In January 2020, DeHeng Law Offices Silicon Valley launched a class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court of Florida on behalf of dozens of EB-5 investors seeking the return of EB-5 investment funds from U.S. project parties.

DeHeng lawyers represented a Hong Kong state-controlled enterprise in a dispute case against an Argentine enterprise over an international sale of goods contract, and obtained a favorable award from the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”).

On August 5, 2023, DeHeng lawyers received a criminal verdict from the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court, in which Client A they represented was sentenced to five years and six months in prison for the crime of leaking inside information, compared to seven years priorly suggested by the procuratorate.

Recently, DeHeng won the judgment in the Beijing Higher People’s Court in a case where Company A represented by DeHeng sued Company B, a one-person company, and its original shareholder Company C, and current shareholder Company D: the court finally determined that Company B and its shareholders should jointly and severally compensate Company A for investment losses of about RMB 100 million. This case is rare in which a listed company, as a one-person corporate shareholder, is judged to be jointly and severally liable for “audit failure.”

Recently, DeHeng lawyers received the Administrative Penalty Decision for a case in which they represented a company in Beijing which was accused by a customs office in Beijing of importing food that does not meet China’s national food safety standards. The Decision revoked fines imposed on the company, recovering the loss of over ten million yuan for it.

Recently, the Jiangsu Provincial High People’s Court made a final judgment on a case of a Jiangsu-based public company suing Liang, the former general manager of its subsidiary, on the grounds, and ruled to “reject the claim and uphold the original judgment” on the grounds that the facts found in the original judgment were clear, the law was correctly applied, and should be upheld, and the plaintiff’s claim could not be established.