Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) Select Committee Report Released The Farm Debt Mediation Bill was introduced in June 2019. On Wednesday, 30 October, the Select Committee released its report recommending the Bill be passed with amendments. The Bill would establish a mediation scheme for resolving farm debt disputes. If the Bill is passed, creditors with security interests in farm property will not be able to take enforcement action in relation to farm debt without first offering mediation to farmers. Mediation should provide a more fair, equitable and timely resolution of farm debt disputes. The discussion it facilitates may reveal numerous options to resolving debt disputes and so prevent enforcement action in situations where it is avoidable. The New Zealand Bankers’ Association supports the legislation, which is in line with the “pro-active and cooperative approach” they say their banks take in dealing with distressed agribusiness customers. A similar scheme which has been implemented in Australia has already proved very effective. China’s International Commercial Court: on Arbitration The First International Commercial Court of the Supreme People’s Court of China (CICC) – established in June 2018 – issued its first rulings in September. The decisions have implications for arbitration, namely in that they uphold the principle of severability for arbitration agreements, under People’s Republic of China (PRC) law at least. The dispute The parties to the dispute were negotiating a sale of shares where Luck Treat Limited (the Seller) was to sell shares in Newpower Enterprise Inc. (the Target) to Zhongyuan Cheng Commercial Investment Holdings Co Ltd (the Purchaser). In 2017, the parties negotiated by email correspondence the terms of the sale-purchase agreement and an additional debt settlement agreement they intended to enter into (under this debt settlement agreement, the purchaser was to pay certain debts owed by the target and the seller’s affiliates). While the Seller and the Target were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, the Purchaser was a PRC company. The draft agreements stated that PRC law would govern the sale. In May 2017, the Seller indicated to the Purchaser that they would be required to apply for certain governmental approval, as the purchase of the shares would constitute an overseas investment under the applicable PRC laws. Subsequently, the parties did not proceed to sign the agreements. When the Purchaser commenced an arbitration proceeding against the Seller and its affiliates in April 2018, the latter sought a confirmation from the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen that the arbitration agreements were not valid, because the underlying contract was not formed. The decision The CICC – who took the case over – determined in line with PRC law that the arbitration agreement was, in fact, valid. Article 19(1) of the relevant PRC