Author: yongfu

Categories
News

Good Outcome in another Criminal Case

Our client, an International student, is satisfied with the outcome of his criminal case. The case, State of Ohio v. Chen, Case No. 17CRB00347, was prosecuted at the Oberlin Municipal Court. Our client was charged with two first-degree misdemeanors — assault and domestic violence. Such charges, if convicted, would have resulted in him being immediately deported.

A unique fact in this case was that the client admitted the wrong and much more when he was confronted by the police officers. Thus, his admission was the most fatal fact in the case.  After motion to suppress and suppression hearing, the court ruled that his admission would not be excluded. The case was scheduled for trial, and we were prepared for going forward.

But in the final pretrial, the prosecution offered a charge that was much less in severity. The Client decided to take the plea bargain.  The reduced charge would not affect client’s visa and his stay in the United States. Therefore, the case was resolved to the satisfaction of the client.

Even though we were prepared for trial, the client must make all the important decisions, such as taking or rejecting the plea bargain, as it was in this case.  Trial is risky. If defense wins, the client wins all, if defense loses, the consequences could be huge.

If you need a criminal defense attorney, please contact us. The initial consultation is free.

Categories
Firm News

A Successful Settlement in a Personal Injury Case

On February 24, 2017, parties settled in the case captioned as Robert Parker et al. v. Erie Insurance et al. Case No. 2016 CV 02780, pending in the Montgomery Common Pleas Court. It was a personal injury case, and our firm represented one of the defendants.. Plaintiffs alleged bodily injuries, such as back injuries, from a car accident. We reviewed extensive medical records. After depositions and mediation, parties were able to settle the case before the trial.  Our client only needed to pay a nominal amount of money. Our client was very satisfied with the result.

Every personal injury case is different. The value of your claim depends on many factors. Some are concrete, such as medical bills and lost wages. Others are harder to determine, such as pain and suffering.

In this area, we have represented both Plaintiffs and Defendants in the past. When you hire us to pursue your claim, we will go over every detail of your case to make the best possible estimate of how much compensation you should receive for your injuries. In general, relevant factors that determine the amount of a settlement demand include:

  • The nature of your injuries
  • The extent of your injuries
  • What medical treatment you have received and will need in the future
  • How much time you lost from work or will lose in the future
  • Whether you have suffered emotional distress
  • Whether your familial relationships are affected by your injuries
  • Whether you have suffered any disability as a result of your injuries
  • Whether you have been disfigured by your injuries
  • How much evidence to support your claim
  • How much insurance is available to compensate you for your injuries
  • Whether you shared any responsibility in causing your injuries

Most personal injury cases end with settlement. Thus a lawyer skilled in settlement is critical to your success. If no agreement can be reached, we will proceed with a lawsuit or trial.  In either scenario, our vigorous approach will ensure the ultimate success of your claim.

If we represent the defendant in a personal injury case, we will try to minimize the damage.  Whether prosecuting or defending, we put the same effort to get the best result for you. If you want a competent law firm to handle your injury case, please contact us. The first consultation is free.

Categories
Uncategorized

Can L-1A and EB-1(C) be an alternative to EB-5?

As the waiting time for EB-5 investment immigration is getting longer and longer, more and more people choose to apply for L-1A visa. However, it should be noted that L-1A is a non-immigrant visa, which means that this type of visa can only be used by the applicant and his family to live in the United States for a certain period of time. The L-1A visa is applicable to Chinese companies sending their managers or executives to the US branch to manage business or set up a branch.

Basic Requirements for L-1A Visa:

  • Overseas companies hold more than 50% of American companies.
  • In the three years before submitting the application, the applicant has held a management position in an overseas company for at least one year.
  • Applicants need to hold a management position in a US company.
  • If the U.S. company is newly established or previously inactive, the applicant’s L-1A visa is only valid for one year. If the U.S. company has a mature business, the L-1A visa is valid for up to three years.
  • The L-1A visa is renewable for a maximum period of seven years.
  • For applicants on the L-1A visa valid for one year, the EB-1(C) can only be filed after successfully obtaining a two-year extension of the L-1A visa. Applicants for the three-year L-1A visa do not have this restriction.
  • Dependents are granted L-2 visas and can apply for work authorization.

Unlike EB-5, L-1A has no stated minimum investment requirements. But generally, around $200,000 is needed to ensure success. If you set up a new company, applying for L-1A must have a business plan describing how the applicant will plan to develop the business in the United States, as well as forecast business income and the number of employees, and how the initial investment will help the new American company achieve its goals.

If it is a one-year L-1A visa, renewal is often difficult because the new company only has one year to develop the business. The risk of denial of an L-1A renewal application increases if the company is unable to achieve revenue, profitability, and/or employee plans. If the renewal application is denied, the L-1A visa holder and their family members must leave the United States immediately and can no longer seek a U.S. green card through EB-1(C). The adverse impact on life and business of a sudden departure from the United States will be huge. Those who consider the L-1 pathway often do not pay enough attention to these risk factors.

In addition, if not done properly, the process from L-1A to EB-1(C) to green card can cost much more than the cost of EB-5, whether in terms of US government processing fees or in terms of the overall capital investment of the L-1A corporation. This point is often overlooked or downplayed. This is because there are four steps for L-1A transfer to a green card, and only three steps for EB-5 investment immigration. More steps means higher risk and higher capital. This is a point often overlooked by people considering the L-1 pathway.

However, as long as Chinese EB-5 applicants still face a long waiting list, L-1A/EB-1(C) will be a faster option for a Chinese to enter the United States. But this process is often more difficult than expected, so working with an experienced U.S. immigration lawyer from the very beginning, making a good strategic plan, and doing due diligence are the keys to success. If you are interested in applying for an L-1A visa, please contact Lei Jiang Law Firm.

Phone: (440) 835-2271.

Email: info@LeiJiangLaw.com.

WeChat: leijiang_lawfirm1.

Categories
Business Firm News

Another Successful Case in Federal District Court

On January 23, 2017, an order was delivered in a case captioned as IIP Cleveland Regeneration, LLC, et al. v. Zhenfen Huang, et. al., Case No 1:16 CV 2673, pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Ohio. Our firm represented the defendants in this case.  After vigorous defending, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint. This resulted in a total and complete victory for our clients.

This case did not lasted long. After plaintiffs filed their complaint, we immediately responded with a motion to dismiss.  This was because the complaint was poorly written, without any factual substance and legal basis. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint, significantly altered the initial landscape of the complaint, even added an additional defendant in an effort to boost their case.  We quickly filed a second motion to dismiss.  In the end, legal fiction, no matter how voluminous it seemed, could not save plaintiffs’ ill-conceived complaint.  The district court agreed with us and dismissed this case.

Whether prosecuting or defending, we handle your case with the uttermost care and our best effort. If you or your company need a competent law firm to handle disputes or litigation, please contact us.

Categories
Business Firm News

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) 2016 year-end review

Overall trend. The mergers and acquisitions Lei Jiang LLC handled in 2016 were mostly global in nature, involving Asia Pacific companies as buyers and American companies as sellers. The dominant buyers were again Chinese companies. But we saw different Chinese buyers, including Chinese private equity firms, publicly listed companies, and even private owned companies. The traditional outbound M&A was dominated by Chinese state-owned enterprises. The new trend signaled broader bases, bigger appetites, and increased capacity for Chinese companies to acquire U.S. companies.

Although this new array of buyers had a very short track record of cross-regional M&A, they have showed some experience and are comfortable in the deal. From our dealing with these customers, we have discerned factors behind this buying spree. They are 1) to boost the growth rate of the company, 2) lack of domestic targets for acquisitions, and 3) ease of the restrictions on finance.

Implications for U.S. companies. U.S. companies should consider Chinese companies as legitimate partners and buyers if they want to fully utilize the value. First, Chinese companies normally pay higher premium in acquiring U.S. companies. They take into consideration the long term development and potentials. Second, consistent with Chinese culture, Chinese buyers place high value on the relationship with the management before, during and after the transaction. Moreover, in the M&A we handled in 2016, all Chinese buyers retained the management team and gave generous compensations to the U.S. teams. Finally, according to Forbes, by the end of August 2016, China was so far the top acquirer of foreign companies. If the trend continued to the end of year, China would unseat the USA for the first time since 2006. Thus, U.S. companies simply cannot afford to ignore this group of acquirers.

Implications for Chinese/Asia Pacific companies. As mentioned, Chinese companies typically adopt a longer-time investment evaluation, causing them to pay a relatively higher premium. Moreover, paying premium to retain the target’s management team shows that Chinese companies are not familiar with the dynamics of the overseas market and are not capable of running the target initially. Still, cross-regional M&A can be a value enhancing strategy for Chinese companies. If it fits their long-term strategies, in the long run these companies will gain a competitive advantage in the global market.

Lei Jiang Law Firm has successfully concluded several M&A deals in 2016. Some are still in the process. We are proud to provide top-notch M&A services to our clients. Our team is skilled in cross-regional M&A. We understand the cultural difference, language nuance, and different regulatory requirements. We are here to make it happen.

Categories
Business

Thoughts on the U.S. Congressional Committee’s Proposal to Prohibit Chinese State-Owned Enterprises from Acquiring U.S. Assets

On November 16, 2016, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) recommended in its annual report to the U.S. Congress that bans Chinese state-owned enterprises from acquiring or gaining control of U.S. company, in order to prevent Chinese state-owned enterprises take advantages of acquired technologies for the benefits of China’s national interests at the expense of U.S. national security. Although the proposal has no legal power, it largely reflects the challenges faced by Chinese enterprises “going abroad”.

In fact, out of doubts about China’s rise, the United States’ agency responsible for reviewing foreign mergers and acquisitions of domestic companies in terms of national security and interests, the Council on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), has always been concerned about Chinese companies, especially state-owned enterprises, acquiring important strategic assets or sensitive technologies in the United States. In 2007, Huawei and the US PE investment fund Bain Capital attempted to acquire the US information technology company 3Com. This case is worth examination for Chinese companies. In this case, the equity that Huawei intends to acquire can only reach 21.5% of 3Com’s equity at most, accounting for 3 seats in the 11-member board of directors. Huawei will not control 3Com, nor will it obtain sensitive US technology. In addition, Huawei is a private enterprise. Still, Huawei President Ren Zhengfei’s military background has been questioned, and the U.S. market is skeptical about the deal’s success, as 3Com’s cybersecurity business includes customers in the U.S. Department of Defense. Huawei and Bain Capital ultimately withdrew their acquisition applications due to expectations that they would not be able to obtain CFIUS approval. In addition to Huawei, cases in which the applicant withdrew the acquisition application or the acquisition application was rejected include the acquisition of four small wind farms in Oregon by a subsidiary of China Sanyi Group in the United States in 2012 and the acquisition of the US oil company Unocal by China National Offshore Oil Corporation in 2005.

When Chinese companies plan to acquire US corporate assets, they should take into account that CFIUS approval may be a decisive factor in the success of the acquisition. First, although U.S. law does not mandate that M&A transactions need to submit an application to CFIUS, CFIUS has the right to require the cancellation of the transaction after the transaction is completed. Therefore, it is necessary to assess whether the M&A may have U.S. national security issues before the transaction, or consider voluntarily submitting an application to CFIUS. Submitting an application is one way. Second, in the process of dealing with CFIUS, we can learn from the experience of the Huawei case. Bain Capital, as the joint acquirer of Huawei, came forward to negotiate with CFIUS. Its pure American background can play a certain role in reducing the resistance of the United States to the acquisition. Although the final result failed to meet expectations, it is still an ingenious work worth learning from. Also, possible changes in the market during the CFIUS approval period should not be ignored. After the applicant submits the complete application materials, the CFIUS initial review time is 30 days, but if the foreign acquirer is a foreign state-owned enterprise or is controlled by a foreign government, CFIUS must initiate a 45-day in-depth investigation procedure, and the entire approval process may take up to 90 days. Finally, while state-backed Chinese companies encounter hostility in overseas markets, there may be opportunities for truly private companies. The British “Financial Times” reported that governments of various countries, including the United States, are tending to treat different Chinese companies differently, and small-scale investments from Chinese private companies are often warmly welcomed.

Categories
Business Firm News Real Estate

A Successful Trial in U.S. District Court for Northern District of Ohio

One more successful trial was conducted by attorneys in Lei Jiang Law Firm. Attorney Jiang was the lead counsel. He, et al. v. Rom, et al., Case No. 1:15-CV-01869, was initially filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Ohio. Three Plaintiffs represented a class of 140 people against eight individual and corporate defendants.  Class action, international parties, service issues, taking evidence under Hague Convention, and electronic discovery all render this case one of the most complex cases.  But we see it as an opportunity to establish ourselves in the global litigation and advanced dispute resolution arena.

Electronic discovery presented a unique challenge in this case.  Our firm represented Plaintiffs and were dumped with 86 gigabyte (GB) of electronic stored information (ESI) after a successful motion to compel filed by us.  The dumping was just one month before the discovery cut off deadline. Considering that 1GB typically contains 64,782 pages of documents (more pages for email files).  86 GB contains an enormous amount of documents for review. Yet, we swiftly employed a comprehensive strategy, utilized latest software and platform, and conducted document review in the most effective and efficient manner.  Our team, attorneys and computer forensic expert, worked diligently on the data.   As a result, the relevant information was quickly extracted for litigation. We were able to review a large amount of information within a relatively short period of time.

Although Plaintiffs’ effort in class certification failed, the final result was a success. The case proceeded to trial. The four day trial resulted a complete victory for our clients.  Plaintiffs prevailed on all claims submitted to the jury, including fraud and violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practice Action.  Plaintiffs also successfully pierced corporate veils of all remaining corporate defendants – making their owner(s) personally liable for the corporate misconduct. Finally, Plaintiffs were awarded with punitive damage and attorney fee.  This was a stunning victory for Plaintiffs, considering fraud, piercing the corporate veil, and seeking punitive damage were the most difficult tasks in any lawsuit.

In this case, we also utilized new technology for virtual remote deposition and contemporaneous transmission of trial testimony from the other side of the globe – Hong Kong.  The new technology we used was tested for the first time in the Northern District of Ohio.  It significantly reduced the cost, and eased restrictions on time, place, facility and equipment.  In this case, legal expertise and technology worked together seamlessly.

It must be mentioned that Plaintiffs were fortunate to have the case be heard in the court of honorable Judge James Gwin. Judge Gwin took no shortcuts, made no detours, and in this case, he made the complete journey necessary to accomplish justice.

If you or your company need a competent law firm to handle international disputes or litigation, please contact us.

Categories
Firm News

Attorney Lei Jiang has been elected to the 2017 Super Lawyers Rising Star

Ms. Jiang is selected to Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2017, an honor reserved for only 2.5% of lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice in their early years.

Ms. Jiang was first selected to the Ohio Rising Starts in 2015. Since then, she has continued the pursuit of excellence in the legal profession and has been selected as Rising Star continuously since.

A program of Thomson Reuters, Ohio Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers who, through a peer review and independent research process, have been identified as attaining a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only the top 5 percent of Ohio’s 40,000 lawyers and the top 2.5 percent of up-and-coming Ohio lawyers are named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.

Since being admitted to the Ohio bar in 2009, Ms. Jiang has focused her practice on business and related dispute resolutions. From local transactions to international transactions, Ms. Jiang represents clients in all aspects of the deals. In addition to busy deal making, Ms. Jiang also helps clients resolve business disputes, secure patents and other intellectual properties, and obtain proper visas for international clients so they can conduct business in the United States. Although Ms. Jiang is still in her early years of practice, the breath and the depth of her areas and knowledge is remarkable. She is not only a licensed patent lawyer and an immigration attorney, but also regularly counsels clients on business and tax issues.

Categories
Business Firm News Real Estate Uncategorized

Media Report of Zheng, et al. v. SouFun, et al.

On August 23, 2015, Ms. Zheng and several others, as representatives of a class, filed a class action at U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio against the biggest online real estate investment portal in China SouFun Holding Ltd. and SouFun International Ltd.

The complaint alleged fraud, violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practice Act, violation of Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Law, violation of Ohio real estate law, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Lei Jiang Law Firm represents Plaintiffs and the class.

Since this was a case involving international parties, the service was a challenge because it must go through Hague Convention service of process. Plaintiffs successfully perfected the service through Hague Convention.

Major Chinese media in China and the U.S. and have reported on this case. The case is being closely watched by many due to the ever increasing trend of Chinese investing in the U.S. and global real estate.

For a report from the People’s Daily, the official media, click here.
Reports from the biggest Chinese media (in Chinese) QQ, Sina, SOHU, NETEASE.
Reports from the biggest U.S. Chinese media (in Chinese) USChinaPress， 中金在线.

Categories
Firm News Uncategorized

Another Criminal Case Dismissed

One more criminal case against our client was dismissed on September 16, 2016. The case 2016 CRB 661 involved a charge of prostitution. Such charge, if established, would destroy the client’s life since she is a young woman.

We are committed to maximizing the chances of winning your case, even when it means beating the odds. In this case, prosecution claimed to have video and undercover police as witnesses. But after careful review of the evidence, we believed that the case was not as strong as the prosecution would have liked us to believe. After negotiation, the prosecutor dismissed the case against our client. Our client was thrilled.

If you are facing criminal charges, please contact us. The initial consultation is free.

Call Now Button