China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Beijing Court Confirms First Cross-Border Mediation Settlement Under New Rules

Tue, 22 Sep 2026
Categories: China Legal Trends
Editor: C. J. Observer

Following the entry into force of China’s Commercial Mediation Regulation on May 1, 2026, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court confirmed the capital's first cross-border settlement agreement facilitated by an international commercial mediation body. The proceeding successfully resolved two complex cross-border loan disputes valued at over 600 million yuan (approx. US$85 million) in just one week.

The underlying cases involved two lenders, Company A and Company B, which had extended loans of US$40 million and US$15.5 million, respectively, to Company C, an entity incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Upon default, the lenders filed suit to recover principal and accrued interest totaling approximately 410 million yuan and 192 million yuan, while seeking priority of claims over the pledged equity. Given the multi-jurisdictional elements and intricate corporate structure, traditional litigation posed significant time and financial burdens.

Following the formal filing of the lawsuits, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court leveraged the "One-Stop Diversified Dispute Resolution Center" established across Beijing courts. With the explicit consent of all parties, the court referred the matters for court-annexed mediation to the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO). A designated three-member mediation panel conducted expedited online negotiations, guiding the parties to a comprehensive settlement agreement within seven days.

Related Post:

Under the newly implemented Regulation, parties who reach an out-of-court settlement through commercial mediation may jointly apply for judicial confirmation within 30 days (see Art. 23, Commercial Mediation Regulation (2025), and Art. 205, Civil Procedure Law (2023)), granting the agreement the same enforceability as a court judgment. In this instance, because the mediation was court-referred post-filing, the process was streamlined even further: the court directly reviewed the core facts and issued a Civil Settlement Statement (also known as a mediation judgment, a court-sanctioned consent order with direct legal enforceability), bringing a definitive and swift end to the multi-jurisdictional disputes.

Related Posts:

 

 

Photo by Rafik Wahba on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)