlawful advantage in violation of the UCL. The plaintiff is seeking restitution, disgorgement and an injunction against its competitor. Using the CCPA as a weapon in the business context could give rise to a whole new field of CCPA litigation. One can imagine litigious businesses leveraging the CCPA in a manner similar to false advertising claims, or plaintiffs raising the CCPA in whistleblower suits, or shareholder derivative and securities class actions, alleging noncompliance with the Act to the detriment of employees, shareholders or to the value of the defendant business itself. The viability of such claims — purportedly on behalf of the consumers that the law is intended to protect — would seemingly require an extension of legal doctrine equal to, or greater than, in the consumer cases described above.

THE CCPA "SAFE HARBOR" DEFENSE In January 2019, the City of Los Angeles filed suit against The Weather Channel (TWC).27 In the complaint, the City alleged that TWC was engaged in unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of the UCL by sharing its mobile app users' geolocation data with third parties for advertising and other commercial purposes, without providing sufficient notice or obtaining any necessary consent.

On June 11, 2020, TWC filed a motion for summary judgment,28 arguing that the City's "lawsuit is an improper attempt to legislate through litigation."29 The disclosure requirements advocated for by the City, TWC contends, "significantly exceed and conflict with the highly detailed and rigorous disclosure requirements imposed under CCPA . . . which [moreover] did not go into effect until a year after Plaintiff filed suit."30 Rather than permitting UCL-type claims over what constitutes appropriate notice to consumers of a business' privacy practices, TWC urges the court to defer to the state legislature "which has already decided these questions—so that California businesses (and others doing business in California) are able to know, to a reasonable certainty, what conduct California law prohibits and what it permits."31 Privacy practitioners heavily engaged on CCPA compliance matters may well see a paradox in any argument that the CCPA provides "reasonable certainty" regarding California's required privacy disclosures. But perhaps over the next one to two years the courts (or the regulator . . . whoever that may be) will provide that clarity — there is no doubt they will have many opportunities to do so. ____________________ Notes 1

See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155(b).

See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(c) ("The cause of action established by this section shall apply only to violations as defined in subdivision (a) [regarding data breaches] and shall not be based on violations of any other section of this title. Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to serve as the basis for a private right of action under any other law. This shall not be construed to relieve any party from any duties or obligations imposed under other law or the United States or California Constitution."). 3

Statutory damages range from $100-$750 per individual, per incident. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)(1)(A).

See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(b).

There is some debate, for instance, over whether county or local prosecutors in California can bring public enforcement actions for violations of the CCPA under Section 17204 of California's Business and Professions Code, or if enforcement is solely vested with the CA AG. 6

See, e.g., Complaint, Jose Lopez v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00723-LAB-LL, at 25 (S.D. Cal. April 16, 2020). 7

See, e.g., Complaint, Lopez, at 25; Complaint, Fuentes v. Sunshine Behavioral Health, No. 8:20-cv-00487, at 20-21 (C.D. Cal. March 10, 2020) (alleging that the data breach caused the plaintiffs harm as they must now "freeze" credit cards, contact financial and health institutions, monitor credit reports, etc. for "years to come"). 8

See, e.g., Complaint, Albert Almeida, Mark Munoz, and Angelo Victoriano v. Slickwraps Inc., No. 2:20-at-00256, at 28, 48 (E.D. Cal. March 12, 2020); Complaint, Daniela Hernandez v. PIH Health, No. 2:20-cv-01662, at 6, 19, 38 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020); Complaint, Bernadette Barnes v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, and Salesforce.Com, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00812DMR, at 3, 15 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2020); Complaint, Juan Maldonado v. Solara Medical Supplies, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02284H-KSC, at 3, 21 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2019). 9

See, e.g., Complaint, Slickwraps at 39, 44, 46 and 48; Complaint, Hernandez at 22, 27, 30 and 37; Complaint, Barnes at 16 and 22; Complaint, Maldonado at 23, 30, 33 and 34. 10

See, e.g., Complaint, Michele Pascoe v. Ambry Genetics, No. 8:20-cv-00838, at 50 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) at 50; Complaint, Lopez at 44.

Complaint, Lopez at 44 ("If Defendant fails to respond to Plaintiffs' notice letter or agree to rectify the violations detailed above, Plaintiffs also will seek actual, punitive, and statutory damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper as a result of Defendant's CCPA violations.") (emph. added) 12

See, e.g., Complaint, Slickwraps at 48; Complaint, Hernandez at 37-38.

See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

See Am. Bankers Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Heryford, 885 F.3d 629, 632 (9th Cir. 2018).

See, e.g., Complaint, G.R. v. TikTok, No. 2:20-cv-04537, at 9 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2020); Complaint, Sweeney v. Life on Air, No. 3:20-cv-00742 at 21 (S.D. Cal. April 17, 2020). 16

See e.g., Complaint, TikTok at 10; Complaint, Sweeney at 22.

See Complaint, Sweeney at 3-4.

See Id.

See, e.g., Complaint, Sean Burke and James Pomerene v. Clearview AI, et al., No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB, at 22 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2020); Complaint, Cullen v. Zoom, No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK, at 12 (N.D. Cal. March 30, 2020). 20

See, e.g., Complaint, Burke at 24; Complaint, Cullen at 14.

Complaint, Burke at 2-4, 11-13, 14-17, and 22-24.

See Id. at 22-24.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(c).

Complaint, Sheth v. Ring, No. 2:20-cv-01538-ODW-PJW, at 11 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020).

Id. at 20-21.

See Complaint, Bombora v. ZoomInfo, No. 20-cv-365858 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 10, 2020).

See Complaint, California v. TWC Prod. and Tech., LLC, No. 19-STCV-00605 (Cal. Super. Ct. Jan. 3, 2019).

Due to the COVID-19-created backlog in the court, TWC's motion is not set to be heard until February 2021.

Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Affirmative Defense of Equitable Abstention, California v. TWC Prod. and Tech., LLC, No. 19-STCV-00605, at 1 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 11, 2020). 30

Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).

Id. at 20 (quotation omitted).

CCPA 下的诉讼: 新案件提出的趋势及观察原文作者：Mark S. Melodia 、Ashley L. Shively 、Mark H. Francis 及 Paul Thompson Jr.

重点摘要  尽管对私人诉权有重大限制，但自 2020 年 1 月 1 日生效以来，已有 50 多个援引《加州消费者隐私法》（CCPA）提出的诉讼，而几乎所有这些诉讼都是以集体诉讼的方式提出。  虽然因为可以获得法定损害赔偿，使 CCPA 有望在未来的数据泄露案件中发挥重要作用，但原告在其他情况下提起指称违反 CCPA 规定的诉讼的权利将面临强大阻力，这可能是未来 6 至 12 个月关于 CCPA 最重要的议题。  随着加州总检察长已于 2020 年 7 月 1 日起开始其执法行动，企业需要控管两个方面的潜在风险敞口，而目前哪个方面的风险会更大并不明朗。 ____________________ 加州消费者隐私法（CCPA）于 2020 年 1 月 1 日生效。CCPA 是美国同类法律中的首例，CCPA 就关于企业如何收集、使用和分享他们的个人信息等方面授予加州居民广泛的权利。该法案赋予加州居民请求访问或删除其个人信息的权利、以及反对将此类信息与第三方分享或将其出售给第三方的权利。有关执行 CCPA 大多数规定的权力归属于加州总检察长（加州总检察长），1 并且 CCPA 在 2018 年和 2019 年的立法过程中戏剧性发生的某些重大妥协限制了私人对其他违反 CCPA 的行为请求救济的权利：  首先，CCPA 明确规定，只有在某些数据泄露事件中，才可享有私人诉权权利，而“不得以违反 CCPA 的任何其他部分规定为依据提起私人诉讼”。该法案进一步指出，“本法案的任何内容均不得被解释做为私人依据任何其他法律提出诉讼的基础。” 2  其次，虽然可以以个人或集体诉讼方式提起关于数据泄露的诉讼，以请求实际或法定损害赔偿，3 要求法定损害赔偿的消费者必须首先向预定的被告提供 30 天的事前书面通知，告知其被指控违反 CCPA 的行为，且如果企业解决了其所被指控的违法行为并以明文书面方式确认该情形，原告不得提起请求法定损害赔偿的诉讼。4 自从法律通过以来，CCPA 的许多规定一直成为法律争辩的主题，而 CCPA 的明确执行界限在那已成为热门话题。5 然而，普遍的共识是消费者将迅速地接受法定损害赔偿，但也会同样迅速地挑战 CCPA 对私人诉权的限制。因此，自 CCPA 生效后七个月已经有大约 50 起援引 CCPA 某些规定所提出的私人诉讼，而这一现象并不令人惊讶。这些诉讼中大约有一半是与数据泄露有关的。在其他案件中，原告以主张侵犯消费者权利为由提出索赔，且通常主张不遵守 CCPA 的行为也将构成了对加州《反不正当竞争法》（UCL）、《消费者法律补救法》（CLRA）、或其他诉讼原因的违反。毫不奇怪的是这些诉讼通常是以集体诉讼的方式提起。

与安全事件有关的 CCPA 诉讼 CCPA 为数据泄露的集体诉讼案件增加了一个引人关注的新层面。传统上，原告一直在试图努力确定特定的安全事件是金钱损失或法律认可的其他实际伤害的直接原因。这阻碍了原告确立其具有美国宪法第三条所规定在联邦法院提起诉讼必须提出具有诉讼地位及可行的损害赔偿理论的能力。CCPA 是美国第一部关于数据泄露并且规定以法定损害赔偿代替作为实际损害的普遍适用的法律。 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

在新一波的 CCPA 数据泄露案件中，原告通常主张获得法定损害赔偿的权利，并且还常常要求对被告（所被指称的）继续不当处理个人信息的行为寻求补偿及禁令的发出。6 就指称的事件，仅一小部分案件主张实际损害。7 数据泄露诉讼会以不同具体的程度来陈述对 CCPA 规定的违反。大多数案件都会声称发生数据泄露，然后在没有提供进一步细节的情况下概况地主张该泄露是对 CCPA 的违反。8 在这种情况下，CCPA 诉讼的主张通常与其他常见的数据泄露主张，包括过失、违约、不当得利和违反《反不正当竞争法》一起提出。9 其他案件则以更为具体的方式陈述其诉讼主张，并声称原告在提起诉讼之前已通知被告。10 但是，在至少在几个案件中，原告似乎没有在提起诉讼之前满足必要的 30 天等待期 11 许多案例还基于数据泄露造成 CCPA 的违反主张违反了加州的《反不正当竞争法》。12 《反不正当竞争法》将“不正当竞争”广义地定义为“指并包括任何非法、不正当或欺诈性的商业行为或作法以及不正当、欺骗性、不真实或误导性的广告，以及[加州虚假广告法]禁止的任何行为。”13 私人当事方可以根据《反不正当竞争法》寻求禁令救济和赔偿。14 因此，这些诉讼必须得到法院的确认，确认当发生违反 CCPA 的规定时，《反不正当竞争法》是一个可以透过它来提出私人诉讼中的工具（下文将对此进行进一步讨论）。

与安全事件无关的 CCPA 诉讼虽然根据 CCPA 提出私人诉讼的空间狭窄，但有其他各种诉讼被提出来指控违反 CCPA 规定的情形。违反通知要求在最近几起诉讼中，原告已直接根据 CCPA 提出指称违反该法的通知要求。15 在这些情况下，原告通常指称被告的网站或应用程序已与其隐私权政策中的规定不一致的方式收集超过其披露和/或使用的消费者的个人信息。原告经常寻求禁令救济和实际损害赔偿。16 例如，一起诉讼中指出被告的应用程序提示原告将该应用程序连接到她的社交媒体帐户。17 一旦建立联系，被告被指控分享了原告在社交媒体平台上使用该应用程序时收集的个人信息。原告进一步指称这种分享是在没有提供 CCPA 所规定的通知的情况下发生的。18 诸如此类的诉讼请求直接忽略了 CCPA 关于消费者只能对某些数据泄露提起私人诉讼的限制规定。基于对通知要求的违反所提出的《反不正当竞争法》诉讼请求在其他情况下，原告根据《反不正当竞争法》提出了违反 CCPA 通知要求的的诉讼请求。19 在这些情况下，原告基本上辩称违反 CCPA 就事实上违反了《反不正当竞争法》。20 例如有一起诉讼指称被告未经同意并违反了 CCPA 的通知要求 “削取”了数百个网站以获取消费者的个人信息（被告后来出售了该网站）。21 原告进而主张说违反 CCPA 的通知要求也就违反了《反不正当竞争法》。22 与《反不正当竞争法》数据泄露的诉讼请求一样，《反不正当竞争法》的诉讼请求是基于违反通知而提出，因此暗喻其已获得司法机关的同意而扩大执行 CCPA 的方法 --- 尽管 CCPA 明确指出“本法案的任何内容均不得被解释做为私人依据任何其他法律提出诉讼的基础” 23 声称指控普遍侵犯隐私权其他情况则避免根据 CCPA 的任何特定规定提出诉讼请求；原告反而主张被告使用个人信息的事实、并指控其侵犯了州法规定的隐私权，例如《加州宪法》所保障的隐私权。24 在一起这类案件中，原告寻求禁制令，并且在被告未能回应原告关于 CCPA 违规通知的信时，原告还寻求实际的、惩罚性的和法定的损害赔偿、补偿、和律 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

师费和费用。25 与基于《反不正当竞争法》的诉讼请求类似，这些诉讼请求似乎是在邀请法院根据 CCPA 来订立处理因其他适用法律发生的隐私权责任的标准。所有这些主张的理论都涉足到未知领域。这些案件将继续被提出，而随着它们在加州联邦和州法院继续被处理，法官们将会如何处理要求驳回此类请求的动议还有待观察。

在企业对企业的诉讼中主张违反 CCPA 的行为并非只有集体诉讼的原告才具有如何提出诉讼请求的创造力。最近提起的一个案例是涉及从事收集和出售个人信息市场研究的竞争企业。26 原告指控被告（原告的前商业伙伴和现在的竞争对手）未向消费者充分告知其隐私权处理作法而违反了 CCPA，并因此违反了《反不正当竞争法》获得不公平和非法的利益。原告正在寻求补偿、交出违法所得利益、及对其竞争对手发出禁令的救济。在商业情况中使用 CCPA 作为武器可能会引发 CCPA 诉讼的全新领域。可以想象诉讼业务以类似于虚假广告主张的方式利用 CCPA、或者原告以举报人诉讼，股东衍生品和证券集体诉讼的形式提起 CCPA，指控其不遵守该法令损害了员工、股东或被告本身事业的价值。此类声称为该法律所保护的消费者而提出的诉讼请求的可行性似乎需要对法律原理的扩展，使支持这类主张的法律原理等于或大于支持上述消费者案例的法律原理。

CCPA“安全港”防御 2019 年 1 月，洛杉矶市对天气频道（TWC）提起诉讼。27 在该诉讼中，洛杉矶市声称 TWC 为广告和其他商业目的通过与第三方分享其移动应用程序用户的地理位置数据、且未提供足够的通知或获取任何必要的同意的方式从事不公平和欺诈的商业行为，违反了《反不正当竞争法》。 2020 年 6 月 11 日，TWC 提出了一项简易判决的动议，28 主张洛杉矶市的“诉讼是通过诉讼进行立法的不当尝试。” 29TWC 主张洛杉矶市的批露要求“显著超越和违反了 CCPA 关于披露要求的非常详细和严格的规定 ......且直到原告提起诉讼一年后该条款才生效。” TWC 呼吁法院“遵从已经决定了这些问题的州立法机关，而不允许对构成企业消费者隐私权的适当通知的问题提出《反不正当竞争法》类型的诉讼 30，如此做加州的企业（以及其他从事商业活动的企业）才能够合理确定地知道加州法律禁止的行为以及允许的行为。” 31 从事处理 CCPA 合规性事务的隐私法领域律师可能看到了一个似是而非的论点，即 CCPA 对加州对隐私披露一事提供了“合理的确定性”。但也许在接下来的一到两年，法院（或监管机构……无论是谁）毫无疑问地将有很多机会去澄清是否是这样。 ____________________ 附注 1

参见加州民法第 1798.155（b）条。

参见加州民法第 1798.150（c）条（“本节确定的诉讼因由仅适用于（a）项[关于数据泄露]中定义的违法行为，并且不得以违反本法案中任何其他条款的情况为依据。本法案不得被被解释做为基于任何其他法律而享有的私人诉权的基础。不应解释为免除任何一方承担其他法律或美国或加州宪法所规定的任何义务或义务。”） 2

每次事件的法定赔偿额为每人$ 100- $ 750。加州民法第 1798.150（a）（1）（A）条。

参见加州民法第 1798.150（b）条。

例如，关于加州的县级或地方检察官是否可以针对违反《加州商业和职业守则法》第 17204 条规定的 CCPA 的行为提起公共执法诉讼，或者是否仅由加州总检察长负责执行，存在一些争议。 5

参见，例如 Jose Lopez 诉 Tandem Diabetes Care，Inc.案起诉书。2020 年 4 月 16 日）。 6

，第 3：20-cv-00723-LAB-LL，第 25 页（加州南区

参见，例如， Lopez 案起诉书第 25 页； Fuentes 诉 Sunshine Behavioral Health 案起诉书，第 8：20-cv-00487，第 20-21 页（加州中区。2020 年 3 月 10 日）（指控数据泄露导致原告受到损害，因为他们现在在“未来几年”必须“冻结” 信用证、与金融和医疗机构联系、监控信用报告等。）。 7

参见例如 Albert Almeida，Mark Munoz 和 Angelo Victoriano 诉 Slickwraps Inc. 案起诉书，第 2：20-at-00256，第 28、 48 页（加州东区。2020 年 3 月 12 日）；Daniela Hernandez 诉 PIH Health 案起诉书，第 2：20-cv-01662，第 6、19、 38 页（加州中区。2020 年 2 月 20 日）；Bernadette Barnes 诉 Hanna Andersson，LLC 和 Salesforce.Com，Inc.案起诉书，第 4：20-cv-00812-DMR 号，第 3、15 页（加州北区。2020 年 2 月 3 日）; Juan Maldonado 诉 Solara Medical Supplies，LLC 案起诉书，第 3：19-cv-02284-H-KSC 号，第 3 页及第 21 页（加州南区。2019 年 11 月 29 日）。 8

参见例如 Slickwraps 案起诉书，第 39、44、46 和 48 页；Hernandez 案，第 22、27、30 书第 16 及 22 页岁； Maldonado 案第 23、30、33 和 34 页。 9

参见例如 Michele Pascoe 诉 Ambry Genetics 案起诉书），第 50 页；Lopez 案起诉书第 44 页。 10

和 37 页；Barnes 案起诉

，第 8：20-cv-00838，第 50 页（加州中区。2020 年 5 月 1 日

Lopez 案起诉书第 44 页（“ 如果被告未回复原告的通知书或同意纠正上述详细的违规行为，原告还将寻求实际的、惩罚性的和法定的损害赔偿，赔偿、律师费和费用以及任何其他救济因被告违反 CCPA 而被法院认为是适当的。”） 11

参见，例如 Slickwraps 案起诉书第 48 页；Hernandez 案起诉书第 37-38 页。

参见《加州商业和职业守则法》第 17200 条。

参见 AM Bankers Mgmt Co., Inc. v. Heryford 案，885 F. 3d 629，632

（第九巡回法院。2018

）。

参见例如 GR v. TikTok 案起诉书，No. 2：20-cv-04537，第 9 页（加州中区，2020 年 5 月 20 日）；Sweeney v. Life on Air 案起诉书，第 3：20-cv-00742 号，第 21 页（加州南区。2020 年 4 月 17 日）。 15

参见 TikTok 案起诉书第 10 页； Sweeney 案起诉书第 22 页。

请参阅 Sweeney 案起诉书第 3-4 页。

同上。

参见如 Sean Burke 和 James Pomerene v. Clearview AI 等案起诉书。编号：3：20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB，第 22 页（加州南区。2020 年 6 月 14 日）；Cullen 诉 Zoom 案起诉书，No. 5：20-cv-02155-LHK，at 12（加州北区。 2020 年 3 月 30 日）。 19

参见例如 Burke 案起诉书第 24

页； Cullen 案起诉书第 14 页。

Burke 案起诉书第 2-4、11-13、14-17 和 22-24 页。

同上。第 22-24 页。

加州民法第 1798.150（c）条。

Sheth v. Ring 案起诉书，No. 2：20-cv-01538-ODW-PJW，第 11 页（加州中区。2020 年 2 月 18 日）。

同上，第 20-21 页。

参见 Bombora v. ZoomInfo

参见 California v. TWC Prod. And Tech., LLC 案起诉书，第 19-STCV-00605 号（加州高等法院。2019 年 1 月 3 日）。

由于 COVID-19 在法庭上积压，TWC 的动议要等到 2021 年 2 月才可以开庭。

案起诉书，第 20-cv-365858 号（加州高等法院。2020 年 6 月 10 日）。

California v. TWC Prod. And Tech., LLC 案，被告动议和关于被告对公平弃权的积极抗辩的简易判决动议通知。第 19 号 - STCV-00605，在 1（加州高等法院。2020 年 6 月 11 日）。 29

同上。第 2 页（强调原始）。

同上。第 20 页（引用省略）。

About This Newsletter 有关本期刊 Information contained in this newsletter is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel. Holland & Knight lawyers are available to make presentations on a wide variety of China-related issues. 本期刊所刊载的信息仅供我们的读者为一般教育及学习目的使用。本期刊并不是为作为解决某一法律问题的唯一信息来源的目的所设计，也不应被如此使用。此外，每一法律管辖区域的法律各有不同且随时在改变。如您有关于某一特别事实情况的具体法律问题，我们建议您向合适的律师咨询。美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的律师能够对许多与中国相关的问题提出他们的看法及建议。

About the Authors 关于本期作者 Alberto Esenaro focuses his practice on energy, antitrust, regulation on infrastructure and utilities and corporate services. He is well versed in the areas of oil, gas and electricity. He has broad experience in business, antitrust and regulatory matters related to a wide range of sectors, including automotive, product distribution and supply, seaports, railroads, airports, financial services, telecom, information technology (IT), tenders, permits and concessions. He also has experience in mergers and acquisitions (M&As) of companies and assets that bear regulatory content. Mark H. Francis is a cybersecurity, data privacy and intellectual property attorney advising clients on a wide array of "tech and data" counseling, transactional and litigation matters. He focuses on data strategy and information governance, cybersecurity, technical controls, cross-border data transfers, and data privacy laws. In addition, he regularly advises clients on data and intellectual property agreements and technology transactions, including master service agreements and statements of work (SOWs), open source and proprietary software licenses, IP/data transfers and licenses, software as a service (SaaS) and cloud computing agreements. Maria Teresa Quintero Godinez is an international trade and tax attorney. She focuses her practice on advising national and international companies, especially those in the pharmaceutical, food, technology, brewery, maquiladoras and retail industries, on compliance with regulations and nontariff restrictions, obtaining promotion programs, certifications in matters of foreign trade, and rulings on tariff classification and customs valuation. In addition, she has experience in legal proceedings and preventive and reactive audits in matters of foreign trade. Octavio Lecona focuses his practice on telecommunications, media and technology, as well as mergers and acquisitions (M&A). He provides legal advice to domestic and multinational clients on regulatory, litigation and corporate matters. He has drafted, negotiated and completed high-profile transactions, including M&A, joint ventures, corporate restructurings and a wide range of general contractual matters. He has represented fixed and mobile facility-based carriers and advised in spectrum auctions. His clients in the telecommunications and technology industry include fixed and mobile services providers, fiber optics network developers, data centers

operators, manufacturers of mobile telephone accessories, resellers of telecommunications services, and owners and operators of wireless and broadcast communications infrastructure. Mark S. Melodia is a privacy, data security and consumer class action defense lawyer. He focuses his practice on governmental and internal investigations, putative class actions and other "bet-the-company" suits in the following areas: data security/privacy, mortgage/financial services and other complex business litigation, including defamation. He has defended more than 90 putative class actions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including as lead defense counsel in multiple multidistrict litigations (MDLs) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; arising from alleged consumer privacy violations, data incidents and allegations of data misuse. He routinely represents clients responding to government privacy investigations before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Office for Civil Rights, state attorneys general a nd the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). He has guided clients in a wide range of industries through several hundred data incidents over the past dozen years. Juan Pablo Moyano focuses on domestic and international arbitration and litigation. He is well versed in handling various types of complex domestic and international matters, including commercial contracts, energy and construction disputes. He has significant experience in international arbitrations administered by the major arbitral institutions worldwide, including the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), as well as disputes governed by the rules of the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission (IACAC) and the rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Ronald A. Oleynik practices in the area of international trade regulation. His experience includes a broad range of industrial security, customs, export control, trade policy, and public and private and international trade matters. He has substantial experience in assisting clients in complying with U.S. trade embargoes and economic sanctions programs involving countries such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Syria. He works frequently with the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is responsible for implementing, administering and enforcing sanctions regulations that restrict business transactions involving designated countries and their nationals. Leslie Palma has more than 20 years of experience advising clients on employment matters in the corporate sector, including individual and collective procedures. She also is well versed in labor and employment due diligence of domestic and foreign companies. In addition, she is experienced in negotiations before the Employee's Defense Office, litigation before the federal and local labor boards in Mexico, and amparo appeals. She is highly knowledgeable in executive compensation, employee benefits, labor management relations, noncompete agreements, workforce reductions and helping companies manage other employee changes. Ashley L. Shively is a privacy attorney and class action litigator. She counsels public and privacy companies on consumer protection and data privacy issues with respect to product development, sign-up and point-of-sale procedures, digital marketing, regulatory compliance, and state and federal enforcement. She regularly advises on the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act of 2003, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), state privacy and unfair and deceptive practices laws, and similar legal and regulatory requirements. At present, she is particularly focused on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and writes and speaks frequently on the topic. Seth M.M. Stodder represents clients on a wide variety of matters involving international trade and crossborder transactions, proceedings before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), immigration and visas, cybersecurity and data privacy, civil and criminal government investigations and national/homeland security. He has a wealth of federal government experience having served in various roles with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved

Paul Thompson Jr. is an intellectual property, cybersecurity and data privacy attorney. He concentrates his practice on intellectual property (IP) licensing and development, patent law, data privacy and security, and information technology (IT). His practice also includes IP diligence for mergers and acquisitions (M&A) as well as the resolution of disputes over intellectual property rights through litigation. Furthermore, he writes about topics pertaining to data privacy and security. Carlos Vejar is a domestic and international trade attorney who counsels companies on international trade strategies, investments, government procurement, regulatory compliance, unfair trade practices, intellectual property and customs procedures, as well as commercial, private and international trade arbitration matters. He has been appointed as panelist for the USMCA's general dispute settlement chapter and Mexico's roster for disputes concerning unfair trade practices, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) list of mediators and World Trade Organization (WTO) list of experts. He previously served at the Ministry of Economy of Mexico (SE) as general counsel for international trade for more than six years. Jose Luis Villareal represents Mexican and international clients from a wide variety of sectors. He advises on complex transactions and litigation proceedings related to intellectual property rights, including trademarks, slogans, tradenames, trade secrets, patents, utility models, industrial designs and copyrights. He has successfully handled several intellectual property transactions, including the purchase, sale, transfer, licensing and due diligence of intellectual property rights. He also is experienced in advising on numerous administrative procedures and litigations related to intellectual property rights. Charles A. Weiss concentrates his practice on technology-driven litigation and transactions, primarily in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and adjacent fields. He also counsels clients on questions of patent validity and infringement, provides a litigator's perspective on prosecution matters, and assists with regulatory and compliance matters. He litigates patent, trade secret, license and false advertising cases in diverse technical areas. He has handled cases over the years involving expression of recombinant proteins and antibodies, controlled release pharmaceuticals, medical diagnostic agents, endocrine and hormone products, nutritional supplements, industrial control systems, food chemistry, nucleic acid diagnostic assays and commercial detergents. He also has extensive experience in the investigation of product counterfeiting and pursuit of those responsible. Michael J. Zdeb is an attorney whose practice involves both the business and private wealth practice areas in his representation of businesses and their owners. He also focuses on private company ownership and governance. He represents equity participants and businesses in shareholder and corporate governance matters and disputes. His experience includes matters involving shareholders and members in limited liability companies, as well as partnership disputes. He utilizes his own business and tax experience and works with a team of experienced valuation experts and litigators to ensure the best possible outcome for his clients. More often than not, this has the required creative settlements and resolutions that take into account the specific needs of the client and the financial and other dynamics of the business. Laura Yvonne Zielinski is an international arbitration lawyer who focuses on commercial, investor-state and state-state arbitration. She has been involved in proceedings before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT), International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and International Court of Justice (ICJ). She has represented governments and private companies in proceedings administered by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Her practice also covers public international law advisory matters, including advising clients on sanctions and sovereign immunity.

Contact Our China Practice Attorneys | 与我们的 China Practice 律师联系 Primary Contacts 主要联系人： Hongjun Zhang, Ph.D. 张红军博士 Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.5906 hongjun.zhang@hklaw.com

Mike Chiang 蒋尚仁律师 New York | +1.212.513.3415 San Francisco | +1.415.743.6968 mike.chiang@hklaw.com

Juan M. Alcala | Austin +1.512.954.6515 juan.alcala@hklaw.com

Adolfo Jimenez | Miami +1.305.789.7720 adolfo.jimenez@hklaw.com

Robert Ricketts | London +44.20.7071.9910 robert.ricketts@hklaw.com

Leonard A. Bernstein | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9521 leonard.bernstein@hklaw.com

Sophie Jin | Washington, D.C. +1.202.469.5179 sophie.jin@hklaw.com

Luis Rubio Barnetche | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8006 luis.rubio@hklaw.com

Christopher W. Boyett | Miami +1.305.789.7790 christopher.boyett.@hklaw.com

Roth Kehoe | Atlanta +1.404.817.8519 roth.kehoe@hklaw.com

Evan S. Seideman | Stamford +1.203.905.4518 evan.seideman@hklaw.com

Vito A. Costanzo | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2409 vito.costanzo@hklaw.com

Robert J. Labate | San Francisco +1.415.743.6991 robert.labate@hklaw.com

Jeffrey R. Seul | Boston +1.617.305.2121 jeff.seul@hklaw.com

Josias N. Dewey | Miami +1.305.789.7746 joe.dewey@hklaw.com

Alejandro Landa Thierry | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8002 alejandro.landa@hklaw.com

Vivian Thoreen | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2482 vivian.thoreen@hklaw.com

R. David Donoghue | Chicago +1.312.578.6553 david.donoghue@hklaw.com

Jeffrey W. Mittleman | Boston +1.617.854.1411 jeffrey.mittleman@hklaw.com

Shawn M. Turner | Denver +1.303.974.6645 shawn.turner@hklaw.com

Jonathan M. Epstein | Washington, D.C. +1.202.828.1870 jonathan.epstein@hklaw.com

Anita M. Mosner | Washington, D.C. +1.202.419.2604 anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Matthew P. Vafidis | San Francisco +1.415.743.6950 matthew.vafidis@hklaw.com

Leonard H. Gilbert | Tampa +1.813.227.6481 leonard.gilbert@hklaw.com

Ronald A. Oleynik | Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.7183 ron.oleynik@hklaw.com

Stacey H. Wang | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2480 stacey.wang@hklaw.com

Enrique Gomez-Pinzon | Bogotá +57.1.745.5800 enrique.gomezpinzon@hklaw.com

Douglas A. Praw | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2588 doug.praw@hklaw.com

Charles A. Weiss | New York +1.212.513.3551 charles.weiss@hklaw.com

Paul J. Jaskot | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9539 paul.jaskot@hklaw.com

John F. Pritchard | New York +1.212.513.3233 john.pritchard@hklaw.com

Jose V. Zapata | Bogotá +57.1.745.5940 jose.zapata@hklaw.com

Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: September-October 2020

Articles inside

NEGOTIATION AND DRAFTING ISSUES SURROUNDING FORCE MAJEURE PROVISIONS

LITIGATION UNDER THE CCPA: TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS ON NEW CASE FILINGS

USMCA REPLACES NAFTA: AN OVERVIEW OF KEYPROVISIONS

EACH OTHER

CHINA PRACTICE NEWSLETTER