Mr. GAO Yadong, a bachelor of law, started his career in 2006. On the basis of his work experience at a listed company and in-depth study in areas of the Company Law and Contract Law, he has abundant knowledge and experience in corporate credit risk management, and has built rich practical non-litigation, litigation/arbitration, and compulsory execution experience in corporate disputes, disputes over contract of work, dispute over contract of construction project, and dispute over lease contract.

Mr. GAO represented many well-known Chinese companies in the negotiation, litigation, and execution of commercial disputes, including Beijing Chubb, Beijing Johnson Controls, ABB, Johnson, Siemens, Ingersoll Rand, Clarios, Hella Electronics, Fuji Xerox, Peking University Founder, King Long Automotive, HONYAR Electrical, Quaker Chemical, Houghton, etc. Moreover, he provided diagnosis and handling services of accounts receivable for domestic and foreign enterprises, including Lenovo, Tofflon, Fuji Xerox, SDL, TE Connectivity, TPV Technology, Meters, Hempel, ATLAS, Kingdee Software, Vesuvius, etc.

• Participated in a case of dispute over processing contract and a case of dispute over return of properties between Jiangsu X Automobile Part Co., Ltd. and a well-known Chinese vehicle manufacturer. These cases were conducted during COVID-19. Within 3 months after accepting the cases, the lawyers made use of comprehensive measures, including litigation and defense policies and complex negotiation designing, to persuade the parties to reach a package of settlement agreement. This not only saved losses of nearly RMB 20.00 million and reduced the losses of over RMB 66.00 million for the client, but also avoided over 20 potential lawsuits, hence achieving multi-win commercial effects and social effects.

• Represented Guangzhou X Automobile Equipment Co., Ltd. in a case of work contract with X Automobile Co., Ltd. for the amount of RMB 64.58 million. This case was difficult in evidence collection and preservation due to missing relevant evidence. To avoid expansion of losses, the lawyer eventually helped the client release the contract, requested the witness to testify on court, and organized evidence through on-site counting and notarization, and notarization of electronic data to prove investment at the early stage, purchase of materials, and the actual occurrence of losses such as labor costs, and the relevance amount evidence, which received the ruling of compensation for RMB 2.75 million.

• Represented Shenzhen X New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. in the case of contract dispute with Wuxi X New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. for the amount of over 8.40 million. Given the complicated relationship between the applicant and respondent, unclear facts, seriously missing evidence, and confusing agreements on dispute resolution, this case gone through 3 instances of arbitration, 1 instance of trial, 2 times of authentication, and 2 times of execution at Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, Wuxi Arbitration Commission, and the People’s Court of Xishan District, Wuxi. By now, Mr. GAO has successfully helped the client recover over 4.30 million, with the remaining RMB 1.30 million pending execution.

• Represented Shenzhen X Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. in a case of dispute over work contract to defense against X Electric (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. for the amount of RMB 11.22 million. The difficulties in this case lay in the quality dispute, overdue delivery, and major personnel changes inside the counterparty. Mr. GAO rapidly organized evidence to raise counterclaim based on careful legal analysis, and conducted multiple negotiations during the litigation, which eventually resulted in settlement between the parties and reduced the losses of over RMB 3.00 million for the client.

• Represented Beijing X Engineering Co., Ltd. in the case over work contract to defense against Zhejiang X Supply Chain Co., Ltd. (a well-known enterprise in the logistics industry) for the amount of over RMB 2.06 million. Mr. GAO collected strong contrary evidence to reduce the weight of proof of the auditor’s report as the plaintiff’s key evidence, and forced the plaintiff to waive partial claims. Through settlement, the client only made compensation for quality in the amount of RMB 0.84 million and was fully released from the penalty of RMB 1.218 million (reduced the losses by 58%). Moreover, the counterclaim solved the problem of project settlement for 3 unsettled projects, from which the client successfully recovered over RMB 3.57 million (100%).

• Represented Shenzhen X Power Source Technology Co., Ltd. (a listed company) in a case of dispute over purchase and sales contract for the amount of RMB 2.43 million. Given the defects in evidence and the quality dispute, Mr. GAO conducted non-litigation negotiation to help the client fully recover RMB 2.43 million in 6 months.

• Represented Shanghai X Technology Co., Ltd. in the execution for the case of dispute over advertising service contract with Shanghai X E-commerce Co., Ltd. for the amount of RMB 2.15 million. For the execution procedure after the trial of this case, Mr. GAO took measures of thorough investigation for clues of properties + negotiation for settlement + execution objection + reconsideration to help the client fully recover the amounts receivable + attorney’s fees + arbitration costs.

• Represented Shanghai X Industrial Co., Ltd. in the case of dispute over construction contract with Shanghai X Engineering Co., Ltd. The project was located in X medical mask production plant and laboratory in Songjiang District, Shanghai. Mr. GAO combined non-litigation + litigation dispute resolution measures to argue against the claim that was raised by the contract-issuing party on the ground of construction quality objection and schedule, and successfully helped the client fully recover construction fees through mediation + execution.

• Represented Beijing X Controls Co., Ltd. in the case of dispute over construction contract with Qingdao X Development Co., Ltd. The approved construction price in this case was RMB 22,074,978.27. Although the client completed the construction and passed the inspection and acceptance by the contract-issuing party, the client did not have the original of the construction inspection and acceptance document; moreover, there was also certain timing dispute. Mr. GAO collected evidence to prove that the client had actively fulfilled after-sales service obligations without mistake within the contractual warranty period, and on the basis of no major litigation risks, successfully promoted negotiation through litigation, which recovered the full amount claimed in litigation and the case was concluded through settlement.

• In the procedure of forcible execution, Mr. GAO investigated clues of the debtor’s properties to promote the court to take execution measures of investigation, seizure, freezing, listing the debtor as a faithless person subject to execution, restriction of high-amount consumption, and restriction of entry-exit, etc., and conducted settlement negotiation to successfully help the client recover the claim of RMB 4.90 million (including cash recovery of RMB 3.40 million).