China’s SPC Releases Second Batch of Typical Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Mediation Cases
Published 13 August 2025
Xia Yu
On 7 August 2025, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“SPC”) released the second batch of six typical cases (“Typical Cases”) involving commercial and maritime mediation, with parties from Singapore, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Switzerland, the Marshall Islands, Côte d'Ivoire, and Chile. Among these, the Typical Case No. 3 concerned a dispute over liability for vessel collision damage, while the remaining five all involved contractual disputes, with the first two specifically related to maritime conflicts. In recent years, China has placed a growing emphasis on developing its marine economy. The release of these Typical Cases demonstrates, from a judicial perspective, how China is advancing its marine economy and expanding its influence among Belt and Road Initiative countries.
Typical Case 1: A maritime carriage of goods contract dispute between Chilean Mou Agricultural Company v. Turkish Mou Steel Company & Singaporean Mou Shipping Company – This case exemplifies international parties’ trust in China’s maritime judiciary, as three foreign entities voluntarily submitted to Chinese jurisdiction. The Dalian Maritime Court facilitated settlement through patient mediation, clarifying Chinese legal principles and ensuring voluntary compliance—a model that has contributed to China’s emergence as a preferred forum for international maritime dispute resolution.
Turkish Mou Steel Company (“Turkish Company”) was the registered owner of a vessel. On 13 July 2022, Singaporean Mou Shipping Company (“Singapore Company”) issued a clean bill of lading for the shipment of 240 bags of magnesium sulfate heptahydrate from Bayuquan Port (China) to Valparaíso Port (Chile), with Chilean Mou Agricultural Company (“Chilean Company”) as consignee. The bill’s jurisdiction clause stipulated that disputes be resolved either under the flag state’s jurisdiction or by mutual agreement between carrier and consignee. On 15 October 2022, seawater ingress during discharge at the destination port caused cargo damage. The Chilean Company filed suit at the Dalian Maritime Court, claiming over US$ 90,000 in losses from both defendants.
After the Chilean Company took the initiative to file the lawsuit with the Dalian Maritime Court, both defendants actively participated, expressly consenting to Chinese court jurisdiction. The court explained China’s mediation system, securing parties’ agreement to prioritize settlement. Then, the court identified core disputes and interests through exhaustive consultations, clarified joint liability of actual carriers under Chinese law by citing relevant statutes and precedents. By conducting a cost-benefit analysis of litigation versus mediation, it was concluded that the latter’s efficiency was highlighted. Due to the pending notarization/legalization of the Turkish Company’s power of attorney, the court facilitated a direct settlement agreement. The Chilean Company agreed to withdraw claims upon receipt. The Chilean Company received full settlement payment and withdrew the lawsuit within the signing month.
Typical Case 2: A maritime carriage of goods contract dispute between Mou Shipping Company v. Hainan Mou Fisheries Company, Mou Freight Forwarder & Mou International Trading Company – Tilapia and its products constitute a vital component of Hainan’s marine economy. Hainan Mou Fisheries Company (“Hainan Company”) has ranked as Hainan’s top aquatic export earner for ten consecutive years. This case exemplifies common disputes in tilapia exports where a foreign buyer's default cascades losses across domestic producers, sellers, and carriers. The court employed mediation principles of “harmony as paramount” to reconcile interests, balance risks, and preserve business relationships—a landmark case supporting Hainan’s fisheries industry development.
Mou International Trading Company (“Trading Company”) purchased frozen tilapia from Hainan Company for resale to a Côte d'Ivoire-based company. The Hainan Company engaged Mou Freight Forwarder (“Freight Forwarder”) to book shipping space with Mou Shipping Company (“Shipping Company”), with loading/discharging ports at Haikou and Abidjan, respectively. The bill of lading designated the Hainan Company as shipper and the Côte d'Ivoire-based company as consignee per the Trading Company’s instructions. Failure to take delivery at the destination port incurred demurrage charges of RMB 2,370,480 (Equivalent to US$ 329,971). The Shipping Company sued all three parties at the Haikou Maritime Court, seeking joint liability for demurrage plus interest. The first-instance judgment ordered the Hainan Company to pay RMB 600,000 (Equivalent to US$ 83,520) plus interest. The Hainan Company appealed to the Hainan High People’s Court (“second-instance court”).
The second-instance court learned that the Hainan Company believed that the Trading Company should bear the liability, but as a manufacturer, it did not want the dispute in this case to affect its cooperative relationship with the Trading Company. The second-instance court identified mediation as optimal for safeguarding the Hainan Company’s long-term export interests. By conducting multi-party consultations, it clarified the main contradictions and main demands of this case. On the basis of the first instance judgment, it guided the parties to reasonably predict the results of the second instance judgment and then reached a consensus on mediation. After considering factors such as balancing the interests of all parties, improving the efficiency of dispute resolution, and maintaining a good cooperative relationship, the second-instance court formulated a mediation plan that the Hainan Company and the Trading Company to share demurrage payments, each withdraw their second-instance appeal and first-instance lawsuit, and the second-instance court reduce the case acceptance fee by half. All parties fulfilled settlement obligations voluntarily.
Typical Case 3: A ship collision liability dispute between Zhoushan Mou Shipping Company and Marshall Islands Mou Ship Management Company – This case involves a foreign-related maritime dispute occurring in a country participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. The court, for the first time, introduced a foreign shipowner’s P&I club to participate in mediation, guiding relevant shipping industry organizations to jointly resolve the cross-border maritime disputes. The approach successfully addressed the challenges of collision compensation, leading to a mediated settlement agreement and the full voluntary payment of the settlement amount.
In July 2021, the vessel X, owned by Zhoushan Mou Shipping Company (“Zhoushan Company”), was anchored at the Port of Cigading, Indonesia, when it was struck by the Panama-flagged vessel N, which was under bareboat charter by Marshall Islands Mou Ship Management Company (“Marshall Company”). The collision caused damage to the vessel X’s bow and starboard side. After temporary repairs at the collision site, the vessel X returned to China, discharged its cargo, and proceeded to Shidao Port, Shandong Province, for further repairs. The Zhoushan Company filed a lawsuit with the Ningbo Maritime Court, demanding that the Marshall Company compensate for repair costs, loss of hire, fuel expenses, and other damages totaling over US$ 1.6 million.
After the case entered litigation, the parties held significant disagreements over the quantum of damages arising from the collision. To reduce litigation burdens, the court took multiple measures during the proceedings. It summarized key disputed issues, advised both parties on litigation risks, and guided them toward a mediation agreement. By leveraging extensive adjudication experience and analysis of the shipping market, it facilitated a gradual narrowing of differences between the parties. It also proactively engaged a foreign shipowner’s P&I club, based in the vessel N’s flag state, to participate in mediation. Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which was confirmed by the court through a civil mediation judgment. The Marshall Company subsequently fulfilled the full settlement amount voluntarily following the judgment.
Typical Case 4: A sales contract dispute between He Mou from Bangladesh and Chen Mou from China – This case represents an innovative approach by the China-ASEAN Free Trade Zone Nanning International Commercial Court (“Court”) in resolving cross-border commercial disputes. Building upon its “one-stop” integrated litigation-arbitration-mediation platform (“One-Stop Platform”), the Court for the first time introduced industry experts to provide specialized guidance, establishing a tripartite mediation model comprising “judges + commercial mediators + industry auxiliary mediators”. By incorporating industry specialists, this model addresses the lack of domain-specific expertise in traditional commercial mediation, thereby enhancing its effectiveness. Additionally, the Court facilitated remote synchronous mediation via its “Cloud Court” system, involving overseas parties and a Hong Kong-based mediator, offering an efficient resolution model for international commercial dispute mechanisms.
In November 2021, He Mou, a Bangladeshi merchant, purchased mobile phone screens from Chen Mou, a Chinese trader, via WeChat and paid the majority of the contract sum. After partial delivery, Chen Mou refused to ship the remaining goods, claiming that part of the payment had been frozen by Chinese authorities. The delivered goods were later found to be defective, and He Mou returned them through an intermediary. When his demand for a refund was ignored, He Mou filed a lawsuit seeking repayment of the advance payment plus interest for capital occupation. The first-instance court ordered Chen Mou to refund the payment for the goods, except for the goods that had been delivered with interest. Chen Mou appealed, arguing that his failure to deliver was due to external factors, and requested continued contract performance instead of repayment.
The parties had not executed a written contract, leaving their rights and obligations scattered across fragmented WeChat chat records. The dispute also involved Chinese regulatory policies. During mediation, the Court invited officials from the Guangxi Department of Commerce’s Policy and Regulation Division to interpret applicable policies and propose tailored solutions, helping align the parties’ understanding of trade practices and terminology. The Court also collaborated with a Hong Kong-based mediator, appointed by the Guangxi International Civil and Commercial Mediation Centre, through the One-Stop Platform to advance substantive negotiations. After thoroughly assessing the parties’ genuine interests, the Court clarified legal provisions, litigation risks, and potential cross-border enforcement challenges, ultimately facilitating a comprehensive settlement covering refunds, goods return, and liability for breach. The dispute was resolved efficiently and conclusively.
Typical Case 5: A sales contract dispute between A Mou from Uzbekistan and Kai Mou from China – This case demonstrates how the court can overcome practical challenges in cross-border disputes—such as language barriers and costly, time-consuming notarization/legalization procedures—by leveraging local judicial resources and digital court technologies. Through video-witnessed power of attorney procedures and online mediation, the court enabled foreign parties to save significant time and costs while resolving disputes remotely. The resolution achieved mutual benefits and rebuilded a foundation for future cooperation.
In May 2023, A Mou, an Uzbek merchant, supplied steel wire worth RMB 108,500 (Equivalent to US$ 15,103) to Chinese trader Kai Mou through an intermediary, Ba Mou. After the goods arrived in Ürümqi via cross-border transport, Kai Mou claimed they were lost due to logistics issues and refused payment. In December 2023, A Mou traveled to Ürümqi to demand payment. On 28 December, Kai Mou signed and thumbprinted a Repayment Agreement drafted in Uyghur. On 2 April 2025, A Mou filed a lawsuit with the Xinshi District People’s Court of Ürümqi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (“Court”), seeking payment of the principal amount, liquidated damages, travel expenses, accommodation fees, and attorney costs.
The Court utilized its digital courtroom infrastructure to conduct video-witnessed authorization and online mediation, exempting the Uzbek party from notarization/legalization requirements and in-person appearances. To ensure accurate communication, the Court assigned Uzbek-speaking court staff to assist throughout mediation. The Court deconstructed the parties’ claims and defenses, first confirming the undisputed principal amount before addressing contested items. By prioritizing professional mediation and mutual benefit, the Court helped rebuild trust between the parties. Ultimately, A Mou agreed to reduce his claim for liquidated damages, while Kai Mou committed to staged repayments. Both parties expressed willingness to maintain future trade relations.
Typical Case 6: A liquidation liability dispute between Swiss Mou Company and Henan Mou Trading Company, Henan Mou Coal-Fired Power Company et al. – The SPC’s International Commercial Court (SPCICC) in this case adopted an innovative mediation model featuring “evidence exchange - issue identification - dynamic negotiation - coordinated advancement”, facilitating an on-the-spot settlement agreement that resolved the dispute substantively in one proceeding. This approach protected all parties’ legitimate interests with minimal costs and maximum efficiency.
Swiss Mou Company (“Swiss Company”) became embroiled in a sales contract dispute with Shenzhen Mou Trading Company (“Shenzhen Company”). The London Metal Exchange (LME) issued arbitral awards ordering the Shenzhen Company to pay over US$ 10 million in damages and arbitration costs. During liquidation proceedings, the Shenzhen Company’s shareholders, Henan Mou Trading Company (“Henan Trading Company”) and its general manager, as liquidation committee members, dissolved the company without notifying the Swiss Company, rendering the substantial claim unenforceable. The Swiss Company subsequently sued the Henan Trading Company and its parent company, Henan Mou Coal-Fired Power Company (“Henan Power Company”) before the SPC, seeking joint and several liability for the debt.
This represents a classic liquidation liability case where the LME arbitral award had already received recognition from the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. Facing challenges including cross-border enforcement, currency fluctuations, and case complexity, the SPC pursued mediation. Through pre-trial evidence exchange, the SPC pinpointed core disputed issues. After multiple negotiation rounds, a preliminary settlement emerged. However, extreme forex volatility necessitated repeated adjustments to the settlement terms. To this end, the SPC actively promoted the companies involved in the case to optimize their internal approval processes, shorten the mediation time, and promote the parties to reach and confirm the final settlement plan as soon as possible. In a landmark procedure, the SPC conducted an open court session where parties finalized detailed settlement terms through on-site mediation, executed the agreement, and received immediately issued mediation documents. Later, they voluntarily performed all obligations within one week. The ten-million-dollar cross-border dispute was thus conclusively resolved through this judicially facilitated commercial mediation.
Typical Case 1: A maritime carriage of goods contract dispute between Chilean Mou Agricultural Company v. Turkish Mou Steel Company & Singaporean Mou Shipping Company – This case exemplifies international parties’ trust in China’s maritime judiciary, as three foreign entities voluntarily submitted to Chinese jurisdiction. The Dalian Maritime Court facilitated settlement through patient mediation, clarifying Chinese legal principles and ensuring voluntary compliance—a model that has contributed to China’s emergence as a preferred forum for international maritime dispute resolution.
Turkish Mou Steel Company (“Turkish Company”) was the registered owner of a vessel. On 13 July 2022, Singaporean Mou Shipping Company (“Singapore Company”) issued a clean bill of lading for the shipment of 240 bags of magnesium sulfate heptahydrate from Bayuquan Port (China) to Valparaíso Port (Chile), with Chilean Mou Agricultural Company (“Chilean Company”) as consignee. The bill’s jurisdiction clause stipulated that disputes be resolved either under the flag state’s jurisdiction or by mutual agreement between carrier and consignee. On 15 October 2022, seawater ingress during discharge at the destination port caused cargo damage. The Chilean Company filed suit at the Dalian Maritime Court, claiming over US$ 90,000 in losses from both defendants.
After the Chilean Company took the initiative to file the lawsuit with the Dalian Maritime Court, both defendants actively participated, expressly consenting to Chinese court jurisdiction. The court explained China’s mediation system, securing parties’ agreement to prioritize settlement. Then, the court identified core disputes and interests through exhaustive consultations, clarified joint liability of actual carriers under Chinese law by citing relevant statutes and precedents. By conducting a cost-benefit analysis of litigation versus mediation, it was concluded that the latter’s efficiency was highlighted. Due to the pending notarization/legalization of the Turkish Company’s power of attorney, the court facilitated a direct settlement agreement. The Chilean Company agreed to withdraw claims upon receipt. The Chilean Company received full settlement payment and withdrew the lawsuit within the signing month.
Typical Case 2: A maritime carriage of goods contract dispute between Mou Shipping Company v. Hainan Mou Fisheries Company, Mou Freight Forwarder & Mou International Trading Company – Tilapia and its products constitute a vital component of Hainan’s marine economy. Hainan Mou Fisheries Company (“Hainan Company”) has ranked as Hainan’s top aquatic export earner for ten consecutive years. This case exemplifies common disputes in tilapia exports where a foreign buyer's default cascades losses across domestic producers, sellers, and carriers. The court employed mediation principles of “harmony as paramount” to reconcile interests, balance risks, and preserve business relationships—a landmark case supporting Hainan’s fisheries industry development.
Mou International Trading Company (“Trading Company”) purchased frozen tilapia from Hainan Company for resale to a Côte d'Ivoire-based company. The Hainan Company engaged Mou Freight Forwarder (“Freight Forwarder”) to book shipping space with Mou Shipping Company (“Shipping Company”), with loading/discharging ports at Haikou and Abidjan, respectively. The bill of lading designated the Hainan Company as shipper and the Côte d'Ivoire-based company as consignee per the Trading Company’s instructions. Failure to take delivery at the destination port incurred demurrage charges of RMB 2,370,480 (Equivalent to US$ 329,971). The Shipping Company sued all three parties at the Haikou Maritime Court, seeking joint liability for demurrage plus interest. The first-instance judgment ordered the Hainan Company to pay RMB 600,000 (Equivalent to US$ 83,520) plus interest. The Hainan Company appealed to the Hainan High People’s Court (“second-instance court”).
The second-instance court learned that the Hainan Company believed that the Trading Company should bear the liability, but as a manufacturer, it did not want the dispute in this case to affect its cooperative relationship with the Trading Company. The second-instance court identified mediation as optimal for safeguarding the Hainan Company’s long-term export interests. By conducting multi-party consultations, it clarified the main contradictions and main demands of this case. On the basis of the first instance judgment, it guided the parties to reasonably predict the results of the second instance judgment and then reached a consensus on mediation. After considering factors such as balancing the interests of all parties, improving the efficiency of dispute resolution, and maintaining a good cooperative relationship, the second-instance court formulated a mediation plan that the Hainan Company and the Trading Company to share demurrage payments, each withdraw their second-instance appeal and first-instance lawsuit, and the second-instance court reduce the case acceptance fee by half. All parties fulfilled settlement obligations voluntarily.
Typical Case 3: A ship collision liability dispute between Zhoushan Mou Shipping Company and Marshall Islands Mou Ship Management Company – This case involves a foreign-related maritime dispute occurring in a country participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. The court, for the first time, introduced a foreign shipowner’s P&I club to participate in mediation, guiding relevant shipping industry organizations to jointly resolve the cross-border maritime disputes. The approach successfully addressed the challenges of collision compensation, leading to a mediated settlement agreement and the full voluntary payment of the settlement amount.
In July 2021, the vessel X, owned by Zhoushan Mou Shipping Company (“Zhoushan Company”), was anchored at the Port of Cigading, Indonesia, when it was struck by the Panama-flagged vessel N, which was under bareboat charter by Marshall Islands Mou Ship Management Company (“Marshall Company”). The collision caused damage to the vessel X’s bow and starboard side. After temporary repairs at the collision site, the vessel X returned to China, discharged its cargo, and proceeded to Shidao Port, Shandong Province, for further repairs. The Zhoushan Company filed a lawsuit with the Ningbo Maritime Court, demanding that the Marshall Company compensate for repair costs, loss of hire, fuel expenses, and other damages totaling over US$ 1.6 million.
After the case entered litigation, the parties held significant disagreements over the quantum of damages arising from the collision. To reduce litigation burdens, the court took multiple measures during the proceedings. It summarized key disputed issues, advised both parties on litigation risks, and guided them toward a mediation agreement. By leveraging extensive adjudication experience and analysis of the shipping market, it facilitated a gradual narrowing of differences between the parties. It also proactively engaged a foreign shipowner’s P&I club, based in the vessel N’s flag state, to participate in mediation. Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which was confirmed by the court through a civil mediation judgment. The Marshall Company subsequently fulfilled the full settlement amount voluntarily following the judgment.
Typical Case 4: A sales contract dispute between He Mou from Bangladesh and Chen Mou from China – This case represents an innovative approach by the China-ASEAN Free Trade Zone Nanning International Commercial Court (“Court”) in resolving cross-border commercial disputes. Building upon its “one-stop” integrated litigation-arbitration-mediation platform (“One-Stop Platform”), the Court for the first time introduced industry experts to provide specialized guidance, establishing a tripartite mediation model comprising “judges + commercial mediators + industry auxiliary mediators”. By incorporating industry specialists, this model addresses the lack of domain-specific expertise in traditional commercial mediation, thereby enhancing its effectiveness. Additionally, the Court facilitated remote synchronous mediation via its “Cloud Court” system, involving overseas parties and a Hong Kong-based mediator, offering an efficient resolution model for international commercial dispute mechanisms.
In November 2021, He Mou, a Bangladeshi merchant, purchased mobile phone screens from Chen Mou, a Chinese trader, via WeChat and paid the majority of the contract sum. After partial delivery, Chen Mou refused to ship the remaining goods, claiming that part of the payment had been frozen by Chinese authorities. The delivered goods were later found to be defective, and He Mou returned them through an intermediary. When his demand for a refund was ignored, He Mou filed a lawsuit seeking repayment of the advance payment plus interest for capital occupation. The first-instance court ordered Chen Mou to refund the payment for the goods, except for the goods that had been delivered with interest. Chen Mou appealed, arguing that his failure to deliver was due to external factors, and requested continued contract performance instead of repayment.
The parties had not executed a written contract, leaving their rights and obligations scattered across fragmented WeChat chat records. The dispute also involved Chinese regulatory policies. During mediation, the Court invited officials from the Guangxi Department of Commerce’s Policy and Regulation Division to interpret applicable policies and propose tailored solutions, helping align the parties’ understanding of trade practices and terminology. The Court also collaborated with a Hong Kong-based mediator, appointed by the Guangxi International Civil and Commercial Mediation Centre, through the One-Stop Platform to advance substantive negotiations. After thoroughly assessing the parties’ genuine interests, the Court clarified legal provisions, litigation risks, and potential cross-border enforcement challenges, ultimately facilitating a comprehensive settlement covering refunds, goods return, and liability for breach. The dispute was resolved efficiently and conclusively.
Typical Case 5: A sales contract dispute between A Mou from Uzbekistan and Kai Mou from China – This case demonstrates how the court can overcome practical challenges in cross-border disputes—such as language barriers and costly, time-consuming notarization/legalization procedures—by leveraging local judicial resources and digital court technologies. Through video-witnessed power of attorney procedures and online mediation, the court enabled foreign parties to save significant time and costs while resolving disputes remotely. The resolution achieved mutual benefits and rebuilded a foundation for future cooperation.
In May 2023, A Mou, an Uzbek merchant, supplied steel wire worth RMB 108,500 (Equivalent to US$ 15,103) to Chinese trader Kai Mou through an intermediary, Ba Mou. After the goods arrived in Ürümqi via cross-border transport, Kai Mou claimed they were lost due to logistics issues and refused payment. In December 2023, A Mou traveled to Ürümqi to demand payment. On 28 December, Kai Mou signed and thumbprinted a Repayment Agreement drafted in Uyghur. On 2 April 2025, A Mou filed a lawsuit with the Xinshi District People’s Court of Ürümqi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (“Court”), seeking payment of the principal amount, liquidated damages, travel expenses, accommodation fees, and attorney costs.
The Court utilized its digital courtroom infrastructure to conduct video-witnessed authorization and online mediation, exempting the Uzbek party from notarization/legalization requirements and in-person appearances. To ensure accurate communication, the Court assigned Uzbek-speaking court staff to assist throughout mediation. The Court deconstructed the parties’ claims and defenses, first confirming the undisputed principal amount before addressing contested items. By prioritizing professional mediation and mutual benefit, the Court helped rebuild trust between the parties. Ultimately, A Mou agreed to reduce his claim for liquidated damages, while Kai Mou committed to staged repayments. Both parties expressed willingness to maintain future trade relations.
Typical Case 6: A liquidation liability dispute between Swiss Mou Company and Henan Mou Trading Company, Henan Mou Coal-Fired Power Company et al. – The SPC’s International Commercial Court (SPCICC) in this case adopted an innovative mediation model featuring “evidence exchange - issue identification - dynamic negotiation - coordinated advancement”, facilitating an on-the-spot settlement agreement that resolved the dispute substantively in one proceeding. This approach protected all parties’ legitimate interests with minimal costs and maximum efficiency.
Swiss Mou Company (“Swiss Company”) became embroiled in a sales contract dispute with Shenzhen Mou Trading Company (“Shenzhen Company”). The London Metal Exchange (LME) issued arbitral awards ordering the Shenzhen Company to pay over US$ 10 million in damages and arbitration costs. During liquidation proceedings, the Shenzhen Company’s shareholders, Henan Mou Trading Company (“Henan Trading Company”) and its general manager, as liquidation committee members, dissolved the company without notifying the Swiss Company, rendering the substantial claim unenforceable. The Swiss Company subsequently sued the Henan Trading Company and its parent company, Henan Mou Coal-Fired Power Company (“Henan Power Company”) before the SPC, seeking joint and several liability for the debt.
This represents a classic liquidation liability case where the LME arbitral award had already received recognition from the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. Facing challenges including cross-border enforcement, currency fluctuations, and case complexity, the SPC pursued mediation. Through pre-trial evidence exchange, the SPC pinpointed core disputed issues. After multiple negotiation rounds, a preliminary settlement emerged. However, extreme forex volatility necessitated repeated adjustments to the settlement terms. To this end, the SPC actively promoted the companies involved in the case to optimize their internal approval processes, shorten the mediation time, and promote the parties to reach and confirm the final settlement plan as soon as possible. In a landmark procedure, the SPC conducted an open court session where parties finalized detailed settlement terms through on-site mediation, executed the agreement, and received immediately issued mediation documents. Later, they voluntarily performed all obligations within one week. The ten-million-dollar cross-border dispute was thus conclusively resolved through this judicially facilitated commercial mediation.