More details after the jump.

From the horse’s mouth first:

The new Hong Kong office will focus on corporate transactions and corporate compliance, regulation and investigations. The office will be anchored by Kelly Austin, who joins the firm as a partner, after eight years in Hong Kong with General Electric International, where she advised on Asia-wide Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other compliance matters across GE’s Asian business units. Gibson Dunn partner Joseph Barbeau, who previously practiced in Hong Kong from 1985 to 1997, is relocating to Hong Kong from the firm’s Palo Alto office. Also joining them is associate Kate Yin, who is relocating from the Los Angeles office.

“Gibson Dunn has been expanding our global platform where our clients need us, recently in Dubai in 2007, Singapore in 2008 and São Paulo in 2009,” said Ken Doran, Chair and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn. “We have been looking for the right opportunity in Hong Kong for some time, and the opportunity to bring Kelly on board was key to our decision.”

Doran added, “Kelly’s extensive experience in designing and running a world-class compliance program, leading internal and government investigations, and driving compliance leadership across the region will be a tremendous asset for our clients. Her regulatory and compliance practice complements the firm’s compliance and enforcement practices, as well as other significant practices at the firm.”

“Compliance issues in Asia present unique challenges and the risk of a local enforcement action for multinational companies operating in Asia is real,” said F. Joseph Warin, Washington, D.C. partner and Co-Chair of the White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Group. “Many of the U.S.-based FCPA disclosure and enforcement actions in the last two years have had an Asia component, and combining on-the-ground expertise in Asia with extensive support from the U.S. offices positions us to be particularly effective for clients. Kelly’s addition enhances Gibson Dunn’s ability to service client needs in the areas of antitrust, FCPA and related anti-corruption statutes, securities enforcement, money laundering, technological transfers and trade sanctions.”

I actually really like this move. To have Kelly Austin come on board to offer FCPA services seems like a very good idea in light of the current administration’s efforts to curb illegal and corrupt practices. Especially in a place like Asia (cough *China* cough), where it seems like grease payments, bribes, guanxi, and relationships are all the rage, having an FCPA expert there can be a boon to business looking to cover their tails. I could also see the Asia local offices of large MNCs (multinational corporations) really hating Gibson Dunn and Ms. Austin’s “interference” with their standard business practices, so it’s a real gamble in my mind. I expect that US and European HQs will love it, locals will hate it. How compliant the clients will actually be is a crapshoot though.

They are also planning to build a standard corporate practice.

Barbeau’s 12 years in Hong Kong include broad experience with foreign investment in China, cross-border mergers and acquisitions for Hong Kong and U.S. companies, and representation of private equity and pooled investment funds across the region.

Now the question to me is: where are they are actually looking to pick up their clients? I’m guessing its not HK because they brought in two Caucasian faces as partners and their one associate, Ms. Yin, is a mainlander who graduated from BeiDa. So this is Gibson’s effort to pick up mainland Chinese clients. Ms. Yin doesn’t speak Cantonese, at least, that’s what I gather from her profile. Now, why in the world would they set up shop in HK? Except for Barbeau and Austin being there prior, it makes little sense to me. Part of it may be the headache of getting into the mainland, but part of it (in my mind at least) is that these two partners wanted to be in Hong Kong. Very interesting. This is going to be an interesting experiment, or just a stepping stone into the mainland.

As many of you know, this book talks about the problem of quality fade. (For those of you who don’t know, quality fade refers to when a factory starts out producing high quality products and then later turns out inferior products by cutting corners to save costs) Paul shares his personal anecdotes of working with a Chinese factory making health and beauty (soap and shampoo) products, as well as run-ins at trade fairs and the experiences with other factories. Most of the book, however, focuses upon his representation of an American company sourcing their soap manufacture to a single factory in Southern China.

Aside from the audacity of some of the stories (which I believe to be entirely true, but will boggle the mind of the average American), this book actually discusses the corners that factories cut–both in the name of cutting costs/making money from the sourcing process, and also in asserting their style (the factory making everything with an almond scent because the owner really liked the smell)–in a manner that is not overly condescending of the Chinese way of doing business. Paul’s narrative has a way of merely telling things as they are and leaving the reader to make judgments, instead of being overtly pro-American in his outlook. (which it seems like many people would do)

A few good lessons that I thought about as I read:

Worth the read, and because it’s a narrative, it reads really quickly. Definitely enjoyed this book and would recommend to others. Ironically, I was reading this before going to a corporate counsel conference, and at that conference, met someone with product liability issues due to sourcing. It’s a small world.

Disclaimer: The publisher and author provided the author of this post with a complementary review copy of “Poorly Made in China”.

Here is part of their press release:

Hong Kong – International law firm Sidley Austin has announced that Thomas W. Albrecht, a member of the firm’s Management and Executive Committees, is relocating from its Chicago office to its Hong Kong office to assume responsibilities as Managing Partner for the Asia Pacific region.

Thomas A. Cole, Chair of Sidley’s Executive Committee, said, “We are very pleased that Tom has assumed leadership for developing and implementing our strategic plan for the Asia Pacific region. Our appointment of a partner who is highly respected by clients and is also a member of the firm’s Management and Executive Committees underscores our long-standing commitment to the region.”

Charles W. Douglas, Chair of Sidley’s Management Committee, remarked, “In addition to his finance practice which has attracted clients in the U.S., Europe and Asia, Tom has provided leadership for the expansion of the firm’s non-U.S. offices over the past fifteen years. We are tapping that experience for the further development of our operations in the Asia Pacific region, recognizing the increasing importance to our clients of that fast growing part of the world. The firm’s ability to realize its ambitions for our Asia Pacific platform will be greatly enhanced by basing Tom in our Hong Kong office.”

Mr. Albrecht will be working closely with two other members of Sidley’s Executive Committee presently in the region – Tomoo Nishikawa, the Managing Partner of the Tokyo office, and Constance Choy, a Corporate Finance partner in the Hong Kong office. William O. Fifield, who has served as Sidley’s Managing Partner for the Greater China region since 2005, will continue in that capacity until the end of 2010, when he will return to the United States.

Mr. Albrecht has been with Sidley for more than thirty years and is an accomplished finance lawyer. He has been recognized by several publications including Chambers Global and Chambers USA as a Leading Lawyer. He is co-head of Sidley’s global structured finance and securitization practice and has extensive experience in secured financings, structured finance transactions, restructurings, workouts and cross border financings and securitizations. His clients include investment banks, commercial banks, multinational corporations and insurance companies. He received his J.D., cum laude, Order of the Coif, from The University of Chicago Law School in 1979.

Honestly, I’m sure that Tom Albrecht is a good lawyer (or at least a good rainmaker). But given that the firm trusted a Japanese attorney to actually lead the practice, why a different approach for China/greater APAC? Note that Connie Choy is an HK based partner–why not her? Perhaps Albrecht is a better manager? Maybe. Or maybe he’s just more trusted since he’s as much a Sidley insider as you can get.

But at some point, I’m not sure that this is necessarily the best move. For a firm that prides itself on a strong Asia practice, you’d think they would tap an Asian attorney to manage the region–or at least someone who has Asia experience. Look at the firm’s offices:

Sidley has had an established presence in the Asia Pacific region for more than 25 years, having opened its first office in the region in 1982. It was one of the first U.S. firms to offer Hong Kong, English and U.S. law capabilities to clients. Within the region, the firm currently has offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and Tokyo.

So you want to tell me that your partners in Singapore, Shanghai, HK, or Beijing couldn’t run your China practice? That your current head of China practice who is coming back soon is an American is one thing. But that you couldn’t replace this significant of a figure with a local? Obviously I don’t know the firm well enough to know the personnel, and this may have been a spectacular choice. But that’s not apparent to me and left me scratching my head.

Got an email some time ago that’s been sitting in my email box, and another email recently came that made me go back to it and think about it some more. Someone wrote to me with a link that includes 50 online courses about China, language, history, business, and more. And of course, the blog post is entitled “50 Open Courses to Make You an Expert on China”.

Now I am all for good education and online courses, even better. But is it really that simple to become a “China expert”? My answer is simply: no.

I don’t even consider myself a China expert. I just happen to be interested in the country because 1) I am Chinese, 2) I am an attorney, 3) I am a sociologist, and 4) I follow globalization. I have some experience in the arena. But these things hardly make me an expert. Will classes change that? Simply put: no. Not to knock on the author of the post–I think these are good background things that anyone can do to be better able to deal with Chinese business/society/etc.–but there is something to be said about trying to be a “China expert”. Ultimately, I’m not sure there is even such a thing. There is a big difference between being a subject matter expert (SME) that is functional, but to know a whole country is a different beast.

It’s ironic because China Esquire recently was named one of the “ 30 Best Blogs to Follow China Business News“. (the email that made me look back to the online course email) Is it really one of the best blogs? I don’t know, though I would certainly like to think so. I would hope that this blog is worthy of such a compliment. But even if it is, I would still hesitate to call myself a China expert. (Thank you to OnlineCollege.org for such praise by the way)

Here is their description of the program:

As more and more businesses expand into China and as the Chinese legal and business environment continue to mature, in-house counsel need to learn how to draft effective contracts with Chinese parties. Using a hypothetical joint venture model as a framework, the speakers will highlight common problem areas with joint venture, IP licensing, procurement and supply and real property agreements and offer suggestions for avoiding pit-falls and increasing the chances of enforcement. The speakers will also discuss the most effective mechanisms for resolving contractual disputes in China.

Speakers:
Andrew Pollock, Associate, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Michael McGowen, Asia Pacific Counsel, Cabot Corporation
Audrey Chen, Partner, Jun He Law Offices

Moderator:
Michael Chang, Senior Counsel, Warner Bros.

Well worth the hour to listen to it. It’s general, and not in-depth, but its a good start.

Here are some excerpts from their press release:

International law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges announced today that John Fadely has joined the firm’s Hong Kong office as a partner and a member of the firm’s top-ranked global funds practice.

Mr. Fadely has extensive experience in Asia representing international and Asia-based sponsors in the formation and restructuring of Asia-focused private investment funds, including private equity funds, real estate funds and hedge funds, as well as in the formation of joint venture investment vehicles and carried interest plans. Mr. Fadely has also been active in representing institutional investors in private funds, including the formation of sizable co-investment vehicles.

Notably, Mr. Fadely (who is fluent in Mandarin Chinese) has been at the forefront of the recent formation of RMB private equity funds. He will work closely with Weil’s Shanghai and Beijing offices on China-focused funds and with the firm’s global fund formation group on global and Asia-focused funds. In addition, having practiced law in Japan for three of his eight years in Asia, Mr. Fadely will also continue to work on funds formed to invest in Japan and other Asian jurisdictions.

“Expanding our funds practice in Asia will allow us to better serve fund sponsors globally, particularly given the increasing focus of sponsors on Asia for both their fundraising and investment activities,” commented Barry Wolf, Executive Partner of Weil and prominent funds lawyer. “John brings to these clients both an understanding of international market norms and substantial experience in adapting those norms as necessary to the commercial, regulatory and tax environments in Asia.”

“John’s fund formation practice naturally builds on the strength of our Asia transactional practice. His addition will help us to continue delivering comprehensive support in Asia to private equity and other fund sponsors through all phases of the investment cycle, from capital formation to capital deployment and exit,” noted Weil’s Managing Partner for Asia, Akiko Mikumo.

“We are delighted that John is joining us. John will bring an added dimension to our clients, especially given the increasing importance of RMB funds and onshore-offshore fund structures to the China private equity market,” added Steven Xiang, Head of the firm’s China practice.

Seems like a good move since his practice has obvious synergies with the rest of the China practice. Only time will tell of course.

First off, they two speakers noted that the IRS has very good materials on its website about what lobbying is.  For example, the IRS site states:

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying.  For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Drew Porter noted the rules for lobbying are very clear because they were designed by tax lawyers to be “formulaic”, and of course, he is right on the money.  There are two types of lobbying, direct and grassroots.

• Direct: communication with a government official on legislation, which has to express a view on a specific proposal
• Grassroots: communication out to general public (facebook, tweeting, mass media, news, etc.) expressing view on a specific proposal

So how can you avoid lobbying?  Make sure you leave out one of the elements.  For example, you can tweet just fine—just avoid a call to action.  An you’d be surprised that you can say quite a lot rather freely.

Social media is a dangerous spot.  If any tweets, posts to the wall, etc., deal with legislative activity, both Lawrence and Drew said they would review the tweets and Facebook pages to make sure that a call to action was avoided.

Another common problem with social media is that they contain third party links in the posts/tweets/blogs/walls.  And often those are calls to action.  They emphasized that the links should be to general website pages, and not the direct call to action.  Definitely something to watch for since many staff in the non-profit and philanthropy sectors aren’t so careful with their social media.

Two suggestions that they ended with.  1) Produce a one page document that trains your staff on what lobbying is.  Yes, it is possible to do this.  And make sure it teaches creative ways and substitutes for how to leave out one of the lobbying elements.  2) Create pre-made talking points for your staff.  That way you can make sure they have something that won’t violate IRS regulations memorized.

All in all, very good advice for those who don’t want to incur some interest tax liabilities.

She came out very strongly that compliance and ethics polices are not optional for non-profits and exempt organizations.  In fact, she suggested that all non-profits should model everything as close to Sarbanes Oxley as possible, even though we are not governed by SOX.  Her thought is that we can do a lot in the non-profit sector.

All good tips for good non-profit compliance!

The morning session opened up with Sarah Hall Ingram, Commissioner of Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or the “Service”). She had quite a bit to say in terms of developments, and I found some particularly interesting:

• Employment. The Service talks a lot about EO’s as charities, as taxpayers, etc. But there isn’t a lot about EO’s as employers. One thing she noted was the new Small Employer Tax Credit. It is applicable to non-profits because its’ measured by FTEs and not assets. (up to 25 FTEs) For small businesses, its taken against income; however, the Service provides a different set of rules for small non-profits. So if you are a small non-profit, you’ll want to check with your accountant/auditor about this.
• Governance. It was the buzzword of the morning actually. Sarah re-iterated over and over that this is one issue that needs to be part of ongoing education of non-profit executives, attorneys, accountants, boards, etc.
  • Note: The Service does not have a set of rules for governance.  Sarah (as well as Lois Lerner, also IRS) stated that there are principles of governance and its up to non-profits to create good, reasonable governance structures to fit their situation.
  • For new non-profit registrations, they want to see good governance from the beginning—its less to worry about. Here are some areas that the IRS particularly is checking:
    • Mission statements—IRS cant tell anything about an organization most of the time because consultants create flowery mission statements that say very little.   In other words, it was a warning to all of us to create true and accurate mission statements.
    • Board of directors—they should be involved and independent, but the extent is up to us to determine
    • Transparency, the point of the form 990 moving forward
• Studies and questionnaires: the Service uses these as compliance checks, and not a full exam or audit. Sarah mentioned that it gives them an opportunity to see what people are doing.
  • Executive Compensation Setting. The IRS is looking into how non-profits are setting compensation: what’s behind the rebuttable presumption and how each organization factors in things like for-profit comparables, etc.
  • Charitable Spending. The IRS wants to know about the sources and use of funds in charitable sector, with particular focus on 1) non-profits that spend an “unusual” amount on fundraising and 2) non-profits with lots of UBIT with low levels of program service expenditures. In other words, organizations that look a lot like businesses. If you fall under these categories, you have been warned.

Sarah said a lot more, but these are definitely the highlights in my mind. Will continue to blog away.

Need to take a break from watching the Yushu earthquake death toll and the relief effort, and I thought I should post a quick recap and thoughts about Dr. Wang Zhenyao’s visit to the San Francisco Bay Area to discuss the development of NGOs with American non-profit leaders. Dr. Wang is Director-General of the Department of Disaster and Social Relief of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and also a professor at Beijing Normal University.

He had plenty to share about the China NGO sector with us, with some of my thoughts interwoven. (often in parenthetical statements) My apologies for taking a week to get this posted.

After sharing about his personal background regarding grassroots democracy as a way to protect communism, Dr. Wang noted that it is a “crucial time” in China. He said that while economic construction is good and rapid, social construction lags well behind and is a “challenge”. (perhaps a slight understatement) He said that China needs to provide social policies, such as welfare and support to the disabled–but that the government underestimated its abilities to provide social services. Indeed, they (naively) thought if they threw money and goods for social benefit, that would be it. They were (badly) mistaken.

Now the government knows it cannot provide strong social services and needs NGOs–this was apparent after the Sichuan Wenchuan earthquake 2 years ago. He said the Chinese government wants to pay NGOs to do the work it cannot do, but there’s a dilemma: there are almost no good NGOs. The largest NGO in China today was founded by Americans from Berkeley, CA! This despite the fact that there are 1700 NGOs and 600 are private.

He did relate a funny story that shows government’s continued misunderstanding about its influence over the NGO sector. A provincial official “ordered” every NGO to pick up an additional sponsor that year, which prompted push back from the NGOs. (Note: NGOs, not GONGOs, which are independent… again, talk about government meddling into the sector)

So the government’s solution is to help NGOs develop, like growing professionalism in providing services. They looked first to Taiwan and Hong Kong’s NGO/civil society sectors for guidance, but they didn’t find what they wanted: not just NGO skills, but also how to build up a social construction/policy as well. So they are being forced to look outside to international NGOs, such as American charities. They are looking to American NGOs to provide knowledge exchanges and share management tips, expertise, and best practices. Unless that happens, the Chinese NGO sector will be stuck without strong expertise.

The Q&A session was very poignant, as my colleague Sheila Warren and I pressed Dr. Wang on the role of international NGOs in China. Another Hong Kong banker was also pressing on a similar theme, asking Dr. Wang about how easy it is to set up an NGO in China for foreigners and what steps they needed to take. Sheila asked about the role of international NGOs in setting up shop in China, and it appeared our moderator liked this topic. After Dr. Wang dodged this question, I shared that TechSoup was having trouble going into China because our donors are wary due to not only the regulatory climate, but also the need to find a good sourcing partner that is reliable, tech savvy, and strong, and which is a pure NGO (not a GONGO). Because China appears to have something against international NGOs setting up shop, while saying they need to learn from them, I noted the contradiction. At that point, Dr. Wang admitted: (1) the Chinese government ministries were certainly not on the same page regarding international NGOs, and that certain sectors would be slow to change and embrace outside NGOs setting up shop, but also fired back (2) too many NGOs end up with controversial anti-government messages that make the Party wary. He advised that if NGOs played the PR game correctly like MNCs and the private sector, there wouldn’t be as many problems.

Sadly, while we were all hopeful to see Dr. Wang’s contribution to the Chinese NGO sector, it also left a very unfortunate taste in many people’s mouths that the government (and parts of its citizenry) care more about nationalism and their image/face/reputation (whatever you want to call it) than actually allowing the needy in the country to get the services they need from international NGOs. And until Chinese NGOs are ready to mobilize and serve at international capacity levels, the needy will just suffer. Still, I applaud Dr. Wang for his openness and willingness to dialog, and hope that we can provide whatever assistance we can to him and others who support openness of the NGO sector.

Give2Asia is seeking support from donors to help the survivors with the longer-term recovery.

The Chinese government has approved 15 government-organized NGOs to raise funds for recovery and reconstruction.

Eight of these approved groups are current Give2Asia partners, including:

• China Charity Federation
• China Children & Teenagers Fund
• China Education Development Foundation
• China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation
• China Population Welfare Foundation
• China Soong Ching Ling Foundation
• China Women’s Development Foundation

Give2Asia plans to work with these organizations to support long-term recovery.

Give2Asia staff in China and the U.S. are monitoring the evolving situation and are in communication with representatives of the Chinese government and NGOs.

Please consider Give2Asia or one of the other NGOs on the ground doing relief work!

So if you or your organization wants to donate through Tsongkha Charitable Association (TCA) or the Response team, you can transfer the funds to either of the bank accounts below. If your donation is large and you prefer it to be handled separately, we can arrange it as well. Otherwise, the team will combine your donation with other resources and purchase relief aids and distribute them together. TCA will be responsible in submitting reports to you.

In terms if needs, I talked to several people in Yushu. All of them lost their houses. Some people still received no aids (by 16:00, 15/April). They need food, drinks, tents, and electricity generators. Although CCTV is quick in propagating the swift response by troops, there still seems to be victims in unseen corners that need emergency assistance. So if you can provide any support, we can purchase needed goods and deliver them to the hands of victims as soon as possible.

If you have any question or need further information, please let me know.

Thank you for your concern,

Kelsang Norbu
Director
Tsongkha Charitable Association
Haidong, Qinghai Province
Tel: 13519714070 / 0971-6363082

Plateau Perspectives has also set up a Yushu Earthquake Relief website, with links to Chinese media that you can run through Google translate. (or if you have Chrome, get it automatically translated) The translations aren’t perfect, but its enough to know what’s happening on the ground there. For your convenience, here is the most helpful part of their page for updates:

Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China Website
http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-04/14/content_1580853.htm

Qinghai Province People’s Government Website
http://www.qh.gov.cn/html/31/133180.html

Qinghai Earthquake Portal
http://www.eqqh.gov.cn/zwgk/zwxx/201004/2298.shtml

Alert: China’s Qinghai province was rocked by a 7.1 magnitude earthquake on April 14. At least 400 people dead and over 10,000 reported injured. World Vision is sending an assessment team and emergency relief items to Qinghai.

Note: it is not a separate Qinghai quake fund yet. I am hoping it will become so, but as of this posting, it is not a dedicated, China-only fund. (it is, however, a earthquake relief only fund)

Your generous gift today will help provide life-saving essentials to survivors of disasters like the earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, and China.

I will keep updates coming.

UPDATE: Received a WorldVision email with some details as to what they are doing:

Adequate shelter and warm clothing for children and families is a key concern, according to Meimei Leung, who will lead World Vision’s assessment team into the affected area. She reported that temperatures in the area have been cold, and now many children and families might be without basic necessities.

“Based what we learn on the ground, we will be moving quickly to meet the needs of children, particularly to help them establish a normal routine again and stay clear of dangerous rubble,” said Leung.

Please donate!

I am still awaiting NGOs, GONGOs, and other organizations to start setting up their disaster relief funds for the Qinghai earthquake. Rest assured that I will be updating my blog regularly to include these funds as I see them popping up. I am hoping my favorite charity mobilizer Worldvision will act quickly.

Please check back. It’s been busy, but my M&A is now closed, and this is important to me, both because its China, and also because I am now in the non-profit sector at a soon-to-be major global NGO player.

UPDATE 1 (4/14 12am PST): From GoChengdoo, here is information for Red Cross of China:

Renminbi Donations
Account Holder: China Red Cross Society
Bank Branch: China Commercial Bank, Beijing Branch, Dongsinan Sub-branch
Account Number: 0200001009014413252

Foreign Currency Donations
Bank Branch: China Citic Bank, Jiuxian Qiao Sub-branch
Account Number: 7112111482600000209

Donations by Mail
China Red Cross Society
Address: No. 8 Beixin Qiao Santiao, Dongcheng District, Beijing
Post Code: 100007

Online Donations
Red Cross Society of China website in English

UPDATE 2 (4/14 10am PST): WorldVision has set up its website to allow for Qinghai earthquake donations here. It is not a dedicated Qinghai quake fund, but a general earthquake disaster relief fund. I have a feeling that in the coming days, they will open up a Qinghai dedicated fund of some sort.

Alert: China’s Qinghai province was rocked by a 7.1 magnitude earthquake on April 14. At least 400 people dead and over 10,000 reported injured. World Vision is sending an assessment team and emergency relief items to Qinghai.

UPDATE 3 (4/14 3pm PST): Give2Asia has set up a Qinghai earthquake disaster fund. Being friends of Give2Asia, it is an organization that I highly trust as a philanthropic service provider and intermediary. Give2Asia is partnering with the China Charity Foundation to mobilize funds:

On April 14 at 7:49 a.m. in China’s Qinghai Province, a 7.1 earthquake struck, killing at least 400 people and injuring tens of thousands, according to the China Charity Federation (CCF). The quake also destroyed 90% of the homes in the county seat, Jeigu. Give2Asia has created the 2010 Qinghai Earthquake Fund and is partnering with the CCF to deliver immediate relief to survivors, such as shelter, first aid, water and food. CCF is already on the ground working with survivors.

My top 2 recommended places (WorldVision and Give2Asia) have now opened up funds, so you have no excuse to not donate something to the relief efforts.

Also, MercyCorps (who also has a good relationship with Give2Asia–I met some of their members when China sent a delegation last year to discuss philanthropy and learn from U.S. charities) has also opened up a China earthquake fund here. According to their blog, they are already on site and assessing the situation.

UPDATE 4 (4/14 10pm): Plateau Perspectives, a foreign NGO, has officially been asked to go and help with the earthquake relief efforts by the Yushu prefecture government. (h/t Collective Responsibility) The organization has set up a separate page to cover Qinghai quake developments:

The Yushu Prefecture government has requested aid from Plateau Perspectives in the form of medical personnel, medical supplies, and temporary shelters (ie tents and blankets). We are sending an advance medical team to Yushu in about 4 hours to assess the situation, provide emergency care, and set up a base of operations for medical outreach and supply delivery. Additional supplies and medical teams will be sent shortly thereafter. There is already a solid network of medical personnel in China prepared to depart for Yushu, and gifts of cash are the easiest and quickest way that you can help out. Gifts of supplies are more difficult and time consuming to receive, and most supplies needed can be bought in the provincial capital, Xining.

Here are two that looked pretty good to me. First is a 90 minute webinar on the FCPA entitled “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance In Joint Ventures and Consortia”. It’s being presented online Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 1-2:30pm EDT:

This CLE webinar will provide counsel for companies in international joint ventures or consortia with guidance on effective compliance programs to minimize FCPA risks. The panel will examine the unique FCPA issues in such JVs, offer best practices to mitigate risks, and review strategies for handling investigations.

Most Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance risks are due to third party conduct, including joint venture (JV) partners and agents. However, the usual steps taken by companies to minimize FCPA risks don’t work in JVs and consortia.

In international joint ventures, unreliable partners must be identified early—and either avoided or carefully managed. Companies and their counsel must develop and implement tailored compliance programs to reduce the risk of government investigations and penalties.

They even provided a nice outline of the program:

I. FCPA risks and steps to minimize risk for JVs and corsortia
     A. Unique risks
     B. Due diligence
     C. Board/management reviews
     D. Compliance obligations in JV documents
     E. Audits and approvals
     F. Right to terminate
II. JV partners
     A. What can be expected from JV partners
     B. Handling disputes with JV partners
III. Best practices when facing:
     A. Investigation of the JV
     B. Disputes among JV partners

The speakers list consists of:

Judith A. Lee, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C.
Edward L. Rubinoff, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Washington, D.C.
Edward J. Fishman, Partner, K&L Gates, Washington, D.C.

And if you don’t want to do general FCPA compliance, and instead are looking for something more China specific, then Strafford is also offering “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in China for 2010: Compliance Strategies Given China’s Unique Cultural and Governmental Intricacies”. Also a webinar, on Thursday, May 20, 2010, at 1-2:30pm.

A little more about the program:

U.S. companies continue to conduct business in and with China at an increasing pace, and China’s unique business culture provides ample opportunity for employees to cross the line and violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The SEC and the U.S. DOJ continue to increase scrutiny of U.S. companies’ dealings with overseas officials and to strengthen FCPA anti-corruption enforcement efforts. At least two dozen U.S. companies had FCPA issues involving China in the past several months, with many in ongoing investigations.

Another handy outline:

I. Risk factors of doing business in China
     A. Defining government officials
     B. Defining a bribe
     C. Exposure to third party you may not control
     D. Chinese business culture/practices
     E.Reach of the FCPA in China
II. Intersection of FCPA and local Chinese anti-bribery laws
     A. Congruency of the laws
     B. Enforcement of Chinese anti-bribery laws
     C. FCPA affirmative defense to prohibition of payment that was lawful under rules/regulations of the country
     D. Gift giving
III. Best practices for mitigating risk
     A. Monitoring
     B. Compliance program
     C. Internal controls
     D. Education/training
     E. Due diligence
     F. Steps if misconduct is suspected

Here is your speaker list:

Kyle A. Wombolt, Partner, Goodwin Procter, Hong Kong
Amy L. Sommers, National Partner, Squire Sanders & Dempsey, Shanghai, China

Both look very interesting!