In 2025, Zhenghan Law Firm remained steadfast in its original mission. Leveraging deep professional foundations, innovative strategic thinking, and a resilient professional spirit, we continued to achieve breakthroughs in the field of complex commercial dispute resolution. Facing a series of highly challenging and frontier cases, we constantly pursued excellence to safeguard the legal rights and interests of our clients, achieving hard-won and fruitful results.
Passing the torch and striving for perfection. This year, we have selected and released the “Top 10 Cases of 2025” as scheduled. This marks the sixth consecutive year since 2020 that Zhenghan Law Firm has released this heavyweight list (click here to review the Top 10 Cases of Zhenghan Law Firm for 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020).
This list embodies the wisdom and hard work of all colleagues at Zhenghan Law Firm. It includes landmark cases that broke conventions and established new adjudication rules, difficult disputes involving cross-border collaboration, bankruptcy reorganization, and frontier asset management across multiple complex fields, as well as several classic battles where the team used breakthrough thinking and innovative strategies to achieve come-from-behind victories in Supreme People’s Court and High People’s Court proceedings under extremely unfavorable circumstances. These cases fully demonstrate Zhenghan Law Firm’s exceptional practical capabilities in team collaboration, handling tough battles, and courageous innovation. Next, let us review these classic cases together. (In no particular order)
Cross-border Shareholder Dispute Resulting in Full Victory for the Client
Keywords: Cross-border Shareholder Dispute, Hong Kong International Arbitration
This case involved a dispute between joint venture shareholders, featuring complex facts, intricate legal controversies, and a target company of extremely high value. Through close collaboration with a top UK law firm and a team of leading barristers from the Hong Kong SAR, we successfully secured a full victory for the client.
Handling Team: Ni Wei, Wang Zheng, Xu Mingsi, Lu Xiaocheng, Zhao Limei, Chen Xiaoyan
Exception to the “Possession of Currency Equals Ownership” Rule: A Case of Litigation over Execution Objections Regarding Private Equity Fund Insurance Claims
Keywords: Litigation over Execution Objections, Independence of Fund Property, Exception to Possession of Currency Equals Ownership
An insurance company paid over 100 million yuan in insurance claims into a basic account under the name of a private equity fund manager that had been frozen multiple times. Zhenghan Law Firm represented the fund in filing an execution objection and subsequent litigation regarding the insurance claims, ultimately achieving a full victory and effectively safeguarding the fund’s interests. The case focused on the independence of private equity fund property, breaking through the “possession of currency equals ownership” principle. The court used the source and purpose of the funds, whether they were commingled, and the account status as core judgment criteria to determine that the insurance claims were not commingled with the manager’s inherent property, providing an innovative and typical adjudication logic for similar disputes over fund ownership.
Handling Team: Xiao Yi, Ni Wei, Wang Zheng, Fang Biao, Qian Qian, Wang Lei, Ji Yunxiang
Survival from a Desperate Situation, Full Victory in Supreme People’s Court Retrial: An Equity Transfer Dispute Case of a Family Enterprise
Keywords: Supreme People’s Court Retrial, Reversal of Judgment, Equity Transfer, Debt Joinder
The plaintiffs, a mother and son, transferred inherited family company equity to the husband’s younger brother, with the agreement stipulating that the company would bear joint and several liability for payment. However, the transferee and the company refused to pay the consideration for over a decade, and maliciously conspired with family members to embezzle the company through fraudulent capital increases and other means, countering with over a dozen malicious lawsuits. After losing all six cases in the first and second instances, Zhenghan Law Firm was commissioned to represent the retrial. Facing the challenge of the lower court’s total denial of the validity of the company’s debt joinder liability, the handling team addressed the essence of the case, used visualization tools to reconstruct complex facts, and precisely pointed out that the non-signing shareholders had substantially recognized the resolution for a long time, and their recantation was merely a conspiracy to evade debts. Ultimately, we successfully guided the Supreme People’s Court to pierce the appearance of “formal non-signing,” resulting in a retrial and reversal of judgment in favor of all our claims. This landmark reversal not only won a comprehensive victory for the client and directly prompted the reversal of five other related cases but also provided authoritative guidance for resolving the validity of voting matters such as internal guarantees and debt joinder in family enterprises. This case has been awarded the China Business Law Journal 2025 Deal of the Year, the 6th Golden Line Award for Judicial Case (Corporate Commercial Dispute), and a nomination for the 2025 Shanghai Lawyers Outstanding Dispute Resolution Case.
Handling Team: Ma Mingwei, Chen Jinlong, Li Tongyu, Chen Shuyuan
Frontier Difficult Dispute in Asset Management, Successfully Mitigating Huge Compensation Risks
Keywords: Asset Management Dispute, Trustee Liability
This case was an asset management dispute with a massive subject matter amount, intricate factual relationships, and highly frontier legal controversies. Through deep practical research and precise litigation strategies, the handling team successfully mitigated huge compensation risks and achieved a full victory.
Handling Team: Ni Wei, Chen Jinlong, Ma Mingwei, Li Ruonan, Luo Ziying, Gu Zhenyan
Breaking the Deadlock of Rigid Payment in Commercial Trusts, Achieving a Comeback Victory under Extremely Unfavorable Circumstances
Keywords: Commercial Trust, Suitability Obligation, Trust Purpose
This case involved a highly representative and difficult dispute in the field of commercial trusts. Leveraging deep practical experience in asset management, the team effectively guided the adjudication philosophy and solidified the judicial logic that mature investors bear their own commercial risks. At the level of legal application, the team moved beyond conventional suitability obligation disputes, returned to the essence of the trust system, and defined the legal boundaries between trust purposes and expected investment returns. The case achieved full victory in both instances, successfully mitigating huge compensation risks for the client. This case fully demonstrates Zhenghan Law Firm’s professional ability to handle complex financial asset management disputes and provides a replicable and referable practical model for determining the boundaries of trustee liability in commercial trust disputes.
Handling Team: Ni Wei, Chen Jinlong, Ma Mingwei, Li Ruonan, Luo Ziying, Gu Zhenyan
Reversal in Second Instance, Overturning the Determination of Hundreds of Millions of Yuan in Equity “Nominee Holding” for a Family Enterprise
Keywords: Confirmation of Shareholder Status, Nominee Equity Holding, Family Enterprise
Against the backdrop of a family enterprise’s entrepreneurial history spanning nearly thirty years, the majority shareholder (the elder brother) sued the minority shareholder (the younger brother) on the grounds of “nominee holding,” requesting confirmation that the minority shareholder’s equity was held on behalf of the majority shareholder. The court of first instance ruled in favor of the majority shareholder. Under the unfavorable situation where the minority shareholder’s other holding companies had already been determined by effective judgments of other regional courts to be nominee holdings for the majority shareholder, resulting in consecutive losses, Zhenghan Law Firm was invited to intervene in the second instance to represent the minority shareholder and secured an opportunity for a second hearing. Zhenghan Law Firm focused on reconstructing and restoring the facts of shareholding to overturn the majority shareholder’s “nominee holding” narrative. Ultimately, the court of second instance overturned the first-instance judgment’s determination of a “nominee holding” consensus, ruling that the minority shareholder did not constitute a nominee holder, thereby preserving family enterprise equity worth hundreds of millions of yuan for the minority shareholder.
Handling Team: Chen Jinlong, Chen Weimin, Xiao Yi, Chen Xiaoyan, Ai Di
After Nine Years and a Remand by the Supreme People’s Court, Zhenghan Law Firm Helps a Taiwan-funded Enterprise Obtain 100 Million Yuan in Government Compensation: A Land Compensation Dispute Case of a Taiwan-funded Golf Course
Keywords: Land Lease, Basic Farmland, Liability for Breach of Contract
A Taiwan-funded sports company signed a land use agreement with a local government through a “requisition + lease” method to operate a golf course. After the contract was signed, the sports company paid various land fees to the government, including land requisition fees, transfer fees, and rent. However, after nearly ten years of normal operation, the local government suddenly forcibly leveled the golf course on the grounds that the leased land had not been requisitioned and remained basic farmland. This case involved sensitive factors such as local government, golf courses, and basic farmland, as well as multiple complex legal issues such as contract validity, facilitative clauses, and liability sharing. In response, Zhenghan Law Firm set up a triple line of defense: “the contract is partially valid, the facilitative clauses are independently effective, and the government should bear full responsibility for malicious breach of contract.” After a tortuous process involving a lawsuit in the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, a retrial by the Shanghai High People’s Court, and a remand by the Supreme People’s Court, the compensation amount was effectively increased, and the client actually received approximately 150 million yuan, strongly safeguarding their legal rights and interests. This case provides an important judicial example for the protection of the legal rights of land lessees in land-related disputes and highlights Zhenghan Law Firm’s professional ability to handle complex disputes.
Handling Team: Ni Wei, Wang Zheng, Ye Zhengwei, Min Xi, Xiao Yi, An Da
Divestiture of Debtor from Bankruptcy Reorganization: Successfully Revoking Substantive Consolidation Reorganization Ruling, Crushing Malicious Debt Evasion Attempts
Keywords: Substantive Consolidation Reorganization, Bankruptcy Divestiture, Trial Supervision Procedure, Malicious Debt Evasion
To evade a debt of tens of millions of yuan from an effective judgment in favor of a client, a debtor enterprise maliciously merged itself into the substantive consolidation bankruptcy reorganization proceedings of 66 companies, including a large group, attempting to evade debt by diluting claims. Facing the extreme difficulty of the first-instance court having officially ruled for bankruptcy reorganization with the consent of the vast majority of creditors, the Zhenghan Law Firm team investigated facts from multiple sources, exposing procedural illegalities such as “ruling before auditing” in the original trial and significant conflicts of interest of the administrator. At the same time, it pointed out that the debtor did not meet the statutory prerequisite of “highly commingled personality.” By applying pressure for correction through both “reconsideration application” and “trial supervision,” the team ultimately prompted the higher court to order the initiation of trial supervision procedures, successfully “divesting” the debtor from the consolidated reorganization. This case not only completely cleared the execution obstacles for the client and preserved a massive claim but also established a exemplary significance in judicial practice that bankruptcy proceedings must not be used to evade debts.
Handling Team: Fang Biao, Zhu Siheng, Li Tongyu, Gu Zhenyan
Cross-border Collaboration Breaks the Deadlock in Foreign-related Contract Dispute, Selected as a Typical Case of the Year by the Shanghai International Commercial Court
Keywords: Foreign-related Commercial Matters, Reversal in Second Instance, Determination of Validity of Notarized Electronic Evidence, Cross-border Lawyer Collaboration
In foreign-related commercial disputes, the examination and determination of electronic evidence has always been a difficult point in judicial practice, representing a frontier issue with both technical and legal controversies. Recommended by Quinn Emanuel, a top global dispute resolution law firm, Zhenghan Law Firm accepted the commission and formed a cross-border legal team with Quinn Emanuel. In this case, they clarified the examination boundaries of foreign-related electronic evidence in a digital context, achieving a full reversal in the second instance and successfully helping the client avoid potential compensation risks of hundreds of millions of yuan. The case was selected as one of the Top 10 Typical Cases of 2025 by the Shanghai International Commercial Court.
Handling Team: Ni Wei, Chen Jinlong, Wang Zheng, Ye Zhengwei, Lu Xiaocheng, Xu Ruohong, Liu Jiahao, Yuan Chenxiang
Reversal in High People’s Court Retrial, Case of Dissenting Creditor’s Bankruptcy Claim Confirmation Litigation Remanded for Retrial
Keywords: Bankruptcy Reorganization, Confirmation of Bankruptcy Claims, Priority of Compensation for Construction Project Payments
In a high-profile bankruptcy reorganization project with assets valued at over one billion yuan, the client’s priority of compensation for construction project payments was significantly reduced, resulting in asset losses of over 100 million yuan. The client filed a bankruptcy claim confirmation lawsuit, which was dismissed. Under the unfavorable situation where the reorganization plan had been fully executed, Zhenghan Law Firm intervened to represent the retrial, precisely identifying errors in the application of law in the original trial and effectively countering resistance from all parties. Ultimately, the case was accepted for retrial, the original first and second-instance rulings were revoked, and the case was remanded, achieving a major phased victory for the state-owned enterprise in recovering over 100 million yuan in state-owned assets. This case also received attention from the Supreme People’s Court and academia, providing a valuable solution for similar cases in bankruptcy judicial practice.
Handling Team: Yang Runlai, Xiao Yi, Chen Xiaoyan
Top 10 Outstanding (Nominated) Cases of 2026
Supreme People’s Court Trade Secret Protection Second Instance: A Dramatic Turnaround and Successful Transfer of Criminal Clues
Keywords: Supreme People’s Court Trade Secret Second Instance, Improved Use, Civil-Criminal Intersection
This case was a second-instance trade secret case accepted by the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court. A former senior executive of the client took platform user information and systems to “start a new business.” Despite submitting over a hundred pieces of evidence, the client lost in the first instance. The Zhenghan Law Firm team was commissioned ten days before the second-instance hearing, quickly digesting massive materials, using visualization to present core doubts and fully restore the facts of infringement, and combining statements on legal viewpoints such as the allocation of the burden of proof, improved use, and passive use to form a favorable impression on the judge. During the process, the handling team proactively uncovered criminal clues of the defendant and successfully transferred them. This case reflects Zhenghan Law Firm’s extensive experience in the fields of intellectual property and civil-criminal intersection.
Handling Team: Fang Biao, Xiao Yi, Chen Shuyuan, Zhang Jiahao, Song Jianhua
Breaking the “Equity Market Value Limit”: Full Victory in a Valuation Adjustment Mechanism (VAM) Exit and Actual Controller Liability Dispute of a Well-known Enterprise
Keywords: VAM Buyback, Actual Controller’s Supplementary Liability, Limiting Liability by Shares, Fair Market Value
This case was a VAM exit dispute triggered by an investment dispute in a well-known car manufacturing enterprise. With the target company mired in bankruptcy reorganization and insolvency, the actual controller attempted to use a harsh clause in the agreement stating “limited only to the fair market value of all company shares held by them” to claim that the equity value was zero and thus exempt themselves from liability. Facing the dual barriers of “objective bankruptcy status” and “literal limitations,” the Zhenghan Law Firm team moved beyond the “valuation trap,” starting from the underlying logic of evidence law and insisting that the burden of proof for the market value of the “limit” should be borne by the actual controller who held the evidence. Ultimately, the arbitration tribunal adopted our view, ruling that the actual controller should bear supplementary clearing liability for all debts. This case successfully pierced the common clause barrier in the PE/VC field of “using equity restrictions to evade buyback liability,” achieved a desperate turnaround for commercial interests, and provided a highly valuable strategy for investors to protect their rights.
Handling Team: Zhou Congbo, Ma Mingwei, Li Tongyu
Reversal through Remand for Retrial in Second Instance: Zhenghan Law Firm Helps a Bank Resolve Historical Interest Collection Disputes and Strengthens the Defense against Systemic Financial Risks
Keywords: Off-balance-sheet Interest, Unjust Enrichment, Systemic Financial Risk
The determination of the validity of atypical interest collection models for commercial banks has always been a deep-water zone in financial dispute resolution. The transactions in this case spanned over ten years, nesting multiple complex arrangements such as trust channels and “loans-to-deposits,” making factual restoration extremely difficult. In the first instance, the court determined that the bank’s actions constituted “unjust enrichment” and ordered full repayment, burdening the client with both huge losses and a negative characterization. Combined with the unfavorable factor of tightening current regulatory standards, the case was nearly at a dead end. Zhenghan Law Firm was commissioned at this critical moment for the second instance. The team dived deep into the complex case files, unraveling the commercial model of the entire transaction process and using a multi-dimensional chain of evidence to solidify the true consensus of both parties regarding the interest payment method. At the same time, they precisely compared the context of interest rate liberalization policies and cited the Supreme People’s Court’s adjudication points for similar cases to build a rigorous defense. Ultimately, they successfully prompted the second-instance court to rule that the original trial had “unclear facts and illegal procedures” and remand the case for retrial, forcing the other party to proactively withdraw the lawsuit. The significance of this reversal is profound. Zhenghan Law Firm broke the deadlock with professional strength, not only successfully resolving the crisis for the client but also providing a classic model for properly handling historical legacy business, achieving a win-win for both case results and client value.
Handling Team: Yang Runlai, Chen Jinlong, Xu Cheng, Wang Yang, Ji Lin
Breaking Through “Long-distance Fishing”: A Comeback Battle in a Series of Arbitration Cases
Keywords: Pelagic Fishing, Goodwill Value, Comeback Victory
This case was a hardcore challenge in the field of commercial arbitration, compounded by evidence shortcomings, the other party obtaining unfavorable testimony through criminal means, and an unfavorable situation where related cases had already ordered the client to refund, making the risk of losing extremely high. The Zhenghan Law Firm team faced the predicament head-on, precisely broke the deadlock, and made a strong breakthrough. They were the first to expose the other party’s true motivation for improper recovery, solemnly pointing out that their criminal evidence collection behavior was “long-distance fishing” that undermined the business environment, successfully offsetting the negative impact and completely reshaping the adjudicator’s perception of the facts. At the same time, they moved beyond simple performance disputes, deeply analyzed from the essence of business, and fully demonstrated the commercial reasonableness of the agreement by arguing for implicit commercial value consideration. Ultimately, they directly reduced losses for the client by over 80%. This case highlights Zhenghan Law Firm’s professional strength in handling complex commercial arbitrations and is a classic model of a comeback victory in commercial arbitration!
Handling Team: Wang Zheng, Zhang Wen, Lu Xiaocheng, Zhao Limei
Seven Years of Rights Protection Supported by the Supreme People’s Court, Creating a Precedent for Execution Objection Litigation with “No Written Distribution Plan”
Keywords: Supreme People’s Court Retrial, Reversal of Fortune, Objection to Distribution Plan, No Written Distribution Plan
This case is an example of a reversal of fortune in the Supreme People’s Court. During the handling process, due to the illegal distribution behavior of an intermediate court in another location during the execution procedure, Zhenghan Law Firm represented the client through seven years of rights protection, covering all paths of execution objection rights protection, specifically including: execution objection, execution objection reconsideration, execution supervision, and litigation over objections to the distribution plan (first instance, second instance, retrial), with potential future involvement in restitution of execution and state compensation. At the same time, this case created a precedent for execution objection litigation with “no written distribution plan,” setting a benchmark for execution distribution disputes nationwide where parties “found no way to sue,” and has significant reference value for financial institutions and the broad range of creditors. The Supreme People’s Court also clarified that procedural illegalities of the execution court should not become an obstacle for parties to exercise their right to relief, and the court should substantively resolve disputes.
Handling Team: Zhou Wei, Diao Xingyin
This report card delivered by Zhenghan Law Firm in 2025 centrally demonstrates our deep professional accumulation, innovative dispute resolution strategies, and tenacious fighting spirit in various sub-sectors of complex commercial dispute resolution. These achievements not only created all-around, high-quality service value for our clients but also accumulated valuable practical experience for the industry in dealing with frontier legal disputes. The past is but a prologue; we are well aware that the exploration of the ultimate realm of legal services is endless. In the future, Zhenghan Law Firm will continue to uphold an attitude of striving for perfection, constantly break through and innovate, and comprehensively enhance professional quality and service levels to calmly respond to increasingly complex and volatile legal challenges, striving to provide clients with better and more efficient legal services and contributing to the long-term development of China’s legal industry.
