YYC Legal LLP

Hong Kong’s capital markets performance in 2025

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:42:22 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

Hong Kong’s capital markets performance in 2025

Factors driving the strong growth

International capital has increased its allocation to markets in the East. As a bridge connecting the Chinese mainland and global markets, Hong Kong’s capital markets have benefited from capital inflows.

The Hong Kong regulators have, since October 2024, enhanced the timeframe for new listing approvals.

Where a new listing application meets all applicable requirements and guidance, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) will indicate material regulatory concerns within a maximum of two rounds of regulatory comments. Each of the SFC and HKEX has a total of about 40 business days to raise comments, and the applicant has around 60 business days to address those comments. Once the SFC and HKEX have confirmed no material regulatory concerns and the Listing Committee has granted approval, the process is expected to conclude within the six month validity period, strengthening the certainty and predictability of the listing timeline.
An existing A-share listed company with a minimum market capitalisation of HKD10 billion is eligible for an accelerated timeframe. If its application satisfies all Hong Kong requirements and guidance, coupled with a formal legal opinion confirming its compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to its A-share listing throughout the two preceding financial years, the assessments by the SFC and HKEX can even be completed after one round of regulatory comments.

Hong Kong has implemented initiatives to attract a greater number of high growth technology companies and innovative enterprises to pursue listings in the city. A dedicated Technology Enterprises Channel was launched in May 2025 which allows new listing applications from biotech companies and specialist technology companies to be made on a confidential basis. This arrangement helps mitigate the risk of premature disclosure of their products, technologies, services and strategic plans. Regulators may also engage more closely with the listing applicants to gain a better understanding of their businesses and provide guidance on their eligibility and suitability for listing.

The Chinese government’s continuous policy support provided in 2024 and 2025 has increasingly demonstrated its effectiveness in consolidating Hong Kong’s status as an international financial hub. Moreover, channels for capital market connectivity between the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong have been broadened, thus boosting the attractiveness of Hong Kong’s capital markets to funds from not only the Chinese mainland, but also around the world.

In respect of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) included in the Stock Connect, the eligible ETFs, both Northbound and Southbound, were expanded in July 2024.
The Swap Connect, a mutual access programme linking Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland’s interbank interest rate swap markets, was launched in May 2023. Enhancements to the Swap Connect were introduced in May 2024. International Monetary Market (IMM) trades were introduced based on IMM dates to align with common practices on international interest rate swap markets. The solo compression service was launched. Backdated trades were also introduced, enabling trades with a past effective date to be recorded. The backdated trades can be used with solo compression for trade unwinding.
Offshore investors are allowed to use Chinese government bonds and policy bank bonds held through Bond Connect as collateral for Northbound Swap Connect from 13 January 2025 onwards. Further, Chinese government bonds and policy bank bonds held by international investors through Bond Connect are accepted as margin collateral for all derivative transactions beginning 21 March 2025.
Effective from 30 June 2025, interest rate swap contracts with a maximum tenor of 30 years can be traded on Northbound Swap Connect.

Hong Kong’s robust financial regulatory framework, sound legal system, competitive tax regime, deep talent pool, and free flow of capital remain key factors attracting international funds. In 2025, with ongoing global economic uncertainty, Hong Kong’s stability and transparency have become even more valuable.

This year, Hong Kong has solidified its status as Asia’s premier asset management hub and a critical gateway for global capital into the Chinese mainland. The city’s strategic alignment with national initiatives, such as the Greater Bay Area integration, has also enhanced its role in facilitating fund flows and attracting leading global fund managers and family offices. Consequently, the total assets under management grew robustly during the year and the capital markets have naturally benefited.

Outlook for 2026

In 2026, Hong Kong’s capital markets are expected to continue experiencing steady growth, underpinned by the city’s enduring strengths as a leading international financial hub. Potential challenges include global economic volatility, geopolitical tensions, and uncertainty in interest rate movements. To address these headwinds, Hong Kong must continue taking effective measures such as refining its listing regime, attracting top tier companies, deepening Chinese mainland and global connectivity, introducing innovative financial products and advancing financial technology development.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in February 2026 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港资本市场2025年回顾

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:42:17 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港资本市场2025年回顾

强劲增长之因

国际资本增加了东方市场的配置，作为连接中国内地与全球市场的桥梁，香港资本市场从资本流入中受益。

香港监管部门在2024年10月优化了新股上市审批的时间表。

若新上市申请符合所有适用要求和指引，港交所和证监会将分别发出最多两轮监管意见，并在此期间指出有关申请是否存在重大监管关注事项。两个监管机构分别会在不多于40个营业日内提出意见，申请人则需在约60个营业日内答复上述意见。待两个监管机构确认没有重大监管关注事项，并取得上市委员会批准后，申请程序预计可于六个月的申请有效期内完成。这加强了上市时间表的确定性和可预测性。
市值最少达100亿港元的A股上市公司的新上市申请可符合加快审批。如其申请符合所有香港要求和指引，且有正式法律意见确认该公司在前两个财政年度在所有重大方面遵守与A股上市相关的法律法规，证监会和港交所可分别只发出一轮监管意见即完成评估。

另外，为吸引更多高成长型科技公司和创新型企业来港上市，香港推出多项举措，包括2025年5月推出的科企专线，允许生物科技公司和特专科技公司以保密形式提交上市申请。此举有助于降低公司过早披露产品、技术、服务和战略计划的风险。监管机构可与上市申请人更紧密沟通，以更好地理解申请人的业务，就其上市资格及合适性提供指引。

中国政府2024年至2025年的持续政策支持在巩固香港作为国际金融枢纽的地位方面效果愈发显著。此外，中国内地与香港资本市场互联互通机制扩大，进一步提升香港资本市场对来自中国内地和全球资金的吸引力。

2024年7月，被纳入互联互通的合资格指数股票型基金（ETF），无论是北向还是南向，都扩容。
互换通，一个香港与内地利率互换市场互联互通的机制，于2023年5月建立，2024年5月进一步优化。互换通推出了基于国际货币市场（IMM）结算日的IMM交易，与国际利率互换市场的惯常做法同步。互换通亦增加了单边压缩服务和历史起息交易，后者允许生效日为过去日期的交易得以记录。历史起息交易更可与单边压缩配合，用于解除交易。
自2025年1月13日起，离岸投资者可将通过债券通持有的中国国债及政策性银行债券用作北向互换通的抵押品；而自2025年3月21日起，国际投资者通过债券通持有的上述债券亦可作为所有衍生品交易的抵押品。
从2025年6月30日起，北向互换通支持最长剩余期限为30年的利率互换合约。

香港健全的金融监管框架、坚实的法律制度、富有竞争力的税制、深厚的人才储备，加上资本自由流动，依然是吸引国际资本的关键因素。2025年，在全球经济依然不明朗的背景下，香港的稳定性和透明度更显可贵。

2025年，香港仍巩固其作为亚洲首要资产管理中心和国际资本进入中国内地的核心地位。随着香港积极对接国家战略（如粤港澳大湾区建设），其在便利资金流动、吸引环球资管机构及家族办公室方面的优势进一步增强。受此带动，资产管理规模稳步增长，资本市场亦随之受益。

2026年展望

展望2026年，香港作为领先的国际金融中心的优势依然稳固，预计香港资本市场将继续稳步上扬。但全球经济动荡、地缘政治紧张局势和利率走向不确定等潜在挑战依然存在。要解决这些不利因素，香港必须继续采取有效措施，如优化上市制度，吸引高端企业，深化中国内地与国际市场的连接，推出创新金融产品及推动金融科技的发展。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2026年2月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

港交所就发行人2024财政年度报告发布审阅结果

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 03:39:59 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

港交所就发行人2024财政年度报告发布审阅结果

合规率最低的披露规定

发行人的整体合规率持续处于高位，达到99%，较去年上升一个百分点。然而，有十项披露规定的合规率较低，介于81%至92%之间。其中五项涉及股份计划，具体为：（1）根据计划授出的期权的归属期；（2）股份奖励计划中可予发行的股份（总数及百分率）（截至年报日期）；（3）年初及年末时可根据计划授权及服务提供者分项限额（如适用）分别授出的奖励数目；（4）股份期权计划中可予发行的股份（总数及百分率）（截至年报日期）；及（5）年初与年末时可根据计划授权及服务提供者分项限额（如适用）分别授出的期权数目。

另外五项披露规定为：（1）新任董事了解其责任的确认以及董事取得相关法律意见的日期；（2）过往年度未动用款项结转至年内的实际用途细项；（3）是否达到业绩表现保证水平；（4）所持重大投资的股数及比率；及（5）库存股份的拟定用途。

管理层讨论及分析

发行人于信息披露实践整体有所提升，大多数新上市公司的披露标准与其招股章程基本保持一致，但在以下方面仍有改进空间。

仍存在使用样板式及笼统表述的情况。 部分发行人在列示财务数据时，未能充分识别或讨论业绩背后的关键驱动因素；未能充分解释绩效指标或行业特定指标的按年变化；部分年报未有清晰阐述管理层对市场及内部因素的评估，或未明确说明应对策略。

不同章节或与其他报告之间的信息披露连贯性与整合性不足。 例如，部分发行人在管理层讨论及分析一节中提及监管变动及风险因素，但未深入阐述此类监管可能对财务表现及前景产生的影响。

未能保持年度间信息披露范围与细节程度的一致性。 部分发行人不再披露业绩指标而未有解释原因；还有部分发行人未有就早前披露的事项作出后续跟进，或未能结合上去年年度表现对本年度业绩作出评估。

披露过分着重于传递正面信息，而淡化或忽略公司面临的挑战和风险。

证券投资

部分发行人在其主营业务以外频繁或大量参与证券交易及金融投资活动。然而，发行人在这方面的披露通常较为有限，仅提供“重大投资”或“审慎/长期投资策略”等笼统描述，未提供足够细节。港交所强烈建议发行人通过提供以下信息完善披露：

投资组合，包括投资规模与类型、投资策略、投资期、资金来源、公允值及投资表现等，基金投资还应披露底层资产、基金策略以及基金管理人的身份和资历；
投资政策及目的，包括投资范围、允许及禁止进行的投资项目详情，以及其投资策略是否及如何切合发行人的企业策略和主营业务；
风险管理及监控措施，如明确界定的风险限额、用于衡量风险的具体指标、交易对手风险及流动性管理机制；及
审批及监督机制，包括董事会或指定人员/委员会（如投资委员会）在审批、监察及检讨投资项目方面的角色和权限。

香港财务报告准则第18号

新的香港财务报告准则第18号“财务报表列报和披露”将取代现行的香港会计准则第1号“财务报表列报”，并将于2027年1月1日或之后开始的年度报告期间生效。

此项准则变更采用追溯调整法，因此港交所敦促发行人（尤其是以12月为财政年度截止日的发行人）于2026年积极规划并采取行动，以确保顺利过渡至符合新要求。此项准则变更要求发行人进行多方面准备，而非单纯会计处理，预计将影响发行人的信息技术系统、财务汇报的内部监控（例如从子公司获取财务数据以支持新的列报方式）以及商业活动（例如贷款保证条款）。同时，这也为发行人提供契机，得以优化与投资者之间的业绩沟通，并强化财务报表与管理层讨论及分析之间的关联性。

非无保留审计意见

年报编备指引指出，94%的发行人发布的财务报表获审计师发出无保留审计意见，而164名发行人获得非无保留审计意见（即保留意见、否定意见或无法表示意见）。非无保留审计意见中，持续经营的不确定性仍是最常见的审计问题，其他问题则包括投资项目的估值/真实性、其他资产（如商誉、厂房、存货）的估值、贷款及应收款项的可收回性、会计记录接触受限，以及负债拨备。

自2025年起，港交所要求此类发行人就其补救方案的实施进展每季度公布进度更新。审计委员会需审慎评估管理层提出的建议和假设，在管理层与审计师存在分歧时发挥桥梁作用，并就发行人是否有持续经营的能力说明其观点。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年12月/2026年1月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

HKEX’s review of issuers’ annual reports for financial year ended in 2024

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 03:39:13 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

HKEX’s review of issuers’ annual reports for financial year ended in 2024

Disclosure rules with the lowest compliance rate

Issuers continued to achieve a high rate of compliance at 99%, representing an increase of 1% compared with last year. That said, ten disclosure rules recorded lower compliance levels, with rates between 81% and 92%.

Of these, five relate to share schemes: (1) vesting period of options granted under the share scheme; (2) shares available for issue under share award scheme (number and percentage) as at the date of annual report; (3) number of awards available for grant under scheme mandate and service provider sublimit (if applicable) at beginning and end of the year; (4) shares available for issue under share option scheme (number and percentage) as at the date of annual report; and (5) number of options available for grant under scheme mandate and service provider sublimit (if applicable) at beginning and end of the year.

The other five relate to: (1) confirmation of newly appointed directors’ understanding on their obligations and the date of receiving relevant legal advice; (2) breakdown of actual use of proceeds brought forward from previous years; (3) whether performance guarantee was met; (4) number and percentage of shares held in significant investment; and (5) intended use of treasury shares.

Management discussion and analysis

Issuers’ disclosure practices have generally improved, with most newly listed issuers keeping disclosure standards largely aligned with their prospectuses. Nonetheless, further enhancements remain necessary in the following areas:

Boilerplate and generic languages were still observed. Certain issuers presented financial figures without adequately identifying or discussing the key drivers behind the results. Year on year changes in performance indicators or industry specific metrics were insufficiently explained. Some annual reports lacked clarity on management’s assessment of market and internal factors or strategies in response.

Disclosure not sufficiently coherent or integrated across different sections or with other reports. For example, some issuers, in their management discussion and analysis (MD&A), noted regulatory changes and risk factors but did not elaborate on how these developments might affect financial performance and prospects.

Failure to maintain consistency year-on-year in terms of information coverage and detail. Certain issuers discontinued to disclose performance indicators without explanation, while some others did not follow up on previously disclosed matters or failed to evaluate current year performance against that of the prior year.

Disclosure over-emphasised on positive aspects while downplaying or disregarding challenges and risks.

Securities investments

A number of issuers engaged in frequent or sizable securities trading and financial investments outside of their principal businesses. However, disclosures relating to such investments were often limited, relying on generic descriptions such as “significant investments” or “prudent/long term investment strategy” without sufficient detail. HKEX strongly encourages issuers to improve disclosures by providing the following information:

Investment portfolio, including investment size and types, investment strategies, investment period, source of funding, fair value, performance and (for fund investments) underlying assets, fund strategies and identity and credentials of the fund managers;
Investment policy and objectives, including scope of investments, particulars of permissible and prohibited investments, and explanation on whether and how the investment strategy aligns with the issuer’s corporate strategy and principal businesses;
Risk management and control measures, such as defined risk limits, specific metrics used to measure the risk, counterparty risk, and liquidity management mechanisms; and
Approval and oversight mechanisms, including the roles and authority of the board or designed personnels/ committees (e.g. investment committee) in approving, monitoring and reviewing investments.

Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standard 18

The new Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standard 18 (HKFRS 18) “Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements” will replace the existing Hong Kong Accounting Standard (HKAS) 1 “Presentation of Financial Statements”, and take effect for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027.

Such transformation requires retrospective application, and therefore HKEX urges issuers (particularly with a December financial year-end) to take proactive planning and actions in 2026 for ensuring a smooth transition to HKFRS 18. It is because preparing for HKFRS 18 extends beyond a purely accounting exercise. The change is expected to affect issuers’ IT systems and internal controls over financial reporting (e.g. capturing financial data from subsidiaries to support the new presentation) and business activities (e.g. loan covenants). It also provides an opportunity to refine performance communication with investors and build a better connectivity between financial statements and MD&A.

Auditors’ modified opinions

The review noted that 94% of issuers published financial statements accompanied by unmodified audit opinion, while 164 issuers received a modified audit opinion (i.e. qualified opinion, adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion). Going concern uncertainty remains the most common audit modification category. Other circumstances include valuation/genuineness of investments, valuation of other assets (e.g. goodwill, plant, inventories), recoverability of loans and receivables, limited access to accounting records and provision of liabilities.

Starting 2025, HKEX requires these issuers to publish quarterly progress updates on the implementation of remedial proposals. The audit committee is expected to critically consider management’s proposals and assumptions adopted, act as a bridge between management and auditors in resolving disagreement, and explain its views on the appropriateness of the issuer’s going concern basis.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in December 2025 / January 2026 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

《Lexology 宏观分析》- 网络安全法规: 香港篇

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 01:58:28 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

《Lexology 宏观分析》- 网络安全法规: 香港篇

本所合伙人 胡铭深律师 (Sam Wu) 及符曼姿律师 (Beverly Fu) 撰写 《Lexology 宏观分析》- 网络安全法规: 香港篇 并在2026 年 2 月 13 日于线上发表。

《Lexology 宏观分析》是全球最全面的跨司法管辖区比较工具，由LexisNexis与彭博法律授权提供。凭借涵盖逾150个主题的广泛问答目录，现服务全球超过92万名订阅用户，Lexology 持续表彰顶尖法律人员在多重法律平台展现的专业造诣。

本材料仅供一般参考，不构成法律或其他专业建议。(仅具英文版)

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲查看 Lexology 的官方网站 (仅具英文版)，请访问： https://www.lexology.com/panoramic/tool/workareas/report/online-safety-regulation/chapter/hong-kong

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Lexology Panoramic - Online Safety Regulation: Hong Kong

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 01:58:03 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Lexology Panoramic - Online Safety Regulation: Hong Kong

We are delighted to share our partner Sam Wu and our associate Beverly Fu's contribution to Lexology Panoramic - Online Safety Regulation: Hong Kong published on 13 February 2026.

Lexology Panoramic is the world’s most comprehensive cross-jurisdictional comparison tool licensed by LexisNexis and Bloomberg Law. With a broad Q&A catalogue of over 150 titles made available to more than 920,000 global subscribers, Lexology continue to recognize the world's foremost legal practitioners for their expertise in multiple legal platforms.

Legal framework

Legal regime

Does your jurisdiction have a legal regime governing or addressing online safety? If so, how does it operate?

Hong Kong addresses online harms through fragmented and sector-specific legislation rather than a unified, comprehensive online safety statute like the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act or the European Union’s Digital Services Act.

Instead, online safety in Hong Kong is governed through multiple statutes targeting specific harms. The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486), as amended in 2021, criminally prohibits doxxing and unauthorised disclosure of personal data intended to, or reckless as to whether it will, cause harm. The Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Chapter 390) requires internet service providers (ISPs) to remove content classified as obscene (Class III). The Telecommunications Ordinance (Chapter 106) criminalises infrastructure damage and unauthorised access. The Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200) addresses dishonest computer access. The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Chapter 593) targets spam and deceptive commercial messages. The Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance (Chapter 653) (effective 1 January 2026) imposes cybersecurity requirements across eight sectors (energy, telecommunications, banking and financial services, air transport, land transport, maritime, healthcare and information technology).

Hong Kong’s online safety regime operates through decentralised enforcement by sector-specific bodies rather than a unified regulator. Generally, the regime is enforcement-reactive rather than prevention-proactive. Hong Kong law generally does not impose pre-emptive or affirmative duties on platforms to monitor user-generated content or implement safety-by-design measures (except for the newly enacted critical infrastructure cybersecurity framework). Instead, Hong Kong generally employs reactive and notice-and-takedown mechanisms.

Online harms covered

Which online harms are covered under the relevant legislation and how are these harms defined?

Doxxing is the most explicitly regulated online harm. It is legally defined under section 64(3A) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486) as the unauthorised disclosure of personal data of individuals or their family members without the data subject’s consent, with the intent to cause specified harm or being reckless as to whether specified harm was caused. "Specified harm" encompasses harassment, molestation, pestering and intimidation of or threat to the person; bodily or psychological harm to the person; harm causing the person reasonably to be concerned for their safety or well-being; or damage to the property of the person.

Obscene and indecent content is criminalised under Part IV of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Chapter 390), which prohibits Class III (obscene) and Class II (indecent) material unless any defences apply.

Copyright infringement is addressed through Division II of Part II of the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528), which imposes liability on persons copying works and/or making works available to the public without the licence or authorisation of the copyright owner.

Cybercrime, including damage to telecommunications infrastructure, unauthorised computer access and transmission of false or deceptive distress messages, is criminalised under sections 27, 27A and 28 of the Telecommunications Ordinance (Chapter 106) and section 60 of the Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200).

Transmission of multiple commercial electronic messages with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients are addressed under section 20 of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Chapter 593).

Online services covered

Which online services are covered under the law and how are these services defined?

The law applies to a broad range of online service providers. The Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528)’s definition – "a person who, by means of electronic equipment or a network, or both, provides, or operates facilities for, any online services" – encompasses ISPs, social media platforms, online forums and discussion boards, search engines, email service providers and content hosting services.

ISPs must obtain a telecommunications licence under the Telecommunications Ordinance (Chapter 106), making them subject to licence conditions on data protection, network security and interconnection. Social media platforms are fully liberalised, with no licensing requirements, foreign ownership restrictions or sector-specific regulations; they thus operate without statutory safety duties (except compliance with notice-based mechanisms for specific harms). Platform providers offering services such as cloud storage, file-sharing and communication services are captured by the regulatory framework, as are search engines and aggregators.

VPNs (permitted in Hong Kong with no restrictions) and encrypted messaging services (subject to general laws, but no special requirements) are not specifically regulated.

Territorial scope

What is the territorial scope of the relevant law?

For doxxing, the law applies where the data subject is a Hong Kong resident or present in Hong Kong at the time of disclosure, regardless of where the disclosure originates. This creates an extraterritorial reach: overseas platforms operating globally may face cessation notices from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) if they host content disclosing the personal data of Hong Kong residents without applicable defences. The PCPD has previously issued successful cessation notices to non-Hong Kong-incorporated service providers.

For other laws (copyright, obscenity and cybercrime), the general territorial principle applies. These laws primarily regulate conduct within Hong Kong, with enforcement focusing on ISPs and platforms operating within Hong Kong. However, ISPs in Hong Kong must comply with all applicable laws regardless of user location.

Codes of practice

Are there any codes of practice or other non-binding guidelines or recommendations relating to online safety in your jurisdiction?

The Code of Practice for Internet Computer Services Centres Operators provides guidance on operator responsibilities, including anti-crime measures, CCTV requirements, content filtering for obscene material and operating hour restrictions for minors.

The Practice Guide for Social Media Security (issued by the Hong Kong government’s Digital Policy Office in July 2024) offers guidance on security measures; password protection; phishing awareness; and prevention of false information, fake news and sensitive data disclosure.

The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data has issued Guidance Notes for mobile service operators on data- handling best practices, customer conversation recording, account maintenance and data protection principles.

The Code of Practice on Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment, published by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in February 2023, sets out "notice and notice system" and "notice and takedown system" procedures for service providers' handling of notices of alleged copyright infringement.

The Hong Kong government's publication "Points to Note for Internet Social Networking" (last updated in March 2025) offers risk assessment guidance to users.

The Hong Kong government collaborates with the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association on a self-regulatory Code of Practice, the "Practice Statement on Regulation of Obscene and Indecent Material". This stipulates that publishers of Class II (indecent) internet content must display a prescribed on-screen warning notice before users can access it. For Class III (obscene) articles published online, ISPs must remove or block the content to prevent access within Hong Kong.

The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Framework (issued by the Hong Kong government’s Digital Policy Office in December 2025) provides non-binding guidance on artificial intelligence systems used in online services.

IT Security Guidelines [G3] issued by the Hong Kong government’s Digital Policy Office in April 2025 establish security standards.

These frameworks are non-binding and carry no statutory enforcement mechanism, but they shape professional norms and best practices across the industry.

Harmful versus illegal content

How does the law in your jurisdiction distinguish between harmful and illegal content?

Hong Kong law does not formally distinguish between harmful and illegal content. The legal framework addresses only specifically prohibited content (copyright infringement, obscenity, doxxing and cybercrime), with no statutory definition of "harmful" content that does not violate criminal law.

In practice, ISPs and platforms face binding removal obligations only if the content is illegal. Unless it falls under the categories of copyright infringement, obscenity, doxxing and cybercrime, harmful content is not subject to removal obligations and platforms retain editorial discretion. Similarly, the common law "innocent dissemination" defence for defamation, which applies to intermediaries, does not require proof that content is false; it requires only that the intermediary took reasonable steps to remove it promptly upon notice of defamatory statement.

Extremist and terrorism-related content

How does your jurisdiction regulate the dissemination of extremist and terrorism-related content online?

Hong Kong has no dedicated legislation specifically targeting extremist or terrorism-related content online.

Applicable frameworks derive from general criminal law. The Hong Kong National Security Law (2020) grants the Hong Kong Police authority to request removal of electronic messages "reasonably suspected" to constitute offences endangering national security, with non-compliance attracting penalties of a HK$100,000 fine and six months’ imprisonment. The Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200) addresses incitement to violence and its sedition provisions remain in force. The doxxing provisions under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486) may apply if extremist content involves the disclosure of personal data intended to (or being reckless as to whether such disclosure will) cause specified harm.

Hong Kong imposes no specific time frame for removal of extremist and terrorism-related content, and does not have a dedicated body overseeing its moderation. The framework relies on police-initiated requests rather than imposing systematic obligations on platforms to identify and remove such content.

There are no proactive duties requiring platforms to identify extremist content, and no guidelines distinguishing "extremist" content from content prohibited under the National Security Law.

Disinformation versus misinformation

How, if at all, does the law in your jurisdiction distinguish between misinformation and disinformation online? Does it include malinformation?

Hong Kong law does not address misinformation, disinformation or malinformation. There is no dedicated legislation governing any of these categories.

Conceptual frameworks exist only in academic research. The "Measures to tackle disinformation, misinformation and hate speech in selected places" issued by the Research Office of the Hong Kong Legislative Council Secretariat (Research Office) on 5 May 2023 propose the following distinctions: disinformation is the intentional dissemination of false and misleading information, while misinformation is the unintentional spread of false and misleading information. Other research institutions propose that malinformation refers to genuine information that is shared with malintent (eg, hate speech). However, these conceptual boundaries have not been incorporated into statutory provisions.

In July 2020, the Research Office proposed to establish fact-checking initiatives to improve competence in identifying and verifying inaccurate information. In November 2021, the Hong Kong government announced that the Home Affairs Bureau had commissioned a study of legislative measures addressing online disinformation. As of January 2026, no legislative proposal has been introduced to the Legislative Council.

Obligations for online service providers

General obligations

What general legal obligations relating to safety are imposed on providers of online services, including providers of online intermediary services?

Hong Kong does not impose comprehensive and proactive safety duties on online service providers. Instead, obligations are notice-triggered and context-specific.

Copyright infringement: platforms must remove infringing works upon receipt of a valid notice (the notice and takedown system) and notify subscribers of alleged infringement (the notice and notice system). Compliance with the Code of Practice governing these procedures qualifies service providers for safe harbour protection, limiting liability to injunctive relief (content removal) rather than damages.

Doxxing: upon receipt of a cessation notice from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, online service providers must cease or restrict disclosure of personal data.

Obscene/indecent content: internet service providers and platforms must not publish or knowingly possess Class II (indecent) or Class III (obscene) material without applicable defences. While no affirmative monitoring duty exists, defences are limited if content is discovered and retained.

National security threats: upon police request, internet service providers (ISPs) must remove or restrict access to messages suspected of constituting offences under the National Security Law, with penalties applicable for non-compliance.

Data protection: all data users (including platforms) must take all practical steps to protect personal data against unauthorised access, processing, erasure, loss or use.

Spam: service providers must not transmit or facilitate transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic messages or messages with deceptive source information.

Risk assessments and mitigation

Are there any specific legal obligations for online service providers to conduct risk assessments and mitigate risks to safety?

There are specific legal obligations only for critical infrastructure sectors, pursuant to the newly enacted Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance (Chapter 653), effective 1 January 2026.

Designated Critical Infrastructure Operators (CIOs) in eight sectors (energy, telecommunications, banking and financial services, air transport, land transport, maritime, healthcare and information technology) must meet three categories of obligations: preventative, organisational and incident response obligations.

Preventative obligations require CIOs to conduct annual risk assessments of their critical computer systems and undergo biennial independent audits to assess the likelihood and impact of cybersecurity incidents. Organisational obligations mandate maintenance of a Hong Kong address, designation of a cybersecurity team and prompt notification of changes to the Office of the Commissioner of Critical Infrastructure (Computer-system Security). Incident response obligations require that computer system security incidents that have disrupted, are disrupting or are likely to disrupt the core function of the critical infrastructure concerned must be reported within 12 hours of CIOs becoming aware of the incident. In any other cases, the incident must be reported within 48 hours of the CIOs becoming aware of it.

For general online safety (content harms as opposed to cybersecurity), no statutory risk assessment requirement exists. Platforms are not obliged to assess risks of illegal content, child exploitation, misinformation or harassment.

Non-compliance with critical infrastructure obligations (on conviction on indictment) attracts fines of HK$500,000 to HK$5 million plus daily fines of HK$50,000 to HK$100,000 for continuing offences, which are imposed at the organisational level (not individual directors).

Protection of minors and age verification

Are there any specific legal obligations to protect minors online? If so, what measures are required or advised, such as age verification?

Hong Kong has no comprehensive child protection framework. Statutory obligations to protect minors online are minimal and indirect.

The Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Chapter 390) prohibits publication of Class II (indecent) or Class III (obscene) material to persons under 18 years of age. The Prevention of Child Pornography Ordinance (Chapter 579) prohibits the publication of child pornography. The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486) applies to all personal data, including children’s data, requiring all data users (including platforms) to protect data security.

Civil and human rights

Are there any obligations for online service providers to balance civil and human rights, such as privacy rights and freedom of expression, with safety regulations? If so, what measures are required or advised?

There is no statutory framework that explicitly addresses balancing civil and human rights with online safety. However, two relevant principles emerge from case law and codes of practice: the innocent dissemination defence and Copyright Safe Harbour.

The innocent dissemination defence (in defamation cases): the Court of Final Appeal established that intermediaries may avoid defamation liability if they prove they took all reasonable steps to remove offending content promptly upon becoming aware of it. This doctrine balances publishers’ freedom of expression against plaintiffs’ rights to protect reputation. The standard of "reasonableness" applies both before and after notice. In Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd (FACV 15/2012), the court held that removal within 3.5 hours of notice satisfied the defence.

Copyright safe harbour: the safe harbour regime balances copyright owners’ exclusive rights against users’ interests by protecting fair dealing (parody, satire, caricature, pastiche, news reporting, criticism and review). The Code of Practice on Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment issued by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in February 2023 incorporates user dispute mechanisms, allowing subscribers to dispute or deny alleged infringements.

Disinformation and misinformation

Are there any specific legal obligations to combat disinformation and misinformation online? If so, what measures are required or advised?

There are currently no specific statutory obligations in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government has not enacted legislation requiring platforms or individuals to combat or remove disinformation and misinformation online.

Notice and takedown

Is there a legislative ‘notice and takedown’ mechanism or similar in your jurisdiction? If so, how does it operate?

Yes, but it is limited to four specific contexts: copyright infringement, doxxing, national security threats and obscene/indecent content.

Copyright infringement (sections 88A-J of the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528)): a dual system operates. (1) the "Notice and Notice" procedure requires the service providers to notify the subscriber that their account has been identified in connection with alleged infringement, allowing the subscriber to dispute or deny the infringement; and (2) the "Notice and Takedown" procedure requires the removal or disabling of access to materials identified as infringing. Both procedures are also codified in an accompanying Code of Practice. Compliance with this Code of Practice qualifies service providers for safe harbour protection, on the statutory condition that they take "reasonable steps to limit or stop" the infringement "as soon as practicable" after they "received a notice of alleged infringement", "became aware that the infringement has occurred" or "became aware of the facts or circumstances that would lead inevitably to the conclusion that the infringement had occurred".

Doxxing (section 66O of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486)): the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) issues cessation notices demanding that platforms cease or restrict disclosure of personal data that may constitute a doxxing offence. Failure to comply constitutes a criminal offence. No statutory time frame is specified, but the PCPD applies a reasonableness standard. Between the effective date (8 October 2021) of the relevant provisions and 31 December 2024, the PCPD issued 2,072 notices to 53 online platforms, requesting the removal of 33,600+ doxxing messages and achieving a compliance rate of over 96%. Defences available to the recipients of such notices include having a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, technological infeasibility or substantial prejudice to third parties.

National security threats: the Commissioner of Police may issue a written request to internet service providers demanding removal or restriction of electronic messages "reasonably suspected" to constitute or incite National Security Law offences.

Obscene/indecent content: while no formal notice-and-takedown procedure is specified, courts may issue injunctions requiring removal. Internet service providers have a general obligation not to publish or knowingly possess Class II (indecent) or Class III (obscene) material.

Enforcement and penalties

Enforcement

How is the online safety regime enforced in your jurisdiction?

Enforcement is carried out through decentralised, multi-agency mechanisms that are predominantly complaint-driven and reactive: Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD)-led enforcement, police-led enforcement, Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA)-led enforcement, copyright enforcement and platform cooperation.

PCPD-led enforcement (doxxing): the PCPD receives complaints from individuals, conducts online patrols, investigates alleged doxxing, issues cessation notices to platforms, monitors compliance and prosecutes non-compliance. The PCPD may also conduct criminal investigations and prosecute in the Magistrates’ Court, though serious cases are referred to the Department of Justice.

Police-led enforcement (cybercrime and National Security Law): the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau investigates unauthorised computer access, data damage and other technology crimes, while the National Security Department investigates National Security Law violations. Police may request the cooperation of internet service providers (ISPs) in removing content that threatens national security under National Security Law.

OFCA-led enforcement (telecoms and spam): the OFCA enforces ISPs’ licence conditions, fair trading provisions and the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Chapter 593) through imposing additional licence conditions, directions and information requests.

Copyright enforcement: copyright owners may give notices of alleged infringement to the service providers if it is alleged that a copyright infringement has occurred or is occurring on the service provider’s service platform. The service provider must respond in accordance with the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) and its associated Code of Practice. Disputes may be resolved administratively or through civil court proceedings.

Platform cooperation: most platforms comply voluntarily with notices (the compliance rate for doxxing cessation notices between 2021 and 2024 was 96%), with the threat of criminal liability reinforcing compliance.

Authorities

Which authorities are responsible for enforcement? What is the basis, nature and extent of their enforcement powers?

The PCPD, OFCA, Hong Kong Police Force, Department of Justice, Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration (OFNAA), and Hong Kong Courts are responsible for enforcement.

PCPD: the basis of the PCPD's enforcement powers are section 64 (doxxing) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486) and data protection laws under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486). The PCPD may issue cessation notices; conduct criminal investigations; request evidence and materials; apply for magistrate warrants to search premises and access devices; access devices without warrant where reasonable; stop, search and arrest persons; institute prosecutions in the Magistrates’ Court and refer serious cases to the Department of Justice.

OFCA: the basis of the OFCA's enforcement powers are the Telecommunications Ordinance (Chapter 106) and the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Chapter 593). The OFCA may grant or revoke internet service provider licences, impose licence conditions, issue directions to internet service providers, request information, conduct facility inspections, enforce competition and/or fair trading provisions and refer serious cases to the Department of Justice.

Hong Kong Police Force: the Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau may investigate unauthorised computer access, data damage and computer crimes under the Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200), while the National Security Department may investigate violations of National Security Laws and request ISPs to remove content that threatens national security under the National Security Law. The Hong Kong Police Force may also arrest, investigate, prosecute and exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over National Security Law offences.

Department of Justice: prosecutes serious cybercrimes and doxxing cases referred by PCPD or OFCA.

OFNAA: the basis of the OFNAA's enforcement powers is the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Chapter 390). The OFNAA may investigate by applying statutory guidelines and past classifications by the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT). Articles that are clearly Class III (obscene) are passed directly to the Hong Kong Police for follow‑up. If classification is uncertain, the article is sent to the OAT for a formal decision. For overseas webpages (eg, on video-sharing platforms) requiring follow-up, such as adding warning notices or removing content, the Hong Kong Police or the OFNAA may refer cases to foreign law enforcement agencies or website operators for action. The OFNAA conducts subsequent inspections to monitor compliance by these overseas entities.

Courts: issue injunctions to block copyright-infringing websites and award civil remedies in defamation and copyright cases.

Penalties and liability

What are the potential fines or penalties for non-compliance? Are there risks of liability for employees or directors of online service providers?

Fines and penalties for non-compliance vary according to the nature of the offence.

Doxxing Offences under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486): individual perpetrators who commit doxxing face full criminal penalties, on conviction, to a fine of HK$1 million and imprisonment for five years (section 64(1) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486)). Platform operators and ISPs may bear organisational liability for failure to comply with cessation notices issued by the PCPD, but directors and employees of those organisations typically do not face personal criminal liability unless they personally commit doxxing or obstruct the PCPD investigation.

Offences under the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance (Chapter 653) (effective 1 January 2026): this Ordinance imposes strict liability at the organisational level only. Penalties range from HK$500,000 to HK$5 million, plus daily fines, for failing to provide the required information under sections 14 to 17 to the Monetary Authority, the Communications Authority or the Commissioner of Critical Infrastructure (Computer-system Security). Penalties are levied against the company, not individual directors or officers.

Cybercrime offences: individuals who personally commit computer crimes (unauthorised access, data damage or transmission of false distress messages) face criminal liability. Platform operators and ISPs are generally not liable for user-generated cybercrimes unless they knowingly facilitate them or fail to cooperate with police investigations.

National Security Law violations: a service provider's failure to comply with a police request to remove content that threatens national security under National Security Law attracts organisational liability of a HK$100,000 fine and imprisonment for six months for the responsible officer. Individual directors may face liability if they authorise or direct non-compliance, but the statute does not create automatic individual director liability.

Obscene/indecent content: ISPs and platform operators face criminal liability for publishing or knowingly possessing Class II (indecent) or Class III (obscene) material. Individual perpetrators who upload such content also face personal criminal penalties.

Data Protection: the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486) does not establish explicit individual director liability for data security breaches. Enforcement generally targets the organisation rather than individual officers, unless an officer personally directs a data breach or obstructs an investigation by the PCPD.

Disputes

Claims

What claims relating to online safety are available and most common in your jurisdiction?

In Hong Kong, five types of claims generally relating to online safety are available: defamation, harassment, privacy, copyright infringement and criminal claims.

Defamation (the most common civil claim): a plaintiff must prove that an online statement is defamatory (lowering their reputation in the minds of reasonable people; making people shun or avoid the plaintiff; subjecting the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt or ridicule or demeaning the plaintiff in their profession or business), that it was published and that it refers to the plaintiff. Intermediaries may use the "innocent dissemination" defence by proving they took reasonable steps to remove the statement promptly upon notice.

Harassment (common law tort): this includes conduct causing nuisance, molestation, pestering, threat, intimidation or harassment. Hong Kong courts may order content removal or corrective public statements.

Privacy tort (civil): this provides an equitable remedy for wrongful disclosure of confidential information causing harm, which is separate from criminal liability under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486).

Copyright infringement (civil): available remedies include an account of profits, damages, additional damages and injunctions to block infringing websites.

Criminal claims (less common but significant): these primarily involve doxxing prosecutions by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) and computer crime investigations by the Hong Kong Police.

Procedure

What is the procedure for claimants to bring actions relating to online safety in your jurisdiction?

Procedures for claimants to bring actions relating to online safety vary according to the nature of the claim.

Civil proceedings: a claimant may obtain legal representation, file in the District Court (for claims up to HK$3 million) or High Court (for claims in excess of HK$3 million), engage in discovery of electronic communications and proceed to trial before a judge. The burden of proof is on the claimant on a balance-of-probabilities basis.

Criminal doxxing prosecution: a claimant may report the case to the Hong Kong Police or the PCPD. The PCPD investigates and may prosecute in the Magistrates’ Court for summary offences, or refer to the Department of Justice for indictable offences. The burden of proof is on a beyond -reasonable -doubt basis.

Doxxing cessation notice: a complainant may report to the PCPD or submit evidence of doxxing. The PCPD investigates and issues cessation notice to the platform. This is primarily an administrative enforcement mechanism through notice; if the platform fails to comply, the PCPD may initiate prosecution. Generally, no separate court proceedings are required unless the platform contests validity.

Copyright infringement notice: a complainant may serve notice of alleged infringement on service providers in accordance with the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) and its associated Code of Practice. The service providers should respond within the time frame specified in the Code of Practice. Dispute resolution occurs administratively; if unresolved, the complainant may file a civil lawsuit in the District Court or the High Court for damages and an account of profits.

Remedies

What interim and substantive remedies may be imposed in relation to online safety claims?

Interim remedies (civil): Hong Kong courts may issue injunctions to prevent continued publication. The PCPD’s cessation notices function as quasi-interim remedies, often resulting in rapid platform removal (generally within days to weeks).

Substantive remedies (civil): substantive civil remedies include damages, which are generally compensatory (eg, for lost earnings). Hong Kong courts may also issue declarations of falsity, as well as corrective orders requiring public apologies or corrections. Content removal may also be enforceable through court orders or achieved through voluntary platform compliance.

Defences and exemptions

Does your jurisdiction provide any defences or exemptions from liability for online safety claims? If so, how do they operate and which online services providers may avail of them?

There are four defences and exemptions from liability for online safety claims: the innocent dissemination defence, safe harbour, the mere conduit defence and the reasonableness defence.

Innocent dissemination defence (for defamation claims): this defence is available if the intermediary proves it had no knowledge of the defamatory content and took reasonable steps to remove it promptly upon becoming aware. The standard of reasonableness applies both before and after notice. Time frames of three to four hours have been found reasonable by the Hong Kong courts; extended delays (of eight or more months) may defeat the defence.

Safe harbour (sections 88A-J of the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528)): service providers that comply with prescribed conditions qualify for safe harbour protection. These conditions are: (1) taking reasonable steps to limit or stop infringement upon notice; (2) not receiving financial benefit directly attributable to infringement; and (3) implementing notice-and-notice or notice-and-takedown procedures per the Code of Practice in relation to the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528). Statutory protection extends to injunctive relief (content removal).

Mere conduit defence (general principle): internet service providers that only supply physical facilities for user communication and have no knowledge of offending content may be exempt from liability for user-generated harm.

Reasonableness defence (doxxing cessation notice): under section 66O(2) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486), a person/platform may defend non-compliance with a cessation notice by establishing a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, or by establishing that compliance was not reasonably expected due to: (1) the nature, difficulty or complexity of the cessation action concerned; (2) technology not being reasonably available; or (3) the risk of causing substantial loss or prejudice to third parties.

Update and trends

Key trends and future developments

What are the most noteworthy recent trends and developments in online safety regulation in your jurisdiction? What developments are expected in the coming year?

The most significant development in 2025 was the passage of Hong Kong’s first comprehensive cybersecurity law on 19 March 2025. The Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance (Chapter 653) took effect on 1 January 2026, establishing mandatory cybersecurity requirements for designated operators in eight critical sectors (energy, telecommunications, banking and financial services, air transport, land transport, maritime, healthcare and information technology) and for critical societal or economic facilities such as major sports venues and research parks.

Compliance obligations fall into three categories: organisational requirements (maintaining a Hong Kong address, designating cybersecurity teams and reporting changes), preventative measures (conducting annual risk assessments and biennial independent audits of critical computer systems) and incident response protocols (reporting serious incidents within 12 hours and general incidents within 48 hours). This represents a paradigm shift from Hong Kong’s historically reactive regulatory posture towards proactive and prevention-focused governance, aligning the jurisdiction 's cybersecurity standards with those of the European Union, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Expected developments in 2026 and ongoing developments

A new Commissioner’s Office for Critical Infrastructure (Computer-system Security) will be established by Q1 2026 to oversee compliance with the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance (Chapter 653).

The Hong Kong government aims to designate Critical Infrastructure Operators within six months of the establishment of the Commissioner’s Office (approximately mid-2026 onwards), which will occur progressively based on "risk assessment and the level of readiness of the organisations". Within the first three months of designation operators must submit computer system security management plans and emergency response plans, which must be implemented immediately.

The Law Reform Commission’s Sub-committee on Cybercrime proposed five new statutory cybercrimes in June 2022: illegal data access, illegal data interception, illegal data interference, illegal system interference and possession of devices/data for crime. These recommendations remain under government review and may be revisited, though no firm timeline for legislative action has been provided.

A government-commissioned study of legislative approaches to misinformation and disinformation, published in June 2021, remains ongoing as of January 2026. No legislation has yet been proposed and no further development is expected in 2026.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To view the article on Lexology official website, please visit: https://www.lexology.com/panoramic/tool/workareas/report/online-safety-regulation/chapter/hong-kong

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登《钱伯斯大中华区指南2026》榜单

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 02:22:16 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登《钱伯斯大中华区指南2026》榜单

我们非常荣幸地宣布： 杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙 以及本所合伙人 朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 获《钱伯斯》在 “企业/并购︰香港独立律师事务所” 类别评为 “领先律所” 及 “领先律师” 。

于2026年1月15日发布的《钱伯斯大中华区指南2026》(Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2026) 是由国际权威法律评级机构《钱伯斯》(Chambers and Partners) 在进行广泛、独立和深入的市场分析后，对大中华区领先律师事务所和法律专业人士进行排名的榜单。

《钱伯斯》的认可彰显本所竭诚为客户提供卓越法律服务的承诺，以及我们团队坚定不移地为他们的成功作出贡献。

大中华区 | 企业/并购︰香港独立律师事务所的律所及律师排名概览，请访问： https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/corporate-ma-independent-hong-kong-firms-china-116:2441:60:1?l=zh-CN

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

近期消息

YYC Legal is ranked in Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2026

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 02:22:01 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is ranked in Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2026

We are pleased to announce that YYC Legal LLP is recognised by Chambers and Partners as a Leading Firm , and our partner Rossana Chu is named as a Leading Individual , in the category of “Corporate/M&A: Independent Hong Kong Firms” .

The Chambers Greater China Region Guide compiles extensive, independent and in-depth market analysis and released the 2026 rankings of the leading law firms and professionals in the Greater China Region on 15 January 2026.

These recognitions highlight our firm's commitment to delivering outstanding legal services to our clients and our unwavering dedication to being a crucial contributor to their success.

Rankings overview for law firms and individuals of Corporate/M&A: Independent Hong Kong Firms | Greater China Region, please visit: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/corporate-ma-independent-hong-kong-firms-china-116:2441:60:1?l=en-GB

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

Recent News

朱静文律师获In-House Community 选为“2025年年度推荐外部法律顾问”

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 02:02:34 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师获In-House Community 选为“2025年年度推荐外部法律顾问”

本所非常荣幸地宣布，于2026年1月14日，本所合伙人朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) ，在众多位于亚洲、中东及印度地区对其所在机构及法律领域作出杰出贡献的候选人中，获 In-House Community 选为 " 2025年年度推荐外部法律顾问 " 得奖者之一。

In-House Community是个全球性的社群，让公司内部法律与合规专业人员、外部法律顾问及专业服务提供者互相认识及支援。其 “年度法律顾问大奖”旨在表彰跨地区的法律团队及个别法律人员的卓越成就及致力付出。

有关得奖者的精彩内容将刊登于2026年2月出版的In-House Community 杂志。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如需查看有关 “In-House Community 2025年年度法律顾问大奖”的更多资讯，请访问： https://www.inhousecommunity.com/landmark-survey-and-awards/

近期消息

Rossana Chu is recognised as a Commended External Counsel 2025 by the In-House Community

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 02:02:32 GMT

EN / 简

Rossana Chu is recognised as a Commended External Counsel 2025 by the In-House Community

We are delighted to announce that our Partner, Rossana Chu , is recognised as a Commended External Counsel in the In-House Community’s Counsel of the Year Awards 2025 , as announced on 14 January 2026, amongst nominees who have demonstrated exceptional contributions to their organisations and to the wider legal community across Asia, the Middle East, and India.

In-House Community is a global community where In-House legal and compliance professionals, external counsel and professional service providers meet and support each other. Its “Counsel of the Year Awards” celebrates the remarkable achievements and dedication of leading legal teams and individuals across the region.

The In-House Community magazine featuring highlights from the winners will be released in early February 2026.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information on the In-House Community’s Counsel of the Year Awards 2025, please visit: https://www.inhousecommunity.com/landmark-survey-and-awards/

Recent News

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 — 香港章》第15版

Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:13:31 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 —— 香港章》第15版

本所合伙人 朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 撰写 Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场》第 15 版 — 香港章并在2025 年 12 月 8 日线上发表。

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场》对全球主要司法管辖区掌管资本市场的法律和监管框架进行了精辟的概述。它为一系列关键问题提供了实用指导，包括监管机构最近的执法活动、招股说明书要求和其他强制性披露、税务考虑等等。

本材料仅供一般参考。它不构成法律或其他专业建议。(仅具英文版)

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲查看 Lexology 的官方网站 (仅具英文版)，请访问：https://www.lexology.com/account/activatetempaccess/?sl=3unC2u_dmDtDYFumQdTge6RXyU

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets – Hong Kong, Edition 15

Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:13:19 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets - Hong Kong, Edition 15

We are delighted to share our partner Rossana Chu ’s contribution to Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets, Edition 15, Hong Kong Chapter published on 8 December 2025.

In-Depth: International Capital Markets (formerly The International Capital Markets Review) is an incisive overview of the legal and regulatory frameworks governing the capital markets in major jurisdictions worldwide. It offers practical guidance on a range of key issues, including the regulators’ recent enforcement activities, prospectus requirements and other mandatory disclosures, tax considerations and much more.

Introduction

Since late September 2024, Hong Kong’s capital markets have begun to recover, showing clear signs of reversing the prior downturn. From January 2024 until September 2024, the Hang Seng Index remained below the 20,000-point level, occasionally dipping as low as the 15,000 to 16,000 range. However, conditions began to improve in late September 2024, with a more sustained upward trend emerging from May 2025 onward. By late September 2025, the index had consistently remained above 26,000 points [1] .

As at 31 December 2024, the number of listed companies in Hong Kong increased slightly by 0.8 per cent to 2,631 from 2,609 at the end of 2023, with the addition of 71 new listings in 2024 while some companies were privatised or otherwise delisted. However, the market capitalisation of all equity securities listed on the Main Board and GEM (formerly known as Growth Enterprise Market) of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange totalled HK$35,319 billion, representing an increase of 13.8 per cent compared with the total market capitalisation of HK$31,039 billion at the 2023 year-end. As of the end of September 2025, the total market capitalisation reached HK$49,778 billion [2] . This suggests that investment capital is once again flowing back into the city.

In 2024, Hong Kong IPOs raised a total of HK$87.5 billion, representing a significant year-on-year increase of 89 per cent compared to the HK$46.3 billion raised in 2023. This led to Hong Kong’s global ranking in IPO fundraising rising from sixth place in 2023 to fourth place in 2024.

The 2024 total turnover of the Hong Kong securities markets was HK$32,429 billion, reflecting a 27 per cent surge over the 2023 turnover of HK$25,518 billion. During the first 11 months of 2024, the turnover of securitised derivatives amounted to US$344 billion, broadly in line with the US$337 billion recorded over the same period in 2023. [3]

Building on prior momentum, Hong Kong has implemented a series of new initiatives over the past 18 months aimed at driving continued progress in its capital markets.

Year in review

Developments affecting debt and equity offerings

Enhanced timeframe for new listing application process

The Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (SFC) and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (HK Stock Exchange), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX), jointly announced on 18 October 2024 an enhanced timeframe on approval of new listing applications. [4]

New listing applications are subject to vetting by the SFC and the HK Stock Exchange. The SFC assesses listing applications in accordance with the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (SFO) and the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules (SMLR) promulgated under the Ordinance. Concurrently, the HK Stock Exchange evaluates applications based on the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Hong Kong Stock Exchange Limited (Listing Rules), including suitability for listing. Final decisions on the applications are made by the Listing Committee, which may provide comments on matters relating to eligibility, suitability and the adequacy of disclosures in the listing documents.

While this division of responsibilities is based on sound regulatory principles, it has sometimes drawn concerns before the joint statement on areas such as the lengthy approval timelines, overlapping inquiries, and inconsistent standards when evaluating applicants’ responses.

The new timeframe set out in the joint statement applies to new listing applications filed after the date of such statement. Under the new timeframe, the SFC and the HK Stock Exchange continue to coordinate their regulatory functions in respect of new listing applications and, more importantly, avoid duplication of comments.

Where an application meets all applicable requirements and guidance under the SFO, the SMLR, and the Listing Rules, the SFC and the HK Stock Exchange will indicate any material regulatory concerns after a maximum of two rounds of regulatory comments. Upon confirmation that there are no material regulatory concerns, the disclosures in the listing document can be finalised for consideration by the Listing Committee. In this scenario, each of the SFC and the HK Stock Exchange has a total of about 40 business days to raise comments, and the applicant has around 60 business days to address those comments. Subject to approval by the Listing Committee and other relevant authorities or regulators, the entire application process may be completed within the six-month validity period, thereby enhancing the overall certainty and predictability of the listing timeline.

If an existing A-share listed company (i.e., a company incorporated and listed in an exchange in Chinese Mainland) has a minimum market capitalisation of HK$10 billion and is able to confirm, via a formal opinion of its legal adviser, that it has complied with all laws and regulations applicable to its A-share listing throughout the two full financial years immediately preceding the new listing application made in Hong Kong, then the A-share listed company is eligible for an accelerated timeframe. If its application satisfies all Hong Kong requirements and guidance under the SFO, the SMLR and the Listing Rules, the assessments by the SFC and the HK Stock Exchange can even be completed after one round of regulatory comments. However, if the SFC and/or the HK Stock Exchange have any material regulatory concerns, this accelerated timeframe will not apply.

Nonetheless, if the SFC and/or the HK Stock Exchange expresses any material concerns on a new listing application (whether or not made by a A-share listed company) regarding compliance with the SFO, the SMLR and/or the Listing Rules and/or the quality of the listing document, or if new material developments arise or the applicant’s responses to regulators’ comments are incomplete, the timeline of the application process will be lengthened. In this situation, the SFC and the HK Stock Exchange will proactively engage with the applicant and its sponsor to enhance their understanding of the relevant regulatory concerns. Still, the application progress will then be subject to the applicant satisfactorily addressing those concerns.

Launch of Technology Enterprises Channel for listing applications made by biotech companies and specialist technology companies

In the Hong Kong IPO regime, a listing applicant is normally required to demonstrate its trading records and satisfy the profit, revenue or cash flow requirements. However, there are exceptions to cater for certain types of applicants.

Under Chapter 18A of the Main Board Listing Rules (which took effect in April 2018), a biotech company may seek listing in Hong Kong if it fulfils certain specific criteria even when it has not yet generated any revenue or profit.

Chapter 18C of the Main Board Listing Rules, launched in March 2023, sets out an IPO regime for specialist technology companies to seek listing in Hong Kong even if they do not satisfy the usual profits, revenue and cash flow listing criteria.

The SFC and the HK Stock Exchange jointly announced in May 2025 the launch of a dedicated Technology Enterprises Channel (Channel) to facilitate new listing applications to be made by biotech companies and specialist technology companies. [5] While application proofs of prospectuses are generally required to be published on the HKEX website to promote transparency, the new Channel offers an exception. Biotech and specialist technology companies submitting listing applications under Chapter 18A or Chapter 18C of the Listing Rules may do so on a confidential basis from 6 May 2025 onwards. This arrangement helps mitigate the risk of premature disclosure of their products, technologies, services, and strategic plans.

Under the new Channel, the HK Stock Exchange will engage more closely with the listing applicants to gain a better understanding on their businesses and will provide guidance on their eligibility and suitability for listing. The applicants will have enhanced opportunities to discuss with the HK Stock Exchange on case-specific issues arising under the Listing Rules.

HKEX reduce minimum spreads in Hong Kong securities market

The minimum spreads of securities traded on Hong Kong exchanges are being reduced by 50 per cent to 60 per cent in two phases, to support a more efficient price discovery process and boost liquidity, as announced by HKEX in December 2024. [6] The minimum spread is the minimum price change for a stock traded on an exchange and determines the tightest bid-ask spread allowed. The reductions apply to equities, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and other applicable securities (excluding Exchange Traded Products, debt securities, Exchange Traded Options and Structured Products).

Phase 1 of the reductions took effect on 8 August 2025. For securities priced between HK$10.00 and HK$20.00, the minimum spread was reduced by 50 per cent from HK$0.02 to HK$0.01. For securities priced between HK$20.00 and HK$50.00, the minimum spread was reduced by 60 per cent from HK$0.05 to HK$0.02.

Phase 2 will apply to securities priced between HK$0.50 and HK$10.00 and will be implemented in mid-2026, subject to a review of Phase 1’s results. The minimum spread is to be reduced from HK$0.010 to HK$0.005.

To facilitate the implementation of the reductions without increasing the overall market trading cost, the stock settlement fee was also restructured and took effect in June 2025, with the minimum and maximum components being removed and replaced with an adjusted fee rate charged on notional value traded. [7]

Reforms in open market requirements and IPO offering mechanisms

HKEX concluded a major consultation and implemented, effective from 4 August 2025, a series of reforms to optimise IPO price discovery and open market requirements. [8]

Each Hong Kong listed company and new listing applicant must maintain an 'open market' for their listed securities. Thus, HKEX requires a minimum percentage of listed securities to be held by the public (public float), namely not held by the listed company’s core connected persons (e.g., holders of 10 per cent or more shareholding, directors and their close associates) and not financed by the listed group or any core connected person. The public float used to be 25 per cent of the total number of issued shares, or 15 per cent to 25 per cent if the expected market capitalisation is over HK$10 billion at listing.

Effective from 4 August 2025, a listing applicant valued at HK$6 billion or less must maintain a 25 per cent public float. If its market value is between HK$6 billion and HK$30 billion, the public float must be at least 15 per cent or HK$1.5 billion at listing, whichever is higher. For a market value above HK$30 billion, the requirement is the higher of 10 per cent or HK$4.5 billion. Chinese Mainland companies with other listed shares (e.g., A shares) must maintain a H shares public float of at least 10 per cent or HK$3 billion at listing.

At the same time, HKEX introduced a new concept of 'free float' effective from 4 August 2025. If refers to securities available for trading upon listing, and normally means the securities held by the public and not subject to disposal restrictions. Listed shares in free float must either (1) represent at least 10 per cent of total issued shares listed on HKEX with a market value of at least HK$50 million for Main Board or HK$15 million for GEM, or (2) have a market value of at least HK$600 million. For Chinese Mainland companies with other listed shares, H shares in free float must be at least 5 per cent of the total issued shares in that class (usually comprising A Shares and H Shares) or meet the same market value threshold.

In respect of IPO offering mechanism, the Listing Rules have been amended such that, from 4 August 2025 onwards, at least 40 per cent of the offered shares must be allocated to investors in the placing tranche (other than cornerstone investors). In respect of the public subscription tranche, the IPO applicant may select (1) an initial 5 per cent of offered shares to be allocated to the public subscription tranche, subject to clawback of up to 35 per cent offered shares to be allocated to this tranche if public demand is considerable; or (2) a minimum initial allocation of 10 per cent and a maximum of 60 per cent of the offered shares to the public subscription tranche with no clawback mechanism.

Developments affecting derivatives, securitisations and other structured products

Developments in the Stock Connect – expansion of eligibility of exchange-traded funds

The Stock Connect is a mutual market access programme through which investors in Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong can trade and settle shares listed on the other market through the stock exchanges and clearing houses in their home market. The Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect was launched in November 2014 and the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect was introduced in December 2016.

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) were included in the Stock Connect in July 2022. The eligibility ETFs, both Northbound and Southbound, were expanded on 22 July 2024. [9] The updated eligibility criteria include adjustments to the minimum daily average Assets Under Management in the last six months and to the total weightings of the relevant eligible constituents in the benchmark index. [10]

The expansion encourages innovation and product diversity from issuers and allows Stock Connect investors to efficiently allocate assets across Hong Kong and Chinese Mainland markets.

Development in the Swap Connect – introduction of IMM trades, solo compression service and backdated trades to the Swap Connect

The Swap Connect is a mutual access programme linking Hong Kong and the Chinese Mainland’s interbank interest rate swap markets and was launched on 15 May 2023.

Enhancements to the Swap Connect were brought about on 20 May 2024, to mark the programme's first anniversary. [11] First, International Monetary Market (IMM) trades were introduced based on IMM dates, namely the third Wednesday of March, June, September and December, to align with common practices on international interest rate swap markets. Second, the solo compression service was launched, enabling participating institutions to compress trades with equal but opposite economics and unwinding their original cleared trades before the maturity date (thus reducing their capital costs and increasing transaction settlement efficiency). Third, backdated trades were also introduced, enabling trades with a past effective date to be recorded. The backdated trades can be used with solo compression for trade unwinding.

The enhancements will increase flexibility for international investors to manage RMB interest rate risk through China’s onshore interbank markets.

Development in the Swap Connect – acceptance of Chinese government bonds and policy bank bonds as collateral for Swap Connect

OTC Clearing Hong Kong Limited (OTC Clearing), a subsidiary of HKEX, allows offshore investors to use Chinese government bonds and policy bank bonds held through Bond Connect as collateral for Northbound Swap Connect beginning 13 January 2025. [12] The new eligible collateral can be used to cover initial margin requirements of Northbound Swap Connect, providing greater flexibility and capital efficiency to international investors and also further incentivising their bond holdings in the China Interbank Bond Market.

Further, OTC Clearing also starts accepting Chinese government bonds and policy bank bonds held by international investors through Bond Connect as margin collateral for all derivative transactions cleared by OTC Clearing from 21 March 2025 onwards. [13] This effort will further increase the attractiveness of RMB-denominated assets and promote the internationalisation of RMB.

Development in the Swap Connect – interest rate swap contracts with a maximum tenor of 30 years can be traded on Northbound Swap Connect

Effective on 30 June 2025, interest rate swap contracts with a maximum tenor of 30 years can be traded on Northbound Swap Connect. [14] Previously, the longest tenor of interest rate swaps under Swap Connect was 10 years. This enhancement further supports the diversified risk-management needs of both Chinese and international institutions, including insurance companies and pension funds, by matching the swaps tenors with the duration of their long-term bond holdings. International investors may also adopt more sophisticated trading strategies in their asset allocations in RMB-denominated products.

Cases and dispute settlement

Disqualification order against a director of a listed company

The Court of First Instance of Hong Kong issued a disqualification order in July 2025 against Mr Zhang Yuqing (Zhang), the former vice-chairman and executive director of Zhongda International Holdings Limited (Zhongda), which was a Hong Kong-listed company. [15]

The SFC’s complaints against Zhang were mainly of three aspects: (1) the board of Zhongda had approved the transfer of RMB150 million to repay intra-group loans and other bank debts, but the fund was transferred to two private companies controlled by two other former executive directors of Zhongda (Xu Brothers). Zhang failed to promptly notify the board of such unauthorised fund transfer, (2) Zhongda’s 20 per cent stake in an entity, Zhongwei Bus, was disposed of at a significantly undervalued price to a private company owned or controlled by the Xu Brothers, without any proceeds being paid to Zhongda or its subsidiaries, as a director of Zhongwei Bus and Zhongda, Zhang failed to take steps to prevent or report such illegitimate stake transfer, (3) in light of his awareness of both the unauthorised fund transfer and the improper disposal of stake in Zhongwei Bus, Zhang ought to have recognised that Zhongda’s interim financial statements failed to disclose those irregularities. Despite this, he proceeded to approve the publication of Zhongda’s then interim results which, due to the irregularities, contained false or misleading information.

Although no allegation was made that Zhang was personally benefited from these irregularities, the Court imposed a six-year disqualification on Zhang. The takeaway of this case is that a director of a Hong Kong listed company, by dereliction of his fiduciary duties, has to bear legal liabilities even in the absence of personal gains. The consequences can extend beyond the director’s breach of Listing Rules or the delisting of the company.

Hong Kong Court imposed imprisonment for fraud over secret backdoor listing

Mr Chim Pui-chung (Chim PC) became a substantial shareholder of Asia Resources Holdings Limited (Asia Resources), a Hong Kong listed company, in late 2008. His son, Mr Ricky Chim Kim Lun (Ricky Chim), was appointed as an executive director of Asia Resources and served as chairman of its board of directors between December 2008 and December 2014.

In July 2013, Chim PC and Ricky Chim made an agreement with Mr Ma Zhonghong (Ma) in private to sell 70 per cent to 75 per cent of shares in Asia Resources controlled by Chim PC to Ma for HK$210 million. The SFC characterised the arrangement as a ‘backdoor listing’ agreement, as it would enable Ma to assume control over the listed company and potentially inject businesses or assets into it without subjecting them to the stringent listing approval process.

Ricky Chim chaired two board meetings in late July and early August 2013 at which the board approved the placement of new shares and the issuance of convertible notes to raise over HK$550 million. Ricky Chim voted in favour of the resolutions. He declared that he had no personal interest in the transactions and failed to disclose the backdoor listing agreement to the board. The share placement was completed by late July 2013.

In August and September 2013, Asia Resources issued an announcement and a circular on the proposed issue of convertible notes (which required shareholders’ approval), asserting that no directors or shareholders had a material interest and that no shareholders were required to abstain from voting. At the company’s special general meeting held in October 2013, Chim PC voted in support of the issuance, and the resolution was passed by shareholders.

Chim PC and Ricky Chim concealed the true purpose of the capital-raising exercise from HKEX and as a result, HKEX approved the related disclosures without being aware of the underlying backdoor listing arrangement.

About one month after the capital-raising was approved, Chim PC had received HK$169 million from Ma under the backdoor listing agreement.

The Court held that Chim PC and Ricky Chim were guilty of two counts of conspiracy to defraud Asia Resources, its board of directors and shareholders as well as HKEX, because they had concealed and misrepresented the nature of the relevant transactions, thereby preventing shareholders from assessing the associated risks and exercising their rights, and obstructing the HKEX from performing its regulatory functions. [16] The Court imposed a 34-month imprisonment sentence on Chim PC and a 37-month sentence on Ricky Chim. [17]

This case garnered extensive media coverage partly due to Chim PC’s prominence and his prior tenure as a long-serving member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Additionally, while entering into an agreement to acquire or dispose of a controlling stake in a Hong Kong-listed company is not unlawful in itself, the illegality arises from the concealment of such arrangements and the material misrepresentations made in public disclosures and regulatory communications by the listed company.

Relevant tax and insolvency laws

Hong Kong enacted legislation on BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two

BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) is a project launched by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and G20. BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two is a global tax framework designed to ensure large multinational enterprises (MNEs) pay a minimum level of tax, typically 15 per cent, on the income in each jurisdiction where they operate. Its primary goal is to limit profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.

On 6 June 2025, Hong Kong enacted legislation to implement BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two, which covers MNEs with consolidated revenue of at least €750 million for at least two years out of four years preceding the fiscal year, except for certain regulated exclusions. Under the legislation, the Hong Kong Minimum Top-up Tax and the Income Inclusive Rule apply retroactively from 1 January 2025 to the Hong Kong constituent entities (including joint ventures) of those in-scope MNEs, with relief available to avoid double taxation.

The Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department has established deadlines for the submission of annual top-up tax notifications and annual top-up tax returns. Existing tax administration mechanisms are extended to cover the Pillar Two rules, and mutual agreement procedures are in place to facilitate the resolution of cross-border disputes arising from top-up tax assessments.

Beneficial vs legal owners of a debt instrument in an insolvency case

China Evergrande Group (Evergrande) was formerly a Hong Kong-listed company. It was heavily indebted under a series of secured notes and HKD convertible bonds (Notes). The Notes were held in global form by a nominee under a clearing system, with a trustee holding Notes for the benefit of the Notes investors and administering the investors’ rights in the Notes. Despite owning the beneficial and economic interests in the Notes, no investors are 'legal owners' of the Notes.

Upon the winding-up of Evergrande, the liquidators applied to the Court for directions on whether the Notes investors could be appointed as members of the committee of inspection. The Court held that the word 'creditor' refers to a person holding a legal right over a debt or liability owed by the company as at commencement of the liquidation. Thus, the Notes investors who hold merely beneficial or economic interests in the Notes cannot take any action against Evergrande and can only do so through the legal owner of the Notes. [18]

Role of exchanges, central counterparties and rating agencies

HKEX adds Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange and Dubai Financial Market as Recognised Stock Exchanges

In July 2024, HKEX announced that two stock markets from the United Arab Emirates — the Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange (ADX) and the Dubai Financial Market (DFM) — have been added to HKEX’s list of Recognised Stock Exchanges. This means companies already listed on these exchanges may apply for a secondary listing in Hong Kong. [19] This move makes it easier for UAE-listed companies to tap into the Hong Kong capital market, which is home to a diverse investor base.

With ADX and DFM included, HKEX has recognised three Middle Eastern exchanges in total, following the addition of Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul in 2023. As of 3 October 2025, HKEX’s list includes 20 Recognised Stock Exchanges worldwide.

HKEX strengthens connectivity with Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange

In September 2025, HKEX announced that it has signed a memorandum of understanding with Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange (ADX) to increase connectivity between the two exchanges. [20] HKEX and ADX will look into joint initiatives in market promotion, exchange-traded funds, ESG-related products, cross listings and other areas of mutual interest.

HKEX to launch HKEX Virtual Asset Index Series

HKEX launched the HKEX Virtual Asset Index Series on 15 November 2024. [21] The Index Series consist of the Reference Index for Bitcoin and Ether, respectively, as well as the Reference Rate for Bitcoin and Ether. The Reference Index is a 24-hour volume weighted reference spot price of Bitcoin or Ether, using prices aggregated from top-rated virtual asset exchanges, calculated in real-time and denominated in US dollars. The Reference Rate is designed for the settlement of financial products, calculated daily at 4:00 pm Hong Kong time. Such Index Series are the first EU Benchmarks Regulation-compliant virtual asset index series developed in Hong Kong. The Index Series give transparent real-time benchmarks for Bitcoin and Ether pricing in the Asian time zone.

HKEX introduces Fund Repository on Integrated Fund Platform

HKEX launched a Fund Repository on its Integrated Fund Platform on 13 December 2024. [22] The repository provides streamlined access to information on over 2,000 SFC authorised funds. The repository provides information on the name, type (listed or unlisted), category, base currency, domicile, amount of assets under management, SFC authorisation date, name of fund manager and identities of trustee/custodian. It also includes fund documents such as key fact statements, prospectuses, financial reports and notices/announcements.

Further, the Order Routing Service was launched on the Integrated Fund Platform on 3 July 2025. The service transforms the fund order placement process (including subscriptions and redemptions) into an integrated system. [23]

Collaboration with CMU OmniClear to enhance the post-trade securities infrastructure of Hong Kong’s capital markets

CMU OmniClear Limited (CMU OmniClear) carries out the operations of the Central Moneymarkets Unit on behalf of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. On 4 March 2025, HKEX signed a memorandum of understanding with CMU OmniClear to jointly explore initiatives to enhance Hong Kong’s post-trade securities infrastructure and to further develop the city’s fixed-income and currencies ecosystem. [24] CMU OmniClear and HKEX will pursue cooperation in areas such as realising cross-asset class efficiencies across equities and fixed income, expanding the mobilisation of Chinese Mainland bonds as collateral, enhancing Hong Kong as a bond issuance centre and developing an international central securities depository in Asia.

Enhance carbon market ecosystem in Greater Bay Area

HKEX has signed a memorandum of understanding with Guangzhou Emissions Exchange, Shenzhen Green Exchange and Macao International Carbon Emission Exchange on 23 September 2025 to cooperate in accelerating the carbon markets and green finance ecosystem development across the Greater Bay Area. [25]

Other strategic considerations

The top four strategic priorities of Hong Kong for 2024 to 2026, as announced by the SFC, are (1) to maintain market resilience and mitigating serious harm to Hong Kong’s financial markets, (2) to enhance the global competitiveness and appeal of Hong Kong capital markets by deepening connections with Chinese Mainland's capital markets and expanding overseas networks, (3) to lead financial market transformation through technology and ESG and (4) to enhance institutional resilience and operational efficiency. [26]

Outlook and conclusions

The above demonstrates that Hong Kong is actively implementing the SFC strategic priorities and moving in the right direction. However, in an increasingly complex and dynamic global environment, continued effort and vigilance remain essential.

Acknowledgements:

‘Market Data – Index Level’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/Products/Listed-Derivatives/Equity-Index/Hang-Seng-Index-(HSI)/Hang-Seng-Index-Futures?sc_lang=en#&product=HSI .
‘Monthly Bulletin (Main Board) – September 2025’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/Market-Data/Statistics/Consolidated-Reports/Monthly-Bulletin?sc_lang=en#select1=0&selection=Sep-2025&select2=0&data=rpt_Stock_market_highlights_2509 . ‘Monthly Bulletin (GEM) – September 2025’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/Market-Data/Statistics/Consolidated-Reports/Monthly-Bulletin-GEM?sc_lang=en#select1=0&selection=Sep-2025&select2=0&data=rpt_Stock_market_highlights_GEM_2509 .
‘Market Statistics 2024’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/-/media/HKEX-Market/Market-Data/Statistics/Consolidated-Reports/Annual-Market-Statistics/2024FY-Ann-Mkt-Stat_eng.pdf . ‘Market Statistics 2023’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/-/media/HKEX-Market/Market-Data/Statistics/Consolidated-Reports/Annual-Market-Statistics/FY_2023-Annual-Market-Stat_Eng.pdf .
‘Joint Statement on Enhanced Timeframe for New Listing Application Process’, Securities and Futures Commission and Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 18 October 2024. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/Regulatory-Announcements/2024/241018news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=The per cent20Securities per cent20and per cent20Futures per cent20Commission,New per cent20Listing per cent20applications per cent20and per cent20disclosures .
‘Joint Announcement on Launch of Technology Enterprises Channel’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 6 May 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/Regulatory-Announcements/2025/250506news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Joint per cent20Announcement per cent20on per cent20Launch per cent20of,filing per cent20option per cent20for per cent20these per cent20companies .
‘HKEX to Reduce Minimum Spreads in Hong Kong Securities Market’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 17 December 2024. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/Market-Communications/2024/241217news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Having per cent20carefully per cent20considered per cent20feedback per cent20from,more per cent20efficient per cent20price per cent20discovery per cent20process .
‘HKEX Enhances Stock Settlement Fee Structure for Securities Market’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 21 February 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/Market-Communications/2025/250221news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Fee per cent20structure per cent20enhancement per cent20to per cent20align,the per cent20minimum per cent20and per cent20maximum per cent20fees .
‘Conclusions and Further Consultation Paper – Proposals to Optimise IPO Price Discovery and Open Market Requirements’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, August 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/-/media/HKEX-Market/News/Market-Consultations/2016-Present/December-2024-Optimise-IPO-Price/Conclusions-Aug-2025/cp202412cc.pdf .
‘ETFs in Stock Connect: New Issuer Criteria, New Opportunities’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 18 July 2024. Please see https://www.hkexgroup.com/Media-Centre/Insight/Insight/2024/HKEX-Insight/ETFs-in-Stock-Connect-New-Issuer-Criteria-New-Opportunities?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Key per cent20Takeaways, per cent234 .
‘Expansion of Eligible ETFs under Stock Connect’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 19 April 2024. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/-/media/HKEX-Market/Services/Circulars-and-Notices/Participant-and-Members-Circulars/SEHK/2024/CT04224E.pdf .
‘HKEX Enhances Swap Connect with CFETS and SHCH’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 20 May 2024. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2024/240520news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Hong per cent20Kong per cent20Exchanges per cent20and per cent20Clearing,solo per cent20compression per cent20for per cent20trade per cent20unwinding .
‘OTC Clear to Accept China Government Bonds and Policy Bank Bonds as Collateral for Swap Connect from 13 January 2025’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 16 December 2024. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2024/241216news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Hong per cent20Kong per cent20Exchanges per cent20and per cent20Clearing,3 per cent20billion per cent20in per cent20May per cent202023 .
‘OTC Clear to Accept China Government Bonds, Policy Bank Bonds as Collateral for All Derivatives from 21 March 2025’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 19 March 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2025/250319news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Hong per cent20Kong per cent20Exchanges per cent20and per cent20Clearing,About per cent20HKEX .
‘HKEX Welcomes Launch of 30-Year Swaps Trading in Northbound Swap Connect’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 30 June 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2025/250630news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Hong per cent20Kong per cent20Exchanges per cent20and per cent20Clearing,their per cent20long-term per cent20bond per cent20holdings .
Securities and Futures Commission v. XU Lian Guo, XU Lian Kuan and ZHANG Yuqing , [2025] HKCFI 3116 and [2025] HKCFI 3116.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Chim Pui-chung, Ricky Chim and Wong Poe-lai , DCCC 439/2022 and [2024] HKDC 2085.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Chim Pui-chung, Ricky Chim and Wong Poe-lai , DCCC 439/2022 and [2025] HKDC 182.
Re China Evergrande Group (in liquidation) , HCCW 220/2022 and [2025] HKCFI 1638.
‘HKEX Adds Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange and Dubai Financial Market as Recognised Stock Exchange’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 19 July 2024. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/Regulatory-Announcements/2024/240719news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=RSE per cent20status per cent20allows per cent20public per cent20joint,Asian per cent20and per cent20global per cent20investor per cent20base .
‘HKEX Signs MOU with Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange to Strengthen Market Connectivity’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 18 September 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2025/250918news?sc_lang=en .
‘HKEX to Launch HKEX Virtual Asset Index Series’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 28 October 2024. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2024/241028news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=Asset per cent20Index per cent20Series-,Products,as per cent20an per cent20international per cent20financial per cent20centre .
‘HKEX Introduces Fund Repository on Integrated Fund Platform’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 13 December 2024. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2024/241213news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=HKEX per cent20Introduces per cent20Fund per cent20Repository per cent20on,Hong per cent20Kong per cent27s per cent20fund per cent20industry per cent20ecosystem .
‘HKEX Introduces Order Routing Service on Integrated Fund Platform’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 3 July 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2025/250703news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=HKEX per cent20Chief per cent20Executive per cent20Officer per cent2C per cent20Bonnie,and per cent20promote per cent20broader per cent20industry per cent20participation .
‘HKEX Signs MOU with CMU OmniClear to Enhance the Post-Trade Securities Infrastructure of Hong Kong’s Capital Markets’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 4 March 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2025/2503042news?sc_lang=en .
‘HKEX Signs MOU to Advance Carbon Market Ecosystem in Greater Bay Area’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 23 September 2025. Please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2025/250923news?sc_lang=en .
‘SFC’s Strategic Priorities for 2024-2026’, Securities and Futures Commission, January 2024. Please see https://www.sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/COM/PDF/SFCStrategic-Priorities-EngJan-2024.pdf?rev=d9da986d64624501a264017cf3064285&hash=00625D68E0AFCEE9D981B5E747250ADB .

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To view the article on Lexology official website, please visit: https://www.lexology.com/account/activatetempaccess/?sl=3unC2u_dmDtDYFumQdTge6RXyU

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

Hong Kong’s virtual asset regulation: Licensing for dealing and custody

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:22:52 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong’s virtual asset regulation: Licensing for dealing and custody

The strategic rationale

To appreciate why Hong Kong is tightening its VA regulatory framework, it is essential to understand the broader context. VAs operate in a unique space where traditional financial safeguards can appear ambiguous. Previous regulatory initiatives, including the 2022 policy statement on VA development and the 2023 licensing regime for VA trading platforms, laid the groundwork, but gaps remained. The new proposals fill those gaps by addressing two critical functions: the buying and selling of VAs and the safekeeping of the VAs once purchased.

For people entering the VA space, this regulatory tightening offers reassurance. It means that when they deposit cryptocurrency with a licensed custodian or trade tokens through a regulated dealer, there are now measurable standards, capital requirements and compliance obligations are in place to protect their interests.

The VA dealing regime

The proposed VA dealing regime targets a broad spectrum of market participants, including cryptocurrency exchanges, over-the-counter brokers, block traders and digital asset advisers. Importantly, it captures all dealing services, whether conducted through brick-and-mortar outlets, digital-only platforms or hybrid models. The one exception is peer-to-peer trading between private individuals, which remains unregulated.

Eligibility and governance requirements. The regulatory framework demands substantial corporate discipline. Applicants must be locally incorporated or registered in Hong Kong, ensuring accountability within the jurisdiction. The “fit-and-proper” test applies not just to the corporation itself, but to substantial shareholders and individuals performing VA dealing functions. This multi-layered governance approach recognises that regulatory compliance fails when responsibility diffuses among parties who lack proper incentives or qualifications.

A novel requirement mandates at least two responsible officers for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) compliance. This dual-officer model prevents a single individual from cutting corners or succumbing to conflicting pressures.

Capital and compliance obligations. The regime imposes financial thresholds: HKD5 million in minimum paid-up capital, plus liquid capital requirements ranging up to HKD3 million depending on the business model and scale, along with excess liquid capital equivalent to at least 12 months of actual operating expenses. These figures create a financial cushion to protect clients in case of failures.

AML/CFT obligations align with Hong Kong’s existing Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance. Customer due diligence and meticulous record-keeping become non-negotiable. For large dealers, regulatory knowledge qualifications are mandatory, meaning compliance personnel must demonstrate competency through formal assessment.

Token admission and investor safeguards. Not all tokens qualify for trading. The regime establishes token admission criteria mirroring the requirements for VA trading platforms, restricting retail investors to high-liquidity tokens and HKMA-licensed stablecoins. This gatekeeping function protects investors from highly speculative or illiquid assets. Enhanced due diligence on client suitability, risk assessment and asset segregation further shields the public from predatory practices.

The VA custodian regime

If dealers represent the marketplace, custodians represent the vault.

Defining the custodian landscape. The regime targets entities safeguarding VAs or managing private keys and authentication credentials on clients’ behalf. This expansive definition captures traditional banks diversifying into digital assets, fund managers accepting crypto allocations, and specialist VA custodians. Notably, certain entities are exempt from licensing: technical service providers offering generic security solutions, bank vaults storing encrypted key backups and HKMA-licensed stablecoin issuers maintaining only their own assets.

Operational and technical requirements. Private key storage must employ advanced cryptographic techniques, multi-party computation, key sharding, or equivalent measures to prevent single points of failure. Client assets must be segregated, preventing custodians from co-mingling or misusing customer holdings. Cybersecurity measures are raised to institutional standards, with explicit requirements to prevent breaches.

Financial thresholds and accountability. Capital requirements for custodians exceed those for dealers: HKD10 million minimum capital, plus up to HKD3 million in required liquid capital. This distinction reflects custodians’ heightened responsibility as they hold people’s wealth. Non-bank custodians must publish audited accounts, ensuring transparency and enabling regulators to continuously monitor financial health.

Enforcement and the cost of non-compliance

Both regimes carry serious sanctions. Operating without a licence risks a fine of up to HKD5 million and seven years’ imprisonment. Fraudulent or deceptive conduct in VA transactions escalates to a HKD10 million fine and ten years’ imprisonment. These penalties deliberately match or exceed sanctions for traditional financial fraud, establishing a clear principle of enforcement equivalence for VA offences.

Looking forward

The consultation period represents a critical opportunity for industry participants, technology providers, and compliance professionals to engage constructively with regulators, raising practical concerns while demonstrating commitment to responsible growth. Well-calibrated feedback can refine provisions that may inadvertently impede innovation or create unintended compliance burdens.

For market participants, preparation is vital. Organisations currently operating without licences must chart a path toward compliance. Those seeking new VA business lines must integrate licensing requirements into their planning. Legal advisers should familiarise themselves with the detailed criteria, as licensing applications will demand meticulous documentation and governance structuring.

These proposed regimes, if thoughtfully refined through consultation, position Hong Kong as a jurisdiction where investors feel secure, and innovators can flourish responsibly.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in November 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

港府拟推虚拟资产交易和托管发牌制度

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:22:20 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

港府拟推虚拟资产交易和托管发牌制度

战略原因

要理解香港为何收紧VA监管框架，必须放眼更广阔的背景。VA的运作机制不同于传统金融体系，现行保障措施在该领域的适用性并不明确。尽管港府此前通过2022年VA发展政策宣言及2023年交易平台发牌制度，已为监管体系奠定基础，但仍存在空白。新建议聚焦两项核心职能——VA的交易与托管——以补足监管缺口。

对进入VA领域的投资者而言，监管收紧带来更多信心。未来，无论在持牌托管机构存放加密货币，还是通过受监管交易商买卖代币，均有明确标准、资本要求和合规义务作为保障，投资者权益将得到更有力的保护。

VA交易制度

拟议的VA交易制度覆盖面广，监管对象包括虚拟货币交易所、场外经纪商、大宗交易商和数字资产顾问。无论是实体店，还是数字平台，亦或混合模式，均纳入监管。惟一例外是个人之间的点对点交易，暂不受监管。

资格与治理要求。 新监管框架对企业治理提出更高的自律与规范要求，申请机构须在香港本地注册或设立法人实体，以确保责任明确并受本地监管约束。“适当人选” 测试不仅适用于机构本身，也涵盖主要股东和负责VA交易职能的个人。此多层级的治理架构反映出：当责任分散至缺乏适当激励或资质的主体时，合规执行往往会失效。

此外，新制度要求申请人在打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集（ AML/CFT ）合规方面须至少委任两名负责人员。此双人负责制旨在防止单一负责人因利益冲突或压力而偏离合规标准。

资本与合规义务。 新制度设立明确的财务门槛：缴足股本不得低于500万港元，并须根据业务模式与规模，维持最高达300万港元的速动资金要求，还须具备不少于12个月实际营运开支的额外速动资金。此举旨在为客户提供财务缓冲，以防经营风险造成损失。

该制度中AML/CFT义务与香港现行的《打击洗钱及恐怖份子资金筹集条例》一致。客户尽调和详尽记录皆属强制性要求。对于大型交易机构，合规人员须具备相应专业资质，并通过正式评核。

代币纳入与投资者保障。 并非所有代币都可交易。该制度拟设立与现行VA交易平台一致的代币纳入标准，仅允许零售投资者交易高流通性代币和获香港金管局发牌批准的稳定币。此项 “把关机制” 旨在防止投资者接触高度投机性或非流动性资产，保障其利益。此外，在客户适当性、风险评估及资产分离方面实施强化尽职审查，进一步防止侵害投资者利益的行为。

VA托管制度

如果说交易服务提供者代表的是市场，那么托管机构就是金库。

界定托管服务提供人。 新制度的监管对象包括代客户保管VA或管理私钥、验证凭证的实体纳入监管范围。定义范围广泛，覆盖涉足VA领域的传统银行、配置加密货币的基金管理人和专门的VA托管机构。部分主体豁免申请牌照，包括提供通用安全解决方案的技术服务提供商，存储备份密钥的银行金库，以及获金管局发牌、只持有自己资产的稳定币发行人。

运营与技术要求。 私钥存储须配备先进的密码技术、多方计算、分片键或其他同等措施来避免单点失效。客户资产须独立托管，托管人不得混同或挪用。网络安全标准被提升至机构级水平，并明确设定防止系统入侵的具体要求。

财务门槛与问责机制。 托管机构的资本要求高于交易商：1000万港元的最低缴足股本和高达300万港元的最低规定速动资金。监管区分反映了托管机构直接持有客户资产的更高责任。非银行托管机构须公布经审计账目，以确保透明度，并使监管机构得以持续监测其财务稳健状况。

执法与违规成本

两个新制度均设有严厉处罚。无牌经营者最高可处罚款500万港元及监禁七年。在VA交易中若涉及欺诈或误导行为，最高可处罚款1,000万港元及监禁十年。处罚力度与传统金融欺诈相当甚至更高，旨在确立VA违法行为与金融犯罪同等执法原则。

展望

咨询期为业界、技术服务商及合规专业人士提供与监管机构建设性交流的重要契机，既可反映实际关切，也能展现对稳健发展的承诺。审慎且精准的反馈有助于完善条文，避免无意中阻碍创新或增加合规负担。

对市场参与者而言，提前筹备至关重要：无牌机构须规划合规路径，拟拓展VA新业务者应将发牌要求纳入战略规划。法律顾问亦应熟悉相关细则，因为牌照申请将要求完善的文件与治理架构设计。

若制度能经咨询期审慎优化，香港有望成为令投资者安心、创新者得以稳健发展的市场。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年11月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

香港公开市场规定及首次公开招股机制

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 03:11:53 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港公开市场规定及首次公开招股机制

主要变化

香港交易所《上市规则》修订条款将适用于所有现有上市公司及新申请人。凡在2025年8月4日或之后刊发招股章程的上市申请，均须遵循新规。

公众持股量。 所有香港上市公司及新上市申请人必须为其上市证券维持"公开市场"。因此，港交所要求上市证券必须设有最低比例的公众持股量，即该部分股份不得由上市公司的核心关连人士（如持有10%或以上股权的股东、董事及其紧密联系人）持有，且不得由上市集团或任何核心关连人士提供融资。在生效日前，公众持股量须占已发行股份总数的25%；若预期上市时市值超过100亿港元，该比例可介于15%至25%之间。

自生效日起：

对于单一类别股份公司或未发行其他上市股份的中国内地公司，若其全部上市证券市值不超过60亿港元，公众持股量要求为25%；若市值超过60亿港元但不超过300亿港元，公众持股量须为（i）上市时由公众持有上市证券的市值达到15亿港元的百分比，或（ii）15%的较高者；若市值超过300亿港元，则须取（i）上市时公众持股市值达到45亿港元的百分比，或（ii）10%的较高者。若市值显著超过450亿港元，港交所可酌情批准较低的公众持股量；
对于已发行其他上市股份（如在内地交易所上市的A股）的中国内地公司，其H股的公众持股量须达到10%，或确保上市时公众持股市值不低于30亿港元。

自由流通量。 为落实公开市场要求，港交所自生效日起引入新概念"自由流通量"，指上市时可进行交易的证券，通常为由公众持有且不受处置限制的证券。

对于单一类别股份公司或未发行其他上市股份的中国内地公司，其自由流通量必须满足以下任一条件：（i）占港交所上市已发行股份总数至少10%，且上市时市值主板不低于5000万港元、GEM板不低于1500万港元；或（ii）上市时市值不低于6亿港元。
对于已发行其他上市股份的中国内地公司，其H股自由流通量必须满足：（i）占该类别股份（通常指H股与A股总和）总数至少5%，且上市时市值主板不低于5000万港元、GEM板不低于1500万港元；或（ii）上市时市值不低于6亿港元。

首次公开招股机制。 发行人必须将至少40%的发售股份分配至配售部分（基石投资者除外）。至于公开认购部分，上市申请人可选择以下机制：

初始分配5%发售股份至公开认购部分（若该部分认购达15倍但不足50倍，分配比例须提升至15%；若达50倍但不足100倍，须增至25%；若达100倍或以上，必须提升至35%）；或
将公开发售部分初始分配比例设定为10%至60%之间，且不设回拨机制。

进一步咨询

港交所正就持续公众持股量要求征询市场意见。

港交所建议对所有上市公司实施更灵活的持续公众持股量标准。除生效日生效的上述持股比例要求外，若公众持有股份同时满足以下条件，亦视为符合持续公众持股量要求：（1）市值不低于10亿港元；且（2）占香港上市股份同类别已发行股份总数至少10%（若为已发行其他上市股份的中国内地公司，则占H股所属类别已发行股份总数至少5%）。所有上市发行人须通过月报表及年报确认满足持续公众持股量门槛。

若上市公司未能符合公众持股量要求，将无需暂停其股份交易，但须就相关违规行为、恢复公众持股量的具体方案及该方案的实施进展发布公告。

公众持股量严重不足的界定标准为：（1）公众持股量低于15%，或若上市时获准适用较低初始公众持股门槛，则低于该门槛的50%；且（2）公众持股量市值低于5亿港元，或占发行人上市股份类别已发行股份总数不足5%。出现此情况时，港交所将对相关证券施加特别股份标记，且发行人须履行额外披露义务。

若主板上市公司未能在18个月内（GEM板为12个月）恢复其公众持股量，将会被停牌。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年10月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

New open market requirements and IPO offering mechanisms in Hong Kong

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 03:09:56 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

New open market requirements and IPO offering mechanisms in Hong Kong

Major changes

The listing rule changes apply to all existing listed companies and new applicants with prospectuses published on or after 4 August 2025.

Public float. Each Hong Kong listed company and new listing applicant must maintain an “open market” for their listed securities. Thus, HKEx requires a minimum percentage of listed securities to be held by the public (public float), i.e. not held by the listed company’s core connected persons (e.g. holders of 10% of more shareholding, directors and their close associates) and not financed by the listed group or any core connected person. Before the implementation date, the public float is 25% of the total number of issued shares, or 15% to 25% if the expected market capitalisation is over HKD10 billion at listing.

From the implementation date onwards:

For companies with a single class of shares or PRC companies without other listed shares, the public float requirement is 25% if the market value of all listed securities is HKD6 billion or less. If the market value is more than HKD6 billion up to HKD30 billion, the public float must be the higher of (i) the percentage that would result in the market value of listed securities in public hands to be HKD1.5 billion at time of listing, and (ii) 15%. For market value of above HKD30 billion, the public float must be the higher of (i) the percentage that would result in the market value of listed securities in public hands to be HKD4.5 billion at time of listing, and (ii) 10%. HKEx may permit a lower public float, on a case-by-case basis, if the market value significantly exceeds HKD45 billion.
For PRC companies with other listed shares (e.g. A shares listed on a mainland stock exchange), H shares in public float must be 10% or is of at least HKD3 billion in market value at listing.

Free float. To foster the open market requirement, HKEx introduces a new concept of “free float” effective from the implementation date. It refers to securities available for trading upon listing, and normally means the securities held by the public and not subject to disposal restrictions.

For listed companies with a single class of shares or PRC companies with no other listed shares, the listed shares in free float must (i) be at least 10% of the total issued shares listed on HKEx with market value at listing of at least HKD50 million for Main Board and HKD15 million for GEM, or (ii) have a market value of not less than HKD600 million at listing.
For PRC companies with other listed shares, the H shares in free float must (i) be at least 5% of the total issued shares in the class to which H shares belong (usually meaning H shares and A shares together) with market value at listing of at least HKD50 million for Main Board and HKD15 million for GEM, or (ii) have a market value of not less than HKD600 million at listing.

IPO offering mechanism. At least 40% of the offered shares must be allocated to investors in the placing tranche (other than cornerstone investors). In respect of the public subscription tranche, the IPO applicant may select:

an initial 5% of offered shares allocated to the public subscription tranche (if demand in that tranche reaches 15 times but is less than 50 times, the allocation increases to 15%; if demand reaches 50 times but is less than 100 times, it rises to 25%; and if demand hits 100 times or more, the allocation must increase to 35%); or
a minimum initial allocation of 10% and a maximum of 60% of the offered shares to the public subscription tranche with no clawback mechanism.

Further consultation

HKEx is seeking public views on ongoing public float issues.

HKEx proposes that all listed companies be subject to a more flexible ongoing public float requirement. Apart from the above-mentioned public float percentages that took effect on the implementation date, the public float requirement can also be satisfied if shares in public hands (i) have a market value of at least HKD1 billion and (ii) represent at least 10% of the total number of issued shares of the same class as HK listed shares (or, for a PRC company with other listed shares, 5% of the PRC company’s total number of issued shares in the class to which H shares belong). All listed issuers will have to confirm compliance with their ongoing public float thresholds in their monthly returns and annual reports.

A listed company which fails to meet the public float requirement will not be required to suspend trading of its shares, but must make announcements on such breach, its plan to restore public float and status of such restoration plan.

A situation will be classified as a “significant public float shortfall” if (i) the public float falls below 15% or, where a lower initial public float threshold is permitted at listing, below 50% of that threshold and (ii) the market value of public float shares is less than HKD500 million or represents under 5% of the issuer’s total issued shares in the class of the listed shares. In such cases, the HKEX will impose a special stock marker on the listed securities, and the issuer will be required to make additional disclosures.

If the company with a significant public float shortfall fails to restore its public float within 18 months for Main Board (or 12 months for GEM), it will be delisted.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in October 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

Rossana Chu is named as a Visionary in China Business Law Journal A-List 2025-26

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 04:10:03 GMT

EN / 简

Rossana Chu is named as a Visionary in China Business Law Journal A-List 2025-26

We are delighted to announce that our Partner, Rossana Chu , is ranked by China Business Law Journal as one of The Visionaries (International) for 2025-26 , and is recognised as amongst the most highly recommended lawyers in the market. Ms. Chu has continuously been listed for six consecutive years on the A-List awards of China Business Law Journal.

The A-List: Visionaries of China Business Law Journal honours seasoned legal practitioners, who have long been entrenched in the legal realm, demonstrating profound expertise and superior capabilities, with unique industry insight that steer their firms’ strategic growth. It is their unwavering pursuit of excellence that has earned them wide acclaim and strong client confidence.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information about the A-List 2025-26: Visionaries report, please visit: https://law.asia/top-china-lawyers-2025/

Recent News

朱静文律师荣登《商法》A-List法律精英2025-26：睿见领袖榜单

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 04:09:46 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师荣登《商法》A-List法律精英2025-26：睿见领袖榜单

本所非常荣幸地宣布：本所合伙人朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 荣誉入选为《商法》公布的 “ A-List 法律精英2025-26: 睿见领袖 (国际) ” 得奖者之一，并被视为最受市场推荐的精英律师。朱律师是 连续第六年 上榜“A-List 法律精英”大奖。

在《商法》“A-List法律精英：睿见领袖” 获选的资深法律精英均已在法律界深耕多年，展现出深厚的专业素养和卓越的业务水平，敏锐洞见行业大势，为其律所发展筹谋布局。他们不断精益求精，深受客户信赖，并赢得广泛赞誉。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如需查看有关 “A-List法律精英 2025-26: 睿见领袖”的完整名册，请访问： https://law.asia/zh-hans/top-china-lawyers-2025/

近期消息

胡铭深律师荣登2025年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025) – 亚洲区及香港区榜单

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 02:05:54 GMT

EN / 简

胡铭深律师荣登2025年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025) – 亚洲区及香港区榜单

我们欣然宣布本所合伙人胡铭深律师 (Sam Wu) 评选为 “2025年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025) - 亚洲区榜单” 及 “2025年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025) – 香港区榜单” 的获奖者。这双项荣誉紧随他在2024年度大中华榜单中的认可，标志着他连续第二年荣获著名的《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40)奖项表彰。

《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40) 奖项旨在表彰通过领导力、创新和具意义的影响力塑造法律未来的40岁或以下法律专业人士。

这双项荣誉肯定了胡律师一贯的专业精神和对卓越的追求。我们祝贺胡律师获得这实至名归的认可。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如需查看胡律师在 2025年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025) 中的个人简介和职业生涯亮点，请访问： https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40/2025/sam-wu

如需查看 完整获奖者名单 ，请访问： https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40

近期消息

Sam Wu is recognised in the LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025 – Asia and Hong Kong SAR List

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 02:05:50 GMT

EN / 简

Sam Wu is recognised in the LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025 – Asia and Hong Kong SAR List

We are pleased to announce that our Partner, Sam Wu , has been selected as a winner in both the “ LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025 – Asia List ” and the “ LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025 – Hong Kong SAR List ”. This double honour, which follows his recognition in the 2024 Greater China List, marks the second consecutive year he has been honoured by the prestigious LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 Awards.

The LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 Awards celebrate legal professionals aged 40 or under who are shaping the future of law through leadership, innovation, and meaningful impact.

These dual accolades are a testament to Sam’s consistent professionalism and commitment to excellence. We extend our congratulations to Sam on this well-deserved recognition.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To view Sam’s profile and career highlights in LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2025 , please visit: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40/2025/sam-wu

To view the full list of winners , please visit: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所上榜 asialaw 2025 年度评级榜单

Fri, 07 Nov 2025 04:39:02 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所上榜 asialaw 2025 年度评级榜单

国际知名法律评级机构asialaw于2025年10月22日发布了asialaw 2025年度亚洲区最佳律师事务所及领先律师榜单。

本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙（ 杨杨朱律师事务所 ）和我们的律师就下列四个类别在年度评级获推选为asialaw 亚洲区域最佳成就律所和律师之一︰

* 杨杨朱律师事务所 – 资本市场「推荐律所」(Recommended)

* 杨杨朱律师事务所 – 企业与并购「备受注目律所」(Notable)

* 杨杨朱律师事务所 – 争议解决「备受注目律所」(Notable)

* 朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) – 资本市场「 asialaw 杰出律师」( asialaw Distinguished Practitioner)

asialaw 是亚洲区内领先律所和领先律师的权威指南，其推荐 20 个法域内领先律师事务所的主要专业服务和行业领域并提供全面编辑分析。被获选为asialaw 杰出律师 (asialaw Distinguished Practitioner) 的律师受到同侪的高度推崇以及深获客户的赞赏和广泛认同。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看完整的最新律所排名榜单，请访问:
https://www.asialaw.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/320#rankings

查看完整的最新律师排名榜单，请访问:
https://www.asialaw.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/320#lawyers

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised in asialaw 2025 rankings

Fri, 07 Nov 2025 04:38:29 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised in asialaw 2025 rankings

asialaw has announced its rankings of the best law firms and leading lawyers for asialaw 2025 edition on 22 October 2025.

We are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP ( YYC Legal ) and our lawyer have been recommended by asialaw as one of the top-performing legal firms and lawyers in Asia in the following four categories:

* YYC Legal – Recommended Firm in Capital Markets

* YYC Legal – Notable Firm in Corporate and M&A

* YYC Legal – Notable Firm in Dispute Resolution

* Rossana Chu – asialaw Distinguished Practitioner in Capital Markets

asialaw is the definitive guide to Asia's leading law firms and lawyers from the region, it provides law firm recommendations and editorial analysis of key practice areas and industry sectors across 20 jurisdictions. Lawyers who have been recognised as asialaw Distinguished Practitioner are highly regarded by their peers and possess a strong record and positive client feedback.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For full new legal firm rankings, please visit:

https://www.asialaw.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/320#rankings

For full new practitioner rankings, please visit:

https://www.asialaw.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/320#lawyers

Recent News

Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance Takes Effect

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 02:44:11 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance Takes Effect

The Stablecoins Ordinance aims to enhance financial stability, consumer protection, and regulatory transparency while supporting innovation in the digital asset sector.

In tandem with the Stablecoins Ordinance, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has published:

Guideline on Supervision of Stablecoin Issuers , which sets out regulatory expectations for licensed stablecoin issuers, including the HKMA’s expectations with regard to the minimum criteria in Schedule 2 to the Stablecoins Ordinance which licensees are required to fulfil on an ongoing basis; and
Guideline on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (For Licensed Stablecoin Issuers) , which provides guidance on the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with regulated stablecoin activities and the relevant anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism regulatory requirements for the licensees to address such risks.

Existing stablecoin issuers who were operating in Hong Kong before 1 August 2025 have a transitional period until 31 October 2025 to submit licence applications. They may continue operations during this period but must cease immediately if they fail to apply by the deadline.

The enactment of the Stablecoins Ordinance marks a significant milestone in solidifying Hong Kong’s digital asset market and fostering secure and sustainable growth under a clear regulatory framework.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港《稳定币条例》正式生效

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 02:43:57 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港《稳定币条例》正式生效

与《稳定币条例》同步，香港金融管理局（「金管局」）发布了以下两份指引：

《持牌稳定币发行人监管指引》，该指引阐述了金管局对持牌稳定币发行人的监管要求，其中包括持牌人必须持续地符合的《稳定币条例》附表2所列的最低准则；以及
《打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集指引(持牌稳定币发行人适用)》，该指引旨在就受规管稳定币活动所涉及的洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集风险提供指导，并阐明为应对此类风险应遵循的相关打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集的监管要求。

对于在2025年8月1日前已于香港运营的现有稳定币发行人，特设过渡期至2025年10月31日以提交牌照申请。相关发行人于此期间可继续运营；但逾期未提交申请者，须立即停止运营。

《稳定币条例》的颁布是香港数字资产市场发展的一个重要里程碑，标志着该市场将在清晰的监管框架下实现安全与可持续增长。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised at the China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2025

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 01:53:28 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised at the China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2025

China Business Law Journal, a renowned legal media, has announced on 13 October 2025 the winners of its China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2025. YYC Legal LLP is recognised as one of the “Best Overall Law Firms (Hong Kong)” at the China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2025.

The selection process of China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) took into account a firm’s notable deals, cases and accomplishments, while also considering recommendations and reviews from corporate executives, in-house counsel and legal peers, ultimately identifying law firms that demonstrated exceptional performance in difference regions.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For a full list of winners at the China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2025 , please visit: https://law.asia/china/regional-awards-china-2025/ and Best Overall Law Firms (Hong Kong) https://law.asia/china/regional-awards-china-2025/#hongkong

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登《商法》卓越律所大奖（区域奖项）2025榜单

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 01:52:07 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登《商法》卓越律所大奖（区域奖项）2025榜单

知名法律媒体《商法》于2025年10月13日公布了《商法》卓越律所大奖(区域奖项) 2025得奖者榜单。杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙荣获2025年度《商法》卓越律所大奖(区域奖项)评选为 “卓越综合实力律所 (香港)” 之一。

其每年一度的《商法》卓越律所大奖(区域奖项) 的评选参考了各律所在过去一年的杰出交易、案例以及值得关注的其他成就，亦综合考量来自企业高管、法务以及律所同行的推荐和评价，最终甄选出各地表现杰出的律师事务所。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看 《商法》卓越律所大奖(区域奖项) 2025 之完整得奖者榜单，请访问: https://law.asia/zh-hans/china/regional-awards-china-2025/ 及 卓越综合实力律所 (香港) https://law.asia/zh-hans/china/regional-awards-china-2025/#hongkong

近期消息

港府建议加强监管放债人

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 09:11:15 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

港府建议加强监管放债人

加强规管无抵押个人贷款

港府建议设立：（a）无抵押个人贷款的累计贷款额上限，或（b）“还款占入息比率” 上限。

若借款人月收入是5,000港元或以下，那么无抵押个人贷款累计贷款额上限不多于一个月收入，“还款占入息比率” 上限不超过35%。
每月收入在5,001到10,000港元之间的，无抵押个人贷款累计贷款额上限不多于两个月收入，“还款占入息比率” 上限不超过40%。

例如，若借款人月收入为5,000港元，其还款额不得超过1,750港元（月收入的35%）。在贷款年利率30%，12个月分期还款的情况下，其最多可贷入18,000港元的本金额。

此外，为了防止借款人在雇佣合约结束前进行大额贷款后“人间蒸发”，政府建议无抵押个人贷款的还款期不长于借款人雇佣合约剩下的期限。

加强保障公众权益

根据现行制度，拟借款人可在取得咨询人书面同意的情况下，向放债人提供该位咨询人。该贷款咨询人的角色仅限于向放债人提供关于拟借款人的资料，不对其偿还贷款承担任何责任。然而有些违约借款人的雇主，包括同住的外佣雇主，以及其他非借款人，却遭到放债人和追债人的滋扰，造成社会问题。

为进一步保护公众权益，包括外佣雇主的权益，港府建议如借款人在申请贷款时提供贷款咨询人，放债人必须主动向咨询人发信核实其书面同意书的真确性，或者，贷款咨询人必须亲身于放债人经营处所签署书面同意书。

此外，政府亦提出另一项方案，考虑禁止放债人要求借款人在申请无抵押个人贷款时提供贷款咨询人。

优化提升借款人的负担能力评估

“ 信资通 ”由香港金融管理局于2024年4月联同银行公会、放债人公会及接受存款公司公会推出，加强了对个人信贷资料的保护，为消费者提供更多的个人信贷资料服务机构的选择。截至2025年5月，已有36家放债人（占所有持牌放债人贷款总额约64%）加入了信资通。

政府建议要求所有持牌放债人定期向信资通提供其借款人的个人信贷资料，包括借贷申请，获批贷款的详情和还款记录，以完善信资通数据库。

政府还建议要求无抵押个人贷款业务达一定水平的放债人，在批出贷款前，必须根据信资通的个人信贷报告评估该拟借款人的还贷能力，以提升其审批水平。

优化投诉处理流程

政府将要求公司注册处增加处理针对放债人的投诉的透明度，并加强与警方的沟通及情报交换。

此外，政府亦期望公司注册处加强放债人处理投诉的监督制度，包括定期收集和分析放债人接获的投诉统计资料，并监察那些投诉数字持续高企的放债人是否已设立程序以妥善处理客户投诉，是否有采取适当的补救措施，以及是否确保放债人的员工和代理人能够向投诉人提供正确资料。

加强宣传教育

港府将加强对外佣、青年及低收入人士的宣传教育，提升他们对借贷的认知，帮助他们更好地理解过度借贷的风险。为提高宣传教育的有效性，相关活动会以多语言和多渠道传达信息，通过劳工处、投资者及理财教育委员会，以及非政府团体一并推广。

政府会重点提醒外佣不要在申请个人贷款时提供雇主作为贷款咨询人，或提供雇主的家庭住址作为联络地址。同时，政府将提供更便捷的渠道，让外佣雇主投诉违反牌照条件的放债人。

优化放债人规管制度

政府建议放债人的发牌及规管由一个政府部门（即公司注册处）统一负责，包括审批申请、监察遵规情况，以及检控违规行为等。对于屡次违规的放债人，其相关信息将在政府网站公布，供公众参阅。届时，政府将通过修订《放债人条例》落实上述建议。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年9月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Hong Kong proposes enhancements to regulate money lenders

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 09:08:19 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong proposes enhancements to regulate money lenders

Enhancing regulation of unsecured person loans

It is proposed that a cap be set on (a) the aggregate amount of unsecured personal loans or (b) the “debt servicing ratio”.

If the borrower’s monthly income is HKD5,000 or less, (a) the aggregate unsecured personal loan cap is one month’s income and (b) the “debt servicing ratio” cap is 35%.
Where the monthly income is between HKD5,001 and HKD10,000, (a) the aggregate unsecured personal loan cap is two months’ income and (b) the “debt servicing ratio” cap is 40%.

For example, if a borrower’s monthly income is HKD5,000, his debt servicing amount is capped at HKD1,750 (35% of HKD5,000). If he takes a personal loan with an annual interest rate of 30% to be repaid in 12 monthly instalments, then the maximum principal amount will be HKD18,000.

Further, to prevent situations where borrowers take large loans before disappearing when their employment contracts end, the government proposes that repayment periods for unsecured personal loans shall not exceed the remaining term of the borrowers’ employment contracts.

Strengthening protection of public interest

Under the current regime, an intending borrower may provide a referee to the money lender if the referee has given written consent to act in respect of the loan application. The role of a referee is confined to the provision of information about an intending borrower, and the referee should not be required to repay the loan. Yet, employers of certain defaulting borrowers, including those employing FDHs who reside with them, and non-debtors are harassed by money lenders and debt collectors, causing social problems.

To further protect public interest, including the interests of FDH employers, the government proposes that when borrowers provide referees in their loan applications, money lenders must proactively send a letter to the referee to verify the authenticity of the written consent, or else, the referee must sign the written consent in person at the money lender’s premises.

As an alternative, the government proposes prohibiting money lenders from requiring borrowers to provide referees when applying for unsecured personal loans.

Optimising the borrower affordability assessment

The “Credit Data Smart” ( CDS ) was introduced in April 2024 by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority together with industry associations of banks, money lenders and deposit-taking companies. The CDS enhances protection of consumer credit data and also provides more choices of consumer credit reference service providers. As in May 2025, 36 money lenders (accounting for about 64% of the loan business of all licensed money lenders) have joined the CDS.

The government proposes to require all licensed money lenders to regularly submit personal credit information of their borrowers to the CDS, including loan applications, terms of approved loans and repayment records, to complete the database of the CDS.

It also proposes requiring money lenders with a certain scale of unsecured personal loan business to, before approving loans, assess the affordability of intending borrowers based on their personal credit reports under the CDS, in order to enhance their application assessments.

Enhancing complaint handling process

The government will mandate the CR to enhance the transparency in handling complaints against money lenders and to strengthen communication and exchange of intelligence with the Police.

Also, the CR is expected to reinforce the system for supervising money lenders in handling complaints. It is to regularly collect and analyse statistics from money lenders on complaints received by them. It will also monitor whether money lenders with persistently high complaint figures have established procedures to ensure proper handling of customer complaints, to take appropriate remedial actions and to ensure their employees and agents can provide complainants with correct information.

Stepping up publicity and education

The Government will increase awareness and education targeting FDH communities, young people, and low-income earners to help them better understand the risks of excessive borrowing. To spread the messages effectively, the campaign will use multiple languages and different methods, and the messages will also be conveyed by the Labour Department, the Investor and Financial Education Council, and non-governmental organisations.

For FDHs in particular, the government will remind them not to use their employers as loan referees or give their employers’ home addresses as their own contact details when applying for personal loans. It will provide more accessible channels for FDH employers to report money lenders that violate licensing conditions.

Enhancing money lender regulatory regime

The government proposes the licensing and supervision of money lenders should be handled centrally by a government department (i.e. CR), including reviewing and approving applications, monitoring compliance and prosecuting violations. Details of money lenders with repeated offences will be published on the government’s website for public reference. These measures will require amendments of relevant provisions of the Money Lenders Ordinance.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in September 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

YYC Legal is recognised in IFLR1000 2025 Rankings

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 10:15:03 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised in IFLR1000 2025 Rankings

IFLR1000 has recently announced its new IFLR1000 2025 Asia-Pacific Rankings for Southeast and Eastern Asia . The IFLR1000 is the guide to the world’s leading financial and corporate law firms and lawyers.

We are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP and our lawyers have been recognised by IFLR1000 in the following 6 categories:

Notable Firm in Capital Markets: Equity
Notable Firm in Capital Markets: Debt
Notable Firm in M&A
Notable Firm in Restructuring and Insolvency
Victor Yang – Notable Practitioner
Rossana Chu – Woman Leader and Highly Regarded Lawyer in Capital Markets: Equity, Corporate and M&A, Private Equity, Investment Funds, and Restructuring and Insolvency

Each accolade embodies our clients’ support and the recognition we have received from our peers. We remain committed to making further contributions to the legal profession.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For full new legal firm rankings, please visit:

https://www.iflr1000.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/111#rankings

For full new practitioner rankings, please visit:

https://iflr1000.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/111#lawyers

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所上榜IFLR1000 2025年度评级榜单

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 10:14:52 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所上榜IFLR1000 2025年度评级榜单

世界知名法律评级机构 IFLR1000 最近发布了 IFLR1000 亚太区2025年度︰东南亚及东亚区域律所与律师评级榜单 。IFLR1000 总览全球领先金融和公司律所和律师的权威指南。

本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙和我们的律师在年度评级比选中共获下列六个类别殊荣︰

资本市场 : 股权「 备受注目律所 」(Notable)
资本市场 : 债权「 备受注目律所 」(Notable)
兼并收购「 备受注目律所 」(Notable)
破产重整「 备受注目律所 」(Notable)
杨岳明律师 (Victor Yang) –「备受注目律师」(Notable Practitioner)
朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) – 资本市场 : 股权、公司并购、私募股权、投资基金、破产重整「女性领导者」(Woman Leader) 及「高度推荐领先律师」(Highly Regarded Lawyer)

每一项奖项都承载着客户对我们的支持和同行对我们的认可，我们会再接再厉，继续为法律界作出贡献。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看完整的最新律所排名榜单，请访问:

https://www.iflr1000.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/111#rankings

查看完整的最新律师排名榜单，请访问:

https://iflr1000.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/111#lawyers

近期消息

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登 2025 ALB亚洲并购榜单

Wed, 24 Sep 2025 08:35:21 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登 2025 ALB亚洲并购榜单

知名法律媒体ALB 于2025年9月18日公布了 2025 ALB亚洲并购榜单 。本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙在亚洲并购市场与众多顶尖本地及国际律师事务所比选中，获评选为 “ 备受注目香港律所 ”。

ALB鉴定并评级亚洲并购市场内具突出表现的律师事务所，排名基于同业业绩申报、汤森路透的并购数据库、采访和编辑部资源、市场测评等因素的综合评审结果。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看完整的 2025 ALB亚洲并购榜单 排名，请访问: ： https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/features/rankings-alb-asia-ma-rankings-2025

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised in ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2025

Wed, 24 Sep 2025 08:34:32 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised in ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2025

Asian Legal Business (ALB) has released its new ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2025 on 18 September 2025. We are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP is recognised as a “ Notable Firm ” in Hong Kong amongst the top domestic and international firms in the M&A market in Asia.

ALB drew results from firm submissions, Thomson Reuters M&A data, interviews, editorial resources and market suggestions to identify and rank the outstanding firms for M&A in Asia.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For a full list of the ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2025 , please visit: : https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/features/rankings-alb-asia-ma-rankings-2025

Recent News

An Update on the rules governing Independent Non-Executive Directors in Hong Kong

Fri, 15 Aug 2025 07:09:11 GMT

Valarie Fung

Consultant, Hong Kong

EN / 简

An Update on the rules governing Independent Non-Executive Directors in Hong Kong

The Rules (“ Listing Rules ”) Governing the Listing of Securities on the The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (“ SEHK ”) require the board of directors of every listed company to be comprised of at least three independent non-executive directors. Additionally, the INEDs must represent at least one-third of the board. Therefore, it can be seen that INEDs can indeed make a difference to corporate governance if they discharge their functions properly and effectively.

Although the roles and functions of an INED are different than that of an executive director, they are subject to the same legal duty and held under the same standard as executive directors under the regulatory regime of Hong Kong. For instance, the Listing Rules require every director, in the performance of their duties, to:-

act honestly and in good faith in the interests of the company as a whole;
act for proper purpose;
be answerable for the application or misapplication of its assets;
avoid actual and potential conflicts of interest and duty;
disclose fully and fairly his interests in contracts with the company which he or she acts as director; and
apply such degree of skill, care and diligence as may reasonably be expected of a person of his/her knowledge and experience and holding his/her office within the company.

With reference to the above, one can see that no differentiation is made between executive directors and non-executive directors.

The Hong Kong Courts have also accepted that executive directors and non-executive directors are subject to the same duties as executive directors. In Law Wai Duen v Boldwin Construction Company Ltd and Chan Shiu Chick & Others [2001] HKCU 842 , the Court of Appeal commented, in the context of a private company, that executive and non-executive directors have the same responsibility in law as to the management of a company’s business, and that the law does not have any regard to whether or not a director holds an executive position within the company.

It should be commonly agreed that the most important function that an INED would need to discharge is to exercise independent judgment and to bring about objective scrutiny to the decisions made by executive directors on behalf of the shareholders of the company. The Listing Rules set out a range of factors to assist listed companies in determining whether or not an INED is independent, namely whether or not the INED:

holds more than a certain percentage of shares in the company;
receives shares or interest in the securities of the company or its subsidiaries;
was a director or shareholder of a company which currently provides or has provided services to the company within two years prior to his date of proposed appointment;
currently, or within one year immediately prior to the date of his proposed appointment, has or had a material interest in any principal business activity of or is or was involved in any material business dealings with the company or associated companies;
is on the board to protect the interests of another company whose interests are not the same as those of the shareholders as a whole;
is or was connected with a director, the chief executive or a substantial shareholder of the company within 2 years immediately prior to the date of his/her proposed appointment;
is, or at any time during the 2 years immediately prior to the date of his/her proposed appointment, has been, an executive or a director (other than an INED) of the company or its associated companies; and
is financially dependent on the company or its associated companies. It is important to note that the above list is not meant to be exhaustive.

Given the increasing attention paid to INEDs in recent years, it is not surprising that the SEHK published a consultation paper on proposed amendments to its Corporate Governance Code and related Listing Rules in June 2024, whereby a number of key proposals were made in relation to INEDs. At around the same time, the SEHK has also introduced a new webpage, INED Corner, to provide guidance to INEDs on their roles and responsibilities and to assist them to discharge their duties.

On 19 December 2024, the Consultation Conclusions on the Review of the Corporate Governance Code and related Listing Rules (“ Consultation Conclusions ”) were published. Below is a summary relating to the proposals concerning INEDs.

Designation of a lead INED

The proposal for appointing an INED as a Lead INED will be introduced as a recommended best practice in the Corporate Governance Code. The adoption of a recommended best practice is not mandatory and is voluntary in nature. The appointment of a Lead INED will not be necessary if the Chairman of the Board is an INED.

The Lead INED is expected to facilitate INED discussions on the board and enable stakeholders to better understand INEDs’ contributions and to serve as an intermediary communication channel for other directors and shareholders, especially when regular communication channels with the chairman of the board or the management are insufficient. This does not mean that the Lead INED is expected to have day-to-day management of the company.

Listed Issuers are not required to publish an announcement to appoint a lead INED pursuant to the Listing Rules. However, they should publicise any change in lead INED appointment through an updated list of directors and their roles and functions on SEHK’s website and their own website.

Hard cap on INED directorships

The Listing Rules will have new provisions to restrict an INED from taking up more than six concurrent directorships in Hong Kong listed companies. The new rules will not differentiate between executive and non-executive directorships. An INED who serves as a director of more than six Hong Kong listed companies is considered an overboarding INED.

The purpose of preventing the overboarding of INEDs directorships is to ensure that INEDs have adequate time to perform their duties and is likely to contribute to good board performance and engagement.

There is a three-year transition period for this new restriction starting from 1 July 2025, with compliance required by the first annual general meeting held on or after 1 July 2028 by any issuer that an overboarding INED serves. From 1 July 2025 onwards, IPO applicants will not be permitted to have an INED who holds more than six Hong Kong listed issuer directorships on their board upon listing.

Limit on INED’s tenure

The Listing Rules will introduce new provisions to restrict an INED from serving on a listed issuer’s board for more than nine years. An INED who has served on a listed issuer’s board for more than nine years will be considered a Long Serving INED. After that, a cooling-off period will need to be adopted and such person must not serve as an INED or director for the same listed issuer or its associated companies for at least three years.

Going forward, it will be a mandatory disclosure requirement to disclose the length of tenure and current period of appointment for each named director. The purpose of this new rule is to promote board refreshment, which will in turn foster diversity and independence of perspectives in the boardroom. New INEDs can also provide fresh insight to the board. These are all necessary to enhance corporate governance.

The new requirement will be implemented in two phases:

Phase 1 – Long Serving INEDs cannot represent the majority of INEDs on the board of the listed issuer by the first annual general meeting held on or after 1 July 2028.

Phase 2 – the nine year cap will apply on all INEDs of listed issuers by the conclusion of the first annual general meeting held on or after 1 July 2031.

The above proposals are intended to further enhance the function and role of INEDs on the board. INEDs can no longer sit back and play the passive role of overseeing the board or simply rubber stamping the decisions made by senior management. INEDs are expected to constructively monitor the board and to devote sufficient time into their role. Meanwhile, shareholders of listed companies can also look forward to more active INED engagement on the board and board refreshment. Following their implementation, it is expected that the new proposals concerning INEDs will bring about more effective corporate governance regarding listed companies in Hong Kong.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in Jul/Aug 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港独董职责及新规解读

Fri, 15 Aug 2025 07:09:06 GMT

冯颖贤 Valarie Fung

顾问，香港

EN / 简

香港独董职责及新规解读

《香港联合交易所有限公司证券上市规则》（下称 “ 《上市规则》 ” ）要求每家上市公司董事会须包含至少三名独董，且占比不得低于董事会人数的三分之一。因此，若独董能切实有效地履行职责，确实能改善公司治理。

尽管独董的角色和职能与执行董事不同，但在香港的监管制度下，独董与执行董事承担相同的法律责任，并遵循相同的标准。例如，《上市规则》要求每位董事在履职时必须：

诚实及善意地以公司的整体利益为前提行事；
为适当目的行事；
对发行人资产的运用或滥用向发行人负责；
避免实际及潜在的利益和职务冲突；
全面及公正地披露其与发行人订立的合约中的权益；及
以应有的技能、谨慎和勤勉行事，程度相当于别人合理地预期一名具备相同知识及经验，并担任发行人董事职务的人士所应有的程度。

由此可见，法律对执行董事与非执行董事不作区分。

香港法院也确认非执行董事所承担的法律义务与执行董事相同。在 Law Wai Duen v Boldwin Construction Co Ltd and Chan Shiu Chick & Others (2001) 案中，上诉法院针对私人公司指出：执行董事与非执行董事对公司业务管理承担相同的法律责任，且法律不考虑董事是否在公司内担任执行职务。

独董需要履行的最重要职能是行使独立判断权，并对执行董事代表公司股东所作的决策进行客观审查，这一点应当得到普遍认同。《上市规则》列明了判断独董独立性的若干因素，包括该独董是否：

持有公司超过特定比例的股份；
获得公司或其子公司的任何股份或证券权益；
在获委任前两年内担任过公司当时或过往服务提供商的董事或股东；
现时或在获委任前一年内，于公司或其关联公司的主要业务活动中拥有重大利益，或与其存在重大业务往来；
为维护与全体股东利益不一致的其他公司利益而进入董事会；
现时或获委任前两年内，与公司董事、首席执行官或主要股东存在关联关系；
现时或获委任前两年内，曾担任公司或其关联公司的管理人员或董事（独董除外）；及
在财政上倚赖上市公司或其关联公司。需要特别说明的是，上述清单并非穷尽所有情形。

近年来独董日益受到重视，因此，港交所在2024年6月发布了《企业管治守则》及相关《上市规则》修订建议的咨询文件，其中提出了多项涉及独董的关键提案。同期，港交所还推出了独董专区网页，为独董明确职责定位并提供履职指引，助力其更好地发挥作用。

2024年12月19日，《企业管治守则及相关上市规则检讨的咨询总结》正式发布，其中的各项提案旨在进一步加强独董在董事会的职能与作用，要求独董必须改变以往被动监督或简单附和高管决策的履职方式。根据新规，独董需以建设性的态度监督董事会，并投入充足时间履行职责。同时，上市公司的股东们也可期待独董更积极地参与董事会运作与董事会换届工作。新规实施后有望进一步优化香港上市公司的治理效能。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年7/8月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

完整版请到英文版本参阅。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

杨杨朱律师事务所与天达共和上榜《商法》卓越律所大奖 2025榜单

Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:09:32 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所与天达共和上榜《商法》卓越律所大奖 2025榜单

本所欣然宣布：2025年度国际所 “《商法》卓越律所大奖” 中，杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙在 “ 人工智能、信息科技及电信 ” 以及 “ 消费品及零售 ” 两个行业领域类别中获奖。

此外，本所战略合作伙伴天逹共和律师事务所亦于同年的“《商法》卓越律所大奖”中在“企业合规”、“境内仲裁”以及“政府与公共事务” 三个执业领域类别中获奖。

“《商法》卓越律所大奖” 是由知名法律刊物《商法》于每年公布，共有三大类别：综合奖项，执业领域奖项和行业领域奖项，授予在该年度各执业领域在中国市场表现杰出、范围相对较广以及具备全国知名度的律师事务所。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

完整得奖者名单连结请见： https://law.asia/zh-hans/top-firms-china-2025/

近期消息

YYC Legal LLP and East & Concord are recognised in China Business Law Awards 2025

Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:09:30 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal LLP and East & Concord are recognised in China Business Law Awards 2025

We are pleased to announce that YYC Legal LLP is awarded in the “China Business Law Awards 2025” – international firms – Winner in the industry sector categories of “ AI, Technology & Telecoms ” and “ Consumer and Retail ”.

Our strategic partner East & Concord Partners is also the PRC firm Winner of the “China Business Law Awards” of the same year in three practice area categories, namely, “Corporate Compliance”, “Domestic Arbitration” and “Government and Public Policy”.

The “China Business Law Awards”, as announced by the renowned legal publication China Business Law Journal every year, are divided into three groups: general awards, practice area awards and industry sector awards. The awards are conferred to law firms for their outstanding legal practices, relatively broad service scopes and nationwide recognition in the China market of the year.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For a full list of winners please visit: https://law.asia/top-firms-china-2025/

Recent News

朱静文律师获Leaders in Law 认可为香港 “唯一推荐的并购法律专家”

Fri, 04 Jul 2025 01:40:34 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师获Leaders in Law 认可为香港 “唯一推荐的并购法律专家”

本所欣然宣布本所合伙人朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 在今年6月时获 Leaders in Law 认可为香港" 唯一推荐的并购法律专家 "。

Leaders in Law 是一家认可了超过140个司法管辖区、专精于56个不同的执业领域的2,000多名法律领导，并使来自世界各地的公司、组织或个人能藉此平台更容易寻找到符他们所需的法律专家。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲了解更多有关 Leaders in Law 的认可信息，请浏览： https://www.leaders-in-law.com/leaders-in-law-is-delighted-to-endorse-rossana-chu-as-our-exclusive-ma-law-member-in-hong-kong/

近期消息

Rossana Chu is recognised as the Exclusive Recommended Expert in M&A by Leaders in Law

Fri, 04 Jul 2025 01:40:29 GMT

EN / 简

Rossana Chu is recognised as the Exclusive Recommended Expert in M&A by Leaders in Law

We are pleased to announce that our Partner Ms. Rossana Chu is recognised as the Hong Kong “ Exclusive Recommended Expert in M&A ” by Leaders in Law in June 2025.

Leaders in Law has recognised over 2,000 law leaders, specialising in 56 different practice areas, from over 140 jurisdictions, and is a platform where companies, organisations or individuals across the world can easily look for legal experts that fit their needs.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information about the recognition by Leaders in Law, please visit the website: https://www.leaders-in-law.com/leaders-in-law-is-delighted-to-endorse-rossana-chu-as-our-exclusive-ma-law-member-in-hong-kong/

Recent News

香港持续加快现实世界资产代币化步伐

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 04:04:44 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港持续加快现实世界资产代币化步伐

金融资产代币化指引

香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（ 证监会 ）就代币化证券相关活动及证监会认可投资产品发布了监管指引。指引虽聚焦代币化金融产品的发行（包括绿色债券、商业票据、权证、飞机租赁基金以及认可零售投资产品），但也对其他现实世界资产的代币化提供了思路。

中介人在代币化过程中扮演关键角色，中介人包括产品提供商、产品发行经理、代币化基金管理人及代币化资产分销商等。证监会指引提醒该等中介人采取措施，以应对代币化相关风险，比如：

产品提供商应持续并始终对代币化安排的整体运作负责，即使将其中的部分职能（如代币技术生成、账本/记录维护、智能合约审计）外包给其他服务提供商；
对发行人、拟代币化的产品、代币化的技术范畴、代币化安排的特性及风险，以及第三方服务提供商等作尽职调查；
确保代币持有人的所有权权益记录妥善保存，不得以不记名形式发行代币化产品；
采取适当措施管理和降低网络安全、数据隐私、系统故障恢复等风险，并制定完备的业务连续性预案；
建立与代币化产品特性及风险相匹配的保管安排；
不得在未实施额外有效控制措施的情况下使用公有非许可制区块链网络；
完整披露代币化安排细节（包括链外及/或链上结算是否已作实）、代币转让限制、是否已进行智能合约审计、代币的法律所有权和受益所有权、底层产品的所有权/权益、网络安全风险、潜在技术缺陷或系统故障可能，以及现行法律适用的潜在挑战；及
事先与证监会沟通代币化业务方案。

证监会指出，代币化金融产品本质上是以代币化为包装的传统金融产品。因此，传统证券市场的现行监管法规同样适用于代币化产品。

尽管证监会并未强制规定代币化产品仅限专业投资者认购或转让，但向香港公众发售此类产品时，现行的公开发行制度仍然适用。如果产品发售未经证监会批准或未配备合规的招股章程，该产品仅能面向专业投资者发售或依据招股章程的适用豁免条款进行。

银行同业结算沙盒

香港金管局（ 金管局 ）于2024年8月启动Ensemble项目沙盒（沙盒），旨在探索创新型金融市场基础设施，通过批发层面央行数码货币（ wCBDC ）促进市场以代币化货币进行无缝的银行同业结算。首阶段试验推出四大代币化资产用例主题，包括固定收益和投资基金、流动性管理、绿色和可持续金融，以及贸易和供应链融资。通过沙盒试验，金管局将验证代币化资产、代币化存款和wCBDC之间的技术互通性，亦会让业界参与者在实际业务情景中测试代币化资产交易。

此举标志着香港向现实世界资产代币化迈出重要一步——当银行同业资金和银行存款实现代币化，此类代币化资金和存款可直接用于代币化资产交易，全面释放代币化潜力。尤其是，此类交易可即时执行且不可撤销，付款和资产转移同步发生，没有结算风险。

未来展望

香港政府积极拥抱金融科技的发展，竭力营造一个技术中立的监管环境，在鼓励创新的同时坚持守护市场诚信。证监会的指引强调了产品提供商对代币化安排的管理和运营健全性负有最终责任，同时也提醒所有中介人和参与方认识并管控代币化相关风险（包括新风险），比如所有权、结算最终性、技术系统、资产保管及法律/法规合规等方面。

另一方面，香港正在积极构建传统金融生态与区块链新生态的互通架构。金管局通过沙盒加快积累更多用例和经验，将最终推动建立香港市场代币化资产支付与转让的统一标准。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年5月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Hong Kong’s initiatives to accelerate tokenisation of real-world assets

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 04:02:59 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong’s initiatives to accelerate tokenisation of real-world assets

Guidance on tokenisation of financial assets

The Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong ( SFC ) has provided regulatory guidance on tokenised securities-related activities as well as SFC-authorised investment products. Although the guidance focuses on issuance of tokenised financial products (including green bonds, commercial papers, warrants, aircraft leasing funds, as well as authorised retail products), it also gives insights into the tokenisation of other real-world assets.

Intermediaries play a crucial role in the tokenisation, and they include product providers, managers of product issuance, fund managers of tokenised funds, and distributors of tokenised assets, etc. The SFC guidance reminds such intermediaries to adopt safeguards in managing risks associated with tokenisation, such as:

Product providers should remain, and ultimately be, responsible for the overall operation of the tokenisation arrangement, regardless of any outsourcing of certain functions (e.g. the technical creation of the tokens, ledger/record maintenance, smart contract audit) to other service providers;
Conduct due diligence on, amongst other things, the issuers, the products to be tokenised, the technology aspects of tokenisation, the features and risks arising from the tokenisation arrangement, and third-party service providers;
Ensure proper records of token holders’ ownership interests are maintained, and that the tokenised products are not issued in bearer form;
Have appropriate measures in place to manage and mitigate cybersecurity risks, data privacy, system outages and recovery, and to maintain a comprehensive and robust business continuity plan;
Put in place appropriate custodial arrangements which address the features and risks of the tokenised products;
Not to use public-permissionless blockchain networks without additional and proper controls;
Make adequate disclosure regarding the tokenisation arrangement (including whether off-chain and/or on-chain settlement is final), limitations imposed on token transfers, whether a smart contract audit has been conducted, the legal and beneficial title of the tokens, ownership of / interests in the underlying product, cybersecurity risks, the possibility of undiscovered technical flaws or system outage, and potential challenges in application of existing laws; and
Discuss the tokenisation business plan with the SFC in advance.

The SFC points out that tokenised financial products are fundamentally traditional financial products with a tokenisation wrapper. Accordingly, the existing legal and regulatory requirements governing the traditional securities markets apply equally to tokenised products.

Although the SFC does not mandatorily limit the tokenised products to being offered or transferred to professional investors only, the existing public offering regime continues to apply when offering tokenised financial assets to the public in Hong Kong. If an offer is not authorised by the SFC or does not come with a compliant prospectus, it can only be made to professional investors or be made pursuant to applicable exemptions from the prospectus requirement.

Sandbox for interbank tokenised settlement

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority ( HKMA ) launched the Project Ensemble Sandbox ( Sandbox ) in August 2024 to explore innovative financial market infrastructure that will allow seamless interbank settlement of tokenised money through wholesale central bank digital currency ( wCBDC ). Four main themes of asset tokenisation use cases for the initial round of experimentation were introduced, including fixed income and investment funds, liquidity management, green and sustainable finance, and trade and supply chain finance. The Sandbox not only enables the HKMA to examine technical interoperability among tokenised assets, tokenised deposits and wCBDC, but it also allows industry participants to conduct testing of tokenised asset transactions in practical use case scenarios.

This is a significant stride towards the tokenisation of real-world assets, because if money and bank deposits can be tokenised amongst banks, such tokenised money and deposits can be used for tokenised asset transactions, unleashing the full potential of tokenisation. In particular, such transactions can be executed instantaneously and irrevocably, with both payment and asset transfer occurring simultaneously without settlement risk.

Way ahead

The Hong Kong Government holds a positive attitude towards embracing financial technology moving forward, and strives to provide a technology-neutral regulatory environment that encourages innovation without compromising market integrity. While the SFC is providing guidance to stress the important roles of product providers in being ultimately responsible for management and operational soundness of the tokenisation arrangement, all intermediaries and parties involved in the process are reminded to understand and manage the risks (including new risks) associated with the tokenisation in areas such as ownership, settlement finality, technology, custody and legal / regulatory compliance.

On the other hand, Hong Kong is keen to build an architecture that can achieve interoperability between traditional financial ecosystem and the new ecosystem on blockchain. The HKMA’s endeavour in using the Sandbox, accelerated by the experience accumulated from the use cases in the Sandbox, will drive a common standard for the payment and transfer of tokenised assets in the Hong Kong market.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in May 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港稳定币条例草案概览

Fri, 06 Jun 2025 03:02:11 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港稳定币条例草案概览

指明稳定币

《条例草案》监管看来是完全参照以下其中一项，以维持稳定价值的稳定币（下称指明稳定币）：

一种或多于一种官方货币；
一种或多于一种根据金管局指明的计算单位或经济价值的储存形式；或
上述（1）及（2）的组合。

《条例草案》在指明稳定币的定义中排除了已经受现行制度监管的部分金融产品和工具 — 例如银行存款、证券、期货合约、储存于储值支付工具（SVF）的任何储值金额、SVF存款，以及政府或央行发行的数码形式价值。

指明稳定币的发行

根据《条例草案》，如有以下情况，任何人即属进行受规管稳定币活动，须先从金管局获得牌照：

在香港发行或显示自己发行指明稳定币；
在香港以外的地区发行或显示自己发行看来是参照港元（不论是完全或局部参照）、以维持稳定价值的指明稳定币；或
在香港或者在其他地区向香港公众积极推广其发行的某种指明稳定币

《条例草案》列明了发放牌照的要求和条件。例如，持牌人须为其发行的每一类指明稳定币保存储备资产组合，确保该储备资产组合的市值在任何时间都最少等同于该类指明稳定币尚未赎回及仍流通者的面值。持牌人亦须给予其发行的指明稳定币的每名持有人赎回指明稳定币的权利，不得附加任何过分严苛的条件和不合理的费用。

要约提供指明稳定币

《条例草案》同时监管要约提供指明稳定币的活动。只有获批金管局牌照的指明稳定币发行人、认可机构、持牌虚拟资产交易平台和受证券及期货事务监察委员会规管的持牌法团才能在香港要约提供指明稳定币，或向香港公众积极推广该等要约提供。

另外，持有金管局牌照的发行人发行的指明稳定币可以被要约提供给零售投资者，但非由持有金管局牌照的发行人发行的指明稳定币只能被要约提供给金管局或财政司司长指定的获豁免人士。

域外效力

《条例草案》的域外效力也值得注意。如果任何香港境外的人士或在香港境外注册或成立的实体在香港以外的地区发行指明稳定币，或为某个稳定币支付系统提供服务（无论是在香港还是其他地方），且金管局认为该发行活动或提供服务的活动对或相当可能会对香港的货币稳定或金融稳定事关重要，那么金管局有权指定该人士或实体作为“指定稳定币实体”。

除了其他义务以外，该等指定稳定币实体必须：

维持适当及足够的财政资源；
设有和实施适当及足够的安排，以监督和执行该实体对营运规则的遵守情况；以及
就该实体发行指明稳定币或向稳定币支付系统提供服务的储备管理、披露及风险管理，设有和实施适当及足够的管控制度。

消费者保护

为进一步保护稳定币交易中的消费者，《条例草案》引入了额外的罪行，可影响多类市场参与者（如广告商、投资者、顾问等）。

比如说，任何人在涉及任何指明稳定币的交易中，直接或间接地开展以下活动，即属犯罪：（1）出于欺诈或欺骗意图而使用任何手段、计划或计谋；或（2）从事任何具欺诈或欺骗性质（或会产生欺诈或欺骗效果）的作为、做法或业务。任何人为诱使另一人订立指明稳定币交易而作出任何欺诈的失实陈述或罔顾实情的失实陈述亦属犯罪。

结语

《条例草案》的刊宪是香港在数字货币监管方面的里程碑。《条例草案》建立起一个全面的监管框架，明确了发牌标准和要求、要约提供和推广的限制、消费者保护措施和金管局的职能和权力，将为稳定币的交易缔造一个安全的环境。

《条例草案》已于2024年12月18日提交给立法会进行一读，预计会在未来几个月正式生效。《条例草案》的成功实施将为香港乃至其他地区建立一个更稳健的数字货币环境铺平道路。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年4月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Overview of Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Bill

Fri, 06 Jun 2025 03:00:16 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Overview of Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Bill

Specified stablecoins

The Stablecoins Bill regulates stablecoins (hereinafter referred to as specified stablecoins) that purport to maintain a stable value with reference wholly to:

one or more official currencies;
one or more units of account or stores of economic value specified by the HKMA; or
a combination of (1) and (2) above.

The Stablecoins Bill excludes certain financial products and instruments that are already subject to existing regulatory regimes – such as bank deposits, securities, futures contracts, float stored in stored value facilities (SVFs), SVF deposits and digital representations of value issued by governments or central banks – from the definition of specified stablecoins.

Issuance of specified stablecoins

Under the Stablecoins Bill, a person carries on a regulated stablecoin activity and is required to obtain a licence from the HKMA if such person:

issues or holds oneself out as issuing a specified stablecoin in Hong Kong;
issues or holds oneself out as issuing in any place outside Hong Kong a specified stablecoin that purports to maintain a stable value with reference (wholly or partly) to Hong Kong dollars; or
actively markets, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, its issuance of a specified stablecoin to the public of Hong Kong.

The Stablecoins Bill sets out the licensing conditions and requirements. For instance, a licensee must maintain a pool of reserve assets for each type of specified stablecoin, the market value of which must at all times be at least equal to the par value of the outstanding specified stablecoins of the type in circulation. A licensee must also provide each holder of the specified stablecoins issued by the licensee with the right to redeem them, without any unduly burdensome conditions and unreasonable fees.

Offering of specified stablecoins

The Stablecoins Bill also regulates the offering of specified stablecoins. Only HKMA-licensed specified stablecoin issuers, authorised institutions, licensed virtual asset trading platforms and licensed corporations regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission can offer specified stablecoins in Hong Kong or actively market such offerings to the Hong Kong public.

Further, specified stablecoins issued by HKMA-licensed issuers can be offered to retail investors, while specified stablecoins not issued by HKMA-licensed issuers can only be offered to exempted persons designated by the HKMA or the Financial Secretary.

Extraterritorial reach

Another noteworthy aspect of the Stablecoins Bill is its extraterritorial effect. The HKMA is empowered to designate individuals outside Hong Kong or entities incorporated or established outside Hong Kong as “designated stablecoin entities” if they issue specified stablecoins outside Hong Kong or provide services to a stablecoin payment system (whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere) and in the HKMA’s opinion such issuance or provision of services are, or are likely to become, material to the monetary or financial stability of Hong Kong or the functioning of Hong Kong as an international financial centre.

Such designated stablecoin entities must, among other things:

maintain appropriate and adequate financial resources;
have in place and implement appropriate and adequate arrangements to monitor and enforce compliance with the operating rules by the entity; and
have in place and implement appropriate and adequate systems of control for reserve management, disclosures and risk management about the issue of specified stablecoins by the entity or the provision of services by the entity to a stablecoin payment system.

Consumer protection

To further protect consumers in stablecoin transactions, the Stablecoins Bill introduces additional offences that can affect a range of market participants such as advertisers, investors, advisers and others.

For instance, it is an offence if a person, directly or indirectly, in a transaction involving a specified stablecoin: (1) employs a device, scheme or artifice with intent to defraud or deceive; or (2) engages in an act, practice or course of business that is fraudulent or deceptive, or would operate as a fraud or deception. It is also an offence if a person makes a fraudulent misrepresentation or reckless misrepresentation to induce another person to enter into a specified stablecoin transaction.

Conclusion

The Stablecoins Bill marks a pivotal moment in Hong Kong’s approach to regulating digital currencies. By establishing a comprehensive framework that includes licensing criteria and requirements, offering and marketing restrictions, consumer protection measures and the functions and powers of the HKMA, the Stablecoins Bill can create a secure environment for stablecoin transactions.

On 18 December 2024, the Stablecoins Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council of Hong Kong for the first reading, and is expected to be operational in the coming months. The successful implementation of the Stablecoins Bill could pave the way for a more robust and secure digital currency landscape in Hong Kong and beyond.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in April 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣获年度并购香港律所 (2025)

Fri, 30 May 2025 02:20:24 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣获年度并购香港律所 (2025)

我们非常荣幸地宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙获Global Law Experts (GLE) 推选为 “2025年年度并购香港律所”。这是杨杨朱律师事务所第一次获得此奖项，亦肯定了我们并购团队的重大努力。

GLE 是其中一个全球领先的网上指南，为需要法律服务的企业、投资者及个人客户寻找合适的法律顾问。GLE的指南包括来自超过140 个国家的 2,000 多名律师（覆盖范围从大型国际律师事务所到专业精品律师事务所），涉及专业领域逾150 多个。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲了解更多有关Global Law Experts的鉴定资格信息，请浏览该网址： https://globallawexperts.com/about-global-law-experts-awards/

近期消息

YYC Legal is awarded as M&A Law Firm of the Year in Hong Kong for 2025

Fri, 30 May 2025 02:19:48 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is awarded as M&A Law Firm of the Year in Hong Kong for 2025

We are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP has been named by Global Law Experts (GLE) as the “M&A Law Firm of the Year in Hong Kong – 2025”. This is the first time that YYC Legal was given this award and this recognition reflects the great effort of our M&A team.

GLE is one of the world’s premier online guides that help businesses, investors and individuals around the world to source legal advisers for the specialised services required. The GLE guide includes over 2,000 lawyers (ranging from large international law firms to specialised boutique law firms) from more than 140 countries in over 150 practice areas.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information about Global Law Experts accreditation, please visit the website: https://globallawexperts.com/about-global-law-experts-awards/

Recent News

YYC Legal is recognised as the Corporate and M&A Law Firm of the Year 2024 in Hong Kong

Mon, 26 May 2025 06:55:48 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised as the Corporate and M&A Law Firm of the Year 2024 in Hong Kong

We are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP has been named by In-House Community (IHC) as the “Corporate and M&A Law Firm of the Year, 2024 – Hong Kong”. This accolade is a testament to the dedication, expertise, and professionalism of our talented team.

IHC is a global community where In-House legal and compliance professionals, external counsel and professional service providers meet and support each other. Its “Year Awards” celebrates the exceptional accomplishments of law firms and legal services providers across Asia and the Middle East. Awarded Law firms are chosen by in-house counsels in the regions and are usually the ones recommended to other legal peers in their specialised legal practice areas and jurisdictions.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information about the IHC Firms of the Year Awards 2024, please visit the website: https://www.inhousecommunity.com/article/ihc-magazine-april-2025-issue-featuring-firms-year-awards-2024/

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣获年度商法及并购律所 – 香港 (2024)

Mon, 26 May 2025 06:55:43 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣获年度商法及并购律所 – 香港 (2024)

我们非常荣幸地宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙获 In-House Community (IHC) 名为”2024年年度商法及并购香港律所”。此荣誉充分肯定了我们优秀团队的奉献精神、专业知识和职业素养。

IHC是一个全球性的社群，让公司内部法律与合规专业人员、外部法律顾问及专业服务提供者互相认识及支援。其“年度律所大奖”旨在表彰亚洲和中东地区律师事务所和法律服务提供者的卓越成就。获奖的律师事务所均由各地区的内部法律顾问选出，亦是在其专业法律实务领域和司法管辖区内受其他法律同行推荐。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲了解更多有关 In-House Community 的2024年度律所大獎的信息，请浏览： https://www.inhousecommunity.com/article/ihc-magazine-april-2025-issue-featuring-firms-year-awards-2024/

近期消息

香港即将推出外企迁册入港制度

Thu, 22 May 2025 08:07:38 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

香港即将推出外企迁册入港制度

适用的公司类型

该制度允许四类公司迁册到港，分别是：

私人股份有限公司
公众股份有限公司
有股本的私人无限公司；以及
有股本的公众无限公司。

公司不得通过迁册改变其公司类型。

资格条件

该制度没有规定经济实质测试。这就意味着，即使小型公司也可迁册来港。但申请人必须符合法律、财务、诚信和其他文件要求，如：

截至申请日，申请人自成立以来的首个财政年度已结束。
申请迁册的公司类型与其原注册地所属的公司类型相同或大致相同。
迁册后的公司不得用于非法和违反公众利益的目的。
如申请人原注册地法律或组织章程文件均没要求获得成员的同意，申请人仍应取得至少75%合资格成员同意的决议。
申请人有能力偿还申请日后12个月内到期的债务。
申请人须提交申请日前12个月内的财务报表（在其原注册地法律要求审计的情况下则须提交经审计财务报表）。
迁册申请必须是真诚地提出，并无欺骗债权人的意图。
申请人未处于清盘状态。无接管人或管理人接管公司的任何财产。申请人没有与其他任何人达成任何妥协或安排。
提供一名在原注册地执业的法律执业者的法律意见，证明当地法律容许拟议迁册。法律意见书还应包含申请人在原注册地的注册、公司类型、成员的同意和公司偿付能力。
申请人提交的迁册申请表格必须包括由董事签署的证明书以证明申请人的成立地/注册地及其偿付能力、许可、成员的同意及其迁册意图。

有意迁册来港的外国保险公司和金融机构须在作出迁册申请前与其在港监管机构沟通，让监管机构可以事先评估其是否有能力满足香港的监管要求。

申请程序

申请人必须呈交一份完整及已签署的迁册申请表格、同时提交所有上述及公司注册处可能要求的证明文件，并缴付申请费用。如申请人符合所有要求，公司注册处会于两星期内处理申请。当申请成功后，公司注册处会将迁册来港的公司登记在案并向其发出迁册证明书，而该些公司的公司信息亦可供公众查阅。迁册在发出迁册证书当日生效。

迁册效力

迁册来港的公司将与《公司条例》（香港法例第622章）下本地成立的相同类型公司享有相同权利，并须遵守《公司条例》的相关要求。公司将保留其法律实体、财产、权利、义务和法律责任。因迁册过程并不产生新的法律实体，因此迁册前存在的合同和法律程序不受影响。

公司须在获发迁册证明书后120天（公司在有需要时可申请延长时限）内向香港公司注册处提交原注册地撤销注册的证明。

税务安排

任何公司，不论其注册地，须就其在香港经营行业、专业或业务而于香港产生或得自香港的利润课缴利得税。因此，无须厘清经迁册公司的税务居民身份。

为消除双重征税，经迁册公司在迁册后就得自香港的实际利润的应缴税款，如在退出时同类利润已被原注册地以尚未变现的形式征税，则可获单边税收抵免。

此外，为确保迁册后的税务评估确定性，香港将实施相关安排处理过渡性税务事宜，如适当扣除营业存货、指明类别的开支和折旧免税额。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Hong Kong has set to launch an inward company re-domiciliation regime

Thu, 22 May 2025 08:07:13 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong has set to launch an inward company re-domiciliation regime

Company types

Four types of companies may re-domicile to Hong Kong, namely:

private companies limited by shares
public companies limited by shares
private unlimited companies with a share capital
public unlimited companies with a share capital.

The companies will not be allowed to change their company types through the re-domiciliation.

Eligibility

There will be no economic substance tests. That essentially means that even small companies can re-domicile to Hong Kong. However, the applicants must comply with certain legal, financial and integrity and other documentary requirements, such as:

As at the application date, the applicant’s first financial year end since its incorporation has passed.
The company type to be applied for re-domiciliation is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s type of company in its original domicile.
The re-domiciled company will not be used for unlawful purpose or purposes contrary to public interest.
If neither the law of the original domicile or the application’s constitutional documents requires members’ consent, an applicant should obtain such consent by a resolution duly passed by at least 75% of eligible members.
The applicant is able to pay its debts as they fall due during the 12 months after the application date.
The applicant is to provide its financial statements as at a date no more than 12 months prior to the application date (and such financial statements are to be audited only if the auditing is legally required in its original domicile).
The application is made in good faith and not intended to defraud existing creditors of the applicant.
The applicant is not in liquidation. No receiver or manager is in possession of any of its properties. No compromise or arrangement between it and another person is being administered.
A legal opinion of a legal practitioner who practices the law of the original domicile is required to confirm the proposed re-domiciliation is allowed under the law of the original domicile. A legal opinion is also to cover the applicant such as its due registration in the original domicile, company type, members’ consent and solvency.
A statement of the director as set out in the re-domiciliation form regarding the company’s incorporation/registration and solvency, permission, members’ consent and intent for the proposed re-domiciliation.

Insurers and authorised institutions which re-domicile to Hong Kong will be regulated and supervised as if they were locally incorporated. Foreign insurers and financial institutions seeking to re-domicile will be required to approach their respective regulators in Hong Kong before making the re-domiciliation application, such that assessment on their capacity in fulfilling the Hong Kong regulatory requirements can be conducted in advance.

Application process

The applicant must submit a completed and signed re-domiciliation form, provide all supporting documents (as outlined above and as requested by the Companies Registry) and pay the application fee. The Companies Registry will process applications within two weeks if all requirements are met. Upon successful application, the company will be registered in the Companies Register and made available for public inspection and the Registrar of Companies will issue a certificate of re-domiciliation. The re-domiciliation takes effect on the date of issuance of the certificate of re-domiciliation.

Effects of re-domiciliation

A re-domiciled company will have the same rights as any local incorporated company of the same kind in Hong Kong under the Companies Ordinance (Chapter 622 of the Laws of Hong Kong) and shall comply with all the relevant Companies Ordinance requirements. It will preserve its legal identity, properties, rights, obligations and liabilities. The contracts and legal processes applicable to it before the re-domiciliation process will not be affected because no new legal entity is created through such process.

Upon issuance of the certificate of re-domiciliation, the company will have 120 days (or such longer period if extension is granted upon application) to provide evidence of its de-registration from its original domicile to the Companies Registry of Hong Kong.

Tax arrangements

Any company will be charged to Hong Kong profits tax on its profits arising in or derived from Hong Kong from a trade, profession or business carried on in Hong Kong, regardless of its domicile. Therefore, clarification of the tax residency of a re-domiciled company is not necessary.

To avoid double taxation, unilateral tax credits will be provided for re-domiciled companies in respect of tax payable on profits derived in Hong Kong after re-domiciliation where similar profits have already been taxed in an unrealised form by the company’s original domicile upon its exit.

Also, for the purpose of providing certainty for the tax assessment after re-domiciliation, arrangements will be put in place to address transitional tax issues such as fair deduction for trading stock, specified types of expenditures and depreciation allowances.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

Update on Hong Kong New Capital Investment Entrant Scheme

Fri, 09 May 2025 01:25:33 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Update on Hong Kong New Capital Investment Entrant Scheme

Feature

The New CIES is often described as an investment immigration scheme. Upon approval, the applicant and his/her dependents may stay in Hong Kong for no more than 24 months, after which they can apply to extend their stay for up to three years. During the stay, the committed investments must not be reduced. If they have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years, they can apply to become permanent residents of Hong Kong.

Nationality eligibility

The New CIES is open to foreign nationals but not PRC nationals unless they have obtained permanent resident status in a foreign country. Nevertheless, Macau residents and Chinese residents of Taiwan are eligible.

Net wealth requirement

Each applicant must have net assets with a value of not less than HKD30 million (approximately USD3.86 million) throughout the six months preceding the application (two years before the Enhancement). Within the specified investment timeframe, the applicant is expected to:

make investments of not less than HKD27 million in permissible investment assets and
place HKD3 million in the CIES Investment Portfolio which is managed by the Hong Kong Investment Corporation Limited whose mandate is to invest in projects related to Hong Kong.

From 1 March 2025 onwards, net assets jointly owned with the applicant’s family members can be counted in the net wealth requirement in respect of the portion owned by the applicant.

Investments

The permissible investment assets include:

shares of companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and traded in HKD or RMB;
debt securities listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and traded in HKD or RMB (including debt instruments issued in Hong Kong by the Ministry of Finance and local governments of Mainland China), debt securities denominated in HKD or RMB issued or guaranteed by the Hong Kong Government or Hong Kong listed companies;
certificates of deposits denominated in HKD or RMB issued by authorised institutions (with a cap of HKD3 million);
subordinated debts denominated in HKD or RMB;
eligible collective investment schemes;
ownership interests in limited partnership funds registered under the Limited Partnership Fund Ordinance (with a cap of HKD10 million); and
real estate (with a cap of HKD10 million counted in the scheme) including non-residential real estate and residential real estate with a price of at least HKD50 million. For example, if the applicant buys a residential property in Hong Kong at HKD60 million without any mortgage loan, only HKD10 million out of his purchase money will be counted in the investment amount.

Effective 1 March 2025, permissible investments held by a family-owned investment holding vehicle (FIHV) or a family-owned special purpose entity (FSPE) under an FIHV will be taken as the applicant’s investment, provided that the FIHV or FSPE is managed by an eligible single family office of the applicant or his/her family. The eligibility is set out in in Section 2 of Schedule 16E to the Inland Revenue Ordinance and one criterion is that the single family office must manage assets with a net value of not less than HKD240 million. This enhancement fosters synergy between the New CIES and the establishment of family offices in Hong Kong.

The applicant is not required to top up the value of permissible investment assets if their total market value falls below the requisite minimum level of HKD30 million. He/she can switch between permissible financial assets and real estate if, subject to certain rules, the entire proceeds from the disposal are reinvested in other permissible investments.

Portfolio maintenance requirements

The applicant must deposit the permissible financial assets into a designated account operated by an eligible financial intermediary and use the designated account exclusively for the transactions of the permissible financial assets.

Concerning real estate, there is no restriction on the number of real estates bought for gaining entry under the New CIES, but only investments in the form of equity are counted towards the investment threshold. The applicant or his/her holding company may take out a mortgage loan with a bank or financial institution licensed in Hong Kong in respect of the real estate while only the equity amount is counted for the purpose of the scheme. The applicant may sell the real estate and would continue to qualify under the scheme if he/she invests the entire net proceeds from the sale in other permissible investment assets. Rental income from the real estate can be paid and retained by the applicant and need not be ring-fenced under the scheme.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in March 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

“香港新资本投资者入境计划”新动态

Fri, 09 May 2025 01:25:29 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

“香港新资本投资者入境计划”新动态

特点

该计划通常被形容为投资移民计划。申请人及其受养人获批后可在港逗留不超过24个月，其后可申请延长逗留期限至最多三年。逗留期间，申请人承诺的投资金额不得减少。若申请人及其收养人连续在香港通常居住满七年，则可申请成为香港永久性居民。

国籍资格

该计划向外国国民开放，但不接受中国籍人士申请，惟已取得外国永久性居民身份的除外。不过，澳门居民及台湾华籍居民仍具备申请资格。

净资产要求

每位申请人须在提交申请前的六个月内（该优化措施生效前要求为两年）持续持有不少于3000万港元（约386万美元）的净资产。在指定投资期内，申请人须满足以下要求：

投资不少于2700万港元的获许投资资产；及
向香港投资管理有限公司管理的资本投资者入境计划投资组合投入300万港元。

自2025年3月1日起，申请人与其家庭成员共同持有的净资产可按申请人所占份额计入净资产要求。

投资

获许投资资产包括：

以港元或人民币交易的香港联合交易所上市公司股票；
以港元或人民币交易的香港联合交易所上市债务证券（包括中国财政部及内地地方政府在香港发行的债务票据）、香港政府或香港上市公司发行或保证的以港元或人民币计价的债务证券；
认可机构发行的以港元或人民币计价的存款证（上限为300万港元）；
以港元或人民币计价的后偿债项；
合资格集体投资计划；
根据《有限合伙基金条例》注册的有限合伙基金的拥有权权益（上限为1000万港元）；及
房地产（计入计划的金额上限为1000万港元），包括非住宅房地产及价格不低于5000万港元的住宅房地产。例如，若申请人以6000万港元没有任何抵押贷款下购买香港住宅物业，仅其中1000万港元可计入投资金额。

2025年3月1日起，申请人或其家族所设合资格单一家族办公室管理的家族投资控股工具（FIHV）或其下设家族特定目的实体（FSPE）所持获许投资，可被视为申请人投资。合资格条件载于《税务条例》附表16E第2条，其中一项要求是该单一家族办公室管理的资产净值不低于2.4亿港元。此项优化措施将促进该计划与香港家族办公室发展的协同效应。

若获许投资资产的总市值低于规定的3000万港元最低水平，申请人无需补足差额。在遵守特定规则的前提下，若处置所得的全部收益均再投资于其他获许投资资产，申请人可在获许金融资产与房地产之间进行转换。

投资管理规定

申请人须将获许金融资产存入由合资格金融中介机构运营的指定账户，且该账户仅用于获许金融资产的相关交易。

至于房地产，对于为了获取申请资格而购买的房地产，该计划并无数量限制，但仅股权形式投资可计入投资门槛。申请人或其控股公司可向香港持牌银行或金融机构申请房地产按揭贷款，但计算投资额时仅纳入股权部分。申请人可出售房地产，只要将出售所得净额全数再投资于其他获许资产，则仍符合该计划资格要求。房地产租金收入可由申请人收取并保留，无需纳入计划圈定范围。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年3月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

YYC Legal LLP was awarded “Deals of the Year 2024” by China Business Law Journal

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 05:57:49 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal LLP was awarded “Deals of the Year 2024” by China Business Law Journal

We are pleased to announce that YYC Legal LLP was awarded, by the China Business Law Journal, the “Deals of the Year 2024 – M&A” for representing CITIC Group in the transfer of 5.01% stake in CITIC Limited to China Huarong at over HK$13 billion, as published on 2 April 2025.

Our associated law firm East & Concord Partners (East & Concord) served as the PRC legal adviser for CITIC Group. The two law firms’ lawyers collaboratively delivered their deep experience and professional advantages in areas of mergers and acquisitions and banking and finance services as well as compliance with the relevant laws and regulations and furthermore, provided practical solutions to the client.

Our warmest congratulations to the East & Concord team; and to our YYC Legal team: Victor Yang (Managing Partner), Stephen Chiang (Consultant), Sam Wu (Partner) and Beverly Fu (Associate) on this well-deserved award!

China Business Law Journal (CBLJ) is one of the Asia premium legal magazine that is ran by the award-winning business law platform Law.asia. CBLJ collected submissions made by Chinese and international law firms, selected from the enormous number of deals and cases that were closed or have made significant progress throughout the year, evaluated and awarded those stood out as Deals of the Year.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To learn more about the deal, please visit: https://law.asia/china-deals-of-the-year-2024

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣获《商法》颁发「2024年度杰出交易」奖

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 05:57:22 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣获《商法》颁发「2024年度杰出交易」奖

本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙就助力中信集团转让上市公司中信盛星股份的5.01%股权予中国华融并涉及投资总额超过130亿港元之交易项目，获《商法》颁授「2024年度杰出交易 –企业并购」奖项，并于2025年4月2日公布了结果。

本所的联营律所天达共和律师事务所（天达共和）的团队为是次项目代表中信集团的中国法律顾问。两家律师事务所律师团队携手在本交易项目中充分发挥了在并购、银行融资以及相关法律法规合规的领域上的专业优势和深厚经验，并为客户提供了切实可行的交易方案。

我们热烈祝贺天达共和的团队；以及本所的团队：管理合伙人杨岳明律师（Victor Yang）、顾问蒋智坚律师（Stephen Chiang）、合伙人胡铭深律师（Sam Wu）和符曼姿律师（Beverly Fu）获此殊荣！

《商法》是一家获奖商法平台，Law.asia，旗下的一本亚洲顶级法律期刊。《商法》收集来自中外律所每年度完成或取得重大进展的交易和案件的申报资料，从中遴选出当中具代表性的交易和案件，评审并颁发「年度杰出交易」奖以作表扬。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲了解有关该交易的更多信息，请访问： https://law.asia/zh-hans/china-deals-of-the-year-2024

近期消息

YYC Legal LLP welcomes Philip Ng as a new Consultant

Tue, 01 Apr 2025 03:55:17 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal LLP welcomes Philip Ng as a new Consultant

YYC Legal LLP is pleased to announce Mr. Philip Ng has joined our firm as a Consultant on 1 April 2025. Philip has more than 30 years’ experience in the legal profession. Previously, he had practiced in reputable law firms and had headed the Hong Kong legal and compliance departments in several major Chinese investment banks. He possesses unparalleled extensive insights of the business and regulatory environment of the Hong Kong securities industry. His principal expertise includes securities, corporate finance, mergers & acquisitions, private equity, asset and wealth management, as well as regulatory advisory advice.

Mr. Ng will bring in extensive industry-specific knowledge and professional perspectives to our firm. At the same time, he will work closely with our associated firm, East & Concord Partners, to further develop legal services for clients in Mainland China.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙欢迎吴文翰律师 (Philip Ng) 加入本所为顾问律师

Tue, 01 Apr 2025 03:53:58 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙欢迎
吴文翰律师 (Philip Ng) 加入本所为顾问律师

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙欣然宣布，吴文翰律师于 2025年 4 月1 日加盟本所成为顾问律师。吴文翰律师拥有长达 30 多年的丰富法律经验，他曾在著名的律师事务所执业、和大型中资投资银行担任香港法律与合规部主管。他对香港证券业的商业和监管环境有广泛及独到的见解，他的主要专长范畴包括证券、企业融资、并购、私募股权、资产和财富管理、以及监管咨询。

吴律师的加盟将为我们带来更多行业专有经验及专业观点，同时，他亦会与我们的联营律所天达共和律师事务所 (East & Concord Partners) 紧密合作，进一步发展本所法律业务与中国内地客户的机遇。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

近期消息

HKEX conclusions on review of Corporate Governance Code

Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:29:27 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

Dennis Yeung

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

HKEX conclusions on review of Corporate Governance Code

Lead independent non-executive directors (INEDs). Where the chairman of the board is not an INED, the listed company is encouraged to designate an INED as the “lead INED” to serve as an intermediary for the other directors and shareholders, and act as an alternative communication channel in case of inadequate communication with the chairman or management.

Disclosure on shareholder engagement. Each company must enhance disclosures on the board’s engagement with shareholders in its corporate governance report (CG Report), such as the nature and frequency of engagement, the shareholders and company’s representatives involved, and follow-up approaches.

Mandatory director training. Directors must receive mandatory continuing professional development annually on specified topics (including directors’ responsibilities and issuers’ obligations, corporate governance, ESG, risk management and internal controls, and industry-specific updates). First-time directors and those individuals who have not served as directors of Hong Kong-listed companies for the three years before appointment must complete at least 24 hours of training within 18 months of appointment. At least 12 hours of training are required for first-time directors who have served as directors of companies listed in other jurisdictions within the three years before the appointment. Certain information on the training received by directors (e.g. hours, format, topic and training provider) must be disclosed in the CG Report.

Board performance review. Each company must conduct a formal evaluation of the performance of the entire board (but not individual directors) at least once every two years, with specific disclosures to be made in the CG Report.

Board skills matrix. A listed company must disclose in its CG Report: (1) the board’s existing skills, (2) how the combination of skills, experience and diversity of directors serves the company’s purposes, values, strategy and desired culture, and (3) details and plans to acquire further skills. The current practice of simply listing out the directors’ qualifications and experience will no longer be sufficient.

Overboarding INEDs and directors’ time commitment. Each INED can only serve as a director of up to six Hong Kong listed companies concurrently – this hard cap will apply to existing listed companies from the first annual general meeting held on or after 1 July 2028. Also, the nomination committee of each company must annually assess and disclose in the CG Report each director’s time commitment and contribution to the board.

INED serving for more than nine years. A hard cap of nine years on the tenure of INEDs is imposed, i.e. a director will cease to be considered independent after serving in that role for 9 years or more (long-serving INED). By the first annual general meeting held on or after 1 July 2028, the company must ensure that long-serving INEDs do not constitute the majority of the INEDs on its board. By the first annual general meeting held on or after 1 July 2031, it must no longer have any long-serving INEDs. The CG Report must include the tenure length of each director.

Under Board and workforce diversity. At least one director of a different gender must be appointed to the board no later than 31 December 2024. In addition to this requirement, the nomination committee must also have at least one director of a different gender. The company must also maintain and disclose a diversity policy for its workforce (including senior management), in addition to the board diversity policy. The board must review annually the implementation of its board diversity policy. The gender ratio of senior management and of the workforce must be disclosed separately in the CG Report.

Risk management and internal control (RMIC). A listed company must conduct annual reviews of the effectiveness of the RMIC systems of itself and its subsidiaries. The review scope should encompass all material controls, including financial, operational and compliance controls. It should consider (1) changes in the nature and extent of significant risks, including ESG risks; (2) the company’s ability to respond; (3) the quality of management’s ongoing monitoring of risks; (4) frequency of communications with the board for assessing the RMIC systems; (5) effectiveness of the company’s processing for financial reporting and listing rules compliance; and (6) adequacy of internal and external resources for designing, implementing and monitoring the RMIC systems.

Furthermore, the company must make detailed disclosures in its CG Report on (1) key features of the RMIC systems; (2) any significant changes in the risks assessment and the RMIC Systems; (3) whether the review is conducted by an internal audit function or external providers; (4) the board’s conclusion on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the RMIC systems with supporting information; (5) review scope and findings; and (6) where applicable, significant control failings or weaknesses identified during the review and remedial steps taken or proposed.

Dividend policy. A listed company with a dividend policy must disclose in the CG Report a summary of the policy and key factors that the board will take into account when deciding whether to declare a dividend. Where the company does not have a dividend policy, it must clearly set out such fact and give reasons. In any event, it must disclose (1) where a dividend is declared during the year, the reasons for any material variation in the dividend rate compared to that for the previous corresponding period; and (2) where the board decides not to declare any dividend, the reasons and the measures that the company intends to take to enhance investors’ return.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in March 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

港交所刊发优化《企业管治守则》的咨询总结

Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:29:22 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

杨家奇 Dennis Yeung

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

港交所刊发优化《企业管治守则》的咨询总结

委任首席独立非执行董事（独董）。 建议董事会主席由非独董担任的上市公司，委任一名独董为“首席独董”，作为其他董事和股东沟通的中间人，并在与董事会主席或管理层沟通不足的情况下，提供替代的沟通渠道。

加强披露与股东互动的资讯。 上市公司必须在《企业管治报告》中加强披露有关董事会与股东互动的资讯，如互动的性质及频次，参与互动的股东和公司代表，以及公司跟进互动结果的方式。

强制董事接受培训。 董事必须每年接受涵盖特定主题的持续专业发展培训（相关主题包括董事的责任以及上市公司的义务、企业管治、ESG、风险管理和内部监控，以及行业相关趋势更新）。初任董事和在获委任前三年内未曾担任香港上市公司董事的人士必须在获委任后18个月内完成至少24小时的培训，在获委任前三年内曾担任其他管辖区上市公司董事的初任董事须完成至少12小时的培训。有关董事接受的培训信息（如培训时数、形式、主题和培训提供者）必须在《企业管治报告》中披露。

董事会表现评核。 每家公司必须至少每两年进行一次正式的董事会整体（并非每位董事）表现评核，并在《企业管治报告》中披露详情。

董事会技能表。 上市公司必须在其《企业管治报告》中披露：（1）当前董事会的技能，（2）说明董事的技能、经验和多元化背景如何协助公司实现其目标、价值观、战略和目标文化；以及（3）董事会拟获取新技能的详细信息和规划。当前仅呈列董事资历和经验的作法将不再足够。

超额任职独董及董事付出的时间。 独董不得同时出任多于六家香港上市公司的董事。现有上市公司须在2028年7月1日或之后举行的首次股东周年大会时符合这一硬性规定。此外，每家公司的提名委员会须每年评估并在《企业管治报告》中披露每位董事付出的时间和对董事会作出的贡献。

任期超过九年的独董。 硬性规定独董任期以九年为限，此后独董不再被视为独立（这类独董被称为连任多年的独董）。到2028年7月1日或之后首次举行的股东周年大会时，公司董事会的大部分独董不得为连任多年的独董。到2031年7月1日或之后首次举行的股东周年大会时，公司董事会不得有任何连任多年的独董。《企业管治报告》必须披露每位董事的任期。

董事会和全体员工的多元化。 到2024年年末前，上市公司董事会必须至少有一名不同性别的董事。此外，提名委员会也必须至少有一名不同性别的董事。除董事会多元化政策外，公司还必须维持和披露全体员工（包括高级管理层）的多元化政策。董事会必须每年检讨董事会多元化政策的实施情况。《企业管治报告》必须分别披露高级管理层和全体员工的性别比例。

风险管理及内部监控（RMIC）。 上市公司必须每年检讨其内部及附属公司的RMIC系统的有效性。检讨范围应涵盖所有重要监控领域，包括财务、运营和合规监控系统。公司应重点考虑以下方面：（1）重大风险（包括ESG风险）的性质和程度的变化；（2）公司应对风险的能力;（3）管理层对风险持续监督的质量；（4）与董事会沟通评估RMIC系统的频次；（5）财务报告流程和上市规则合规流程的有效性；以及（6）用于设计、实施和监督RMIC系统的内部及外部资源的充足性。

此外，公司还须在《企业管治报告》中详细披露以下信息：（1）RMIC系统的主要特征；（2）风险评估及RMIC系统的任何重大变更；（3）检讨将由内部核数师或外部顾问进行；（4）董事会对RMIC系统适当性和有效性的结论及支持信息；（5）检讨的范围和发现的问题；（6）检讨中发现的重大监控失效或缺陷（如有），以及已采取或提议的补救措施。

股息政策。 上市公司如有股息政策，须在《企业管治报告》中披露政策概要及董事会决定派息时考虑的因素。若无股息政策，须明确说明并解释原因。在任何情况下，公司必须披露以下信息：（1）当年宣布派息时，若当期股息率与前一期存在重大差异，须说明原因；（2）若董事会决定不派息，公司应提供原因，并披露其为提升投资者回报的措施。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年3月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

香港公司的无纸化企业通讯

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 03:03:49 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港公司的无纸化企业通讯

默示同意机制

在下列情况下，香港公司可选择采用 “默示同意机制” 透过网站发布公司通讯：

公司组织章程细则或债权证文书载有允许默示同意机制的相关条文；及
该公司已向其会员及债权证持有人发出单次通知，告知他们公司通讯将在其网站上发布。发出通知后则无需取得他们的明示同意。

《公司条例》中的章程细则范本已作出修订，以便根据该条例成立的新公司可采用默示同意机制，透过网站发放公司通讯。

无论如何，公司的成员或债权证持有人可要求公司提供公司通讯的电子复本 (例如透过电子邮件) 或实体印本。

每次上载新通讯于网站时是否需向成员或债权证持有人另行发出通知

如香港上市公司采用默示同意机制，就无须每次在其网站上载新的公司通讯时，向其成员或债权证持有人另行发出通知。此外，香港上市公司的持份者亦可透过香港交易及结算所有限公司提供的新闻快讯服务，收取该公司发布的刊物。

然而，如果采用默示同意机制的是非上市公司，则公司必须事先征得其成员和债权证持有人的明确同意，才可免却此类另行通知。否则，该公司仍须就其网站上每次上载的企业通讯时，分别向各持份者发出另行通知。

注意要点

尽管公司可自行决定采用明确同意、视作同意或默示同意机制，以实行透过网站进行通讯，公司应严格遵守相关法定要求。如果公司未能遵守相关法律规定，任何声称由公司透过网站发送的文件或资料将不会被视为已送交。

此外，公司在以电子方式或透过网站发布公司通讯时，应小心考虑其网络安全防护措施及诈骗预防策略。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Paperless Corporate Communication for Hong Kong Companies

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 03:03:46 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Paperless Corporate Communication for Hong Kong Companies

The implied consent mechanism

A Hong Kong company may choose to adopt the “implied consent mechanism” for disseminating corporate communication by means of website if:

its articles of association or, in the case of a debenture, its debenture instrument contains the relevant provision that allows the implied consent mechanism; and
it has sent a one-off notification to its members and debenture holders to inform them that corporate communication will be disseminated on its website. There is no need to obtain their express consents.

The model articles in the Companies Ordinance have been revised so that new companies to be formed under the Ordinance may adopt the implied consent mechanism to disseminate corporate communication by means of website.

In any event, members or debenture holders may request the company to provide electronic copies (such as through email) or hard copies of corporate communication.

Whether it is necessary to send a separate notification to members or debenture holders every time of uploading new communication on the website

If a company listed in Hong Kong so adopts the implied consent mechanism, it is no longer required to send a separate notification to members or debenture holders every time when it uploads a new corporate communication on its website. Also stakeholders of the Hong Kong listed company may receive publications made by that company through the News Alert service provided by The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited.

However, if it is an unlisted company which adopts the implied consent mechanism, it must obtain the prior express consent from its members and debenture holders to dispense with such separate notifications. Failing this, it will still be required to issue a separate notification to each of these stakeholders for each upload of corporate communication on its website.

Key points to note

While the companies are liberty to decide which consent mechanism by way of express, deemed or implied consent mechanisms to adopt for communication by means of website, the companies are reminded to strictly follow the relevant statutory requirements. If a company fails to comply with the relevant legal requirements, any document or information purported to be sent by the company by means of website would not be regarded as sent.

Additionally, the companies should carefully consider their cyber safeguards and fraud prevention strategies when disseminating corporate communication by electronic means or via websites.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港《公司条例》为上市公司引入库存股份制度

Fri, 14 Mar 2025 08:44:09 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港《公司条例》为上市公司引入库存股份制度

香港的库存股份制度

香港的库存股份制度只适用于上市公司。有关制度的要点包括：

在回购股份后，上市公司可以其本身名义或透过代名人以库存方式持有该些回购股份。
无论是以本身名义或透过代名人持有该等库存股份，上市公司均须将其名称或其代名人的名称记录在其成员登记册（即俗称的股东名册）内。
可是，库存股份的持有人不会被视为该上市公司的成员、股东或分担人。
当库存股份占上市公司已发行的任何类别股份中5%或以上，尽管公司不会被视为公司的成员，公司仍应在其呈交给香港公司注册处的“公司周年申报表“（表格NAR1）中申报其持有相关库存股份。
库存股份附带的所有权利都被暂停，包括出席公司的股东会议或在会议上行使表决的权利、收取股息或获分派公司资产的权利等。
尽管如此，就库存股份配发已缴付股款的红股的权利并不受影响。该等已缴付股款的红股在配发时应被视为回购股份，而且，上市公司必须在配发后的一个月内就该些红股于“股份配发申报书”（表格NSC1）呈交给公司注册处，亦须在“赎回或回购股份申报表”（表格NSC2）注明作为库存股份持有的红股数量。
就通过成员的决议案、在要约收购中行使成员权利、及向法庭提出申请等需要计算相关门槛的公司事宜中，库存股份不可被计入公司的已发行股份数目，也不可被计入有关上市公司股份的总表决权。
库存股份可被注销，而注销库存股份不会令上市公司的已发行股本的款额降低，但其已发行股份的数目则会因所注销的库存股份数目而相应减少。
当上市公司终止上市，其所持有的库存股份亦会被视为注销。
库存股份均可被转让或出售，无论是否有对价。库存股份的转让或出售必须符合适用于上市公司配发新股份的批准要求。当库存股份是以对价出售或转让，上市公司的已发行股本款额会相应增加，然而上市公司的已发行股份数量则维持不变。

上市公司无须向公司注册处就库存股份定期进行申报，但必须：

于回购股份交付到该公司的15天内，将其回购及持作库存股份的股份数目填报在“赎回或回购股份申报表”（经修订的表格NSC2），呈交给公司注册处；
于出售或转让日期后的15天内，把“出售或转让库存股份申报表”（新表格NSC22）呈交给公司注册处；及
于注销该库存股份的日期后的15天内，把“注销库存股份申报表”（新表格NSC23）呈交给公司注册处。

库存股份的用途

《公司条例》引入库存股份制度将令香港与开曼群岛及百慕达看齐，因此，于香港成立的上市公司无须一定注销其回购的股份。被回购的股份作为库存股份可作多种用途，包括 (a) 于募资时售予投资者；(b) 在上市公司进行收购时，用作代价股份转让给卖方；及 (c) 就上市公司的股份计划满足股份授予。

尽管如此，所有公司的行动仍须遵守相关的法律及上市规则。出售或转让库存股份亦须按《印花税条例》（香港条例第117章）缴纳从价印花税。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Companies Ordinance of Hong Kong will include a Treasury Share Regime for Listed Companies

Fri, 14 Mar 2025 08:33:27 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Companies Ordinance of Hong Kong will include a Treasury Share Regime for Listed Companies

Treasury share regime in Hong Kong

The treasury share regime in Hong Kong only applies to listed companies. The major elements are as follows:

The listed company may, upon buy-back of its own shares, hold those shares as “treasury shares” in its own name or through a nominee.

A listed company holding the treasury shares in its own name or through a nominee must enter its name or the nominee’s name in its Register of Members.

But the holder of the treasury shares shall not be regarded as a member, a shareholder or a contributory of the company.

When a listed company holds treasury shares of 5% or more in any class of its shares, it should still report such holding in its annual return (Form NAR1) to be filed with the Companies Registry of Hong Kong even though the holder is not regarded as a member of the company.

All rights attached to the treasury shares have to be suspended, including the right to attend or vote at the company’s meetings, and the right to receive dividends or any distribution of the company’s assets.

However, the right to the allotment of shares as fully paid bonus shares in respect of the treasury shares is not affected. Such fully paid bonus shares are to be regarded as being bought back on their allotment. The company must deliver a return of allotment (Form NSC1) to the Companies Registry within a month after such allotment, as well as a return (Form NSC2) to specify the number of bonus shares that are held as treasury shares.

Treasury shares must be excluded from the number of the issued shares and the total voting rights when calculating the relevant threshold in corporate matters such as passing of resolutions, exercising rights in a takeover offer, and making applications to court.

The treasury shares may be cancelled. The cancellation does not affect the amount of issued share capital while the number of issued shares is reduced by the number of treasury shares so cancelled.

When a listed company is delisted, all its treasury shares are to be regarded as cancelled.

Treasury shares may be transferred or sold, whether for a consideration or not. Nevertheless, such transfer or sale is subject to same approval requirements applicable to allotment of new shares in a listed company. When the treasury shares are sold or transferred for a consideration, the amount of issued share capital will increase but the number of issued shares will not change.

A listed company is not required to report its treasury shares to the Companies Registry on a periodic basis, but it is required to submit:

a return stating the number of shares bought back and held as treasury shares, within 15 days after the date which the bought back shares are delivered to the company (revised existing Form NSC2);

a return regarding the sale or transfer of treasury shares, within 15 days after the date of sale or transfer (new Form NSC22); and

a return regarding cancellation of treasury shares, within 15 days after the date which the shares are regarded as cancelled (new Form NSC23).

Utilization of treasury shares

The introduction of the treasury share regime to the Companies Ordinance brings Hong Kong on a par with Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Accordingly, a Hong Kong incorporated listed company will no longer be required to cancel bought-back shares. If those shares are held as treasury shares, they may be used in different situations, including (a) to be sold to investors in a fund-raising exercise, (b) to be transferred to vendors as consideration shares in the company’s acquisition of businesses from the vendors, and (c) to satisfy share grants in the company’s share scheme.

However, all the corporate actions are subject to the relevant legal and listing rules requirements. A sale or transfer of treasury shares is subject to ad valorem stamp duty under the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Chapter 117 of the Laws of Hong Kong).

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

港交所2023财年发行人年报审阅要点

Thu, 20 Feb 2025 05:47:28 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

港交所2023财年发行人年报审阅要点

披露规则

以下领域因合规率较低而在报告中重点提及，港交所特此敦促发行人未来在年报中重点关注相关方面的披露：

股份计划：

授出期权数目除以已发行的股份加权平均数。
根据计划授权及服务提供者的分项限额（如适用），年度开始及结束时分别授出的期权数目。
股份期权计划下可予发行的股份（总数及比率）（包括已授出但未行权的股份）。
年度内经薪酬委员会审阅及/或批准的有关股份期权计划的重大事宜概要。
根据计划授权及服务提供者的分项限额（如适用），年度开始及结束时分别授出的奖励数目。

重大投资：

重大投资占发行人资产总值的比例。
发行人对重大投资的投资策略的讨论。
每项重大投资所持股数及比率。
对基金或理财产品的投资（重大投资不限于公司证券）。

业绩保证：

是否达到业绩表现的保证水平。

募资所得款项的使用：

未动用款项预期用途及时间表：若资金部署无明确时间表，发行人应说明动用资金大概时间表并以公告及后续财务报告更新进展。

管理层讨论与分析（MD&A）

尽管发行人普遍遵守管理层讨论与分析的披露规则，但港交所建议提升披露质量，尤其是讨论同比业绩变动、重大事件及风险的时候。以下是常见不足的例子：

未能讨论业绩波动背后的具体原因或商业因素：部分发行人仅提供通用或模板化陈述，或简单罗列财务报表中的数据，而未进行有意义的阐释。
强调业务计划，但未提及预计所需资本开支及发行人拟如何满足相关需求。
报告大额外币借款，但仅简略提及汇率及利率风险，且未披露此等风险对发行人的可能影响及发行人的应对措施。
披露商业模式的重大变化，但未说明变化原因或其对当年及未来财务业绩和财务状况的影响。

港交所建议，发行人应使MD&A的披露标准与上市文件保持一致。指引同时给出一些建议，包括以下：

外部因素： 发行人应说明外部因素的重大变化（如经济/行业衰退、竞争加剧、地缘政治紧张导致的贸易限制）对财务表现的影响及应对策略。
内部因素： 发行人应讨论推动或影响其财务表现的内部因素（如新产品/服务、重大收购/资产处置、运营策略/业务模式/关键利益方关系的变化），并说明这些变化的原因及影响。
财务报表中的重要账目： 发行人应解释财务报表中重大项目的性质及变化原因，例如对重大“其他费用”提供更多信息及说明。
主要风险与不确定性： 发行人应披露这些风险与不确定性对运营、财务状况及业务计划的实际及潜在影响以及可采取的缓解措施。
流动资金及财务资源： 发行人应根据其实际需求与承诺，讨论其流动资金状况及营运资金的充足性。例如，在计划重大投资时，应披露如何在维持日常运营及偿还债务的同时满足相关资本开支需求。此外，若大额借款/债务工具即将到期，应披露下一年计划中的募资活动及再融资安排。

港交所提醒新上市公司应及时更新招股书中所列重大事项的进展情况，以便投资者评估上市后的发展状况，并与招股书中披露的过往业绩、业务计划及发展前景进行比较。

重大借贷交易

港交所建议非放贷业务发行人在年报中解释其放贷交易的合理性。目前，港交所正在调查涉及董事不当行为及/或内部监控失效的个别案件。这些案件涉及贷款发放后短期内出现重大减值；贷款长期反复展期，且缺乏明显商业理由；以及未采取充分措施保护发行人的利益。

审计师非无保留意见

审阅显示，95%的发行人发布了无保留审计意见的财务报表。在139家收到审计师非无保留意见的发行人中，约三分之二的审计意见与持续经营能力的不确定性有关，原因包括经济环境恶化、发行人业务表现不佳和/或融资能力受限。资产估值（包括贷款/应收款项的可收回性）是非无保留意见的另一常见原因。

港交所建议发行人建立完善的内部监控系统来识别外部环境及内部因素的重大变化（如重大交易或商业模式的重大调整）引发的风险。此外，发行人应制定风险缓解措施，持续评估其有效性，并将评估发现定期向董事会汇报。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年2月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

HKEX’s review of issuers’ annual reports for FY2023

Thu, 20 Feb 2025 05:33:51 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

HKEX’s review of issuers’ annual reports for FY2023

Disclosure rules

The following aspects are highlighted as having the lowest compliance rates and the HKEX urges issuers to pay closer attention on their disclosures in future annual reports.

Share schemes:

Number of granted options divided by weighted average number of issued shares.
Number of options available for grant under scheme mandate and service provider sublimit (if applicable) at the beginning and end of the year.
Shares available for issue under share option scheme (number and percentage), including shares issuable under the options already granted under the scheme but not yet exercised.
Summary of material matters of share option schemes reviewed and/or approved by the issuer’s remuneration committee during the year.
Number of awards available for grant under scheme mandate and service provider sublimit (if applicable) at the beginning and end of the year.

Significant investments:

Size of significant investment relative to issuer’s total assets.
Discussion of issuer’s investment strategy for significant investments.
Number and percentage of shares held in each significant investment.
Investment in funds or wealth management products, as “significant investments” are not confined to securities in companies.

Performance guarantees:

Whether performance guarantee was met.

Use of proceeds from fundraisings:

Breakdown and description of intended use and expected timeline for unutilised proceeds: if a definitive timetable for fund deployment is not available, the issuer should indicate an approximate timeline for fund usage and provide updates via announcements and/or subsequent financial reports.

Management discussion & analysis

While issuers generally complied with the rules on Management discussion & analysis (MD&A) disclosures, the HKEX suggests improvement in the quality of disclosure, particularly in the discussion of year-on-year performance variances, significant events and risks. Examples of shortcomings include:

Failing to discuss specific underlying causes or business factors that drove results: some issuers provided only generic and boilerplate statements or merely recited figures from financial statements without meaningful elaborations.
Highlighting business plans without mentioning the estimated capital expenditure requirement and how the issuer intended to meet such requirement.
Reporting substantial borrowings in foreign currencies but only briefly mentioning foreign exchange and interest rate risks without revealing how such risks will likely affect the issuer, and how the issuer intended to mitigate them.
Disclosing a major change in business model but failing to provide reasons for such change, or its impact on financial results, and position in the current year and going forward.

The HKEX suggests issuers should strive to have their MD&A on par with the disclosure standard of a listing document. The guide also provides recommendations including the following:

External factors: the issuer should explain how material changes in external factors (e.g. economic/industry downturn, increased competition, trade restrictions arising from geopolitical tensions) have impacted its financial performance and its strategy to tackle such changes.
Internal factors: the issuer should discuss internal factors driving or contributing to its financial results (e.g. new products/services, significant acquisitions or disposals, significant changes on operating strategies, business model or relationship with key stakeholders), the reasons underlying these changes and their impacts on its results.
Material line items reported on financial statements: the issuer should explain the nature of such items and reasons for changes, e.g. providing additional information about or a breakdown of “other expenses” if they are material.
Principal risks and uncertainties: the issuer should disclose how those risks and uncertainties have affected, and are likely to affect, their operation, financial position and business plans, and how they can be mitigated.
Liquidity and financial resources: the issuer should discuss its assessment of its liquidity position and working capital sufficiency with reference to its various needs and commitments. For example, when it contemplates a material investment, it should disclose how to meet the relevant capital expenditure while maintaining daily operations and repaying debts. Tentative fundraising activities and refinancing plans (if maturity of material borrowings/debt instruments is approaching) in the coming year are also to be included.

The HKEX reminds each newly listed issuer to provide updates on significant matters set out in its prospectus to enable evaluation on the post-listing developments and comparison with its track record, and its business plan and prospects outlined in the prospectus.

Material lending transactions

Non-money lender issuers are recommended to explain the rationale for lending in their annual reports. Certain isolated cases exhibiting characteristics of director misconduct and/or internal control breakdown are under the HKEX’s investigation. These cases involved material impairment shortly after grant of loans, repeated rollovers for prolonged period without apparent commercial rationale, and failure to take adequate actions to safeguard issuers’ interest in the loans.

Auditors’ modified opinions

The review reported that 95% of the issuers published financial statements with an unmodified audit opinion. Among the 139 issuers with modified audit opinions, about two-thirds of the audit modifications relate to going concern uncertainty arising from deterioration in economic condition, the issuer’s own business and/or ability in obtaining financing. Valuation of assets (including recoverability of loans/receivables) is another common source of audit modification.

The HKEX recommends that issuers put in place adequate internal control systems to identify risks emerging from material changes in external environment and internal factors (e.g. material transactions and major overhaul of business model). Further, issuers should develop risk-mitigating controls, continually review their effectiveness, and regularly report findings to the board of directors.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in February 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

LexisNexis 国际公司程序, 第 139 期 — 香港章

Fri, 14 Feb 2025 01:14:55 GMT

蒋建丰 Roy Chiang

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

LexisNexis 国际公司程序，第 139 期 —— 香港章

本所合伙人 蒋建丰 (Roy Chiang) 撰写《律商联讯》(LexisNexis) 国际公司程序，第 139 期 — 香港章并于2025 年 1 月 22 日线上出版供订阅。

《律商联讯— 国际公司程序》

《律商联讯—国际公司程序》是一本涵盖 55 个司法管辖区（包括全球所有主要工业、金融和离岸中心）比对每国家商业法规的百科全书。它汇集了对外国商业企业形式做出明智决策所需的事实和程序信息。

《国际公司程序》第 139 期

在本期 139 中，《国际公司程序》探讨了四个司法管辖区：丹麦、香港、匈牙利和日本。每个司法管辖区提供的内容均一采用相同的结构（第 I 至 IV 部分），让读者可以轻松比对不同司法管辖区的商业制度。

第 I 部分概述： 概述法律和会计专业的结构及其目录、可用的商业载体类型及其基本的主要法律、货币及其管制以及公司统计数据。
第 II 部分注册成立： 包括对股份有限公司、合伙、非香港公司及合资企业法律的主要部份的全面分析。
第 III 部分税务和会计： 解释适用于公司、合伙和分行的公司税务和会计的一般原则。
第 IV 部分信息： 详细说明企业信息和某些资产所有权信息的公开情况以及此类企业某些事项变更时的备案要求。

订阅第 139 期，请浏览： https://lexisweb.co.uk/sources/international-corporate-procedures (仅具英文版)

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

LexisNexis International Corporate Procedures, Issue 139 – Hong Kong Chapter

Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:51:35 GMT

Roy Chiang

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

LexisNexis International Corporate Procedures, Issue 139 — Hong Kong Chapter

We are delighted to share our partner Roy Chiang ’s contribution to LexisNexis International Corporate Procedures, Issue 139, Hong Kong Chapter published for subscription on 22 January 2025.

LexisNexis International Corporate Procedures

LexisNexis International Corporate Procedures is a country-by-country encyclopaedia of business regulations in over 55 jurisdictions, including all the major industrial, financial and offshore centres worldwide. It draws together the factual and procedural information necessary to make informed decisions about foreign forms of business enterprise.

International Corporate Procedures, Issue 139

In this Issue 139, International Corporate Procedures reviews four jurisdictions: Denmark, Hong Kong, Hungary and Japan. The content of each jurisdiction's entry has the same structure (Parts I to IV), allowing easy comparison of business regime across jurisdictions.

PART I General: Outlines the structure of the legal and accountancy professions and their respective directories, the types of business vehicle available and their underlying principal legislations, currency and its control, and statistics for companies.
PART II Formation: includes comprehensive analysis of the major aspects of the law governing private companies limited by shares, partnerships, non-Hong Kong companies and joint ventures.
PART III Taxation and Accounting: Explains the general principles on taxation and accounting applicable to corporations, partnerships and branches.
PART IV Information: Details the public availability of the information on business enterprises and the information on ownership of certain assets and the filing requirement upon change of certain particulars of such enterprises.

Subscribe for the Issue 139, please visit: https://lexisweb.co.uk/sources/international-corporate-procedures

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港DAO法律框架与近期发展

Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:48:10 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

香港DAO法律框架与近期发展

主要特点

去中心化治理

与集中式管理的传统公司不同，DAOs让代币持有者能够集体决定组织的方向和运作。通常一个代币代表一个人的投票权，会以多数决原则或预设票数门槛原则来批准提案。

缺乏法人资格

DAOs缺乏法人资格。与传统公司不同，DAOs不被认定为法人实体，因此，一些DAOs会专门设立法人实体为代币持有者持有资产。

跨境性质

DAOs在全球运行，不受地理边界限制。

监管框架

香港目前尚无针对DAOs的具体立法。香港金融管理局在将现有法律框架适用于DAOs时采取了较为保守的做法，因为其认为该框架可能存在法律灰色地带。

但证券及期货事务监察委员会（下称“证监会”）对DAOs采取了“相同业务、相同风险、相同规则”的监管策略。DeFi的活动即便在去中心化平台上运行，也不会免于监督。证监会已列出了多项可能受其监管的DeFi活动：

虚拟资产交易平台

如果去中心化平台能让客户交易虚拟资产，且这些虚拟资产可算作《证券及期货条例》（香港条例第571章）下的证券或期货，那么这个平台及其运营商就可能被要求获得第7类提供自动化交易服务牌照。因此，这类平台必须遵守与传统提供同样服务的金融平台一样的牌照要求。

集体投资计划（CISs）

《证券及期货条例》还规范面向香港公众发售的CISs。DeFi流动性池协议通常涉及集合投资者资金以产生回报，可能符合《证券及期货条例》项下对CISs的定义。如属此类，这些协议必须根据《证券及期货条例》的规定获得授权。

近期标志性案件

香港有关DAO法律的一个突破性进展是近期原讼法庭对 Mantra DAO Inc. and Another v John Patrick Mullin and Others [2024] HKCFI 2099 一案的审理。此案确立了多个关键先例：

认可加密货币交易

虽然关于DAOs的所有权、管理和控制的实质性审理仍未有判决，但原讼法庭认可“加密货币交易是一种新颖且具有创造性的商业活动”。

对代币持有者负责的义务

在Mantra DAO一案中，该DAO的治理机制特点如下：

最终的决策权属于代币持有者；
成立法人实体为代币持有者持有资产；以及
这些法人实体由其理事会成员，即理事，管理。理事有权代表该DAO项目和代币持有者行事。

原讼法庭认为，理事有责任妥善记录加密货币交易业务的运作情况，并有责任向代币持有者报告该DAO项目的资金状况。

代币持有者有权查阅账本和记录

原讼法庭授予临时救济，要求理事向代币持有者披露与该DAO项目运作相关的账本和记录。原讼法庭认可去中心化治理结构中代币持有者查阅账本和记录的权利。

目前的挑战和法律风险

去中心化治理

去中心化治理模式使确定责任方变得复杂。当DeFi产品出现问题时，目前尚未明确责任应由智能合约开发者、拥有治理权的代币持有者还是DAO成员承担。DAO的匿名性也增加了追责的难度。

缺乏法人资格

DAOs缺乏法人身份使合同执行、责任分配和财产所有权复杂化。证监会指出，有些DeFi协议可能“只是名义上去中心化”，其背后仍由部分开发者掌握着实质控制权。

在这些情况下，证监会会根据实际运营情况而非去中心化的标签来进行评估。Mantra DAO案就是一个例子，虽然涉案组织声称采用去中心化的治理模式，但理事仍负有妥善保存DAO项目账簿的责任。

跨境运营

跨境运营面临更多复杂性。DAOs的无国界性质使得监管合规和争议解决面临管辖权的挑战。

未来趋势与发展

尽管挑战重重，但最近的发展表明监管框架正逐步明朗化。正如在Mantra DAO案例中所见，香港法院愿意调整现有法律原则以适应创新结构。

随着虚拟资产生态系统逐渐成熟，预计更明确的监管指引和判例将会出现，从而为香港DAO运作的监管体系带来更大清晰度。

如立法会秘书处资料研究组在2024年6月28日发布的关于“选定行业数码化发展和转型的法律框架”的资料摘要中所述，持份者的早期讨论对于监管及推动香港特定行业采纳新技术至关重要。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2025年1月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

DAOs in Hong Kong: legal framework and recent developments

Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:29:32 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

DAOs in Hong Kong: legal framework and recent developments

Key features

Decentralised governance

Unlike traditional companies with centralised management, DAOs empower token holders to collectively decide on an organisation’s direction and operations. Generally, each token represents an individual voting power, with proposals approved on majority or at predetermined thresholds.

No legal personality

DAOs lack legal personality. Unlike traditional companies, they are not recognised as legal entities. Thus, for some DAOs, legal entities are incorporated specifically for holding assets for the benefit of token holders.

Cross-border nature

DAOs operate globally and are unrestricted by geographical boundaries.

Regulatory framework

Currently, there is no specific legislation for governing DAOs in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority adopts a more conservative approach in applying the existing legal framework to DAOs, as it considers there may be legal grey areas.

However, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has adopted a “same business, same risks, same rules” approach to DAOs. DeFi activities are not exempt from oversight simply because they operate on decentralised platforms. The SFC has outlined several scenarios where DeFi activities may fall within its regulatory purview.

Virtual asset trading

If a decentralised platform enables trading in virtual assets that qualify as securities or futures under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO; chapter 571 of the laws of Hong Kong), the platform and its operators may be required to obtain a type 7 licence for providing automated trading services. Platforms facilitating such transactions must therefore comply with the same licensing requirements as their traditional finance counterparts.

Collective investment

The SFO also governs the offering of collective investment schemes (CIS) to the public in Hong Kong. DeFi liquidity pooling protocols, which often involve pooling investors’ funds to generate returns, may fall within the definition of a CIS under the SFO. If so, these protocols will be subject to SFO authorisation requirements.

Landmark case law

The most significant recent development in Hong Kong’s DAO jurisprudence came with the Court of First Instance’s ruling in Mantra DAO Inc and Another v John Patrick Mullin and Others (2024) . This case marked several crucial precedents.

Cryptocurrency trading

While the substantive hearing regarding ownership, management and control within DAOs remains pending, the court recognised that “cryptocurrency trading is a new and innovative business”.

Duty to token holders

In the Mantra DAO case, the DAO governance mechanism shows these characteristics:

Ultimate decision-making power lies with the token holders.
Legal entities were established to hold assets on behalf of the token holders.
Those legal entities are governed by members of its council, the councillors, who were granted authority to act on behalf of the DAO project and the token holders.

The court ruled the councillors have a duty to keep a proper account of the operation of the DAO project’s cryptocurrency trading business, and also a duty to account to token holders about the project’s funds.

Token holders’ access rights

The court granted interim relief that required the councillors to disclose books and records relating to the operation of the DAO project to the token holders. It recognised the token holders’ rights in the context of decentralised governance structures.

Current challenges, legal risks

Decentralised governance

The decentralised governance model complicates the identification of responsible parties. When issues arise with DeFi products, it remains unclear whether liability lies with smart contract developers, token holders with governance rights, or DAO members. This pseudonymous nature makes tracing accountability difficult.

No legal personality

The lack of legal personality for DAOs complicates contract enforcement, liability allocation and property ownership. The SFC has pointed out that some DeFi protocols may be “decentralised in name only”, where a small group of developers retains substantial control.

In such cases, the SFC evaluates the actual operational substance rather than the label of decentralisation. The Mantra DAO case is an example where, in a purportedly decentralised governance model, the councillors still have a duty to maintain proper accounts for the DAO project.

Cross-border operation

Cross-border operations present further complexities, as the borderless nature of DAOs creates jurisdictional challenges in regulatory compliance and dispute resolution.

Future trends, development

Despite these challenges, recent developments indicate a shift towards clearer regulatory frameworks. As seen in the Mantra DAO case, Hong Kong courts show a willingness to adapt existing legal principles to accommodate innovative structures.

As the virtual asset ecosystem matures, it is anticipated that more definitive regulatory guidelines and precedents will emerge, providing greater clarity for the regulatory regime of DAO operations in Hong Kong.

As stated by the Research Office of Legislative Council Secretariat in a 28 June 2024 information note on a “legal framework for digital development and transformation in selected industries”, early stakeholders’ discussions are vital for regulating and facilitating the adoption of new technology in certain sectors in Hong Kong.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in January 2025 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登《钱伯斯大中华区指南2025》榜单

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:40:52 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登《钱伯斯大中华区指南2025》榜单

国际权威法律评级机构《钱伯斯》(Chambers and Partners) 进行广泛的、独立的和深入的市场分析后，于2025年1月16日发布《钱伯斯大中华区指南2025》(Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2025)，其为对大中华区领先律师事务所和专业人士的排名。

上述认可彰显本所竭诚为客户提供卓越法律服务的承诺，以及我们坚定不移地为他们的成功作出贡献。

大中华区 | 企业/并购︰香港独立律师事务所律所及律师排名概览，请访问： https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/corporate-ma-independent-hong-kong-firms-china-116:2441:60:1?l=zh-Hans

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

近期消息

YYC Legal is ranked in Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2025

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:30:49 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is ranked in Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2025

The Chambers Greater China Region Guide compiles extensive, independent and in-depth market analysis and released the 2025 rankings of the leading law firms and professionals in the Greater China Region on 16 January 2025.

These recognitions highlight our firm's commitment to delivering outstanding legal services to our clients and our unwavering dedication to being a crucial contributor to their success.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

Recent News

Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets – Hong Kong, Edition 14

Tue, 24 Dec 2024 12:08:19 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets - Hong Kong, Edition 14

We are delighted to share our partner Rossana Chu ’s contribution to Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets, Edition 14, Hong Kong Chapter published on 17 December 2024.

Introduction

Although Hong Kong remains an important international financial centre, its capital markets have encountered challenges brought about by different factors such as geopolitics, economic conditions, high interest rates and global market fluctuations. As a result, the performance of the Hong Kong capital markets in 2023 declined in most aspects compared to 2022.

As at 29 December 2023, the number of listed companies in the city increased slightly to 2,609 from 2,597 at the end of 2022, with the addition of 73 new listings in 2023 while some companies were privatised or otherwise delisted. By the end of 2023, the market capitalisation of all equity securities listed on the Main Board and GEM (formerly known as Growth Enterprise Market) of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange totalled HK$31,039 billion compared with HK$35,666 billion at the 2022 year end. The total funds raised by Hong Kong IPOs in 2023 were of US$5.91 billion while the city raised US$12.7 billion for its IPOs conducted in 2022. The 2023 total turnover of the Hong Kong securities markets was of HK$25,518 billion compared with the 2022 turnover of HK$30,727 billion. For the first 11 months of 2023, the turnover of securitised derivatives reached US$337 billion while the number was US$469.6 billion for the same period in 2022. [1]

Nevertheless, Hong Kong remains resilient. As the main regulators of the capital markets, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) have been implementing various measures to enhance the infrastructure of capital markets.

Year in review

Developments affecting debt and equity offerings

Specialist technology companies

In March 2023, HKEX introduced a new regime for specialist technology companies to be listed on the Main Board, [2] even if those companies do not satisfy the usual profits, revenue and cash flow listing criteria. The regime is open to technology companies engaging in acceptable industries including next-generation information technology, advanced hardware and software, advanced materials, new energy and environmental protection, as well as new food and agriculture technologies.

There are two types of specialist technology companies, namely, a ‘commercial company’, which has commercialised its technology products with a revenue of at least HK$250 million for the most recent audited financial year, and a ‘pre-commercial company’, which has not met such revenue threshold. The SFC and HKEX announced on 23 August 2024 that the minimum market capitalisation requirements for listing are reduced from 1 September 2024 to 31 August 2027. For commercial companies, the requirement is adjusted from HK$6 billion to HK$4 billion and for pre-commercial companies, from HK$10 billion to HK$8 billion. [3]

Special purpose acquisition companies

In respect of the Main Board listing regime of special purpose acquisition companies (SPAC) and their successor companies (which was introduced in January 2022), [4] on 23 August 2024, the SFC and HKEX announced modifications in certain requirements, which are applicable from 1 September 2024 to 31 August 2027. [5]

The required minimum independent third-party investments committed by the time of announcing the De-SPAC transaction is modified to the lower of

the currently prescribed percentage of the negotiated value of the De-SPAC target, or
HK$500 million in value.

The independence test for third-party investors in a De-SPAC transaction is aligned with that for sophisticated independent investors in specialist technology companies.

GEM listing reforms

Following the public consultation on GEM listing reforms launched in September 2023, [6] HKEX issued the consultation conclusions in December 2023, [7] announcing reforms to GEM that took effect on 1 January 2024.

A GEM listing applicant must have a trading record of at least two financial years with positive cash flow of at least HK$30 million generated from its operating activities in the ordinary and usual course of business. Its minimum market capitalisation at the time of listing is HK$150 million. Such listing qualifications remain the same, but the GEM listing reform introduced a new financial eligibility test, targeting high-growth enterprises that are heavily engaged in R&D activities but have not generated positive cash flow. Under the new test, the applicant must have:

an adequate trading record of at least two financial years;
a revenue of at least HK$100 million in aggregate for the two most recent financial years, with year-on-year growth over the two years;
incurred R&D expenditure of at least HK$30 million in aggregate for the two financial years prior to listing, where the R&D expenditure in each year is at least 15 per cent of its total operating expenditure; and
an expected market capitalisation of at least HK$250 million at the time of listing.

Another significant change brought about by the reform is the relaunch of a streamlined mechanism for GEM-listed companies to be transferred to the Main Board without having to appoint a sponsor to conduct due diligence or issuing a ‘prospectus-standard’ listing document. Nevertheless, the transfer applicant must:

meet all Main Board listing qualifications;
for the three prior full financial years, fulfil the ownership continuity and control requirements with no fundamental change in its principal business;
have reached a minimum daily turnover threshold of HK$50,000 on at least 50 per cent of the trading days over a period of 250 trading days immediately preceding the transfer application until the transfer to the Main Board (the reference period);
have a volume-weighted average market capitalisation over the reference period that could meet the minimum market capitalisation requirement of the Main Board (which is HK$500 million); and
not have been held to have committed a serious breach of any Listing Rules in the 12 months preceding the transfer application and until the transfer to the Main Board, and not be the subject of any investigation by HKEX or any ongoing disciplinary proceedings in relation to a serious breach or potentially serious breach of any Listing Rules.

A GEM-listed company is no longer required to publish quarterly reports. The post-IPO lock-up period applicable to the GEM issuer’s controlling shareholders has been shortened from 24 months to 12 months where

no shares can be disposed of within the first six months after listing, and
within the second six months after listing, the shareholder cannot dispose of shares that would result in it ceasing to be the controlling shareholder.

Treasury shares

Hong Kong-listed companies are allowed to hold repurchased shares as treasury shares and resell or otherwise utilise the treasury shares from 11 June 2024 onwards, if the laws of their incorporation jurisdictions and their constitutional documents so allow. [8] Before such date, all shares repurchased by listed issuers must be cancelled. Listed issuers should provide appropriate instructions to the relevant parties (such as share registrars and brokers) to ensure that treasury shares are appropriately identified and segregated.

A resale by the listed issuer of its treasury shares will be subject to pre-emption similar to an issuance of new shares (i.e., the treasury shares shall be offered to all shareholders on a pro rata basis) or otherwise the resale must have been approved in advance by the shareholders in a general or a specific mandate.

The treasury shares may also be applied to satisfy share grants under share schemes or to be issued as consideration shares for acquisitions made by the listed company, provided that the relevant Listing Rules requirements are complied with.

A holder of treasury shares is required to abstain from voting on matters that require shareholders’ approval under the Listing Rules. Treasury shares are excluded from the calculation of issued shares amount under the Listing Rules, such as public float and size test calculation. A resale of treasury shares is subject to ad valorem stamp duty under the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Chapter 117 of the Laws of Hong Kong).

Sustainable finance products

As at 24 August 2024, there were 144 bonds shown on the Sustainable and Green Exchange (STAGE) portal of HKEX as sustainable finance products, out of which 114 are green bonds. The other categories are eight social, six sustainability, four sustainability-linked, one covid, four blue and seven transition bonds. [9]

Issuers of green bonds or bond programmes listed in Hong Kong include financial institutions (primarily banks), corporate entities and the Hong Kong government. The funds raised by financial institutions through these bonds are to finance or re-finance eligible green assets or projects including energy conservation and efficiency, renewable energy, green buildings, clean transportation, pollution control and sustainable management of water and waste water. Corporation issuers comprise property developers and public utilities companies due to their high energy consumption and motivation to improve their green initiatives. Notably, the Hong Kong government has issued 31 green bonds.

The proceeds from social bonds are to be used for projects like affordable drinking water, sanitation, transport infrastructure, essential health and education services as well as affordable housing. Sustainability bonds were issued to promote sustainability purposes such as the use of renewable energy and carbon emission reduction. Blue bonds were issued by Chinese provincial and municipal governments and banks for marine-based projects. Transition bonds were targeted at financing high-carbon sectors transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Developments affecting derivatives, securitisations and other structured products

Developments in the Stock Connect

The Stock Connect is a mutual market access programme through which investors in Mainland China and Hong Kong can trade and settle shares listed on the other market through the stock exchanges and clearing houses in their home market. The Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect was launched in November 2014 and the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect was introduced in December 2016.

The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and the SFC reached consensus in August 2023 on the introduction of block trading under the Stock Connect. [10] When this initiative is implemented, offshore investors will be able to conduct block trades on the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the Shenzhen Stock Exchange through the northbound trading link. Mainland investors will be able to conduct manual trades on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange through the southbound trading link. Block trades will allow investors to conduct negotiated transactions and provide price and execution certainty for large-sized deals.

Among the five key initiatives to enhance the integration and development of the capital markets in Mainland China and Hong Kong as announced by the CSRC on 19 April 2024, PRC-listed real estate investment trusts will be included in the Stock Connect. [11]

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) were included in the Stock Connect in July 2022. The scope of eligible ETFs was expanded on 22 July 2024. [12] Relaxations were applied to eligibility criteria such as the thresholds of daily average assets under management, the total weighting of listed shares in benchmark index and the total weighting of Stock Connect eligible constituents in benchmark index.

China treasury bond futures

The SFC and HKEX announced on 24 November 2023 that China treasury bond futures contracts will be launched in Hong Kong. [13] This development was preceded by the steady increase in offshore investments in China treasury bonds (T-bonds) via the Bond Connect since its launch in 2017. The T-bond futures will provide a tool to hedge exposure to such Mainland assets and thus can facilitate further participation by offshore investors in the Mainland treasury bond market. Hong Kong’s current offshore Renminbi and China-product ecosystem includes MSCI China A50 Connect Index Futures contracts launched in October 2021 and the Swap Connect launched in May 2023. The addition of China T-bond futures will support a greater international participation in China’s equities and fixed-income markets, strengthening Hong Kong’s role as the world’s leading offshore Renminbi hub and broadening risk management opportunities.

Cases and dispute settlement

Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance

The Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Chapter 645 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (the MJRE Ordinance) came into operation on 29 January 2024. It implements the ‘Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’ signed between the Supreme People’s Court of Mainland China and the Hong Kong government on 18 January 2019. [14]

The earlier reciprocal judgments could be recognised under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Chapter 597 of the Laws of Hong Kong), which took effect in August 2008. Such ordinance is superseded by the MJRE Ordinance.

Under a judgment reciprocal enforcement system, if a judgment creditor holds a Hong Kong judgment in its favour that remains unsatisfied, it may file the Hong Kong judgment with the appropriate court in Mainland China to enforce it in the Mainland. A judgment creditor with a Mainland China judgment may enforce it via Hong Kong courts. Compared with the previous regime, the MJRE Ordinance establishes a more comprehensive mechanism for reciprocal enforcement of civil and commercial judgments made in Mainland China and Hong Kong.

The previous regime required the judgment creditor to demonstrate that the parties had agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Mainland China or Hong Kong. The MJRE Ordinance replaces such exclusive jurisdiction agreement with a jurisdictional test based on the sufficiency of connection with the Mainland or Hong Kong (as the case may be). The connection can be established in different ways such as

the defendant resided in the Mainland,
the defendant had a representative office, branch or place of business in the Mainland,
the contract was to be performed in the Mainland,
the tortious act was committed in the Mainland, or
the parties agreed in writing to submit to the jurisdiction (whether exclusive or non-exclusive) of the Mainland courts.

The factors for establishing a connection with Hong Kong apply in the same way.

Under the previous regime, only monetary judgments from Mainland China or Hong Kong courts in commercial disputes could be enforced. The MJRE Ordinance expands the scope of judgments to include both monetary and non-monetary judgments in civil and commercial matters and also covers orders for compensation and damages from criminal proceedings. However, the Ordinance carries a list of exclusions such as judgments related to matrimonial cases, estate succession, certain intellectual property cases, insolvency, bankruptcy and proceedings for the recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award.

The MJRE Ordinance has broadened the coverage to judgments made by lower courts and tribunals. In the Mainland, judgments of all Primary People’s Courts are included along with those made by the Supreme People’s Court, Higher People’s Court and Intermediate People’s Court. On the Hong Kong side, judgments issued by tribunals (including the Labour Tribunal, Lands Tribunal, Small Claims Tribunal and the Competition Tribunal) are covered in addition to judgments of the Court of Final Appeal, the Court of Appeal, the Court of First Instance and the District Court (which were already included in the previous regime).

Joint forces of the SFC and the Insurance Authority

The SFC and the Insurance Authority (IA) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 28 September 2020 [15] with the aim of specifying their responsibilities on the regulation of insurance-related investment products and the sharing of information in respect of persons regulated under their supervisory regimes. Such persons include authorised insurers and licensed insurance intermediaries that are regulated by the IA and persons licensed by the SFC. If a case falls within the functions of both regulators, they may commence a joint inspection or joint investigation to enhance action effectiveness and minimise duplication of efforts.

The IA appointed joint and several managers to take full control of the affairs and property of Tahoe Life Insurance Company Limited (Tahoe Life) in July 2024 after the insurance company failed to improve its corporate governance and submit audited financial statements for years. [16] Earlier, the SFC and the IA worked together in the investigation on certain related party transactions of Tahoe Life and its fund manager. Such joint operation was the first of its kind since the above-mentioned Memorandum of Understanding. It also proves the regulators’ shared dedication to upholding the integrity of Hong Kong’s financial market across its different sectors.

Heavy jail sentences imposed on market manipulation offences

The Court of First Instance sentenced two individuals to imprisonment of six years and eight months and another individual to imprisonment of four years and four months in July 2024 after they were found guilty of conspiracy to carry out false trading in the shares of Ching Lee Holdings Limited (Ching Lee) in a historic 22-day trial by jury. This is the heaviest jail sentence imposed on market manipulation cases since the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (SFO) came into effect in 2003. This case demonstrates the Court’s determination in imposing heavy sentencing as deterrence and punishment for large-scale market manipulation offences. [17]

The case involved highly sophisticated and complex market manipulation activities. The offenders obtained illicit profits of approximately US$16 million by conspiring to maintain an artificial turnover of the shares in Ching Lee via manipulative transactions among 156 securities accounts under their control for more than five months. [18]

The SFC, in conducting its investigations, had also obtained assistance from regulators in other jurisdictions including the CSRC, the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Ontario Securities Commission, the Singapore Police Force, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority and the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Relevant tax and insolvency laws

Stamp duty reduction on stock transfers

The rate of Hong Kong stamp duty on stock transfers was reduced from 0.13 per cent to 0.1 per cent of the transaction value payable by each of the transferor and the transferee, effective from 17 November 2023.

Tax treatment of onshore gain on disposal of equity interests

Hong Kong does not tax capital gains. The gains or profits derived from Hong Kong on disposal of equity interests that are of capital nature are not subject to profits tax in Hong Kong and onshore losses on the disposal of the same nature are not tax deductible. Whether such gain is of capital nature is determined based on a ‘badges of trade’ analysis and relevant factors include frequency of similar acquisitions and disposals, holding period, holding percentage, reasons for purchasing or selling the equity interests. If the disposal gains are determined to be revenue in nature, they are subject to profits tax.

The Hong Kong government introduced a scheme to provide greater upfront certainty of non-taxation of onshore disposal gains of equity interests that are of capital nature. Accordingly, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Disposal Gain by Holder of Qualifying Equity Interests) Ordinance 2023 was enacted on 15 December 2023 to introduce a scheme where any disposal gain derived from Hong Kong by an eligible investor entity meeting specified conditions is to be regarded as capital in nature and not chargeable to profits tax and there is no need to conduct the ‘badges of trade’ analysis. The scheme applies to disposal gains from disposals of equity interests that occurred on or after 1 January 2024 and accrued in the basis period for a year of assessment beginning on or after 1 April 2023. [19]

The scheme covers any interest that carries rights to the profits, capital or reserves of the investee entity and is accounted for as equity in investee entity’s books, such as ordinary shares, preference shares and partnership interests, but excludes

equity interests that are regarded as trading stock for tax purposes, and
non-listed equity interests in any investee entity that engages in property trading, property development or property holding.

The investor entity must have held the equity interests throughout the continuous period of 24 months immediately before the date of disposal and such equity interests constitute at least 15 per cent of all the equity interests in the investee entity on a group basis.

Keepwell deeds

In offshore bonds issued by a Mainland China-based enterprise or its subsidiaries, the onshore parent often provides a keepwell deed. Unlike a guarantee, this deed does not obligate the parent to make the payments if the issuer defaults. Instead, the parent ensures the issuer (and guarantor, if applicable) will remain financially stable. The enforceability of a keepwell deed is brought into question if the issuer and guarantor become insolvent.

In Nuoxi Capital Limited v. Peking University Founder Group Company Limited [2021] HKCFI 3817, the defendant, as parent of the bond issuers, provided keepwell deeds that were governed by English law with exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction. Afterwards, the defendant itself faced financial difficulties and consequently an administrator was appointed by the Chinese court to commence reorganisation. When the issuers and guarantors defaulted, the defendant failed to fulfil the keepwell promises and thus the matter was tried in the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong. The defendant’s administrator rejected the plaintiffs’ payment claims, arguing that it was not possible for the Chinese regulatory authorities to approve transfer of the defendant’s funds out of China to satisfy the claims given the defendant’s insolvency. The Court held that the disputes in those keepwell deeds should be determined in Hong Kong. However, considering the remote likelihood of Chinese approvals as suggested by the administrator, the Court only made a declaration that the defendant breached the keepwell deeds and dismissed the claims brought by the three plaintiffs.

In the appeal case, Nuoxi Capital Limited, HongKong JHC Co Limited and Kunzhi Limited v. Peking University Founder Group Company Limited [2024] HKCA 445, the Court of Appeal ruled that the obligations under the keepwell deeds are binding and enforceable in the Hong Kong courts. Further, notwithstanding the Chinese regulatory approval requirement, the Court decided that if the defendant could make the payments by other methods that do not require such approvals (such as the utilisation of assets already outside Mainland China), the plaintiffs’ claims should be allowed. This judgment in this appeal case clarifies some common cross-jurisdictional issues in a typical keepwell deed.

Role of exchanges, central counterparties and rating agencies

Severe weather trading of Hong Kong securities and derivatives markets

From 23 September 2024 onwards, the Hong Kong's securities and derivatives markets will remain open and maintain normal operations in a digital and remote manner during severe weather conditions. [20] Over time, the Hong Kong financial markets have developed digital and online facilities that proved to be robust during the COVID-19 closure times. The city can now keep the securities and derivatives markets open for trading during severe weather conditions (i.e., when ‘Typhoon Signal No. 8’ or above is hoisted or after a ‘Black Rainstorm Warning’ or an ‘Extreme Conditions’ announcement is made by the Hong Kong government).

Accordingly, during periods of severe weather conditions, trading, clearing and settlement services and operations in both the securities and derivatives markets (covering equity securities, debt securities, investment vehicles, exchange-traded products, structured products, futures and options) continue, including the northbound and southbound trading of securities under the Stock Connects. Full market data dissemination will be maintained, ensuring that market participants have access to essential information without disruption. Hong Kong banking services will be provided to facilitate the trading but only through electronic channels, while bank branches will close.

Uncertificated securities market in Hong Kong

At present, there are two main ways for investors to reflect their equity stakes in listed shares of Hong Kong-listed companies. The legal ownership of most listed shares is registered under the name of HKSCC Nominees Limited (HKSCC) or the names of the shareholders. HKSCC is the central nominee for shares held in the Central Clearing and Settlement System (CCASS) and is a subsidiary of HKEX. Investors own the beneficial interests in the listed shares via their accounts maintained with CCASS participants, which may be brokerage houses, banks or other financial institutions. Only the listed shares registered under HKSCC can be traded on the open stock market of HKEX and the share transfers are conducted in CCASS.

Yet, due to historical reasons, listed companies allow investors to hold shares in their own names, registering them as legal owners and issuing physical share certificates. These shares can be transferred privately, or must be deposited with a CCASS participant to be sold on the open market.

The SFC announced in July 2024 [21] that an uncertificated securities market (USM) will be implemented in Hong Kong, after conducting public consultations. [22] The USM regime will enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of Hong Kong’s securities market by reducing the need for paper and manual processes, facilitating straight-through-processing and elevating the city’s financial market infrastructure.

The USM will encompass securities governed by laws compatible with the USM regime, including securities of listed issuers incorporated in Hong Kong, Mainland China, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, which are the most common jurisdictions for Hong Kong-listed issuers. It applies to different types of listed securities, including shares, depositary receipts, stapled securities and funds, but excluding subscription warrants and rights under a rights issue (unless their underlying securities are already participating securities) and debt securities.

The SFC and the Hong Kong government are finalising the legislation to be submitted to the Legislative Council by the fourth quarter of 2024. If enacted by the first quarter of 2025, USM implementation is targeted by the end of 2025.

Within five years after the USM legislation is enacted and the USM is implemented, all the above-mentioned eligible prescribed securities must participate in the USM by following the USM procedures and formalities. Once they become participating securities, title instruments may no longer be issued for those securities. All eligible prescribed securities that are first listed after the USM is implemented must be in uncertificated form from the time of listing. Investors may hold securities in their own name and in uncertificated form via a facility (the USI facility), which will enable investors to manage their uncertificated holdings directly.

The central nominee structure in CCASS will be retained, such that securities held in CCASS will continue to be registered in the name of HKSCC. The processes for moving securities between accounts within CCASS will remain largely unchanged. The main change will be to the processes for depositing or withdrawing securities into or out of CCASS once they become participating securities, as those processes will be electronic rather than paper-based.

Depositaries of SFC-authorised collective investment schemes

From 2 October 2024 onwards, any depositary (such as a trustee or a custodian) of SFC-authorised collective investment schemes (CISs) will be required to be licensed by or registered with the SFC for Type 13 regulated activity (RA 13) under the SFO, unless the CIS is

a registered mandatory provident fund scheme or a constituent fund of such scheme, or
an approved pooled investment fund that is not offered to retail investors. [23]

The depositary services covered by this new regime refer to

the custody and safekeeping of relevant CIS property, and
the oversight of a relevant CIS to ensure that it is operated in accordance with its scheme documents.

The licensing and registration requirements under Part V of the SFO and most of the SFC’s existing licensing publications, including the Fit and Proper Guidelines and the Guidelines on Competence, also apply to depositaries and their representatives. Ongoing requirements include maintenance of minimum paid-up share capital amount and liquidity capital amount, monthly financial returns and record keeping. A new Schedule 11 to the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission will set out additional requirements for RA 13 depositaries.

Other strategic considerations

The SFC has set four strategic priorities for 2024 to 2026, namely,

maintaining market resilience and mitigating serious harm to the markets,
enhancing the global competitiveness and appeal of Hong Kong capital markets,
leading financial market transformation through technology and ESG, and
enhancing institutional resilience and operational efficiency. [24]

HKEX will continue to capture the opportunities ahead, driven by the ongoing release of Mainland China’s domestic savings pool, the increasing relevance of the Asian economy, the global sustainability agenda and the progress of technology and innovation. [25]

Outlook and conclusions

Market sentiments in the Hong Kong capital markets will remain influenced by macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. It is important for the regulators and participants to collaborate to build a stronger, yet flexible, infrastructure for the city’s capital markets and keep diversifications in order to attract new capital and maintain market reputation.

Footnotes:

Market sentiments in the Hong Kong capital markets will remain influenced by macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. It is important for the regulators and participants to collaborate to build a stronger, yet flexible, infrastructure for the city’s capital markets and keep diversifications in order to attract new capital and maintain market reputation.
Chapter 18C (Specialist Technology Companies) of the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited.
‘Joint Announcement of the SFC and the Exchange in Relation to Temporary Modifications to Requirements for Specialist Technology Companies and De-SPAC Transactions’, Securities and Futures Commission and The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 23 August 2024.
Chapter 18B (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) of the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited.
‘Joint Announcement of the SFC and the Exchange in Relation to Temporary Modifications to Requirements for Specialist Technology Companies and De-SPAC Transactions’, Securities and Futures Commission and The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 23 August 2024.
‘Consultation Paper on GEM Listing Reforms’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, September 2023.
‘Consultation Conclusions on GEM Listing Reforms’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, December 2023.
‘Consultation Conclusions on Proposed Amendments to Listing Rules Relating to Treasury Shares’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, April 2024.
For STAGE portal of HKEX, please see https://www.hkex.com.hk/Join-Our-Market/Sustainable-Finance/HKEX-STAGE/Product-Repository?sc_lang=en .
Joint announcement of the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, 11 August 2023. Please see https://www.sfc.hk/en/News-and-announcements/Policy-statements-and-announcements/Joint-Announcement-of-the-CSRC-and-the-SFC-Aug-2023 .
Press release titled ‘SFC welcomes CSRC’s announcement of five measures on capital market cooperation with Hong Kong’, Securities and Futures Commission, 19 April 2024.
Press release titled ‘Expansion of Eligible ETFs on Stock Connect to Take Effect on 22 July’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 14 June 2024.
Press release titled ‘Hong Kong to launch China treasury bond futures’, Securities and Futures Commission, 24 November 2023; and press release titled ‘HKEX to Launch China Treasury Bond Futures’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 24 November 2023.
Leaflet on ‘Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Reciprocal Enforcement Ordinance (Cap. 645)’, Department of Justice of Hong Kong, December 2023. Please see https://www.doj.gov.hk/cap645/en/useful_information/pdf/doj_mainland_judgments_leaflet_en.pdf .
Press release titled ‘Insurance Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission sign new Memorandum of Understanding’, Insurance Authority of Hong Kong, 28 September 2020.
Press release titled ‘SFC and IA joined forces to tackle cross-sector irregularities’, Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong, 26 July 2024.
Press release titled ‘Three jailed between 52 and 80 months in landmark market manipulation case’, Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong, 22 July 2024.
Press release titled ‘Market manipulators convicted in landmark High Court jury trial’, Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong, 29 May 2024.
‘Onshore Gain on Disposal of Equity Interests – Tax Certainty Enhancement Scheme’, Inland Revenue Department of Hong Kong. Please see https://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/tax/bus_taxcertainty.htm .
Press release titled ‘HKEX to Implement Severe Weather Trading in Securities and Derivatives Markets from 23 September 2024’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 18 June 2024.
‘Consultation conclusions on proposed subsidiary legislation, code and guidelines for implementing an uncertificated securities market in Hong Kong’, Securities and Futures Commission, July 2024.
‘Consultation paper on proposed subsidiary legislation for implementing an uncertificated securities market in Hong Kong’, Securities and Futures Commission, March 2023; and ‘Consultation paper on proposed code and guidelines for implementing an uncertificated securities market in Hong Kong’, Securities and Futures Commission, October 2023.
‘Circular on licensing and registration of depositaries of SFC-authorised collective investment schemes and related transitional arrangements’, Securities and Futures Commission, 27 July 2023. Please see https://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-information/guidelines-and-circular/2023/20230727e1a1.pdf .
‘SFC’s Strategic Priorities for 2024-2026’, Securities and Futures Commission, January 2024. Please see https://www.sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/COM/PDF/SFCStrategic-Priorities-EngJan-2024.pdf?rev=15103555c5654e78b919017211ead05d&hash=D95C8551E2D444C4DBD2037F3B694441 .
‘2023 Final Results, Dividend and Closure of Register of Members’, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 29 February 2024, page 12. Please see https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2024/0229/2024022900306.pdf .

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 — 香港章》第14版

Tue, 24 Dec 2024 03:25:15 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 —— 香港章》第14版

本所合伙人 朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 撰写 Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场》第 14 版 — 香港章并在2024 年 12 月 17 日线上发表。

本材料仅供一般参考。它不构成法律或其他专业建议。(仅具英文版)

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

朱静文律师荣登《商法》A-List法律精英2024-25：睿见领袖榜单

Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:15 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师荣登《商法》A-List法律精英2024-25：睿见领袖榜单

本所很荣幸地宣布：本所合伙人 朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 荣誉入选为《商法》于2024年12月17日公布的 “A-List 法律精英2024-25: 睿见领袖 (国际) ” 得奖者之一，并被视为最受市场推荐的精英律师。朱律师是连续第五年上榜“A-List 法律精英”大奖。

《商法》“A-List法律精英：睿见领袖” 评选关注的是在律所内外兼显卓越成就的资深法律精英。他们身居管理要职，多为律所创始人、管理合伙人或执业领域的牵头合伙人等，不仅在专业领域领军独步，更敏锐洞见行业大势，为律所发展筹谋布局。获选律师均已在法律界深耕多年，展现出深厚的专业素养和卓越的业务水平，赢得广泛赞誉。他们追求极致，不断精益求精，深受客户信赖。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如需查看有关 “A-List法律精英 2024-25: 睿见领袖”的完整名册，请访问： https://law.asia/zh-hans/china/china-top-lawyers-2024/

近期消息

Rossana Chu is named as a Visionary in China Business Law Journal A-List 2024-25

Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:27:14 GMT

EN / 简

Rossana Chu is named as a Visionary in China Business Law Journal A-List 2024-25

We are pleased to announce that our Partner, Rossana Chu , is ranked by China Business Law Journal as one of The Visionaries (International) for 2024-25, as announced on 17 December 2024, and is recognised as amongst the most highly recommended lawyers in the market. Ms. Chu has continuously been listed for five consecutive years on the A-List awards of China Business Law Journal .

The A-List: Visionaries of China Business Law Journal honours seasoned legal luminaries who have distinguished themselves both within and beyond their firms. In key management positions of founders, managing partners or heads of practice areas, they excel in their profession and develop sharp industry insight to steer their firms’ strategic growth. These chosen distinguished lawyers have long been entrenched in the legal realm, demonstrating profound expertise and superior capabilities. It is their unwavering pursuit of excellence that has earned them wide acclaim and strong client confidence.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information about the A-List 2024-25: Visionaries report, please visit: https://law.asia/top-china-lawyers-2024/

Recent News

大湾区跨境数据流动新机制

Mon, 09 Dec 2024 13:04:37 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

大湾区跨境数据流动新机制

背景

中国内地《个人信息保护法》

于2021年起正式实施的《个人信息保护法》规定了个人信息出境的三种主要路径（适用豁免情形除外）：

非关键信息基础设施运营者和处理个人信息低于规定数量的公司可采用中国内地的国家互联网信息办公室（下称“网信办”）颁布的《个人信息标准合同》将个人信息传输到境外。在采用《个人信息标准合同》前必须进行并向中国内地地方网信办提交个人信息保护影响评估。
公司可向授权认证机构申请获得个人信息保护认证，证明公司的数据处理活动符合相关标准。
被归类为关键信息基础设施运营者、处理人个信息达到规定数量的公司以及需向中国内地境外传输特殊类别数据的公司必须通过政府部门组织的安全评估。

香港《个人资料（私隐）条例》（下称《私隐条例》）

于1996年正式施行的《私隐条例》是香港主要的数据保护法，它并没有明文限制跨境数据传输。

企业若计划将数据从香港转移至境外，应遵守《私隐条例》下的数据保护原则3，该原则要求数据使用者必须告知数据主体数据收集的目的、转移数据的受让者类别，并在数据用于新的目的时获取数据主体的明确同意。

此外，香港个人资料私隐专员公署（下称“私隐专员公署”）分别于2014年和2022年就《建议合约条文范本》发布指引。这些指引旨在帮助数据处理机构和用户在跨境传输个人数据过程中遵守《私隐条例》。

大湾区跨境数据传输法

适用地域范围

《大湾区标准合同》适用于以下九个城市和两个特别行政区之间的个人信息跨境传输，即广州、深圳、珠海、佛山、惠州、东莞、中山、江门、肇庆、香港和澳门。

数据类别

除大湾区有关部门指定的“重要数据”，所有类别的个人信息均可采用《大湾区标准合同》进行传输。

禁止传输至大湾区以外地区

《大湾区标准合同》不适用于需要将个人信息传输至大湾区以外地区的情形。

个人信息保护影响评估

这是对数据传输的合法性、必要性和安全风险的评估，个人信息处理者必须在向相关部门提交《大湾区标准合同》备案之日前三个月内完成评估。

备案要求

已签署的《大湾区标准合同》、承诺书、获授权代表人身份证明文件及其他支持文件必须在10个工作日内提交给相关部门。

管辖法律与争议解决

《大湾区标准合同》可适用中国内地或香港法律。争议可通过中国内地或香港的法院或仲裁解决。

合规与执法

如有安全风险或事故发生，监管部门可要求当事方整改。如任一当事方没有履行合同义务，另一方可向国家网信办、广东网信办、香港创新科技及工业局、香港政府资讯科技总监办公室和私隐专员公署投诉。

对香港数据保护的影响

对香港实体的合规要求加码

《私隐条例》没有中国内地《个人信息保护法》中要求跨境数据传输向政府备案的要求。而随着《大湾区标准合同》机制的建立，两地的数据处理者和数据接收方都须在合同生效日的10个工作日内向各自主管部门提交《大湾区标准合同》备案。此外，在大湾区内进行跨境数据传输的香港实体现面临一个新的合规要求——必须进行个人信息保护影响评估。

相关内地实体的合规负担减轻

相比《个人信息保护法》下的《个人信息标准合同》，《大湾区标准合同》的要求更宽松。比如，大湾区的数据出口方不会因受数据量阈值限制而触发安全评估，且个人信息保护影响评估的适用范围更为狭窄。

巩固香港作为数据枢纽的地位

《大湾区标准合同》机制为大湾区内的个人数据传输建立了法律框架，旨在推动区域内的数据流动。随着该机制的实施，香港将吸引意欲在大湾区建立区域数据中心或枢纽以支持其在该区域运营活动的公司，这将巩固香港作为大湾区数据枢纽的地位。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2024年12月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Facilitating cross-border data flow in the GBA

Mon, 09 Dec 2024 12:48:19 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Facilitating cross-border data flow in the GBA

Background

Mainland China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL)

The PIPL (effective from 2021) stipulates three main methods for transferring personal data abroad (subject to exemptions):

Companies not classified as critical information infrastructure operators processing personal information below a specified quantity threshold can use Standard Contractual Clauses (China SCCs) issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) to transfer personal information abroad. A personal information protection impact assessment (PIPIA) must be conducted and filed with the local CAC authority before using the China SCC.
Companies can obtain personal information protection certification from authorised certification institutions, verifying that their data processing complies with relevant standards.
Companies that: (1) are classified as critical information infrastructure operators; (2) have processed personal information exceeding a specified quantity threshold; and (3) the transfer of certain types of data outside mainland China must undergo a mandatory government-led security assessment review.

Hong Kong’s Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO)

Hong Kong’s primary data protection legislation, the PDPO (effective from 1996), does not explicitly restrict cross-border data transfers.

Companies intending to transfer data outside Hong Kong should generally observe the Data Protection Principle 3 under the PDPO, which requires data users to inform data subjects about the purpose of data collection and classes of transferees, and obtain prescribed consent from them if the transfer is for a new purpose.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data of Hong Kong (PCPD) also issued two guidelines, in 2014 and 2022, on Recommended Model Contractual Clauses. These guidelines assist data processors and users in complying with the PDPO for cross-border transfers of personal data.

GBA SCC data transfer

Territorial scope

The GBA SCC applies to cross-border transfers of personal information among the nine cities and two special administrative regions within the GBA: Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Foshan, Huizhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Jiangmen, Zhaoqing, Hong Kong and Macau.

Types of data

All types of personal information can be transferred under the GBA SCC, except for “important data” designated as such by GBA authorities.

No onward transfers outside the GBA

The GBA SCC is not applicable in situations requiring onward transfers of personal information outside the GBA.

PIPIA

The PIPIA is an assessment of the legality, necessity and security risks of the data transfer, which must be completed by the personal information processor three months before the date of filing the GBA SCC with relevant authorities.

Filing requirement

The signed GBA SCC, a letter of undertaking, the authorised representative’s identity document and other supporting documents must be filed with the relevant authorities within 10 working days.

Governing law & dispute resolution

The GBA SCC can be governed by either mainland China or Hong Kong law. Disputes can be resolved through courts or arbitration in mainland China or Hong Kong.

Compliance & enforcement

Regulatory authorities can request rectification if there are security risks or incidents. Parties can file complaints either at the CAC, Guangdong’s CAC, the Innovation, Technology and Industry Bureau in Hong Kong, the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer in Hong Kong, or the PCPD if any obligations under the GBA SCC are not met.

Implication takeaways

Increased compliance requirements for Hong Kong entities

Under the PDPO, there is no requirement for government filings for any cross-border data transfer, unlike the requirements in mainland China under the PIPL.

With the introduction of the GBA SCC mechanism, data processors and data recipients in both regions are required to file the GBA SCC with their respective authorities within 10 working days of the contract’s effective date.

Further, Hong Kong-based entities are now required to conduct a PIPIA before engaging in cross-border data transfers within the GBA, adding a new compliance requirement for Hong Kong-based businesses.

Reduced compliance burden for mainland China entities

Compared to the China SCC under the PIPL, the GBA SCC imposes less stringent requirements. For instance, there is no volume threshold that would trigger a security assessment for data exporters in the GBA, and the scope of the PIPIA is narrower.

Strengthened Hong Kong status as data hub

The GBA SCC mechanism provides a legal framework for the transfer of personal data within the GBA that aims to facilitate data flow within the region.

Availability of the GBA SCC also makes Hong Kong an attractive location for companies seeking to establish regional data centres or hubs to support their operations across the GBA, which could strengthen Hong Kong’s position as a data hub within the GBA.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in December 2024 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

朱静文律师在《商法 — 蹊径求索》中分享见解

Fri, 29 Nov 2024 09:37:46 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师在《商法 — 蹊径求索》中分享见解

本所合伙人 朱静文律师 在2024年10月18日出版的《商法》聚焦中国经济市场分析报告专题 《蹊径求索》 中亮相，该报告对市场中的关键趋势和监管发展进行了全面分析，朱律师分享了她对客户投资取向近期变化的观察。

"在经历了几乎整个2023年都相当沉闷的经济氛围之后，香港经济正逐渐摆脱阴霾。我们公司的并购、资本市场和私人财富管理业务变得更加活跃。一个原因是中国内地和香港政府都采取了积极措施来刺激经济，从而提升公众和投资者的信心。另一个原因可能是人们越来越习惯于并因此更能够管理由地缘政治因素和高利率引起的风险。"

"客户最近更加重视管理各种风险，包括涉及交易对手可信度、汇率波动、外国政府制裁以及投资标的价值波动等问题。投资者越来越倾向于寻求更多保护措施，如抵押品、利润保证、认购期权等，表明他们对承担商业风险的意愿减少。"

~ 引录 - 杨杨朱律师事务所合伙人朱静文律师

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

阅读全整报道，请访问: https://law.asia/zh-hans/legal-advice-companies-uncharted-territory/

近期消息

Rossana Chu shared insights in “Roads less travelled” by CBLJ

Fri, 29 Nov 2024 09:23:16 GMT

EN / 简

Rossana Chu shared insights in “Roads less travelled” by CBLJ

Our Partner Ms. Rossana Chu is featured in the China Business Law Journal special report titled “Roads less travelled” published on 18 October 2024. The report provided a comprehensive analysis of key trends and regulatory development in the market. Ms. Chu shared her observations on recent changes in clients’ investment orientation.

"After a rather dull economic atmosphere lasted for almost the whole of 2023, the Hong Kong economy is gradually coming out of the gloom. Mergers & acquisitions, capital markets and private wealth management are becoming more active in our firm’s practice. One reason is both the Mainland China and Hong Kong governments are taking active measures to boost the economy, thus giving more confidence to the public and investors. The other reason might be that people are getting more used to, and therefore more equipped to manage, the risks arising from geopolitical factors and high interest rates."

"Clients recently give more priority on management of different risks including those involving counterparty’s credibility, exchange rate fluctuations, foreign government sanctions, fluctuations in value of the investment targets. Investors are more inclined to ask for more protections such as collateral, profit guarantees, put options, demonstrating that they have a smaller appetite to take commercial risks."

~ says Rossana Chu, Partner, YYC Legal

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To read the full Report, please visit: https://law.asia/legal-advice-companies-uncharted-territory/

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登2025年度《亚太法律500强》大中华区榜单排名

Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:52:48 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登2025年度《亚太法律500强》大中华区榜单排名

国际权威法律评级机构《亚太法律500强》（The Legal 500 Asia Pacific）于2024年11月20日正式发布了其2025年度大中华区排名，我们非常荣幸地宣布： 杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙 以及本所合伙人 朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 在 商业、企业及并购︰独立的香港律师事务所 类别荣誉上榜，获评选为“ 领先律所 ”及“ 领先合伙人 ”。《亚太法律 500 强》的年度排名表彰律所和律师于不同业务领域的领先地位，其调研是基于对律所提交材料、客户的反馈、及对法务总监和私人执业律师采访结果的分析。

“YYC Legal LLP is jointly led by Victor Yang and ‘seasoned corporate partner’ Rossana Chu, and is known for handling a broad range of matters concerning disposals and tax matters, with a strong focus on the banking, real estate, and financial services sectors. Chu joined the group from legacy firm LC Lawyers LLP in January 2024, contributing her vast knowledge of privatisation, market capitalisation, and fund raising mandates. Yang is recommended for his longstanding experience in handling M&A, listings, and securities issues within the logistics, hospitality, and telecoms industries.”

~ 编辑评论, The Legal 500

https://www.legal500.com/rankings/ranking/c-hong-kong/commercial-corporate-and-ma-independent-hong-kong-law-firms/242341-yyc-legal-llp

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

近期消息

YYC Legal ranked in Legal 500 Asia Pacific Greater China 2025

Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:38:32 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal ranked in Legal 500 Asia Pacific Greater China 2025

We are thrilled to announce that YYC Legal LLP is recognised by The Legal 500 Asia Pacific as a Leading Firm and our partner Rossana Chu is named as a Leading Partner in the category of Commercial, corporate and M&A: independent Hong Kong law firms in its Greater China 2025 edition launched on 20 November 2024. The annual publication of The Legal 500 Asia Pacific recognises the leading law firms and lawyers in various practice areas based on its analysis on law firm submissions, feedback from clients, and interviews with general counsels and private practice lawyers.

~ Legal 500 Editorial commentary

https://www.legal500.com/rankings/ranking/c-hong-kong/commercial-corporate-and-ma-independent-hong-kong-law-firms/242341-yyc-legal-llp

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

Recent News

胡铭深律师荣膺2024年度ALB香港律师新星

Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:29:14 GMT

EN / 简

胡铭深律师荣膺2024年度ALB香港律师新星(ALB Hong Kong Rising Stars 2024)

我们欣然宣布本所合伙人 胡铭深律师 (Sam Wu) 荣获《亚洲法律杂志》(ALB) 评选为 2024年度ALB香港律师新星(ALB Hong Kong Rising Stars 2024) 。

2024年度ALB香港律师新星榜单于2024年11月25日公布。该榜单旨在表彰 40 岁以下香港新一代杰出律师，他们在行业中展现出非凡潜力，同时赢得客户的强烈赞誉。该榜单的评选标准包括重要交易或案件、主要客户以及以公众认可、奖项等形式获得的重大荣誉。

胡律师拥有超过10年的经验。他的执业范围主要集中在跨境并购、企业融资、公司和商业事务、私募股权、金融科技法规、数据保护和隐私法。荣登榜单证明了胡律师卓越的法律专业知识以及他对工作和客户的奉献和承诺。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如需查看完整名单，请访问: https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/features/rankings-alb-hong-kong-rising-stars-2024

近期消息

Sam Wu is recognised in ALB Hong Kong Rising Stars 2024

Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:25:42 GMT

EN / 简

Sam Wu is recognised in ALB Hong Kong Rising Stars 2024

We are pleased to announce that our Partner, Sam Wu , has been recognised by Asian Legal Business (ALB) as one of ALB Hong Kong Rising Stars 2024 .

The ALB Hong Kong Rising Stars 2024 list was announced on 25 November 2024. It highlights Hong Kong’s next generation of standout lawyers under the age of 40 who demonstrate exceptional potential in the industry while earning strong praise from their clients. The list was chosen based on criteria such as important deals or cases, key clients, and significant accolades received in the form of public recognition, awards, etc.

Sam has more than 10 years of experience. His practice is primarily focused on cross-border mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, corporate and commercial matters, private equity, fintech regulations, data protection, and privacy law. This recognition is a testament to Sam’s excellent legal expertise and his dedication and commitment to his work and clients.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To view the full list, please visit: https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/features/rankings-alb-hong-kong-rising-stars-2024

Recent News

香港拟出台关键基础设施的网络安全法

Tue, 26 Nov 2024 06:33:24 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

香港拟出台关键基础设施的网络安全法

规管对象

拟议法案的规管对像为：

为香港社会提供以下八个领域的必要服务：（能源、资讯科技、银行和金融服务、陆上交通、航空交通、海运、医疗保健、以及通讯和广播）；或
维持重要的社会和经济活动，如大型体育及表演场地、科研园区，的关键基础设施营运者。

新法例只规管与关键基础设施的正常运作相关的电脑系统，不论其实际位置，而相关营运者的其他系统则不在该法例规管范围。

由于政府内部已有一套详尽的内部信息技术安全政策和指引，新法案将不适用于政府运营的必要服务（如供水、排水和紧急救援）。因此政府部门将继续遵循现行的行政框架执行这些政策。

执行负责人

拟议法案提议成立一个隶属保安局的专责办公室负责执行拟议法案下的工作，包括执行以下职责：指定关键基础设施营运者（CIOs）和关键电脑系统（CCSs）；制定实务守则并向CIOs就其应采取的措施提供建议；监察针对CCSs的保安威胁；帮助CIOs应对电脑系统保安事故；调查及跟进CIOs的违规行为和违法行为；协调各政府部门在制定政策及指引和处理事故方面的工作；以及向CIOs发出书面指示，解决潜在的保安漏洞。

关键基础设施的界定

对关键基础设施的界定将取决于该设施是否在香港提供必要的服务，或者维持重要的社会和经济活动，是否依赖信息技术，以及其遭到破坏、功能丧失或数据泄露时对社会造成的影响是否严重。

关键基础设施的指定营运者。专责办公室将明确指明哪些营运者为“关键基础设施营运者”。绝大部分营运者属于大型机构，但为防止关键基础设施成为网络攻击的目标，CIOs的名单不会公开。

CIOs 的义务

CIOs必须履行的责任分为三大类：

架构。 CIO必须在香港设有地址和办事处；须报告关键基础设施的拥有权和营运权的变化；设有具备专业知识的电脑系统安全管理部门（可外包），并由CIO公司的专责主管负责监督。
预防。 向专责办公室报告有关CCSs的重大变化，包括对其设计、配置、安全或运行的重大变化等；制定及实施电脑系统保安管理计划；至少每年进行一次电脑系统保安风险评估；必须至少每两年一次进行独立电脑系统保安审计；采取措施确保聘用的第三方服务提供者履行相关法定责任。
事故通报及应对。 至少每两年一次参与电脑系统安全演习；制订应急计划；在指定时间内向专责办公室报告电脑系统保安事故（即未经合法授权在电脑系统上或通过电脑系统进行的破坏或不利于电脑系统安全的活动）：（a）严重电脑系统保安事故（如对必要服务的连续性造成重大影响或导致个人信息大规模外泄的事故），在得悉事件发生后两小时内报告；（b）其他电脑系统保安事故，在得悉事件发生后24小时内报告。

应专责办公室在调查事故或与上述三类义务相关的罪行时所发出的要求，CIOs必须提交其可取得的相关资料，尽管该等资料位于香港境外。

个别行业的指定监管机构

部分必要服务行业已受其他法定行业监管机构的全面规管。这些监管机构可负责监管相关行业的CIOs履行架构及预防的责任。现阶段，拟议法案建议指定：

香港金融管理局监管银行和金融服务行业的服务提供者，以及
通讯事务管理局监管通讯和广播行业的服务提供者。

但专责办公室将全面掌握所有CIOs的事故通报及应对情况，以便协调应对工作，调查事故，防范事故扩散至其他CIOs。

违规的刑罰

CIOs需遵守拟议法案项下的法定责任及专责办公室发出的书面指示及要求，否则可能构成违法，罚款范围为港币50万至500万元不等。如果机构持续忽视合规义务，可能会被处以额外的每日罚款。

CIOs即使因第三方服务提供者的行为（或不作为）而不合规，仍需为违规行为负责。这特显CIOs须严谨地审查和管理外部合作伙伴，以降低违规风险。

拟议法案采取“机构为本”的方式，涉事人员或员工一般不会面临个人罚款。可是，如违规行为涉及如欺诈活动或向专责办公室提供虚假陈述等香港刑事法律，相关人员可能会面临个人刑事责任。

法律将设立上诉机制，以允许CIOs对专责办公室有关CIOs或CCSs的指定或其书面指示提出上诉。

实务守则

专责办公室将发布《实务守则》列出相关要求，比如：

报告CCSs的重大变更；
独立电脑系统保安审计；
电脑系统保安风险评估；
电脑系统保安管理计划；以及
事故应对义务。

未来路向

政府计划在2024年年底将拟议法案提交立法会审议。拟议法案通过后一年内将成立专责办公室并预计在之后六个月内生效。

对营运者的影响

拟议法案将要求CIOs独自负责保障它们的CCSs的安全，而政府亦不被准许获取这些系统中的个人数据或商业信息。

可能被指定为CIOs的机构应评估及提高CCSs的网络安全水平，认真研读法律要求，包括拟议的实务守则，并准备合规预算。此外，与外包承包商的合作对于全面履行即将出台的法律义务也至关重要。

然而，招聘合格的网络安全专家、监督者以及其他所需人员是一个亟待解决的挑战，因此CIOs及其外包承包商应慎重考虑此问题。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Hong Kong proposes critical infrastructure cybersecurity law

Tue, 26 Nov 2024 05:52:44 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong proposes critical infrastructure cybersecurity law

Regulation targets

The proposed legislation seeks to regulate the operators of critical infrastructure that are necessary for:

the continuous delivery of essential services in Hong Kong across eight sectors (energy, information technology, banking and financial services, land transport, air transport, maritime, healthcare services, and communications and broadcasting); or
maintaining important societal and economic activities in Hong Kong, like major sports and performance venues, and research and development parks.

The new law will regulate only computer systems that are related to the normal functioning of critical infrastructure, regardless of their physical location, but not the operators’ other systems.

The legislation will not apply to essential services operated by the government – like water supply, drainage and emergency relief – as the government already has comprehensive internal information technology security policies and guidelines. Consequently, government departments will continue to be regulated by the existing administrative framework.

Administration

A new commissioner’s office will be established under the Security Bureau, to implement the proposed legislation, including the performance of the following duties: designating critical infrastructure operators (CIOs) and critical computer systems (CCSs); establishing code of practice and giving advice on the measures to be adopted by CIOs; monitoring security threats against CCSs; assisting CIOs in responding to computer system security incidents; investigating and following up on non-compliance and offences committed by the CIOs; coordinating with various government departments in formulating policies and guidelines and handling incidents; and issuing written instructions to CIOs addressing potential security loopholes.

Designation

Whether a piece of infrastructure is designated as a critical infrastructure will depend on factors such as whether it provides essential services or maintains important societal and economic activities in Hong Kong, its reliance on information technology, and the severity of societal impact in the event of damage, loss of functionality or data leakage.

Operators

The commissioner’s office will expressly designate certain operators as CIOs. These operators will mostly be large organisations but the list of designated CIOs will not be made public to protect their critical infrastructure from potential cyberattacks.

CIOs’ obligations

Designated CIOs will be required to fulfil three types of obligations:

Organisational. To maintain an address and office in Hong Kong; to report changes in the ownership and operation of the critical infrastructure; and to set up a computer system security management unit with professional knowledge (may be outsourced) supervised by a dedicated supervisor of the CIO.
Preventive. To inform the commissioner’s office of material changes to their CCSs like design, configuration, security and operation; to formulate and implement a computer system security management plan; to conduct a computer system security risk assessment at least once every year; to conduct a computer system security audit at least once every two years; and to adopt measures to ensure that third-party service providers comply with relevant statutory obligations.
Incident reporting and response. To participate in a computer system security drill at least once every two years; to formulate an emergency response plan; and to notify the commissioner’s office about computer system security incidents (activities carried out without lawful authority on or through a computer system that jeopardise or adversely affect its computer system security) : (a) within two hours of becoming aware of a serious computer system security incident (one that has a major impact on the continuity of essential services, large-scale leakages of personal information), and (b) within 24 hours of becoming aware of other computer system security incidents.

Upon request by the commissioner’s office in the course of investigating an incident or offence related to the three types of obligations above, CIOs must submit relevant information available to the commissioner’s office, even if such information is located outside Hong Kong.

Sector regulators

Certain essential service sectors are already comprehensively regulated by statutory sector regulators. These regulators can monitor the discharging of CIOs’ organisational and preventive obligations. At this stage, it is proposed that:

the Hong Kong Monetary Authority will be the designated authority to regulate service providers in the banking and financial services sector; and
the Communications Authority will be the authority responsible for regulating service providers in the communications and broadcasting sector.

Nevertheless, the commissioner’s office will fully grasp any incident and the response arrangements of all CIOs to co-ordinate, investigate and prevent incidents from spreading to other CIOs.

Penalties for non-compliance

CIOs are expected to adhere to the statutory obligations under the proposed legislation and written directions and requests issued by the commissioner’s office. Failure to do so may constitute an offence and result in fines ranging from HK$500,000 to HK$5 million. If an organisation continues to disregard certain compliance obligations, additional daily fines may be imposed.

CIOs will also be held accountable for non-compliance even if it stems from the actions (or inactions) of third-party service providers. This emphasises the need for CIOs to thoroughly vet and manage their external partners to mitigate risks of non-compliance.

The proposed legislation adopts an organisation-focused approach in terms of the bearing of statutory obligations, and thus generally individual officers or staff members involved will not face personal penalties under the proposed legislation. That said, if certain non-compliance scenarios intersect with existing criminal laws in Hong Kong, for example, involving fraudulent activities or making false statements to the commissioner’s office, the individuals involved may face personal criminal liability.

An appeal mechanism will be established to allow CIOs to appeal against designations of CIOs or CCSs or directions issued by the commissioner's office.

Code of practice

The commissioner’s office will issue a code of practice with requirements such as:

reporting of material changes to CCSs;
independent computer system security audits;
computer system security risk assessments;
computer system security management plans; and
incident response obligations.

Way forward

The government plans to present the proposed legislation to the Legislative Council by the end of 2024. After the bill is passed, the commissioner’s office will be established within a year. The legislation will come into effect within the following six months.

Impact on operators

The proposed legislation will require CIOs alone to bear responsibility for securing their CCSs. It does not permit the government to obtain personal data or business information from such systems.

Organisations that are potential CIOs should evaluate and enhance the cybersecurity of their CCSs, understand legal requirements including the proposed code of practice, and allocate a budget for compliance. It is essential for them to collaborate with their outsourced contractors to effectively comply with the forthcoming statutory obligations.

However, a challenge ahead is the recruitment of competent cybersecurity experts, supervisors and other required personnel. This issue deserves careful consideration by both the CIOs and their outsourced contractors.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

胡铭深律师荣登2024年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 – 大中华区榜单

Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:28:17 GMT

EN / 简

胡铭深律师荣登2024年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024) – 大中华区榜单

本所欣然宣布本所合伙人 胡铭深律师 (Sam Wu) 荣获著名的 2024年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024) – 大中华区榜单 评选为获奖者之一。这一奖项旨在表彰40位40岁或以下并展现出巨大潜力和推动法律行业发展强大动力的杰出法律专业人士。

胡律师拥有超过10年的经验。他的执业范围主要集中在跨境并购、企业融资、公司和商业事务、私募股权、金融科技法规、数据保护和隐私法。

本奖项肯定了胡律师的专业精神和对卓越的追求，亦认可胡律师在助力本所成功完成多项大型交易以及为本所的快速发展和声誉做出重大贡献方面所发挥的关键作用。特别是他代表中信集团以136亿港元出售其中国中信股份有限公司(00267.HK)股份的项目，由胡律师领导的团队获得了多项荣誉，包括LegalOne Merits (典范) 奖项及荣登LegalOne 2023年度中国区杰出交易及案例榜单。胡律师亦于2024年度ALB香港法律大奖中荣获提名年度金融科技律师，以表彰他在金融科技领域的卓越专业知识和经验，以及他驾驭如人工智能和加密货币等新兴和快速发展的法律领域的能力。

我们祝贺胡律师获得这实至名归的认可。我们亦借此机会向我们的客户对我们的信任和支持表示衷心的感谢。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如需查看胡律师在 2024年度《律商联讯》40位40岁以下精英 (LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024) – 大中华区榜单中的个人简介和职业生涯亮点，请访问： https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40/2024/gc-list/sam-wu

如需查看完整获奖者名单，请访问： https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40

近期消息

Sam Wu is recognised in the LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024 – Greater China List

Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:28:14 GMT

EN / 简

Sam Wu is recognised in the LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024 – Greater China List

We are pleased to announce that our Partner, Sam Wu , has been recognised as one of the winners in the prestigious LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024 – Greater China List . This exclusive industry recognition celebrates 40 outstanding legal professionals aged 40 or younger who exhibit tremendous potential for growth and a strong motivation to drive the development of the legal sector forward.

This award is a testament to Sam’s professionalism and commitment to excellence. It also recognises Sam’s crucial role in successfully completing numerous sizeable deals for our firm and significantly contributing to our firm's rapid growth and reputation. Notably, he represented CITIC Group in the sale of its shares in CITIC Limited (00267.HK) for HK$13.6 billion, for which the team led by Sam received several accolades, including the LegalOne Merits (Exemplary) and recognition in the LegalOne Deals of the Year (China) 2023. Sam was also shortlisted as a finalist for Fintech Lawyer of the Year at the ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2024, recognising his exceptional expertise and experience in the fintech sector and his ability to navigate emerging and rapidly evolving areas of law such as artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency.

We extend our congratulations to Sam on this well-deserved recognition. We also take this opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude to our clients for their trust and support.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To view Sam’s profile and career highlights in the LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024 – Greater China List, please visit: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40/2024/gc-list/sam-wu

To view the full list of winners, please visit: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40

Recent News

《钱伯斯全球实践指南：股权融资 2024》— 香港章

Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:27:21 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

杨家奇 Dennis Yeung

合伙人，香港

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

《钱伯斯全球实践指南：股权融资 2024》(Chambers Global Practice Guides: Equity Finance 2024) — 香港章

本所领先的公司业务团队 合伙人朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu)、 合伙人杨家奇律师 (Dennis Yeung) 、 合伙人胡铭深律师 (Sam Wu) 以及 符曼姿律师 (Beverly Fu) 共同撰写《钱伯斯全球实践指南：股权融资 2024》(Chambers Global Practice Guides: Equity Finance 2024) 香港章，探讨香港资本市场的主要趋势及发展。

《钱伯斯全球实践指南》(Chambers Global Practice Guides)

《钱伯斯全球实践指南》就全球主要法域的重要法律业务领域提供最新的专家法律评论。该指南重点关注影响企业的实际法律问题，使读者能够比对一系列主要法域的法例、程序、趋势及发展。

《股权融资 2024》(Equity Finance 2024)

在现今相互联系的全球经济中，股权融资在业务增长、技术创新和拓展市场中发挥着至关重要的作用。《股权融资 2024》指南深入探讨了美国、日本、德国、英国、巴西、瑞士、新加坡、中东、香港、墨西哥和阿联酋等不同法域的股权融资法律和监管框架，以及这些法域的主要市场趋势及发展。通过汇集领先法律专家的观点，《股权融资 2024》指南旨在提供股权融资的全面概述，涵盖早期和成长型投资、公开市场和首次公开募股 (IPO)、监管和税收问题以及破产和无力偿债对股东的影响。《股权融资 2024》指南还旨在为投资者、公司和顾问提供必要的洞察力，使他们能够在日益全球化经济中做出明智的决策，抓住机遇并应对股权融资的挑战。

如需阅读我们的香港章以了解更多有关香港资本市场主要趋势及发展的详细信息，请访问: https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/equity-finance-2024/hong-kong-sar-china/trends-and-developments (仅具英文版)

如需阅读《钱伯斯全球实践指南：股权融资 2024》(Chambers Global Practice Guides: Equity Finance 2024) 的完整电子版，请访问: https://gpg-pdf.chambers.com/view/110806924/ (仅具英文版)

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Chambers Global Practice Guides: Equity Finance 2024 – Hong Kong Chapter

Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:45:14 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

Dennis Yeung

Partner, Hong Kong

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Chambers Global Practice Guides: Equity Finance 2024 – Hong Kong Chapter

Our partners Rossana Chu , Dennis Yeung , and Sam Wu , together with associate Beverly Fu , of our leading corporate practice team, have co-authored the Hong Kong Chapter of the Chambers Global Practice Guides: Equity Finance 2024 to discuss the key trends and developments of the Hong Kong capital markets.

The Chambers Global Practice Guides

The Chambers Global Practice Guides provide updated expert legal commentary on the main legal practice areas in key jurisdictions around the world. The guides focus on the practical legal issues affecting businesses and enable readers to compare legislation, procedure, trends and developments across a range of key jurisdictions.

Equity Finance 2024

In today’s interconnected global economy, equity finance plays a crucial role in business growth, technological innovation and market expansion. The Equity Finance 2024 guide provides an in-depth exploration of the legal and regulatory framework for equity financing across various jurisdictions, including the USA, Japan, Germany, the UK, Brazil, Switzerland, Singapore, the Middle East, Hong Kong, Mexico and the UAE, as well as the key market trends and developments in those jurisdictions. By bringing together perspectives from leading legal experts, the Equity Finance 2024 guide aims to offer a comprehensive overview of equity finance, covering early-stage and growth investments, public markets and IPOs, regulatory and tax issues, and the impact of bankruptcy and insolvency on shareholders. The Equity Finance 2024 guide also aims to equip investors, companies and advisers with the insights needed to make informed decisions, seize opportunities and navigate the challenges of equity financing in an increasingly globalised economy.

To read our Hong Kong chapter for more details on the key trends and developments in the Hong Kong capital markets, please visit: https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/equity-finance-2024/hong-kong-sar-china/trends-and-developments

To read the full eEdition of the Chambers Global Practice Guides: Equity Finance 2024, please visit: https://gpg-pdf.chambers.com/view/110806924/

Introduction and Overview

Hong Kong has been one of the leading international financial centres in the world for the past decades. It is, however, facing challenges from factors such as geopolitics, market sentiment, high interest rates and macroeconomic backdrop. For example, in the first half of 2024, the initial public offering (IPO) market raised HK$11.6 billion, which is a decrease of 35% in funds raised compared to the first half of 2023.

Despite the challenges and difficulties, various measures have been implemented to enhance and strengthen the infrastructure of capital markets in Hong Kong in order to maintain market reputation and attract new capital.

Hong Kong’s Superconnector Status

In recent years, despite the complex macroeconomic landscape and geopolitical environment, Hong Kong and Mainland China (Mainland) have been launching a series of initiatives that reinforce and highlight Hong Kong’s role as the “Global Superconnector” between Mainland and the world, in particular through their respective capital markets in light of Mainland’s foreign exchange control and Hong Kong’s unique position as the only city in the world that converges both the Mainland advantage and the global advantage under the “One Country, Two Systems” infrastructure. Below is an overview of each of such initiatives.

Stock Connect

Stock Connect is a mutual market access scheme and investment channel through which investors in Mainland and Hong Kong can trade and settle securities listed on each other’s market through the stock exchanges and clearing houses in their home market. The Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect was launched in 2014, followed by the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect in 2016. These two Stock Connect channels opened up Mainland stock markets for Hong Kong and overseas investors (international investors) (Northbound) and Hong Kong stock markets for Mainland investors (Southbound). This also marks the start of a series of initiatives aiming to promote the two-way opening-up of the capital markets in Mainland and Hong Kong, cementing Hong Kong’s position as Mainland’s main capital markets hub, and paves the way for further opening up of Mainland’s capital account and RMB internationalisation in future.

Stock Connect has the following key features:

1. Eligible securities - not all listed securities are “eligible securities”:

Northbound (international investors): Only eligible A shares and eligible exchange traded funds (ETFs) listed on Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) or Shenzhen Stock Exchange (SZSE) may be traded by international investors.
Eligible A shares include (i) constituent stocks of the SSE A Share Index or the SZSE Composite Index that fulfil the eligibility criteria (daily average market capitalisation, daily average turnover, etc.); and (ii) A shares listed on SSE or SZSE that do not fulfil the eligibility criteria, but have corresponding H shares listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (SEHK).
Eligible ETFs include ETFs listed on SSE or SZSE that satisfy the eligibility criteria.
Southbound (Mainland investors): Only selective stocks and ETFs listed on the Main Board of SEHK (not GEM, real estate investment trusts, structured products, etc.) may be traded by eligible Mainland investors.
Eligible SEHK-listed stocks include (i) constituent stocks of the Hang Seng Composite LargeCap Index and Hang Seng Composite MidCap Index, and constituent stocks of the Hang Seng Composite SmallCap Index, which have a market capitalisation of not less than HK$5 billion; and (ii) H shares that are not included as constituent stocks of the relevant indices but which have corresponding A shares listed on SSE or SZSE.
Eligible SEHK-listed ETFs include ETFs listed on SEHK that satisfy the eligibility criteria.

2. Investors eligibility -

Northbound (international investors): Except for STAR Market (科创板) stocks of SSE and ChiNext (创业板) stocks of SZSE which may only be traded by institutional professional investors, all international investors (not Mainland investors) are allowed to trade eligible securities through Northbound Stock Connect.
Southbound (Mainland investors): Only Mainland institutional investors and those individual investors who have RMB500,000 in their securities and cash accounts are allowed to trade eligible securities through Southbound Stock Connect.

3. Daily quotas -

Trading under each of the two Stock Connect channels is subject to a daily quota, which limits the maximum net buy value of cross-boundary trades under each channel.

4. Trading currency - All trading in Stock Connect will be done in RMB.

5. Expandability -

Stock Connect is being constantly expanded and upgraded since its first launch in 2014:

2018 – For each of the two Stock Connect channels, Northbound daily quota (for international investors) was increased from RMB13 billion to RMB52 billion; Southbound daily quota (for Mainland investors) was increased from RMB10.5 billion to RMB42 billion.
2019 – SEHK-listed weighted voting rights companies (e.g. Xiaomi and Meituan) were added to Southbound Stock Connect for Mainland investors.
2020 – SEHK-listed biotech companies were added to Southbound Stock Connect for Mainland investors.
2021 (January) – Mainland annuity funds were allowed to invest in Hong Kong stock markets through Southbound Stock Connect.
2021 (February) – Mainland STAR Market (科创板) stocks were added to Northbound Stock Connect for international investors.
2022 – ETFs were added as eligible securities.
2023 (August) – “Block trading” was introduced, which, once implemented, will allow investors to execute large-sized transactions at privately negotiated prices, providing price and execution certainty for large-sized deals.
2023 (June) – RMB counter was introduced, which offers investors (in particular Mainland investors under Southbound Stock Connect) the choice of trading SEHK-listed eligible securities in either HKD or RMB.
2024 – The eligibility criteria for inclusion of ETFs in Stock Connect was relaxed, expanding the scope of eligible ETFs.

Bond Connect

Bond Connect is another mutual market access scheme that enables Mainland investors and international investors to trade in each other’s bond markets. Northbound trading commenced in 2017, offering China Interbank Bond Market access to international investors. Southbound trading was launched in 2021, providing a channel for Mainland institutional investors to invest in offshore bonds through the Hong Kong bond market.

Swap Connect

Building on Bond Connect, the mutual access scheme between Mainland and Hong Kong interest rate swap markets (Swap Connect) was launched in 2023. As the world’s first derivatives mutual market access programme, Swap Connect provides a channel for investors to participate in financial derivatives markets in both Mainland and Hong Kong. Starting initially with a Northbound channel, international investors can trade and clear onshore RMB interest rate swaps in Mainland. It provides risk management tools for Mainland’s bond markets that are increasingly demanded by international investors trading onshore Mainland fixed income.

China Treasury Bond Futures

It was announced in 2023 that China Treasury Bond Futures contracts will be launched in Hong Kong. This was preceded by a steady increase in offshore investments in Mainland treasury bonds (T-bonds) via Bond Connect since its launch in 2017. The T-bond futures will provide a tool to hedge exposure to Mainland assets, and thus facilitating further participation by offshore investors in the Mainland T-bond market.

New Chapter 18C: Specialist Technology Companies

In a significant move to enhance Hong Kong’s standing as a global financial hub, Chapter 18C has been introduced to its Main Board Listing Rules. This new chapter, which took effect on 31 March 2023, is designed to provide a dedicated pathway for specialist technology companies which do not satisfy the usual profit or market capitalisation/revenue/cash flow listing criteria under Chapter 8 of the Main Board Listing Rules to list on the Main Board of SEHK. By facilitating the listing of high-growth, technology-driven companies, Chapter 18C seeks to attract a broader range of companies engaged in innovative industries to list in Hong Kong.

Eligible industries and listing criteria

Chapter 18C defines specialist technology companies as those primarily involved in the research, development and commercialisation of products or services in one of the five designated industries, namely (i) next-generation information technology; (ii) advanced hardware and software; (iii) advanced materials; (iv) new energy and environmental protection; and (v) new food and agriculture technologies.

The rules under Chapter 18C further distinguish between two types of specialist technology companies, namely (i) commercial companies; and (ii) pre-commercial companies.

To qualify for listing under Chapter 18C, specialist technology companies must meet specific financial and operational criteria. These requirements include minimum market capitalisation thresholds, revenue targets and research and development (R&D) expenditure levels.

Minimum market capitalisation thresholds

According to the rules under Chapter 18C, commercial companies must have an initial market capitalisation of at least HK$6 billion at the time of listing and pre-commercial companies must have an initial market capitalisation of at least HK$10 billion at the time of listing.

However, on 23 August 2024, the SEHK and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission announced that the minimum market capitalisation requirements are reduced temporarily, effective from 1 September 2024 to 31 August 2027. For commercial companies, such requirement is adjusted from HK$6 billion to HK$4 billion. For pre-commercial companies, such requirement is adjusted from HK$10 billion to HK$8 billion.

Revenue targets

Commercial companies must have generated at least HK$250 million in revenue from their specialist technology business segments in their most recent audited financial year. Pre-commercial companies, on the other hand, are not subject to this revenue requirement but must demonstrate a clear and credible path to commercialisation. This flexibility allows earlier-stage companies with promising technologies to access public markets, even if they have not yet reached full commercial maturity.

R&D expenditure levels

For commercial companies: at least 15% of the total operating expenditure
For pre-commercial companies with revenue of at least HK$150 million but less than HK$250 million for the most recent audited financial year: at least 30% of the total operating expenditure
For pre-commercial companies with revenue of less than HK$150 million for the most recent audited financial year: at least 50% of the total operating expenditure

The ratios have to be met on a yearly basis for at least two of the three financial years prior to listing; and on an aggregate basis over all three financial years prior to listing.

The roles of Sophisticated Independent Investors (SIIs) and independent price-setting investors

One of the most notable aspects of Chapter 18C is the requirement for specialist technology companies to secure pre-IPO investments from SIIs for at least 12 months before the date of listing application. These investors are expected to be sophisticated, independent, and have certain investment portion in the specialist technology sectors in their portfolio. This requirement serves several important functions, i.e., to ensure the specialist technology companies have been subject to extensive due diligence checks by the SIIs prior to listing and to ensure that there is sufficient independent market support for the specialist technology companies.

Additionally, Chapter 18C mandates that at least 50% of the total IPO shares must be allocated to independent price-setting investors in the placing tranche. This measure may facilitate the price discovery of specialist technology companies, mitigate risk of price volatility shortly after an IPO and safeguard retail investors.

Implications and recent developments

The introduction of Chapter 18C reflects broader global trends, where financial markets are increasingly focused on attracting companies from cutting-edge sectors such as renewable energy, artificial intelligence and advanced materials. Exchanges around the world are beginning to recognise the importance of high-growth, innovation-driven companies in shaping the future of the global economy.

Hong Kong’s approach under Chapter 18C is particularly noteworthy because it acknowledges that many of these companies, while technologically advanced, may not yet meet traditional financial metrics. By offering a bespoke listing framework that accommodates the unique growth trajectories of these specialist technology companies, the SEHK facilitates the development of next-generation industries in Hong Kong.

As of September 2024, at least two specialist technology companies have been listed under this new regime. The launch of Chapter 18C marks a watershed moment for Hong Kong’s financial ecosystem. As the global economy increasingly values technology, the ability to attract and support high-growth, innovation-driven companies is critical to maintaining Hong Kong’s status as a leading international financial centre.

GEM Listing Reforms

The SEHK has two markets, namely, the Main Board and GEM. The “Growth Enterprise Market”, being the former name of GEM, was introduced in 1999 to provide listing opportunities for emerging growth companies. In 2008, companies listed on the Growth Enterprise Market could be transferred to the Main Board in a streamlined way without having a sponsor to conduct very intense due diligence as long as the company fulfilled the Main Board listing criteria. Such streamlined mechanism was cancelled and the “stepping stone” role of the Growth Enterprise Market ended in 2018. Such market was renamed as “GEM” which was re-positioned as a stand-alone board for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Indeed, the Main Board has consistently served as the primary market for both IPOs and post-listing trading activities. The market capitalisation of all GEM-listed companies represents only a small fraction of the total market capitalisation of all Hong Kong listed companies. Since 2019 (i.e., after the streamlined transfer mechanism was removed), the number of IPOs and funds raised on GEM declined in a significant way. The SEHK consulted the public in September 2023 on its proposed reforms for GEM listing. The consultation conclusions were announced in December 2023, with reforms to take effect on 1 January 2024.

New financial eligibility test

A GEM listing applicant must have a trading record of at least two financial years with positive cash flow of at least HK$30 million generated from its operating activities in the ordinary and usual course of business. Another requirement is that the market capitalisation at the time of its listing must be at least HK$150 million.

A new financial eligibility test is introduced in the 2024 reforms, targeting high-growth companies heavily engaged in R&D activities but not generating positive cash flow. The listing applicant must have:

an adequate trading record of at least two financial years;
an expected minimum market capitalisation of at least HK$250 million at the time of listing;
revenue of at least HK$100 million in aggregate for the two most recent financial years, with year-on-year growth over the two financial years; and
incurred R&D expenditure of at least HK$30 million in aggregate for the two financial years prior to listing, where the R&D expenditure in each year being at least 15% of its total operating expenditure.

Streamlined process

The reform re-introduces a streamlined process for GEM-listed companies to transfer to the Main Board without a sponsor for due diligence or a “prospectus-standard” listing document.

Nevertheless, transfer applicants must still:

meet all Main Board listing qualifications;
comply with the SEHK requirements in respect of its financial results for the three full financial years as a GEM-listed company;
maintain ownership continuity and control for the past three financial years with no fundamental change in its principal business throughout that period;
achieve a minimum daily turnover of HK$50,000 on at least 50% of trading days over the 250 trading days immediately preceding the transfer application until the transfer to the Main Board;
have a volume-weighted average market capitalisation of at least HK$500 million over the above-mentioned period; and
not have been held to have committed any serious GEM Listing Rules breaches in the 12 months preceding the transfer application and until the transfer and not be under investigation or disciplinary proceedings for such serious breaches or potential breaches.

Other reforms

The other reforms include the following:

A GEM-listed company is no longer required to publish quarterly reports.
The post-IPO lock-up period applicable to a GEM-listed company’s controlling shareholders is shortened from 24 months to 12 months where (i) no shares can be disposed of within the first six months after listing; and (ii) during the second six months after listing, the controlling shareholder cannot dispose of shares that would result in it ceasing to be the controlling shareholder.
A GEM-listed company is no longer obligated to appoint an executive director as its compliance officer.
The engagement period of a compliance adviser is shortened so that it ends on the publication of the annual financial results for the first full financial year (shortened from the second full financial year) after listing.

Implications and recent developments

The positive outcomes of the reforms are yet to be observed. During the first eight months of 2024, there were 41 listings on the Main Board, whereas the GEM has seen only 2 IPOs. As of 30 August 2024, there were 149 outstanding Main Board listing applications and only 3 for GEM which were all re-submissions of previous applications made before 2024. The reforms, which took effect on 1 January 2024, will need time for enterprises and advisers to fully realise their benefits.

The SEHK previously scrutinised the rationale for GEM listing when the listing expenses constitute a significant portion of the funds raised. Recently, however, it appears that the SEHK has relaxed this practice. For the two GEM IPOs conducted in the first eight months of 2024, the listing expenses including underwriters’ commissions accounted for approximately 82% and 54% respectively of the funds. This is probably one example demonstrating the SEHK’s more pragmatic approach in its efforts to enhance GEM’s attractiveness.

Treasury shares

With effect from 11 June 2024, Hong Kong listed companies are allowed to hold repurchased shares in treasury and re-sell or otherwise utilise such treasury shares, if the laws of their places of incorporation and their constitutional documents so allow. Historically, all shares repurchased by listed companies must be cancelled.

The listing status of treasury shares is retained. Listed companies should provide appropriate instructions to the relevant parties (including their share registrars, brokers and agents) to ensure that treasury shares are appropriately identified and segregated.

Similar to an issuance of new shares, a resale of treasury shares by a listed company shall be offered to all shareholders on a pro-rata basis, or otherwise approved in advance by the shareholders in a general or a specific mandate. Treasury shares may also be applied to satisfy share grants under share schemes, provided that the relevant Listing Rules requirements are complied with.

To maintain a fair market and mitigate the risk of market manipulation and insider dealing, a 30-day moratorium period is imposed to restrict (i) a resale of treasury shares, whether on or off-market, after a share repurchase (except for an issuance or resale of treasury shares under a capitalisation issue or a share scheme); and (ii) a share repurchase on the SEHK after a resale of treasury shares on the SEHK.

A resale of treasury shares on the SEHK is also prohibited (i) if it is knowingly made with a core connected person; (ii) when there is undisclosed inside information; or (iii) during the 30-day period immediately preceding the results announcement.

Pursuant to the new treasury regime, the key implications and consequential amendments to the Listing Rules and other Hong Kong laws and regulations are summarised below:

New listing applicants are required to disclose in the prospectus details of treasury shares held.
New listing applicants are restricted from reselling treasury shares within six months after listing as currently applicable to an issuance of new shares.
Holders of treasury shares are required to abstain from voting on matters that require shareholders’ approval under the Listing Rules.
Treasury shares are excluded from the calculation of the issued shares amount under the Listing Rules, such as the public float and size test calculation.
Listed companies are required to disclose in the explanatory statement for share repurchase mandate whether the repurchased shares will be cancelled or held as treasury shares.
A resale of treasury shares by a listed company or its subsidiary includes resale of treasury shares through their agents or nominees.
The new regime does not result in significant changes to the existing practices for takeovers and share buy-backs, given that the definition of “voting rights” under the Codes on Takeovers and Mergers and Share Buy-Backs specifically carves out the voting rights attached to treasury shares.
A resale of treasury shares is subject to ad valorem stamp duty under the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Chapter 117 of the Laws of Hong Kong).

The new treasury shares regime gives listed companies more flexibility in managing their capital structure and aligns Hong Kong with international market practice. Listed companies can react promptly to market conditions and consider reselling their treasury shares on the market at market prices as an alternative means to raise funds.

Outlook and Conclusion

It is expected that the Hong Kong capital markets will continue to be influenced by the broader macroeconomic backdrop, market sentiment and geopolitical factors. The implementation of various measures to enhance market liquidity, attract investors and foster innovation has demonstrated the regulators’ efforts to solidify Hong Kong’s position as a leading financial hub. The continued collaboration of regulators and market participants will also be crucial in navigating the challenges and exploring new opportunities in the Hong Kong capital markets.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

《内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》下签署《服务贸易协议修订协议二》的背景

Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:39:06 GMT

蒋建丰 Roy Chiang

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

《内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》下签署《服务贸易协议修订协议二》的背景

《服务贸易协议修订协议二》的内容

《修订协议二》在不少香港特别具优势的服务领域例如金融、建筑及相关工程、检测和认证、电信、电影、电视、旅游等都增添了开放措施，形式包括就企业的设立取消或放宽股权比例和业务范围的限制；就香港专业人士提供服务放宽资质要求；以及就香港服务输出内地市场放宽限制。大部分开放措施适用于内地全境，也有一些在粤港澳大湾区珠三角九市先行先试，具体内容如下：

建筑及相关工程服务：允许香港产业测量企业可通过备案方式，在广东省提供专业服务；以及允许已备案的香港工程建设咨询企业依法以联合体模式参与竞投粤港澳大湾区珠三角九市的项目咨询服务；
电影：取消香港服务提供商不得投资电影制作的限制；以及允许香港服务提供商经内地主管部门批准设立的发行公司，经营以买断形式引进的香港影片的发行业务；
电视：取消香港人士参与网络电视剧作主创人员的数量限制；以及允许香港制作的引进剧经国家广播电视总局批准后在内地广播电视台的黄金时段播出；
旅游：优化实施由香港入境的外国旅游团进入广东停留144‍小时免签政策，包括增加入境口岸及扩大停留区域至广东省全省，并为内地旅行社在高铁西九龙站接关提供便利；以及支持邮轮运输企业依法安排挂靠内地邮轮港口的国际邮轮航线。对于参与此类邮轮旅游线路的内地旅客，可凭护照及相关邮轮航程的确认档，以过境方式赴港参与全部邮轮航程；及
金融服务：取消香港金融机构向保险公司投资入股，最近一年年末总资产不少于20亿美元的要求；取消香港服务提供商设立的外国银行分行不得从事银行卡业务的限制；研究扩大互联互通目标范围，包括REITs（房地产投资信托基金）；持续推进并优化跨境理财通业务试点和内地与香港基金互认安排；以及持续推进内地与香港ETF（交易型开放式指数基金）互挂安排及债券通「南向通」、「北向通」业务。

另外，《修订协议二》也带来制度创新和加强对接，包括：

新增「港资港法」和「港资港仲裁」作为便利香港投资者的措施，支持粤港澳大湾区试点城市注册的港资企业，协议选择使用香港或澳门法律为合同适用法；以及支持在粤港澳大湾区珠三角九市注册的港资企业，选择香港或澳门为仲裁地。措施为香港企业提供弹性和便利，有助促进它们在内地投资和发展业务；
新增「本地规制」的承诺，确保服务贸易规则的透明度、可预测性和效率，对接国际高标准经贸规则，为企业于市场提供服务时，省却繁琐规则和降低贸易成本，以便利服务贸易；及
在大部分服务领域取消香港服务提供商须在香港从事实质性经营三年的年期规定，不单能让香港的初创企业更早享受《安排》的优惠待遇，更可以吸引世界各地企业和人才立足香港开拓内地市场，增加本地就业、推动香港经济发展、发挥香港「超级联系人」和「超级增值人」的角色。

《服务贸易协议修订协议二》带来的好处

新协议对香港的益处体现在三方面。首先，香港多个具优势产业都可获得更多新机遇，具体例子包括电视和电影业取消香港人士参与网络电视剧作主创人员的数量限制，同时取消香港服务提供商不得投资电影制作的限制。旅游方面，经由香港入境内地的外国旅游团可享进入广东停留144‍小时免签政策，有助香港业界开拓一程多站旅游产品，吸引海外游客来港。金融服务业方面，新协议取消香港金融机构向保险公司投资入股，最近一年年末总资产不少于20亿美元的要求，有助更多香港金融保险机构进入内地市场。

第二项益处在于制度创新，修订协议新增港资港法和港资港仲裁，作为便利香港投资者的措施，提供弹性和便利，方便香港企业在内地投资和发展。这一方面让在内地投资兴业的港企可按它们熟悉的法律作为合同适用法律、也可以选择以香港作为仲裁地；另一方面，让香港用好在法律和争议解决服务的优势，助力大湾区建立更国际化的商业环境，发挥好香港作为「引进来」和「走出去」的双向门户角色。

另外，修订协议松绑规限，在大部分服务领域取消香港服务提供商须在香港从事实质性经营三年的规定，吸引全球企业和人才落户香港，经香港进入内地市场。这不单能让初创企业更早享受CEPA优惠待遇，更可以吸引世界各地的企业和人才落户香港，以开拓内地市场，并蓬勃我们的经济。

结语

是次修订协议在不少香港特别具优势的服务领域都增添了开放措施，让香港服务提供商可以更容易在内地设立企业和发展业务、更多香港专业人士可在内地取得执业资格，以及更多优质的香港服务可提供予内地市场，同时为国家发展贡献服务和力量。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Background for signing Amendment Agreement II on Trade in Services under CEPA

Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:13:35 GMT

Roy Chiang

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Background for signing Amendment Agreement II on Trade in Services under CEPA

Contents of Amendment Agreement II

The Amendment Agreement II introduces new liberalisation measures across several service sectors where Hong Kong enjoys competitive advantages, such as financial services, construction and related engineering services, testing and certification, telecommunications, motion pictures, television and tourism services. The liberalisation measures take various forms, including removing or relaxing restrictions on equity shareholding and business scope in the establishment of enterprises; relaxing qualification requirements for Hong Kong professionals providing services; and easing restrictions on Hong Kong's exports of services to the Mainland market. Most of the liberalisation measures apply to the whole Mainland, while some of them are designated for pilot implementation in the nine Pearl River Delta municipalities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (“ GBA ”). The details are as follows:

Construction and related engineering services: To allow Hong Kong general practice surveying enterprises to provide professional services in Guangdong Province through filing of records; and to allow Hong Kong engineering construction consultant enterprises that have completed filing of records to bid for consultancy services projects in joint venture in compliance with the laws in the nine Pearl River Delta municipalities in the GBA;
Motion pictures: To remove the restriction on investment in enterprises engaging in film production by Hong Kong service suppliers; and to allow enterprises established by Hong Kong service suppliers and approved by the relevant Mainland authorities to operate distribution of imported buy-out Hong Kong motion pictures;
Television: To remove the quantitative restriction on Hong Kong people participating as principal creative personnel in online television dramas; and to allow imported dramas produced in Hong Kong to be broadcast during prime time in television stations on the Mainland after obtaining approval from the National Radio and Television Administration;
Tourism services: To optimise the implementation of the 144-hour visa-exemption policy for foreign group tours entering Guangdong from Hong Kong through increasing the number of inbound control points and expanding the stay areas to the whole of Guangdong Province, and to provide facilitation for Mainland travel agents when receiving group tours at West Kowloon Station of the High Speed Rail; and to support cruise companies to arrange international cruise itineraries involving port-of-call in the Mainland cruise ports in accordance with the laws. In respect of Mainland visitors participating in such cruise itineraries, they can travel to Hong Kong in transit to join all sorts of cruise itineraries, by presenting their passports and confirmation documents of the relevant cruise itineraries; and
Financial services: To remove the asset requirement of not less than US$2 billion as at the end of the most recent year for Hong Kong financial institutions investing in shares of insurance companies; to remove the restriction prohibiting foreign bank branches established by Hong Kong service suppliers from conducting bank cards services; to consider extending the scope of eligible products under the mutual market access programme by including REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts); to continuously promote and enhance the Cross-boundary Wealth Management Connect Pilot Scheme and the Mainland-Hong Kong Mutual Recognition of Funds scheme; and to continuously promote the cross listing arrangement of the Mainland and Hong Kong ETF (open-ended index-tracking exchange-traded funds) as well as enhance Southbound Trading and Northbound Trading under Bond Connect.

In addition, the Amendment Agreement II brings institutional innovation and collaboration enhancement, including:

Addition of "allowing Hong Kong-invested enterprises to adopt Hong Kong law" and "allowing Hong Kong-invested enterprises to choose for arbitration to be seated in Hong Kong" as facilitation measures for Hong Kong investors, supporting Hong Kong-invested enterprises registered in the pilot municipalities of the GBA to adopt Hong Kong law or Macao law as the applicable law in their contracts; as well as supporting Hong Kong-invested enterprises registered in the nine Pearl River Delta municipalities in the GBA to choose Hong Kong or Macao as the seat of arbitration. The measures provide flexibility and convenience for Hong Kong enterprises, facilitating their investment and business development on the Mainland;
Addition of commitments regarding domestic regulation to ensure transparency, predictability and efficiency of regulations on trade in services, so as to align with high-standard international economic and trade rules, cutting red tape and lowering trade costs when enterprises render their services in a market to facilitate trade in services; and
Removal of the period requirement on Hong Kong service suppliers to engage in substantive business operations in Hong Kong for three years in most service sectors, allowing Hong Kong start-ups to enjoy the preferential treatment under CEPA in a shorter time and attracting enterprises and talents from around the world to establish a presence in Hong Kong and explore the Mainland market, thus increasing local employment, promoting Hong Kong's economic development and giving full play to Hong Kong's roles as a "super connector" and "super value-adder".

Benefits deriving from Amendment Agreement II

The benefits of the Amendment Agreement II to Hong Kong are reflected in three areas. First of all, there would be more new opportunities for many of Hong Kong's industries which enjoy competitive advantages. Specific examples include the lifting of quantitative restrictions on the number of Hong Kong people participating in the production of online TV dramas as principal creative personnel in television and film industries, and the lifting of restrictions on Hong Kong service providers to invest in film production. For tourism, foreign group tours entering the Mainland via Hong Kong may enjoy the 144-hour visa-exemption policy for entering Guangdong, which will help the industry to develop multi-destination tourism products and attract overseas tourists to Hong Kong. For financial services industry, the Amendment Agreement II eliminates the total assets requirement of no less than US$2 billion for Hong Kong financial institutions to invest in insurance companies, which will help more Hong Kong financial and insurance institutions to enter the Mainland market.

The second benefit lies in institutional innovation. The Amendment Agreement II includes "allowing Hong Kong-invested enterprises to adopt Hong Kong law" and "allowing Hong Kong-invested enterprises to choose for arbitration to be seated in Hong Kong" as measures to facilitate Hong Kong investors, providing flexibility and convenience for Hong Kong enterprises to invest and develop in the Mainland. It allows Hong Kong companies investing and operating in the Mainland to adopt the law they are familiar with as the applicable law of contracts, and they can also choose Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration. It enables Hong Kong to better leverage its competitiveness in legal and dispute resolution services to help the GBA to establish a more international business environment and give full play to Hong Kong's role as a two-way gateway for "bringing in" and "going out".

In addition, the Amendment Agreement II relaxes restrictions and removes the requirement for Hong Kong service suppliers to engage in substantial operations in Hong Kong for three years in most service areas, thereby attracting global companies and talents to establish a presence in Hong Kong and enter the Mainland market through Hong Kong. This will not only enable start-ups to enjoy CEPA preferential treatment earlier, but also attract companies and talents from all over the world to settle in Hong Kong to explore the Mainland market and flourish our economy.

Conclusion

The Amendment Agreement II introduces new liberalisation measures across different service sectors where Hong Kong enjoys competitive advantages, making it easier for Hong Kong service suppliers to establish enterprises and develop business in the Mainland, enabling more Hong Kong professionals to obtain qualifications to practise in the Mainland, allowing more of Hong Kong's quality services to be provided to the Mainland market, and contributing to and serving the country's development.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登商法卓越律所大奖（区域奖项）2024榜单

Tue, 15 Oct 2024 03:31:11 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登商法卓越律所大奖（区域奖项）2024榜单

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙荣获2024年度《商法》卓越律所大奖(区域奖项)评选为 “卓越综合实力律所 (香港)” 之一。

知名法律媒体《商法》于2024年10月15日公布了《商法》卓越律所大奖(区域奖项) 2024 得奖者榜单。其每年一度的《商法》卓越律所大奖(区域奖项) 授予在各地法律市场表现杰出的律师事务所，评选的依据包括全球数百名企业法务、高管及法律专业人士的推荐及评价、以及各律所在过去一年参与过的重要交易、案例及其他成就，最终甄选出各地的领先律师事务所。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看《商法》卓越律所大奖(区域奖项) 2024 之完整得奖者榜单，请访问: https://law.asia/zh-hans/top-china-law-firms-regional-2024/ 及卓越综合实力律所 (香港) https://law.asia/zh-hans/china/regional-awards-china-2024/#HK

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised at the China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2024

Tue, 15 Oct 2024 03:24:45 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised at the China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2024

YYC Legal LLP is recognised as one of the “Best Overall Law Firms (Hong Kong)” at the China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2024.

China Business Law Journal, a renowned legal media, has announced on 15 October 2024 the winners of its China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2024 . China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) are presented to law firms that have demonstrated outstanding performance in various legal markets. The selection criteria include recommendations and evaluations from hundreds of corporate legal counsels, executives and legal professionals worldwide, as well as the significant transactions, cases and other achievements the firms have engaged in during the past year. Ultimately, the leading law firms in each region are conferred the awards.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For a full list of winners at the China Business Law Awards (Regional Awards) 2024 , please visit: https://law.asia/top-china-law-firms-regional-2024/ and Best Overall Law Firms (Hong Kong) https://law.asia/china/regional-awards-china-2024/#HK

Recent News

朱静文律师荣获 asialaw 2024年度香港区最佳女性律师大奖

Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:40:02 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师荣获 asialaw 2024 年度香港区最佳女性律师大奖

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看 asialaw Awards 2024 讯息及完整的获奖者名单，请访问: https://www.asialaw.com/NewsAndAnalysis/asialaw-Awards-2024-Winners-Announced/Index/2135

近期消息

Rossana Chu won 2024 asialaw Hong Kong SAR Female Lawyer of the Year Award

Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:24:10 GMT

EN / 简

Rossana Chu won 2024 asialaw Hong Kong SAR Female Lawyer of the Year Award

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information on the asialaw Awards 2024 and a full list of the winners, please visit: https://www.asialaw.com/NewsAndAnalysis/asialaw-Awards-2024-Winners-Announced/Index/2135

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登 2024 ALB亚洲并购榜单

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:07:47 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登 2024 ALB亚洲并购榜单

知名法律媒体ALB 于2024年9月23日公布了 2024 ALB亚洲并购榜单。本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙在亚洲并购市场与众多最强本地及国际律师事务所比选中，获评选为 “备受注目香港律所” 。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看完整的 2024 ALB亚洲并购榜单排名，请访问: https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/features/alb-asia-ma-rankings-2024

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised in ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2024

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 11:58:11 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised in ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2024

Asian Legal Business (ALB) has released its new ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2024 on 23 September 2024. We are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP is recognised as a “ Notable Firm ” in the Hong Kong market amongst the strongest domestic and international firms in the M&A market in Asia.

ALB drew results from firm submissions, Thomson Reuters M&A data, interviews, editorial resources and market suggestions to identify and rank the top firms for M&A in Asia.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For a full list of the ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2024 , please visit: https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/features/alb-asia-ma-rankings-2024

Recent News

香港稳定币发行人拟议监管制度：概述

Tue, 24 Sep 2024 03:43:24 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港稳定币发行人拟议监管制度：概述

香港正朝着为稳定币发行人建立全面监管框架迈出重大步伐。财经事务及库务局 (“ 财库局 ”) 和香港金融管理局 (“ 金管局 ”) 于2023年12月27日联合发表有关香港稳定币发行人拟议监管制度的咨询文件 (“ 咨询文件 ”), 并于两个月的咨询期结束后于2024年7月17日联合发表咨询总结文件 (“ 咨询总结 ”)。

本文概述立法建议的主要方面, 包括拟议监管制度的范围和覆盖范围、发牌准则和条件以及赋予金管局的权力。

涵盖范围

“稳定币”及 “法币稳定币”的定义

在咨询文件中, “稳定币”的定义为符合但不限于以下说明的加密保护数码形式价值 —

(a) 以计算单位或经济价值的储存形式表述；

(b) 作为或拟作为公众接受的交易媒介，用于为货品或服务付款、清偿债务和/或投资；

(d) 使用不由发行人单独控制的分布式帐本或类似技术；及

(e) 宣称或看来是与某特定资产、一组或一篮子资产维持相对稳定价值。

“法币稳定币”的定义为特定资产为单一或多个法币的稳定币。

咨询文件回应者普遍同意拟议的定义。将某些已受现行监管制度覆盖的金融工具 (如存款、认可集体投资计划、认可结构性产品、储存于储值支付工具的任何储值金额等) 排除在“稳定币”的定义之外的建议也得到了广泛共识。

考虑到拟议监管制度主要规管使用去中心化方式运作的帐本上所发行的形式价值，咨询总结中指出, “稳定币”的定义中的第(d)项将会修改以订明监管制度涵盖“使用去中心化方式运作的分布式分类账本或类似技术”发行的稳定币。而“去中心化方式运作的分布式分类账”指并无任何人士有单方面控制或实质改变其分类账的功能或运作的权力。

受监管活动的范围

咨询文件建议, 监管制度将优先监管法币稳定币的发行活动, 因为与其他类型的虚拟资产相比, 法币稳定币更有可能被用作普遍接受的支付方式。绝大多数回应者同意这种处理方法。

至于什么构成“发行”活动, 咨询总结中厘清这一般会因应相关事实与情况作个别决定。监管制度实施后将会发布进一步的指引, 以为业界提供进一步指导。

监管框架

咨询文件中建议在拟议的法币稳定币发行人发牌制度下, 除非是持有金管局批出法币稳定币发行人牌照的公司, 否则任何人不得：

(i) 在香港发行或显示自己发行法币稳定币；

(ii) 发行或显示自己发行宣称或看来是与港元维持相对稳定价值的稳定币；或

(iii) 向香港公众人士积极推广其法币稳定币的发行。

“积极推广”可包括频密地联络香港公众人士及推广其服务及进行以香港公众人士为对象的大众传媒宣传计划或网上活动等。

拟议的监管制度范围获得普遍认同。至于如何确定某人是否向香港公众“积极推广”法币稳定币的发行, 咨询总结中厘清金管局将考虑多项因素, 例如推广信息所用的语言、该信息是否针对居于香港的人群以及其网站是否使用香港域名等。

发牌准则及条件

根据拟议的监管制度, 任何在香港发行法币稳定币的人均须获得金管局的牌照。咨询文件中建议的一些主要发牌准则和条件 (并在咨询总结中进行了修改, 如适用) 大致概述如下:

全额储备支持：法币稳定币发行人必须确保法币稳定币的储备资产总值在任何时候都至少相等于流通法币稳定币的面额。

投资限制：储备资产必须优质、具高流动性，并只涉及极少市场、信用及集中风险。

分隔及保管储备资产：法币稳定币发行人必须确保储备资产与其他资产分隔保管，并用作满足赎回要求，以及在发行人一旦无力偿债时，确保法币稳定币用户对储备资产的法定权利及优先索偿权。

风险管理及管控程序：法币稳定币发行人必须制定健全政策、指引及管控措施以妥善管理所有有关储备资产管理的投资活动。法币稳定币发行人亦必须确保有足够资金及流动资产应付流通法币稳定币的赎回要求。

披露及汇报：法币稳定币发行人必须定期向公众披露流通法币稳定币的总额、储备资产的市值及储备资产的组成。金管局将会与业界讨论以确定及提供更详尽的披露要求。

禁止支付利息：来自储备资产的任何收入或损失（例如利息、股息或资本收益或损失）均归于法币稳定币发行人所有。法币稳定币发行人不得向法币稳定币用户支付任何利息。

有效的稳定机制：法币稳定币发行人必须对其发行的法币稳定币的稳定机制的有效运行负最终责任，即使有聘任第三方执行。

赎回要求：法币稳定币用户应有权向法币稳定币发行人按面额赎回法币稳定币，并对储备资产或（在法币稳定币发行人不能履行其赎回义务时）对法币稳定币发行人有索偿权。任何赎回要求必须在不附带不合理费用的情况下及时获得处理，并不可附带任何不合理的条件。咨询总结中指出，在正常情况下，金管局会要求法币稳定币发行人在收到赎回要求后的一个工作天内履行赎回要求。

业务活动的限制（不适用于已受金管局监管的认可机构（“ 认可机构 ”））：法币稳定币发行人在开始任何新业务前须得到金管局批准。法币稳定币发行人应向金管局证明其有足够资源用于发行和维护法币稳定币，以及新业务不会为其带来额外风险，并不会影响其履行法币稳定币发行人职能的能力。

在香港有实体存在（不适用于认可机构）：法币稳定币发行人必须是根据香港法律成立的公司，并设有香港注册办事处。其行政总裁、高级管理团队及主要人员必须常驻香港。

财政资源要求（不适用于认可机构）：法币稳定币发行人必须具备充足财政资源以经营其法币稳定币发行业务。咨询总结中指出，金管局会设定最低缴足股本的要求为 (i) 港币 2,500 万元；或 (ii) 其流通法币稳定币面额的1%，以较高者为准。

披露要求：法币稳定币发行人必须发布白皮书，以披露该发行人的一般资料、法币稳定币用户的权利与责任、法币稳定币稳定机制等资料。发行人必须在发布白皮书前通知金管局。

管治、知识及经验：法币稳定币发行人的控权人、行政总裁及董事必须为适当人选，而该等人士的委任以及法币稳定币发行人拥有权或管理层的变动均须事先获得金管局批准。法币稳定币发行人必须有一个稳健的企业管治架构及具备所需知识与经验的人员以有效地履行职责。

审计规定：法币稳定币发行人须每年向金管局提交经审计的财务报表。

打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集规定：法币稳定币发行人的发行业务的设计和实施备须有健全和适当的管控制度，以防止或打击可能涉及洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集的活动。

金管局的权力

咨询文件建议赋予金管局对持牌法币稳定币发行人适当的监管权力，例如有权在情况需要时干预持牌法币稳定币发行人的运作、有权要求持牌人提供资料或文件、有权在持牌人的处所进行现场审查、有权指示持牌人采取行动使其遵守法定义务、有权根据拟议的法律框架制定规例及发出指引等。

咨询文件亦建议赋予金管局权力，当有合理理由相信有人可能触犯拟议监管制度下的罪行时，金管局可进行调查。

回应者普遍支持拟议的金管局监管及调查权力，因此建议将按计划推行。

下一步

咨询文件和咨询总结中概述的监管建议反映了香港致力于营造安全、稳健和透明的法币稳定币发行环境并为法币稳定币用户提供充分保护，同时保持香港作为国际金融中心的地位并在不断发展的数字金融格局中促进创新。

咨询总结指出，金管局将于今年稍后拟备条例草案并提交立法会审议以落实拟议的稳定币监管制度。金管局亦会发出牌照及监管指引，方便申请人了解及遵守相关规定。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Proposed Regulatory Regime for Stablecoin Issuers in Hong Kong: An Overview

Tue, 24 Sep 2024 03:05:53 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Proposed Regulatory Regime for Stablecoin Issuers in Hong Kong: An Overview

Hong Kong is taking significant strides towards establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers. The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (“ FSTB ”) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“ HKMA ”) jointly issued a consultation paper on 27 December 2023 on the proposed regulatory regime for stablecoin issuers in Hong Kong (“ Consultation Paper ”) and jointly published the consultation conclusions on 17 July 2024 (“ Consultation Conclusions ”) following the end of the two-month consultation period.

This article summarises the key aspects of the legislative proposal, including the scope and coverage of the proposed regulatory regime, the licensing criteria and conditions and the powers granted to the HKMA.

Scope and Coverage

Definitions of “stablecoin” and “fiat-referenced stablecoin” (“ FRS ”)

In the Consultation Paper, “stablecoin” is defined as a cryptographically secured digital representation of value that, among other things, —

(a) is expressed as a unit of account or a store of economic value;

(b) is used, or is intended to be used, as a medium of exchange accepted by the public, for the purpose of payment for goods or services; discharge of a debt; and/or investment;

(d) uses a distributed ledger or similar technology that is not controlled solely by the issuer; and

(e) purports to maintain a stable value with reference to a specified asset, or a pool or basket of assets.

“FRS” is defined as a stablecoin where the specified asset is one or more fiat currencies.

The respondents to the Consultation Paper generally agree to the proposed definitions. The proposed exclusion of certain financial instruments that are already covered by existing regulatory regimes (such as deposits, authorised collective investment schemes, authorised structured products, float stored in stored value facilities, etc.) from the definition of “stablecoin” has also received broad consensus.

Considering that the proposed regulatory regime intends to primarily focus on representations of value which rest on ledgers that are operated in a decentralised manner, it is concluded in the Consultation Conclusions that limb (d) of the definition of “stablecoin” will be amended to specify that the stablecoins subject to the proposed regulatory regime are those “operated on a decentralised distributed ledger or similar technology”. A “decentralised distributed ledger” refers to a distributed ledger in which no person has the unilateral authority to control or materially alter its functionality or operation.

Scope of regulated activity

It is proposed in the Consultation Paper that the regulatory regime will prioritise regulation of FRS issuance activity, considering that FRS has a higher potential to be used as a commonly acceptable means of payment, as compared with other types of virtual assets. A significant majority of respondents agree with this approach.

With regard to what constitutes an “issuance” activity, it is clarified in the Consultation Conclusions that it is generally decided on a case-by-case basis with respect to specific facts and circumstances. Further guidelines will be issued upon the implementation of the regulatory regime to provide further guidance to the industry.

Regulatory Framework

In the Consultation Paper, it is proposed that under the proposed licensing regime for FRS issuers, no person shall:

(i) issue, or hold oneself out as issuing, an FRS in Hong Kong;

(ii) issue, or hold oneself out as, issuing a stablecoin that purports to maintain a stable value with reference to the value of the Hong Kong dollar; or

(iii) actively market its issuance of FRS to the public of Hong Kong;

unless it is a company that holds an FRS issuer licence granted by the HKMA.

“Actively market” may include frequently calling on members of the Hong Kong public and marketing their services and running a mass media programme or Internet activities targeting the Hong Kong public, etc.

The proposed scope of the regulatory regime is generally agreed. On the question of how to determine whether a person is “actively marketing” an issuance of FRS to the Hong Kong public, it is clarified in the Consultation Conclusions that the HKMA will take into account multiple factors such as the language used in the marketing messages, whether the messages are targeted at people that resides in Hong Kong and whether a Hong Kong domain name is used for its website, etc.

Licensing Criteria and Conditions

Under the proposed regulatory regime, any person who issues FRS in Hong Kong will be required to obtain a licence from the HKMA. Some of the key licensing criteria and conditions as proposed in the Consultation Paper (and modified in the Consultation Conclusions, if applicable) are broadly summarised below:

Full backing : The FRS issuer must ensure that the value of the reserve assets backing an FRS is at least equal to the par value of the FRS in circulation at all times.

Investment limitations : The reserve assets must be of high quality and high liquidity with minimal market, credit and concentration risk.

Segregation and safekeeping of reserve assets : The FRS issuer must ensure that the reserve assets are segregated from other assets and are available to satisfy FRS holders’ redemption as well as their legal right and priority claim of the reserve assets in the event of the FRS issuer’s insolvency.

Risk management and controls : The FRS issuer must formulate adequate policies, guidelines and controls for the proper management of all investment activities associated with the management of the reserve assets. The FRS issuer must also ensure that there will be sufficient funds and liquid assets to meet the requests for redemption of FRS in circulation.

Disclosure and reporting : The total amount of the FRS in circulation, the mark-to-market value of reserve assets and the composition of reserve assets must be disclosed regularly to the general public. The HKMA will further discuss with the industry to confirm and provide more detailed disclosure requirements .

Prohibition on paying interest : Any income or loss from the reserve assets (such as interest payments, dividends or capital gains or losses) must be attributed to the FRS issuer. The FRS issuer must not pay any interest to FRS users.

Effective stabilisation : The FRS issuer must be ultimately responsible for ensuring the effective functioning of the stabilisation mechanism of the FRS it issues, even if third parties are engaged.

Redemption requirements : FRS users should have the right to redeem their FRS at par value with the FRS issuer and have a claim on the reserve assets or (if the FRS issuer is not able to meet redemption obligations) the FRS issuer. Any redemption requests must be processed without undue costs on a timely basis and without any unreasonable condition. It is concluded in the Consultation Conclusions that the HKMA, under normal circumstances, will require the FRS issuer to fulfil a redemption request within one business day after the day of receipt of such redemption request.

Restriction on business activities (not applicable to authorised institutions which are already subject to the supervision of the HKMA (“ AIs ”)): The FRS issuer must seek the HKMA’s approval before commencing any new line of business. The FRS issuer should demonstrate to the HKMA that it has adequate resources for the issuance and maintenance of FRS, the new business will not bring significant risks to itself and the new business activities will not impair its ability to perform its functions as an FRS issuer.

Physical presence in Hong Kong (not applicable to AIs): The FRS issuer must be a company incorporated in Hong Kong and have a Hong Kong registered office. Its chief executive, senior management team and key personnel must be based in Hong Kong.

Financial resources requirements (not applicable to AIs): The FRS issuer must have adequate financial resources for operating its FRS issuance business. In the Consultation Conclusions, it is concluded that the HKMA will impose a minimum paid-up share capital requirement of either (i) HKD25,000,000; or (ii) 1% of the par value of FRS in circulation, whichever is higher.

Disclosure requirements : The FRS issuer must publish a white paper to disclose information such as the FRS issuer’s general information, the rights and obligations of the FRS users, the FRS stabilisation mechanism, etc. The FRS issuer must notify the HKMA before such publication.

Governance, knowledge and experience : Controllers, chief executives and directors of the FRS issuer must be fit and proper persons and their appointment and any changes in ownership or management of the FRS issuer would require the prior consent of the HKMA. The FRS issuer must also have a robust corporate governance structure and personnel with the necessary knowledge and experience to enable the effective discharge of responsibilities.

Audit requirements : The FRS issuer must submit audited financial statements to the HKMA each year.

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism requirements : The design and implementation of the FRS issuer’s issuance business must have in place adequate and appropriate systems of control for preventing or combating possible money laundering and terrorist financing activities.

Powers of the HKMA

In the Consultation Paper, it is proposed that the HKMA should be vested with the appropriate supervisory powers on licensed FRS issuers such as the power to intervene in the operations of a licensed FRS issuer where the circumstances so warrant, the power to request information or documents from licensees, the power to conduct on-site examinations at the premises of licensees, the power to direct licensees to take action to bring them into compliance with the statutory obligations and the power to make regulations and issue guidelines under the proposed legislative framework, etc.

It is also proposed i n the Consultation Paper that the HKMA should be empowered to conduct investigations where it has reasonable cause to believe that an offence under the proposed regulatory regime may have been committed.

The respondents are generally supportive of the proposed supervisory and investigation powers of the HKMA and as such the proposal will be taken forward accordingly.

Way Forward

The regulatory proposal outlined in the Consultation Paper and the Consultation Conclusions reflect Hong Kong’s commitment to fostering a secure, robust and transparent environment for FRS issuance and providing adequate protection to FRS users while maintaining Hong Kong’s status as an international financial centre and promoting innovation within the evolving landscape of digital finance.

It is indicated in the Consultation Conclusions that a bill will be prepared and introduced into the Legislative Council later this year to implement the proposed stablecoin regulatory regime. The HKMA will also issue licensing and supervisory guidelines to facilitate applicants’ understanding of, and compliance with, the relevant requirements thereunder.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

外企将获准迁册入港

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 03:55:15 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

外企将获准迁册入港

通过迁册，已有业务在港运营的外国公司将不再需要遵守两套不同的法规，造成模糊混淆。

这个迁册制度不允许香港注册成立的公司迁出到其他司法管辖区。与澳大利亚和新加坡的制度一样，目前，香港的迁册制度仅允许对内迁册。

适用的公司类型

该制度允许四类公司迁册到港，分别是：（1）私人股份有限公司；（2）公众股份有限公司；（3）有股本的私人无限公司；以及（4）有股本的公众无限公司。公司不得通过迁册改变其公司类型。

资格条件

该制度没有规定经济实质测试。这就意味着，即使小型公司也可迁册来港。但申请人必须符合法律、财务、诚信和其他文件要求，如：

截至申请日，申请人自成立以来的首个财政年度已结束。
申请迁册的公司类型与其原注册地所属的公司类型相同或大致相同。
迁册后的公司不得用于非法和违反公众利益的目的。
如申请人原注册地法律或组织章程文件均未要求获得成员的同意，申请人仍应取得至少75%合资格成员同意的决议。
申请人有能力偿还申请日后12个月内到期的债务。
申请人须提交申请日前12个月内的财务报表（在其原注册地法律要求审计的情况下则须提交经审计财务报表）。
迁册申请必须是真诚地提出，并无欺骗债权人的意图。
申请人未处于清盘状态。无接管人或管理人接管公司的任何财产。申请人没有与其他任何人达成任何妥协或安排。
提供一名在原注册地执业的法律执业者的法律意见，证明当地法律容许拟议迁册。法律意见书还应包含申请人在原注册地的注册、公司类型、成员的同意和公司偿付能力。

财库局将建议修订《保险业条例》（香港法例第41章）、《银行业条例》（香港法例第155章）和相关附属法例，以确保经迁册并已在其原注册地撤销注册的保险公司和认可机构，将如同本地成立的保险公司和认可机构般受规管和监督。有意迁册来港的外国保险公司和金融机构须在作出迁册申请前与其在港监管机构沟通，让监管机构可以事先评估其是否有能力满足香港的监管要求。

迁册效力

公司须在获发迁册证明书后120天（公司在有需要时可申请延长时限）内向香港公司注册处提交原注册地撤销注册的证明。

税务安排

此外，为确保迁册后的税务评估确定性，香港将实施相关安排处理过渡性税务事宜，如适当扣除营业存货、指明类别的开支和折旧免税额。

下一步工作

港府已着手草拟与迁册相关的条例草案，并计划在2024年提交立法会审议。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2024年9月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Hong Kong opens doors to foreign company redomiciliation

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 03:44:03 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong opens doors to foreign company redomiciliation

Through the redomiciliation, foreign companies already with operations in Hong Kong will no longer have to comply with two different sets of regulations indefinitely.

This regime does not allow outward redomiciliation of Hong Kong-incorporated companies to redomicile to another jurisdiction. Like Australia and Singapore, Hong Kong will only consider an inward regime for now.

Company types

Four types of companies may redomicile to Hong Kong, namely: (1) private companies limited by shares; (2) public companies limited by shares; (3) private unlimited companies with a share capital; and (4) public unlimited companies with a share capital. The companies will not be allowed to change their company type through the re-domiciliation.

Eligibility

There will be no economic substance tests. That essentially means that even small companies can redomicile to Hong Kong. However, the applicants must comply with certain legal, financial integrity and other documentary requirements, such as:

As of the application date, the applicant’s first financial year end since its incorporation has passed;
The company type to be applied for redomiciliation is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s type of company in its original domicile;
The redomiciled company will not be used for unlawful purpose or purposes contrary to public interest;
If neither the law of the original domicile nor the application’s constitutional documents require members’ consent, an applicant should obtain such consent by a resolution duly passed by at least 75% of eligible members;
The applicant is able to pay its debts as they fall due during the 12 months after the application date;
The applicant is to provide its financial statements as of a date no more than 12 months prior to the application date (and such financial statements are to be audited only if the auditing is legally required in its original domicile);
The application is made in good faith and not intended to defraud existing creditors of the applicant;
The applicant is not in liquidation. No receiver or manager is in possession of any of its properties. No compromise or arrangement between it and another person is be administered; and
A legal opinion of a legal practitioner who practices the law of the original domicile is required to confirm that the proposed redomiciliation is allowed under the law of the original domicile. A legal opinion is also to cover the applicant’s due registration in the original domicile, company type, members’ consent and solvency.

Amendments will be proposed to the Insurance Ordinance (chapter 41 of the Laws of Hong Kong), the Banking Ordinance (chapter 155 of the Laws of Hong Kong), and relevant subsidiary legislation to ensure that insurers and authorised institutions which redomicile to Hong Kong will be regulated and supervised as if they were locally incorporated.

Foreign insurers and financial institutions seeking to redomicile will be required to approach their respective regulators in Hong Kong before making the redomiciliation application, such that assessment of their capacity in fulfilling the Hong Kong regulatory requirements can be conducted in advance.

Effects of redomiciliation

A redomiciled company in Hong Kong will be granted the same rights as any locally incorporated company of the same kind under the Companies Ordinance (chapter 622 of the Laws of Hong Kong) and shall comply with all the relevant Companies Ordinance requirements. It will preserve its legal identity, properties, rights, obligations and liabilities. Contracts and legal proceedings existing prior to redomiciliation will remain unaffected, as the process does not create a new legal entity. The contracts and legal processes applicable to it before the redomiciliation process will not be affected because no new legal entity is created through such process.

Upon issuance of the certificate of redomiciliation, the company will have 120 days (or such longer period if extension is granted upon application) to provide evidence of its deregistration from its original domicile to the Companies Registry of Hong Kong.

Tax arrangements

Any company will be subject to Hong Kong profits tax on its profits arising in or derived from any trade, profession or business conducted in Hong Kong, regardless of its domicile. Therefore, clarification of the tax residency of a redomiciled company is not necessary.

To avoid double taxation unilateral tax credits will be provided for redomiciled companies, in respect of tax payable on profits derived in Hong Kong after redomiciliation, where similar profits have already been taxed in an unrealised form by the company’s original domicile upon its exit.

Additionally, to ensure certainty in tax assessments after redomiciliation, arrangements will be implemented to address transitional tax issues such as fair deduction for trading stock, specified types of expenditures, and depreciation allowances.

Next step

The government is developing the relevant legislative instrument for the proposed company redomiciliation regime and plans to submit it to the Hong Kong Legislative Council in 2024.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in September 2024 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所上榜IFLR1000 2024年度评级榜单

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 06:24:44 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所上榜 IFLR1000 2024年度评级榜单

世界知名法律评级机构 IFLR1000 于2024年9月12日发布了 IFLR1000 亚太区2024年度︰东南亚及东亚区域律所与律师评级榜单。 IFLR1000 总览全球领先金融和公司律所和律师的权威指南。

本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙（杨杨朱律师事务所）和我们的律师在年度评级比选中共获下列六个类别殊荣︰

杨杨朱律师事务所 – 资本市场 : 股权「备受注目律所」(Notable)
杨杨朱律师事务所 – 资本市场 : 债权「备受注目律所」(Notable)
杨杨朱律师事务所 – 兼并收购「备受注目律所」(Notable)
杨杨朱律师事务所 – 破产重整「备受注目律所」(Notable)
杨岳明律师 (Victor Yang) –「备受注目律师」(Notable Practitioner)
朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) – 资本市场 : 股权、私募股权、投资基金、破产重整「女性领导者」(Woman Leader) 及「高度推荐领先律师」(Highly Regarded Lawyer)

IFLR1000 评选主要是根据定性研究、交易数据和客户反馈来决定获奖名单，并对从事企业融资和企业交易的律师事务所和律师进行了最详细的分析。每一项荣誉都见证着我们的团队在激烈竞争环境中辛勤工作的成果。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看完整的最新律所排名榜单，请访问:
https://iflr1000.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/111#rankings

查看完整的最新律师排名榜单，请访问:
https://iflr1000.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/111#lawyers

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised in IFLR1000 2024 Rankings

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 06:13:38 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised in IFLR1000 2024 Rankings

IFLR1000 has announced its new IFLR1000 2024 Asia-Pacific Rankings on 12 September 2024 for the regions: Southeast and Eastern Asia. The IFLR1000 is the guide to the world’s leading financial and corporate law firms and lawyers.

We are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP ( YYC Legal ) and our lawyers have been recognised by IFLR1000 in the following 6 categories:

YYC Legal – Notable Firm in Capital markets: Equity
YYC Legal – Notable Firm in Capital markets: Debt
YYC Legal – Notable Firm in M&A
YYC Legal – Notable Firm in Restructuring and insolvency
Victor Yang – Notable Practitioner
Rossana Chu – Woman Leader and Highly Regarded Lawyer in Capital markets: Equity, Private equity, Investment funds, and Restructuring and insolvency

IFLR1000 rankings are based on qualitative research, transaction data, and client feedback, offering a comprehensive analysis of law firms and lawyers specialising in corporate finance and transactional work. Each accolade reflects our team’s dedication in a highly competitive environment.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For full new legal firm rankings, please visit:
https://iflr1000.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/111#rankings

For full new practitioner rankings, please visit:
https://iflr1000.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/111#lawyers

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所上榜asialaw 2024 年度评级榜单

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 05:54:28 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所上榜 asialaw 2024 年度评级榜单

国际知名法律评级机构 asialaw 于2024年9月12日发布了 asialaw 2024年度亚洲区最佳律师事务所及领先律师榜单，这是亚洲区内领先律所和领先律师的权威指南。

本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙（杨杨朱律师事务所）和我们的律师就下列四个类别在年度评级比选中获跻身 asialaw 亚洲区域最佳成就律所和律师之一︰

* 杨杨朱律师事务所 – 资本市场「推荐律所」(Recommended)

* 杨杨朱律师事务所 – 企业与并购「备受注目律所」(Notable)

* 杨杨朱律师事务所 – 争议解决「备受注目律所」(Notable)

* 朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) – 资本市场「 asialaw 杰出律师」( asialaw Distinguished Practitioner)

asialaw 2024年度权威指南推荐 20 个法域内领先律师事务所的主要专业服务和行业领域并提供全面编辑分析。

获选为 asialaw Distinguished Practitioner的律师受到同侪的高度推崇以及深获客户的赞赏和广泛认同。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看完整的最新律所排名榜单，请访问:
https://www.asialaw.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/320#rankings

查看完整的最新律师排名榜单，请访问:
https://www.asialaw.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/320#lawyers

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised in asialaw 2024 rankings

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 05:43:27 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised in asialaw 2024 rankings

asialaw has announced its rankings of the best law firms and leading lawyers for asialaw 2024 edition on 12 September 2024 – the definitive guide to Asia's leading law firms and lawyers from the region.

We are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP ( YYC Legal ) and our lawyer have been recommended by asialaw as one of the top-performing legal firms and lawyers in Asia in the following four categories:

* YYC Legal – Recommended Firm in Capital Markets

* YYC Legal – Notable Firm in Corporate and M&A

* YYC Legal – Notable Firm in Dispute Resolution

* Rossana Chu – asialaw Distinguished Practitioner in Capital Markets

asialaw 2024 edition provides law firm recommendations and editorial analysis of key practice areas and industry sectors across 20 jurisdictions. Lawyers who have been recognised as asialaw Distinguished Practitioner are highly regarded by their peers and possess a strong record and positive client feedback.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For full new legal firm rankings, please visit:
https://www.asialaw.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/320#rankings

For full new practitioner rankings, please visit:
https://www.asialaw.com/Jurisdiction/Hong-Kong-SAR/Rankings/320#lawyers

Recent News

“林泽军律师接受ALB专家专访” 刊登在 ALB 中国版华南地区报告2024

Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:56:38 GMT

EN / 简

“林泽军律师接受ALB专家专访” 刊登在 ALB 中国版华南地区报告2024

天达共和大湾区管委会主任林泽军律师（他也是本所的注册外地律师）在接受汤森路透ALB采访时指出：此番中国企业“全面出海”的浪潮也呼求一种全新的法律服务模式。既往那种在中国和东道国各找一家律所、两方合作协助中国企业落地的服务模式已经不够了。我们要依据跨国公司的要求，帮助出海企业打造跨境的法律、财税、组织架构。

具体来说，对于一家跨国企业，出海控股平台运营中心、财务中心、供应链中心、人力中心、IP中心等应该放置在何处，全都要利用全球化思维、在不同法域里做最优布局，随后用一个完整的跨境法律架构组织起来。架构问题解决后，才聚焦到在东道国的落地问题。落地过程中，要注意将控股平台和东道国的情况连接起来，此外还要考虑融资便利性、未来退出的成本及便利性等诸多细节问题。

林律师并指出香港一直是中国企业出海设立控股平台时不可替代的选择，扮演的角色会越来越重要。尤其2023年以来，香港推出了一系列吸引民营企业落地的政策，例如有关家族办公室及“专利盒制度”的税务优惠措施。

为此，天达共和大湾区办公室组建了一支由8位合伙人、20余位律师组成的出海团队，目前已经服务于多领域、多区域的出海项目。此外，2023年起，大湾区办公室开始推行“法、商、财、税综合性服务”，当这一模式移植到出海领域。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

阅读林泽军律师接受ALB专家专访全文，请访问： https://china.legalbusinessonline.com/features/华南地区报告：企业“出海”及相关法律服务 (ZH/EN)

近期消息

“An interview with Jason Lin” featured in ALB China Regional Report 2024

Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:49:37 GMT

EN / 简

“An interview with Jason Lin” featured in ALB China Regional Report 2024

Mr. Jason Lin (林泽军), a Director of the Greater Bay Area Management Committee of East & Concord Partners (also a registered foreign lawyer of YYC Legal LLP), commenting on the traditional service model of assisting the Chinese enterprises in just landing business overseas by partnering a law firm in China with a law firm from the host country is no longer sufficient. Jason tells Thomson Reuters ALB in an interview: This wave of Chinese enterprises "Go Global" also urges for a completely new legal service model. We must tailor-make a fully organised and competitive cross-border legal, financial, tax and organisational structures for the Chinese enterprises according to the requirements of multinational companies.

Specifically, for a multinational company, it is important to carefully evaluate the centralisation and location of a holding platform comprising operational, financial, supply chain networks, human resources and IP, and how well-positioned the company in different jurisdictions for global expansion before making the move. Then, determine the feasibility of landing in the host country such as understanding the legislative and regulatory environment in that host country and how to align with the holding platform are concerned. Furthermore, the advantages of fundraising, costs of future exit and other potential issues should also be considered.

Jason also pointed out that Hong Kong has always been an irreplaceable choice for Chinese enterprises to set up "Go Global" holding platforms, and the role it plays will become increasingly important. Especially since 2023, Hong Kong has released a series of policies to attract Chinese domestic enterprises to settle down, such as an introduction of tax incentives for family offices and the "patent box system”.

To this end, East & Concord Partners (GBA Offices) has pulled together a team of “Go Global” consisting of 8 partners and more than 20 legal professionals, and currently serving “Go Global” projects in various practice areas and jurisdictions. In addition, starting from 2023, East & Concord Partners (GBA Offices) promoted comprehensive legal, commercial, financial and tax services to its clients and well-equipped for the “Go Global” practice indeed.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm .

To read the full An interview with Jason Lin , please visit: https://china.legalbusinessonline.com/features/华南地区报告：企业“出海”及相关法律服务 (ZH/EN)

Recent News

朱静文律师为题为「中国企业出海架构搭建—税务篇」的讲座分享经验

Wed, 04 Sep 2024 04:49:56 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师为题为「中国企业出海架构搭建——税务篇」的讲座分享经验

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

近期消息

Ms. Rossana Chu presented in a forum on “Framework for Chinese Enterprises Going International: Taxation”

Wed, 04 Sep 2024 04:15:31 GMT

EN / 简

Ms. Rossana Chu presented in a forum on “Framework for Chinese Enterprises Going International: Taxation”

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

Recent News

港交所刊发修订《企业管治守则》的咨询文件

Wed, 28 Aug 2024 05:27:31 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

港交所刊发修订《企业管治守则》的咨询文件

首席独立非执行董事

如果董事会主席不是独立非执行董事（下称“独董”），以及/或者董事会主席和首席执行官为同一人，上市公司应委任一名独董为首席独董，充当其他董事与股东沟通的渠道。任何未能遵守此要求的上市公司必须提供解释。

强制性董事培训

按现行规定，上市公司须披露其董事如何参与持续专业发展。港交所建议要求董事每年在特定主题上进行强制性持续专业发展培训，包括董事责任、环境、社会及治理（ESG）、风险管理和行业最新发展趋势等主题。首次获委任为董事，或过去三年及以上未担任上市公司董事的人士必须在获委任后18个月内完成至少24小时的培训。

董事会表现评核

港交所建议将该条建议最佳常规升级为守则条文，以“不遵守就解释”为基准，要求董事会至少两年进行一次表现评核，评核的相关信息须在上市公司的《企业管治报告》中进行披露。

董事会技能表

上市公司将被要求建立董事会技能表，并在《企业管治报告》中披露以下资料：

董事会现有技能组合；
董事技能、经验及多元化等因素的组合如何达致公司的目的、价值、策略及理想文化；及
获取更多技能的详细内容和计划。

港交所认为现时只要求上市公司列明董事资质和经验的做法并不足够。

超额任职独董及董事付出的时间

港交所建议新增一条《上市规则》条文，规定每位独董最多只能出任六家上市公司的董事。此外，港交所亦建议规定提名委员会每年评估和披露各董事对董事会投入的时间及贡献。

独董任职超过九年的情况

现行《上市规则》没有对独董任期设限，但要求上市公司如续聘连任多年（超过九年）的独董，须另行呈交股东决议，并解释为何该独董仍被视为独立，同时在下次年度股东大会上任命一名新的独董。该咨询文件提议设定九年为独董任期的上限，即自2028年1月1日起，任职九年或以上的董事将不再被视为独董。

董事会及员工多元化

按现行规定，董事会必须制定董事会多元化政策，并每年评估其实施和有效性。上市公司必须在2024年12月31日或之前委任至少一名其他性别的董事。《企业管治报告》必须包括以下详细信息，如员工性别比例、董事会性别多元化的实现方式，以及实现性别多元化的缓解因素。

港交所建议：

提名委员会至少有一名不同性别的董事；
上市公司必须为其员工（包括高级管理层）制定并披露多元化政策；
董事会必须每年审查董事会多元化政策的实施；
必须分别披露高管和员工的性别比例；以及
如果上市公司无法满足董事会性别多元化的要求，必须发布公告以及说明原因，并在三个月内重新符合规定。

风险管理及内部监控（RMIC）

按现行规定，董事会必须监督公司的RMIC系统，每年审查其有效性，并在《企业管治报告》中进行相关披露。

港交所建议强制要求上市公司每年审查其RMIC系统的有效性，并详细披露：

现有的RMIC系统；
审查过程；
董事会对该系统的适当性及有效性的确认及证明材料；以及
审查过程中发现的重大监控失误或弱点，以及所采取或拟采取的补救措施。

股息

港交所建议将现行的“不遵守就解释”的条文提升为强制规定，要求：

上市公司必须制定股息政策，并须包含决定是否宣派股息的主要因素；以及
未制定股息政策的上市公司必须披露此事实并说明原因。

不论有无股息政策，上市公司必须披露：

在董事会宣派股息的情况下，股息率（与前一年同期相比）有重大变化的原因；
在董事会决定不宣派股息的情况下，必须说明原因及公司拟采取的提高投资者回报的措施。

总结

这些建议将使港交所的《上市规则》进一步与中国内地、英国、澳大利亚和新加坡等司法管辖区的公司管治要求接轨

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

SEHK revises Corporate Governance Code

Wed, 28 Aug 2024 05:12:24 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

SEHK revises Corporate Governance Code

Designating a lead independent non-executive director (INED)

Where the chairperson is not an INED and/or the chair and chief executive is the same individual, the listed company should designate a “lead INED” to serve as an intermediary for the other directors and shareholders. Any listed company not complying with this expectation must provide explanations.

Mandatory director training

Currently, a listed company must disclose how its directors participate in continual professional development. The exchange proposes to require directors to receive mandatory continuing professional development annually on specified topics (including directors’ responsibilities, environmental and social governance [ESG], risk management and industry-specific updates).

Also, first-time directors and those who have not served as directors of listed companies for a period of three years or more must complete a minimum of 24 hours’ training within 18 months of appointment.

Board performance review

The current recommended best practice is proposed to be upgraded to a code provision (on a “comply or explain” basis) requiring the board to conduct an evaluation of its performance at least once every two years, with specific disclosures to be made in the listed company’s Corporate Governance Report.

Board skills matrix

A listed company will be expected to maintain a board skills matrix and disclose in its Corporate Governance Report:

the board’s existing skills;
how the combination of skills, experience and diversity of directors serve the company’s purposes, values, strategy and desired culture; and
details and plans to acquire further skills.

The current practice of simply listing the directors’ qualifications and experience is considered insufficient by the exchange.

Overboarding INED and directors’ time commitment

The exchange proposes to add a listing rule that each INED can only serve as a director of up to six listed companies. Also, the nomination committee of a listed company is required to annually assess and disclose each director’s time commitment and contribution to the board.

INED serving for more than nine years

Currently, the listing rules impose no limit on the tenure of INEDs, although a listed company should put the appointment of a long-serving INED (i.e. serving the board for more than nine years) as a separate shareholders’ resolution, explain why such an INED is still regarded as independent, and appoint a new INED at the forthcoming annual general meeting.

Now a hard cap of nine years is proposed, i.e. from 1 January 2028 onwards a director will no longer be considered independent after serving as an INED for nine years or more.

Board and workforce diversity

At present, the board must have a board diversity policy and annually review its implementation and effectiveness. At least one director of a different gender must be appointed to the board no later than 31 December 2024. The Corporate Governance Report must include details such as gender ratio in the workforce, how the board’s gender diversity is achieved, and mitigating factors in achieving gender diversity.

The exchange now proposes that:

The nomination committee should also have at least one director of a different gender;
A listed company must have and disclose a diversity policy for its workforce (including senior management);
The board must review annually the implementation of its board diversity policy;
The gender ratio of senior management and workforce must be disclosed separately; and
If unable to meet board gender diversity, a listed company must make an announcement and give reasons, and recomply with such requirement within three months.

Risk management and internal control (RMIC)

Currently, the board is expected to oversee and conduct annual reviews of the effectiveness of RMIC systems and report its reviews in the Corporate Governance Report.

The exchange now proposes to make it mandatory for listed companies to conduct annual reviews of effectiveness of their RMIC systems and make detailed disclosures on:

RMIC systems in place;
the review process;
the board’s confirmation on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the RMIC systems with supporting information; and
significant control failings or weaknesses identified during the reviews, and remedial steps taken or proposed.

Dividends

The exchange proposes to upgrade the current “comply or explain” code provision to a mandatory requirement that:

a listed company must have a dividends policy, including key factors deciding whether to declare a dividend; and
any listed company not having a policy on dividend payment must disclose such fact and give reasons.

In any event, each listed company must disclose:

where a dividend is declared during the year, reasons for any material variation in the dividend rate compared to the previous corresponding period; and
where the board decides not to declare any dividend, the reasons and measures the listed company intends to take to enhance investors’ return.

Conclusion

The revisions will bring Hong Kong’s listing rules more in alignment with corporate governance requirements in other jurisdictions including mainland China, the UK, Australia and Singapore.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

“朱静文律师接受ALB专访” 刊登在ALB亚洲月刊2024

Sun, 25 Aug 2024 22:53:13 GMT

EN / 简

“朱静文律师接受ALB专访” 刊登在ALB亚洲月刊2024

本所合伙人 “朱静文律师接受 ALB 专访” (A conversation with Rossana Chu) 现已刊登在最新一期《ALB亚洲月刊2024年8月刊》—《ALB 专访》专辑，该采访旨在与围绕亚洲区内律师事务所的领先律师们进行的一次深入交流。

朱律师分享了本所的一些工作亮点和发展策略，并提及高质量服务和创新解决方案的重要性，这正是本所能够在一众香港律师事务所中脱颖而出的原因。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

阅读 “朱静文律师接受ALB专访” 全文，请访问： https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/sites/default/files/e-magazines/ALB-AUGUST-2024-(ASIA-EDITION)/20/ – 第 21 页（仅供英文版）

近期消息

“A conversation with Rossana Chu” featured in ALB Asia 2024

Sun, 25 Aug 2024 22:47:33 GMT

EN / 简

“A conversation with Rossana Chu” featured in ALB Asia 2024

Our Partner Ms. Rossana Chu is featured in the latest issue ALB Asia August 2024 “A conversation with Rossana Chu” — ALB Conversation is an in-depth Q&A interview with leaders of law firms across Asia.

Rossana shared certain work highlights and development strategies of our firm. She also discussed the importance of high-quality services and innovative solutions that allow our firm to stand out among other law firms in Hong Kong.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To read the full interview “A conversation with Rossana Chu” , please visit: https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/sites/default/files/e-magazines/ALB-AUGUST-2024-(ASIA-EDITION)/20/ - Page 21

Recent News

香港上诉法庭：英国有限责任合伙企业因无“已发行股本”而无法获得印花税减免

Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:41:06 GMT

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

香港上诉法庭：英国有限责任合伙企业因无“已发行股本”而无法获得印花税减免

背景

于2020年，John Wiley & Sons UK2 LLP (“ 英国LLP 2 “)(作为转让人) 和 Wiley International LLC (“ 美国LLC ”)(作为受让人)就转让John Wiley & Sons (HK) Limited (“ 香港公司 ”)的股份向印花税署署长申请了印花税减免 (见下面的交易结构)。

关于印花税减免的法律

根据香港法律第117章《印花税条例》第45(2)条，如果香港股票或不动产从一个相联法人团体转让给另一个相联法人团体，可以申请印花税减免。如果要满足减免条件，必须满足“相联”的要求，即 “其中一个法人团体是另一个法人团体的不少于百分之九十已发行股本的实益拥有人” 的条件。

印花税署的评估

印花税署署长拒绝了第45条的印花税减免申请，理由是John Wiley & Sons UK LLP (“ 英国LLP 1 ”) 和英国LLP 2没有 “已发行股本”，因此美国LLC不能成为按《印花税条例》第45(2)条所规定的英国LLP 2 “不少于90%已发行股本”的“实益拥有人”。

美国LLC和英国LLP 2随后于2021年1月向区域法院提出上诉。

区域法院的判决

于2022年7月，区域法院裁定英国LLP 2和美国LLC有权就相联公司内部转让一家香港公司的股份获得印花税减免。

区域法院根据普通和自然的含义解释 “已发行股本”，认为 “股本” 并不意味着需要如印花税署署长主张，资本必须以标准单位 “股份” 的形式分割，并且必须注册或通过股票证明。相反，区域法院认为，只要公司资本被划分为可量化的部分(或普通意义上的 “股份”，如1/3股份和1/2股份或百分比股份)，无论是以货币价值还是比例表示，并且所有股份加起来构成100%的总资本价值；以及这种资本组织方式得到法律认可，都可以视为 “股本”。

印花税署署长向上诉法庭提出上诉。该案件于2024年4月26日在上诉法庭进行了庭审，并于2024年7月5日作出判决。

上诉法院的判决

于2024年，上诉法庭裁定英国LLP 2和美国LLC无权获得印花税减免。

上诉法庭考虑了《印花税条例》第45条的目的/目标和背景，立法者使用的措辞以及美国LLC和英国LLP 2提供的离岸法律意见。

上诉法庭认为，第45条的立法意图是仅向满足90%已发行股本要求的相联公司提供减免，而不是其他类型的公司实体。

此外，美国LLC和英国LLP 2提供的法律意见指出，“与《2006年公司法》中的法人团体不同，有限责任合伙企业不发行也不能发行股本”。

因此，上诉法庭裁定英国LLP 2/英国LLP 1的资本中从未存在任何股份(作为独立或标准单位)，也从未向其各自的股东发行过任何股份。因此，股东向英国LLP 2/英国LLP 1缴纳的任何资本都不能被视为《印花税条例》第45条所述的 “已发行股本”。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

HKCA: No “Issued Share Capital” for UK LLP for Stamp Duty Relief Purpose

Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:23:37 GMT

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

HKCA: No “Issued Share Capital” for UK LLP for Stamp Duty Relief Purpose

Background

In 2020, there was a case where John Wiley & Sons UK2 LLP (“ UK LLP 2 ”) (as a transferor) and Wiley International LLC (“ US LLC ”) (as a transferee), applied to the Collector of Stamp Revenue for stamp duty relief in relation to the transfer of the shares in John Wiley & Sons (HK) Limited (“ HK Company ”) (see the transaction structure below).

The law related to stamp duty relief

Pursuant to section 45(2) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Chapter 117 of the laws of Hong Kong) (“ SDO ”), stamp duty relief is available for the transfer of Hong Kong stock or immovable property from one associated body corporate to another. To fulfil the relief condition, the test for “associated”, which is “beneficial owner of not less than 90 per cent of the issued share capital of the other”, has to be satisfied.

The assessment by the Stamp Office

The Collector of Stamp Office rejected the section 45 stamp duty relief application on the grounds that the John Wiley & Sons UK LLP (“ UK LLP 1 ”) and the UK LLP 2 did not have “issued share capital”, and as such, US LLC could not be a “beneficial owner of not less than 90% of the issued share capital” of UK LLP 2 for the purpose of section 45(2) of the SDO.

US LLC and UK LLP 2 then appealed to the District Court in January 2021.

The judgment by the District Court

In July 2022, the District Court held that UK LLP 2 and US LLC were entitled to stamp duty relief for an intra-group transfer of shares of a Hong Kong company.

The District Court construed “issued share capital” according to the ordinary and natural meaning and did not interpret “share capital” as meaning that the capital must necessarily be divided by way of a denomination into standard units called “shares” that are required to be registered, or are evident by share certificates in the manner the Collector contended for. Rather and in the District Court’s view, it would amount to “share capital” so long as the capital of that body corporate is divided into quantifiable portions (or shares in the ordinary use of that word, such as 1/3 share and 1/2 share or a percentage share), whether expressed in terms of monetary value or in term of proportions, and all such shares together make up 100% of the total value of the capital; and as said, such organization of its capital is legally recognized.

The Collector of Stamp Office applied for appeal at the Court of Appeal. The case was heard before Court of Appeal on 26 April 2024 and the judgment was handed down on 5 July 2024.

The judgment by the Court of Appeal

In 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that UK LLP 2 and US LLC were not entitled to stamp duty relief.

The Court of Appeal considered the object/purpose and context of section 45 of SDO, the language used by the legislature and the offshore legal opinion produced by US LLC and UK LLP 2.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the legislative intention for section 45 relief is available only to associated companies which satisfy the 90% issued share capital requirement, but not to other kinds of corporate entities.

Further, the legal opinion produced by US LLC and UK LLP 2 stated that “[w]hilst unlike a body corporate within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, an LLP does not, and cannot, issue and allot share capital”.

As such, the Court of Appeal ruled that no shares (in the sense of discrete or standard units) in the capital of UK LLP 2/UK LLP 1 ever existed, and no such shares have ever been issued to their respective members. Hence, no capital paid by the members to UK LLP 2/UK LLP 1 could be regarded as the “issued share capital” of UK LLP 2/UK LLP 1 within the meaning of section 45 of SDO.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所获评选为2024年度ALB香港精品律所

Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:25:49 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所获评选为2024年度ALB香港精品律所

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised as an ALB Hong Kong Firm to Watch 2024

Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:18:34 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised as an ALB Hong Kong Firm to Watch 2024

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

Recent News

香港的监管调查

Fri, 16 Aug 2024 11:19:18 GMT

冯颖贤

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港的监管调查

监管调查的开始

监管调查通常是在监管机构发现受监管公司或个人存在某些违规行为时开始的，但有时也可能是公司发现违规行为时主动向监管机构报告或举报人投诉的结果。事实上，发现不合规情况后不通知监管机构可能会产生严重后果，因为不及时向监管机构报告不合规情况的公司可能会被处以数百万元的罚款。例如，根据证券及期货事务监察委员会(“证监会”)《操守准则》第 12.5 段，持牌人必须立即向证监会报告任何严重违反、触犯或不遵守事宜发生。因此，受规管公司应时刻紧记，他们有责任主动及时向监管机构举报违规或怀疑违规的情况，而不应等待监管机构主动接触。

寻求法律意见的重要性

首先，公司或个人在面临监管调查时，应寻求法律意见。接受监管调查的公司或个人有义务向监管机构提供信息。同时，他们也享有某些权利。寻求法律咨询可确保他们充分了解这些权利，并且在监管调查过程中不会意外地放弃这些权利。

即使面对监管机构的调查，公司或个人也应被充分告知，有些信息或文件是不需要交给监管机构的。例如，他们不必交出享有法律专业保密权的资料或文件。根据普通法，法律专业保密权包括法律咨询保密权和诉讼保密权。

法律咨询保密权涵盖律师与其客户之间以获取或提供法律咨询为主要目的的通信。另一方面，诉讼保密权涵盖律师与其客户之间的通信，或律师或其客户与第三方之间的通信，其主要目的是为了正在进行或考虑进行的诉讼。公司或个人应小心谨慎，不要将享有法律专业保密权的文件交给监管机构。在实践中，许多公司通常会指示其律师审查所有可能移交给监管机构的文件，以确保他们不会意外地放弃法律专业保密权。

在香港，上诉法院在中信泰富 (第 2号) 诉律政司司长 [2012] 2 HKLRD 701 一案中审议了有限度放弃保密权原则。因此，享有法律专业保密权的文件可以在“有限度放弃“的基础上交予监管机构，即享有保密权的文件只可为调查目的而提供予监管机构，而监管机构不能为衍生目的而将文件转移或披露予第三方。在某些情况下，监管机构有可能对愿意放弃文件保密权的公司从宽处理。

在某些类型的监管调查中，缄默权可能不适用。例如，《证券及期货条例》规定，任何受调查或协助调查的人士，必须回答证监会在会面中提出的任何问题及/或出示证监会指明的任何文件。拒绝回答问题或出示文件属刑事罪行。因此，《证券及期货条例》并没有缄默权。然而，受《证券及期货条例》调查的人士在向证监会提供答复及/或文件时，可申请享有免使自己入罪的特权。一经提出，该人所提供的答复及/或文件将不会在针对该人的刑事法律程序中获接纳为证据。

以上是对接受监管调查的公司或个人规定的一些义务和提供的一些权利。因此，在监管调查一开始和调查过程中接受法律咨询非常重要，这样才能充分了解自己的义务和权利。

保密义务

协助调查或受调查的人士通常要履行保密义务。受监管公司及其雇员应小心谨慎，不要向任何其他人披露与监管调查有关的细节。例如，《证券及期货条例》第 378 条对根据《证券及期货条例》第 183 条接受调查的人士规定了保密义务。保密义务受有限的例外情况限制，例如向雇主、保险公司和法律顾问披露，或披露某人受保密义务约束的事实。

搜查处所

在某些监管调查中，监管机构可能希望对公司的营业处所进行突击搜查。监管机构需要获得裁判官签发的搜查令，才能进入和搜查这些处所。监管机构持搜查令到达时，公司代表或法律顾问必须检查搜查令，以确保 (i) 搜查令的签发时间不超过搜查前七(7)天;(ii) 对被控罪行的性质有适当的描述(如果对被控罪行的描述过于宽泛，搜查令可能存在缺陷);(iii) 被搜查处所的位置正确;(iv) 进入处所进行搜查的人员是搜查令授权的人员。

如果监管机构对公司的营业处所进行突击搜查，那么在搜查当天，公司的正常运营将不可避免地受到干扰。为了尽量减少这种干扰，公司应在律师的建议下，与监管机构商定一份“搜查协议”。根据该协议，公司有可能从监管机构那里获得它正在寻找的文件类型的信息。为了便于搜索公司可以向监管机构说明这些相关文件的位置。公司的法律团队最好在突击搜查时在场，以便律师提出建议，避免无意中向监管机构披露任何享有法律专业保密权的文件。

此外，建议公司应确保其电子数据备份系统具备良好功能，以应付任何电子装置被检取的情况，从而尽量减少对正常业务的干扰。在过往一宗针对证监会的司法复核申请中，香港法院裁定证监会有权在搜查公司的处所时检取电脑和流动电话等电子装置。此外，证监会可发出通知，要求提供电子邮件账户和数码设备的登录名和密码。因此，公司应做好准备，在监管调查过程中，随时可能要求公司及其员工交出电子设备或电子邮件账户信息。

监管机构还可要求在突击检查期间与公司的特定员工谈话。如果问题的设置是为了使突击检查能够有效进行(如与突击检查的后勤工作有关的问题)，员工应尽量回答这些问题，以免被视为对搜查造成干扰。但是，如果监管机构提出与调查内容有关的实质性问题(如与正在调查的潜在违规行为有关的问题)，员工在决定提供任何信息之前，应征求法律意见。

如果情况允许，公司的法律顾问应要求监管机构根据相关条例发出必要回答的通知，以便任何回答其问题和/或向其出示任何文件的人士可以适当地要求享有免使自己入罪的特权(如有)。

主动的补救措施

如果监管调查发现公司有任何潜在的不当行为，公司应寻求法律建议，并修订自身的政策和程序，向监管机构表明公司正在采取主动措施纠正任何不足之处，并将努力防止再次发生潜在的不当行为。采取主动的措施弥补不足有时会使公司获得更有利的结果，如减轻处罚。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本备忘录仅供一般性参考。建议客户寻求专业法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

朱静文律师荣获Legal Media 360 - 2024年度排名

Wed, 14 Aug 2024 06:39:12 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师荣获Legal Media 360 - 2024年度排名

我们欣然宣布本所合伙人朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 在 Legal Media 360 最新领先律师事务所与律师 2024 年度榜单中就一般企业及并购领域获选为 “ 二级排名领先律师 ”。

Legal Media 360的观点指数真实呈现亚洲领先律师事务所和律师在整体市场的声望。其基准排行榜依据源自全球各地市场领先法律媒体在2023 年 1 月至 12 月已公布的榜单排名以及奖项数据进行深入研究和分析。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

阅读详情，请访问： https://legalmedia360.com/lawyer/Rossana-Chu-4347

近期消息

Rossana Chu is recognised in Legal Media 360’s Rankings 2024

Wed, 14 Aug 2024 06:29:33 GMT

EN / 简

Rossana Chu is recognised in Legal Media 360’s Rankings 2024

We are pleased to announce that our Partner Ms. Rossana Chu has been ranked as a “ Band 2 – Ranked Lawyer ” in Corporate and M&A – General practice by Legal Media 360 in its latest Law Firms and Lawyers Rankings 2024.

Legal Media 360’s sentiment index reflects the overall market reputation of Asia’s leading law firms and lawyers. Its benchmarking tables are derived from the in-depth research and analysis of rankings and awards data from the world’s market-leading legal publications from January to December 2023.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For details, please visit: https://legalmedia360.com/lawyer/Rossana-Chu-4347

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所入围ALB 香港法律大奖2024终选名单

Fri, 02 Aug 2024 08:43:35 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所入围ALB 香港法律大奖2024终选名单

Asian Legal Business (ALB) 近日公布了其2024年度ALB香港法律大奖的终选名单，本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙（杨杨朱律师事务所）在竞逐名单中共获七项提名，包括四个律所奖项及三个个人奖项：

*杨杨朱律师事务所 – 年度大湾区律师事务所（香港和澳门）

*杨杨朱律师事务所 – 年度最具潜力律师事务所

*杨杨朱律师事务所 – 年度交易精品律师事务所

*杨杨朱律师事务所 – 年度股票市场交易

*杨岳明律师 – 年度管理合伙人

*朱静文律师 – 年度女性律师（律所）

*胡铭深律师 – 年度金融科技律师

ALB香港法律年度大奖旨在表彰香港区内律师事务所、公司法务组和个人律师于过去一年的杰出表现及成就。获奖者名单将于2024 年 9 月 13 日在颁奖典礼上公布。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看完整提名者名单，请访问此处 (仅供英文版)。

近期消息

YYC Legal finalist for ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2024

Fri, 02 Aug 2024 08:34:26 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal finalist for ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2024

Asian Legal Business (ALB) has released its finalists for the ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2024, we are delighted to announce that YYC Legal LLP has been shortlisted as finalists in seven categories, including four nominated for firm awards and three nominated for individual awards:

*YYC Legal LLP – GBA Law Firm of the Year (Hong Kong and Macau)

*YYC Legal LLP – Rising Law Firm of the Year

*YYC Legal LLP – Transactional Boutique Law Firm of the Year

*YYC Legal LLP – Equity Market Deal of the Year

*Victor Yang – Managing Partner of the Year

*Rossana Chu – Woman Lawyer of the Year (Law Firm)

*Sam Wu – Fintech Lawyer of the Year

The ALB Hong Kong Law Awards is an annual event that recognizes and celebrates the outstanding achievements of law firms, in-house legal teams, and individual lawyers in Hong Kong and the region. The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony on 13 September 2024.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To view the complete list of finalists, please visit here .

Recent News

Regulatory Investigation in Hong Kong

Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:13:30 GMT

Valarie Fung

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Regulatory Investigation in Hong Kong

Commencement of a regulatory investigation

A regulatory investigation usually commences when the regulator detects some irregularity concerning a regulated corporation or individual, but occasionally it can also be the result of proactive reporting by a corporation to its regulator when it detects non-compliance or as a result of a whistleblower complaint. In fact, failure to notify the regulator upon discovering non-compliance may have serious ramifications, as millions of dollars of fines could be imposed on corporations for failing to report non-compliance to the regulator in a timely manner. For example, pursuant to paragraph 12.5 of the Securities and Futures Commission (“ SFC ”)’s Code of Conduct, licensed persons are required to report to the SFC immediately for any material breach, infringement or non-compliance. Therefore, regulated corporations should always bear in mind that it is their responsibility to take initiative to report non-compliance or suspected non-compliance to its regulator promptly and that they should not wait until the regulator comes knocking on its door.

Importance of seeking legal advice

At the outset, a corporation or individual should always seek legal advice when faced with a regulatory investigation. A corporation or person subject to a regulatory investigation has obligation to provide information to the regulators. At the same time, they are also entitled to certain rights. Seeking legal advice will ensure that they are fully aware of what such rights are and that they will not accidentally waive them during the course of a regulatory investigation.

Even in the face of a regulatory investigation, a corporation or person should be fully advised that there are certain information or documents which they need not hand over to the regulators. For instance, they need not hand over information or documents which are subject to legal professional privilege (“ LPP ”). Under common law, LPP includes both legal advice privilege and litigation privilege.

Legal advice privilege covers communications between lawyers and their clients created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice. Litigation privilege, on the other hand, covers communications between lawyers and their clients, or lawyers or their client and a third party, created for the dominant purpose of litigation which is either in progress or in contemplation. A corporation or person should be careful not to hand over documents which are subject to LPP to the regulator. In practice, many corporations often instruct their lawyers to review all potential documents to be handed over to a regulator in order to ensure that they do not accidentally waive LPP.

In Hong Kong, the doctrine of limited waiver of privilege has been considered by the Court of Appeal in Citic Pacific (No 2) v Secretary for Justice [2012] 2 HKLRD 701 . As a result, documents subject to LPP may be handed over to a regulator on a “limited waiver” basis, meaning that privileged documents can be provided to the regulator solely for the purposes of its investigation and the regulator cannot transfer or disclose the document to third parties for a derivative purpose. In certain circumstances, it is possible for a regulator to offer leniency to a corporation which is willing to waive privilege over its documents.

In certain types of regulatory investigations, the right of silence may not be available. For instance, the SFO requires any person who is subject to or assisting in an investigation to answer any questions raised by the SFC in the interviews and/or to produce any documents as specified by it. Refusal to answer questions or produce documents is a criminal offence. Accordingly, there is no right to silence under the SFO. However, a person subject to an investigation under the SFO can make a claim to the privilege against self-incrimination when providing answers and/or documents to the SFC. Upon making such a claim, the answers and/or documents produced by such person will not become admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person.

The above are some of the obligations imposed on, and rights available to, a corporation or person subject to a regulatory investigation. As such, it is important for one to receive legal advice at the outset and during the course of a regulatory investigation so as to be fully apprised of one’s obligations and rights.

The secrecy obligation

A person assisting in or subject to an investigation is usually subject to the secrecy obligation. A regulated corporation and its employees should be careful not to disclose details relating to the regulatory investigation to any other person. For example, section 378 of the SFO imposes a secrecy obligation on persons subject to an investigation under section 183 of the SFO. The secrecy obligation is subject to limited exceptions, such as disclosure to employers, insurers and legal advisers, or disclosure of the fact that a person is bound by the secrecy obligation.

Searching premises

During some regulatory investigations, the regulator may wish to conduct a surprise raid at a corporation’s place of business. The regulator will need to obtain a search warrant issued by a magistrate to enter and search such premises. When the regulator arrives with a search warrant, it is important for the corporation’s representative or legal advisors to check the search warrant to ensure that: (i) it is issued no more than seven (7) days prior to the search; (ii) there is a proper description of the nature of the alleged offence (a search warrant may be defective if the description of the alleged offence is framed too broadly); (iii) the location of the premises subject to the search is correct; and (iv) the persons entering into the premises and undertaking the search are those authorized under the warrant.

In the event of a surprise raid conducted by a regulator on a corporation’s place of business, it is inevitable that there would be disruption to the corporation’s normal operations during the day of the search. In order to minimize such disruption, the corporation should, under the advice of its lawyers, agree on a “search protocol” with the regulator. Pursuant to the protocol, the corporation could possibly obtain information from the regulator as to the type of documents which it is looking for. To facilitate their search, the corporation could then indicate to the regulator as to where those relevant documents are located. It is advisable that the corporation’s legal team be present during the raid so that the lawyers can advise against any inadvertent disclosure to the regulator of any documents subject to LPP.

In addition, it is recommended that corporations should ensure that its electronic data backup system is well equipped to function in case any electronic devices are seized in order to minimize disruption to normal business. In a previous judicial review application brought against the SFC, the Hong Kong Court held that the SFC has power to seize electronic devices such as computers and mobile phones during a search on a corporation’s premises. Further, the SFC may issue a notice to require the provision of login names and passwords to email accounts and digital devices. Therefore, corporations should be prepared that they and their staff may be required to hand over electronic devices or email account information at any time during the course of a regulatory investigation.

Regulators may also request to speak to specific employees of a corporation during a raid. If the questions are framed in a way to enable the raid to be conducted in an effective manner (e.g. questions relating to the logistics of the raid), employees should endeavour to answer those questions so that they would not be seen as causing disruption to the search. However, if the regulators ask substantive questions about the content of the investigation (e.g. questions which are related to the potential non-compliance being investigated), employees should obtain legal advice before deciding to provide any information. If circumstances permit, the corporation’s legal advisors should request the regulator to issue the requisite notice pursuant to the relevant ordinance so that any person answering their questions and/or producing any documents to them may properly make a claim to the privilege against self-incrimination, if any.

Proactive remediation

If the regulatory investigation reveals any potential misconduct on the part of the corporation, the corporation should seek legal advice and revamp its own policies and procedures to demonstrate to the regulator that it is taking proactive steps to rectify any shortcomings and that it will seek to prevent recurrence of the potential misconduct. Taking proactive steps to remedy shortcomings can sometimes lead to a more favourable outcome for the corporation, such as a lesser penalty being imposed.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This memorandum was prepared for general purposes only. It is not intended to be comprehensive in its scope and it is recommended that a client seeks professional legal advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港证券在恶劣天气下实施维持交易后，香港上市公司需要注意的事项

Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:46:40 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港证券在恶劣天气下实施维持交易后，香港上市公司需要注意的事项

恶劣天气交易的主要特色

在恶劣天气情况的日子里:

在恶劣天气交易安排下，证券及衍生产品市场 (涵盖股票、债务证券、投资工具、交易所交易产品、结构性产品、期货及期权) 的交易、结算及交收服务与运作将继续进行。
沪港通和深港通的北向和南向证券交易也将继续进行。
就首次公开招股而言，新上市及新证券首日交易也可如常进行。
市场数据的传播将全面维持，以确保市场参与者能不受干扰地取得重要信息。
香港的银行服务将为恶劣天气交易提供便利，但只能透过电子渠道进行。但保障金融机构员工和客户的安全，银行分行将仍旧维持关闭。

对香港上市公司之公司行动的影响

下表说明香港上市公司在实施恶劣天气交易前后，处理公司行动的差异。请注意，并非所有公司行动的期限都会改变。

上市公司的持续义务

在实施恶劣天气交易安排后，出现恶劣天气情况的日子仍会被视为“营业日”。因此，即使在恶劣天气情况下，上市公司也必须遵守《上市规则》中有关“营业日”的规定。遵守规定的时间不会再像现行做法般自动延长。

尤其是，公司通讯的截止日期不会因恶劣天气状况而延长，包括以下各项的截止日期:

透过公告 (包括年度及中期业绩公告) 、通函、通知及申报表来披露信息。
向香港联合交易所有限公司 (“ 联交所 ”) 提交文件、通知或申报表。
联交所上市科将继续运作，并在恶劣天气情况下接收上市公司的电子呈交文件。

后续步骤

香港交易及结算所有限公司所将于适当时候就恶劣天气交易安排的其他细节发布相关规则变更及指引。

上市公司应做好准备，在恶劣天气情况下遵守《上市规则》的责任，包括:

与预期需继续工作的相关员工进行讨论。
制定并执行基础设施升级，以实现相关员工的远程工作安排。
提醒董事应随时准备签署公司通讯。
评估所需的外部服务，例如印刷商、法律顾问、审计师和财务顾问。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

What Hong Kong listed companies need to note when Severe Weather Trading of Hong Kong Securities is implemented

Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:31:56 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

What Hong Kong listed companies need to note when Severe Weather Trading of Hong Kong Securities is implemented

Key Features of Severe Weather Trading

During a day with Severe Weather Conditions:

Under the Severe Weather Trading arrangements, trading, clearing and settlement services and operations in both the securities and derivatives markets (covering equity securities, debt securities, investment vehicles, exchange-traded products, structured products, futures, and options) will continue.
The Northbound and Southbound trading of securities under the Shanghai-Hong Kong and Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connects will also continue.
In terms of IPO, the new listing and the first day of trading of new securities can also proceed as usual.
Full market data dissemination will be maintained, ensuring that market participants have access to essential information without disruption.
Hong Kong banking services will be provided to facilitate Severe Weather Trading but only through electronic channels. But bank branches will close as is the case now, given the importance of protecting the safety of staff and customers of financial institutions.

Impacts on Corporate Actions of Hong Kong Listed Companies

The following table illustrates the differences in dealing with corporate actions of a Hong Kong listed company before and after the implementation of Severe Weather Trading. Please note that not all deadlines for the corporate actions will change.

Continuing Obligation of Listed Companies

After the implementation of Severe Weather Trading arrangements, a day with Severe Weather Conditions will still be regarded as a “business day”. Thus, listed companies must comply with obligations imposed by the Listing Rules that refer to “business day” even on days with Severe Weather Conditions. There will no longer be an automatic extension of time for compliance, as in the current practice.

In particular, the deadlines for corporate communications will not be extended due to Severe Weather Conditions, including those for:

disclosure of information by way of announcements (including annual and interim results announcements), circulars, notices and returns.
submission of documents, notifications or returns to the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (“ SEHK ”).

The Listing Division of the SEHK will continue its operations and receive electronic submissions from the listed companies on days with Severe Weather Conditions.

Next Steps

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited will in due course publish relevant rule changes and guidance materials on other details of the Severe Weather Trading arrangements.

Listed companies should get themselves prepared to comply with their Listing Rules obligations during days with Severe Weather Conditions, including:

Discuss with the relevant employees who are expected to continue their work.
Formulate and execute infrastructure upgrades to enable remote work arrangements for the relevant employees.
Alert the directors that they should stand by to sign off corporate communications.
Assess the essential external services required from, e.g. printer, legal advisers, auditors and financial advisers.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

朱静文律师获邀参加《商法》"A-List茶话会"

Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:57:12 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师获邀参加《商法》"A-List茶话会"

本所合伙人朱静文律师应邀参加《商法》"A-List茶话会" 分享作为一个得奖者在法律专业领域以外，助她走向成功的秘诀。

《商法》编辑部为了能进一步了解每年在甄选出的 A-List法律精英: “睿见领袖” 的管理哲学和洞见，特意设立全新的微信栏目 "A-List茶话会" 让杰出法律人士分享他们的人生智慧，更重要是促进及鼓励业界同行精益求精。

"A-List茶话会" - 杨杨朱律师事务所朱静文

哪些黄金原则对领导团队行之有效？

在律师的职业生涯中，我们必须与各种利益相关者打交道。根据过往的经验，我发现除了要站在客户的角度思考问题外，还要站在其他利益相关者的角度思考问题。只有站在另一方的立场上，我才能理解客户的关切和优先事项。这种思考方式有助于平衡各方的利益，弥合期望与现实之间的差距。

新一代的律界才俊应具备哪些品质？

法律界和公众对律师的要求非常高，包括具备积极的态度、体贴入微、正直可靠、聪慧和勤奋。社会瞬息万变，即使作为律师也需要打破常规思维，不断学习和掌握新的技能，并始终保持诚实正直的原则。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

《商法》"A-List茶话会" 连结请见： https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fziRjUkdyp7zGWHTXYavGA

近期消息

Ms. Rossana Chu was invited to share in China Business Law Journal “A-List Tea Party”

Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:50:43 GMT

EN / 简

Ms. Rossana Chu was invited to share in China Business Law Journal “A-List Tea Party”

Our Partner Ms. Rossana Chu was invited by China Business Law Journal to share her secrets of a winner’s success other than legal profession.

China Business Law Journal “A-List Tea Party” (A-List茶话会) is a new WeChat only platform for the editorial team to further understand the management wisdom and insights from the winners of A-List: Visionaries of the year and, more importantly, to share with their peers in the industry to strive for excellence.

“A-List Tea Party” - Rossana Chu at YYC Legal

What are the golden rules that work well for leading a team?

We have to deal with different stakeholders in our whole career. I always find it helpful to think from the perspective of not only my client, but also of the opposite number. Only if I stand in the shoe of another person will I be able to understand that person's concerns and priorities. It also helps in balancing the interests of different parties and filling in the gaps of expectations.

What kind of traits should the new generation possess?

The legal profession and the public require quite a lot of traits from lawyers, including a positive attitude, being considerate, integrity, intelligence and diligence. The society is changing rapidly, so even lawyers need to think outside the box and pick up new skills while keeping honesty.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

China Business Law Journal "A-List茶话会", please visit: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fziRjUkdyp7zGWHTXYavGA

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所与天达共和上榜《商法》卓越律所大奖 2024榜单

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 09:53:38 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所与天达共和上榜《商法》卓越律所大奖 2024榜单

本所欣然宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙于评比中就企业合规执业领域类别获颁发2024年度国际所 “《商法》卓越律所” 奖项。

此外，本所战略合作伙伴天逹共和律师事务所亦就三个执业领域类别：银行及金融、隐私及数据保护以及家族财富管理赢得2024年度中国所 “《商法》卓越律所” 奖项。

知名法律刊物《商法》于2024年7月24日公布了 “《商法》卓越律所大奖2024” 得奖者榜单。《商法》卓越律所大奖奖项设置分为三大类别：综合奖项，执业领域奖项和行业领域奖项。每年一度的《商法》卓越律所大奖奖项授予在该年度各执业领域在中国市场表现杰出、范围相对较广以及具备全国知名度的中外律师事务所。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

完整得奖者名单连结请见： https://law.asia/zh-hans/top-firms-china-2024/

近期消息

YYC Legal and East & Concord are recognised in China Business Law Awards 2024

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 09:46:22 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal and East & Concord are recognised in China Business Law Awards 2024

We are pleased to announce that YYC Legal LLP is awarded in the “China Business Law Awards 2024” – international firms – Winner in Corporate Compliance practice area category.

Our strategic partner East & Concord Partners is also the Winner in three practice area categories: Banking and Finance, Data Protection and Privacy and Family Wealth Management in the “China Business Law Awards 2024” - PRC firms.

On 24 July 2024, a renowned legal publication China Business Law Journal announced the winners of its “China Business Law Awards 2024”. The China Business Law Awards are divided into three types: general awards; practice area awards; and industry sector awards. China Business Law Journal presents the China Business Law Awards annually to the winning PRC and international law firms for their outstanding legal practices, relatively broad service scopes and nationwide recognition in the China market of the year.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For a full list of winners please visit: https://law.asia/top-firms-china-2024/

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所获asialaw Awards 2024提名

Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:08:34 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所获asialaw Awards 2024提名

asialaw予日前公布了2024年度第七届asialaw Awards入围者名单，杨杨朱律师事务所获提名的两个类别如下：

*杨杨朱律师事务所 – 编辑选择奖：年度杰出新起之秀律所
*朱静文律师 – 年度香港法域最佳女性律师

该奖项表彰亚洲跨越20 个司法管辖区内具卓越表现的律所和律师，评审根据展现创新力、驾驭复杂问题能力以及杰出影响力交易。

asialaw Awards 2024获奖者名单将于 2024 年 9 月 26 日在马来西亚吉隆坡举行的颁奖典礼上宣布。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲查看完整2024年度入围者名单发布，请访问： https://www.asialaw.com/NewsAndAnalysis/asialaw-awards-2024-shortlist-revealed/Index/2033

近期消息

YYC Legal shortlisted in asialaw Awards 2024

Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:00:08 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal shortlisted in asialaw Awards 2024

asialaw has released its shortlists for the seventh annual asialaw Awards 2024, YYC Legal has been shortlisted for two categories:

*YYC Legal – Editor’s Choice Awards: Best Newcomer of the Year
*Rossana Chu – HKSAR Female Lawyer of the Year

asialaw Awards will recognise excellence among law firms and legal professionals across 20 jurisdictions in Asia, judging firms on demonstrated innovation, ability to handle complex matters, and the significant impact of their work.

The winners of the asialaw Awards 2024 will be announced at the awards ceremony on 26 September 2024 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For a full 2024 shortlist, please visit: https://www.asialaw.com/NewsAndAnalysis/asialaw-awards-2024-shortlist-revealed/Index/2033 .

Recent News

美国的投资移民

Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:04:35 GMT

李家祥 KC Li

顾问，香港

EN / 简

美国的投资移民

用投资途径的主要移民选择有那两类，现陈述如下：

(1) EB-5投资移民（绿卡）计划

EB-5投资移民是给予通过投资新的企业，创造就业机会的投资者授予永久居留权（绿卡）。投资者可以在以下两种投资选项中进行选择：

投资180万美元于一家新成立的商业企业，或
在目标就业区（TEA）投资90万美元，这是在一个失业率高企的地区或农村地区。

(2) 用条约投资者E-2身份取得E-2的签证

E-2签证允许某些与美国有投资友好条约国家的国民，移居美国前在当地有意愿或已作出重大的投资，所以需要留在美国为其投资的企业作出管理、策略和发展的指导。

美国用投资的移民计划(Eb-5）申请的绿卡，一般申请流程如下：

确定符合条件的投资项目，并承诺投入所需的资本。
向美国公民及移民服务局（USCIS) 提交申请表格I-526。
申请获得批准后，如果在美国，就可以申请调整身份作出有条件的绿卡申请。如果在海外的话，就要在美国驻外领事馆申请移民签证。
移居美国一年九个月后，就要提交表格I-829，以取消临时绿卡的条件，转为无条件的永久绿卡。

申请E-2条约投资者的签证程序：

在美国建立或收购符合条件的企业。

将重大资本投入到企业中。
在美国驻外领事馆申请E-2签证，如果人已经在美国，请提交��换身份的表格I-129。
申请人需提交投资有关企业将来会有利润或收入和创造就业机会的证据。

以上两类投资所涉及的成本是多少？

EB-5投资移民(绿卡) ：

投资金额（180万美元或90万美元）。
表格I-526和表格I-829的申请费用。
行政、律师和其他相关费用。

E-2条约投资者签证：

建立或收购合格企业所需的投资款项。
签证申请或表格I-129的申请费用。
行政、律师、业务设置和运营费用。

处理投资的移民签证需要多长时间？

EB-5投资移民(绿卡) ：

表格I-526的处理时间各有不同，但从几个月到一年多不等。
一旦获得批准，可能需要额外的时间来调整身份或获得移民签证。

申请E-2条约投资者签证：

E-2签证申请的处理时间可能因领事馆和个人情况而有很大差异。
通常，与其他移民签证类别相比，E-2签证的签发速度相对较快。

投资移民申请获得批准后，下一步是什么？

EB-5投资移民(绿卡)：

表格I-526获得批准后，人在美国的话可继续调整身份转为绿卡或到美国领事馆申请移民签证。
在美国居住一年九个月后，需要提交表格I-829以取消绿卡条件并获得永久居留权。

E-2条约投资者签证：

获得E-2签证后，专注于在美国发展和管理投资业务。

若果要考虑申请移民美国取得绿卡的话，是可通过其他途径（投资移民 (Eb-5) 或管理层 (Eb-1) ）来取得永久居留权(绿卡）。

基于美国的投资移民程序烦复，包括有商业、财务和移民的各种法律，所以作者认为有意移居美国的投资者，为确保自己合法的权益，在申请之前，必须仔细评估每个程序相关的要求、成本和时间。咨询移民律师和财务顾问可以帮助到投资移民的申请人了解清楚各程序，并确保有成功的结果。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

US Investment Immigration

Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:03:06 GMT

KC Li

Consultant, Hong Kong

EN / 简

US Investment Immigration

The two main types of immigration options using the investment route are described below:

(1) EB-5 Investment Immigration (Green Card) Program

The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program grants permanent residency (green card) to investors who create jobs by investing in new business enterprises . Investors can choose between two investment options.

invest US $1.8 million in a newly established business enterprise, or
invest US$900,000 in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA), which is an area with high unemployment or a rural area.

(2) Obtaining an (E-2) Visa as a Treaty Investor (E-2)

The E-2 visa allows nationals of certain countries with which the U.S. has a Treaty of Friendship , Commerce and Navigation to remain in the U.S. in order to direct the management, strategy, and development of the business which they intend to make, or have made, a significant investment prior to moving to the U.S. The E-2 visa is a visa issued by U.S. Department of State (DOS) through the US Embassy or Consulates abroad.

The general application process for a U.S. green card under the Immigrant Investor Program (Eb-5) is as follows:

Determine an eligible investment project and commit to investing the required capital.
Submit an application Form I-526 to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
After the application is approved, if you are in the U.S., you can apply for adjustment of status to make a conditional green card application. If you are overseas, you must apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad.
One year and nine months after moving to the U.S., a Form I-829 will be filed to remove the conditions of the temporary green card and convert to an unconditional permanent green card.

E-2 Treaty Investor Visa Application Procedure: Establishment or acquisition of a qualifying business enterprise in the United States.

Invest significant capital in the business.
Apply for an E-2 visa at a U.S. consulate abroad, or if already in the U.S., submit a change of status form I-129.
The applicant is required to submit evidence that the enterprise concerned will generate profits or income and create employment opportunities in the future.

The applicant must submit evidence of future profits or income generated by the investment enterprise concerned for approval of the E-2 visa.

What are the costs associated with the above two types of investments?

EB-5 Green Card

The amount invested ($1.8 million or $900,000).
Application fees for Forms I-526 and Forms I-829.
Attorney and other related fees.

E-2 Treaty Investor Visa

Investment fund required to establish or acquire a qualifying business.
Application fee for visa application or Form I-129.
Attorney fee, business setup and operating expenses, etc.

How long does it take to process an immigrant investor visa?

EB-5 Immigrant Investor (Green Card)

The processing times for Forms I-526 vary, but range from a few months to over a year.
Once the application is approved, additional time may be required to adjust status or obtain an immigrant visa.

Applying for an E-2 Treaty Investor Visa

The processing times for E-2 visa applications can vary greatly depending on the consulate and individual circumstances.
Generally, E-2 visas are issued relatively quickly compared to investors immigrant visa.

What is the next step after an investment immigration petition is approved?

E B - 5 Investment Immigration (Green Card)

After the Form I-526 is approved, you may apply to adjust your status to a green card if you are in the U.S. or apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate.
After one year and nine months of residency in the U.S., a Form I-829 is required to remove the green card condition and obtain permanent residency.

E-2 Treaty Investor Visa

Once an E-2 visa is approved the applicant simply to focus on developing and managing his investment business in the United States.

If one wants to consider applying for a green card, there are alternative routes to obtain permanent residency (a green card) (a) through (investment Immigration (Eb-5) or management/ executive employment visa (Eb-1)).

Because of the complexity of the U.S. investment immigration process, which includes a variety of commercial, business, and immigration laws, the author believes that any prospective investors must carefully evaluate the requirements, costs, and time associated with each process before applying in order to ensure that their legal rights and interests are protected. Consultation with an immigration attorney and financial advisor can help the potential immigrant investor to understand the process and ensure a successful outcome.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所获Global Law Experts推选为2024-2025年度并购法律代表

Tue, 09 Jul 2024 07:08:19 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所获Global Law Experts推选为2024-2025年度并购法律代表

我们非常荣幸地宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙就并购领域获Global Law Experts (GLE) 推选为2024-2025年度香港区“ 推荐律所 ” ；同时本所合伙人朱静文律师个人连续第四年获推选为并购领域 “ 推荐律师 ” ，表彰本所及朱律师同获GLE唯一认可为香港区并购领域的法律地位和专家名衔。

GLE 是全球领先法律从业员的首要指南。GLE推荐来自超过140 个国家的 2,000 多名律师（覆盖范围从大型国际律师事务所到专业精品律师事务所），涉及专业领域逾150 多个。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲了解更多有关Global Law Experts的鉴定资格信息，请浏览该网址︰ https://globallawexperts.com/about-global-law-experts-awards/

近期消息

YYC Legal is recommended as Global Law Experts M&A law representative 2024-2025

Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:56:36 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recommended as Global Law Experts M&A law representative 2024-2025

We are pleased to announce that YYC Legal LLP has been named by Global Law Experts (GLE) as the “ Recommended Firm ” in M&A for Hong Kong; and our Partner Ms. Rossana Chu is also recognised as a “ Recommended Attorney ” in M&A for the fourth consecutive year, to endorse our firm and Ms. Chu’s exclusive M&A law position and expert in Hong Kong by GLE for 2024-2025.

GLE is the premier guide to leading legal professionals throughout the world. GLE recommends over 2,000 lawyers (ranging from large international law firms to specialised boutique law firms) from more than 140 countries in over 150 practice areas.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information about Global Law Experts accreditation, please visit the website: https://globallawexperts.com/about-global-law-experts-awards/

Recent News

香港人工智能数据保护和隐私法规要点

Wed, 03 Jul 2024 09:20:43 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港人工智能数据保护和隐私法规要点

私隐条例及六项保障资料原则

私隐条例是技术中立且基于原则的。根据私隐条例第2条规定，“资料使用者”是指控制个人资料的收集、持有、处理或使用的人。

因此，任何开发和/或使用涉及处理个人资料的人工智能系统的个人、实体、机构或企业，都可能会被视为资料使用者。而资料使用者除了私隐条例其他要求外，还必须遵守私隐条例附表1中的六项保障资料原则 (下称 “ DPPs ”) :

DPP1（收集目的及方式）：资料使用者必须以合法和公平的方式收集个人资料，其目的必须合法且与其职能或活动直接相关。收集的资料应是必需及足够的，但不得超出目的所需范畴；
DPP2（准确性及保留期限）：资料使用者必须采取切实可行的步骤确保个人资料准确和更新，并且保留时间不会超过实际所需的时间；
DPP3（使用）：个人资料只能用于收集时表明的目的，若用以其他目的，则必须取得资料当事人明确且自愿的同意；
DPP4（保安）：必须采取合理的保安措施保障个人资料不会未经授权或意外地被查阅、处理、删除、丧失或使用；
DPP5（透明度）：资料使用者必须公开其处理个人资料的政策和方式，并交代其所持有个人资料的类别、使用方式及主要用途；以及
DPP6（查阅及更正）：资料当事人有权要求查阅和更正其不准确的个人资料。

人工智能指引

2021年8月，私隐专员公署发布了《开发及使用人工智能道德标准指引》（下称“ 人工智能指引 ”），主要为开发和使用人工智能系统时涉及使用个人资料的机构提供建议。

人工智能指引建议机构采纳三项核心数据管理价值（下称“ 价值 ”）：

尊重；
互惠；和
公平。

同时鼓励机构采用七项国际公认的人工智能道德原则（下称“ 道德原则 ”）：

问责；
人为监督；
透明度与可解释性；
数据私隐；
公平；
有益的人工智能；以及
可靠、稳健及安全。

为确保这些价值和道德原则的切实可行，各机构在开发和使用人工智能并制定适当的政策、措施和程序时，应考虑人工智能指引中就下述范畴提出的建议措施：

制定人工智能策略及管治；
进行风险评估及人为监督；
实行人工智能模型的开发及人工智能系统的管理；以及
促进与持份者的沟通及交流。

模范框架

2024年6月11日，私隐专员公署发布了《人工智能：个人资料保障模范框架》（下称“ 模范框架 ”），为采购、实施及使用任何涉及个人资料的人工智能系统或解决方案（包括预测式人工智能和生成式人工智能）的机构提供最佳行事常规建议。

与人工智能指引类似，模范框架列出了确保落实该等价值和道德原则的建议措施。各机构在采购、实施及使用人工智能解决方案以及制定适当的政策、措施和程序时，应考虑下述范畴的建议措施：

制定人工智能策略及管治；
进行风险评估及人为监督；
实行人工智能模型的定制及人工智能系统的实施和管理；以及
促进与持份者的沟通及交流。

步履不停

尽管人工智能指引和模范框架不具强制性，其建议也并非详尽无遗，但它们的发布无疑是支持香港人工智能负责任且合乎道德的发展的重要一步。鉴于人工智能的快速发展和突破性进展，香港相关的法律和监管环境将继续演变，以应对新的问题和挑战。

目前，资料使用者必须确保遵守私隐条例和六项保障资料原则，并遵循人工智能指引和模范框架中的最佳行事常规建议，特别是在人工智能开发、运营和使用过程中涉及个人资料收集、使用和保留时。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

于《商法》2024年7月杨杨朱律师事务所 - 法律热点剖析中首载。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Key points of AI data protection and privacy regulations in Hong Kong

Wed, 03 Jul 2024 09:20:35 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Key points of AI data protection and privacy regulations in Hong Kong

PDPO and DPPs

The PDPO is technology-neutral and principle-based. Section 2 of the PDPO defines a “data user” as a person who controls the collection, holding, processing or use of personal data.

Accordingly, any individual, entity, organisation or business that develops and/or uses AI systems involving the handling of personal data is likely to be considered a data user and must adhere to the following six data protection principles ( DPPs ) in schedule 1 of the PDPO, among other requirements under the PDPO:

DPP 1 (Purpose and manner of collection): Personal data must be collected in a lawful and fair manner for a lawful purpose directly related to the data user’s function or activity. The data collected shall be necessary and adequate but not excessive for such purpose;
DPP 2 (Accuracy and duration of retention): The data user must take all practicable steps to ensure that personal data is accurate, up to date and not kept longer than necessary;
DPP 3 (Use): Personal data can only be used for the purposes for which it was collected, unless express and voluntary consent has been obtained from the data subjects for any other purposes;
DPP 4 (Security): Reasonable security measures must be taken to protect personal data from unauthorised or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use;
DPP 5 (Openness): The data user must be open about its policies and practices in relation to personal data, the kind of personal data it holds, how it is used and the main purposes for which personal data is held; and
DPP 6 (Access and correction): Data subjects shall have the right to request access to and correction of their own personal data if it is inaccurate.

AI guidance

In August 2021, the PCPD published the Guidance on the Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence ( AI Guidance ) to provide recommendations primarily for organisations that develop and use AI systems involving the use of personal data.

The AI Guidance recommends that organisations embrace three core data stewardship values ( Values ), being:

respectful;
beneficial; and
fair.

It also encourages organisations to adopt the seven internationally recognised ethical principles ( Ethical Principles ) for AI:

accountability;
human oversight;
transparency and interpretability;
data privacy;
fairness;
beneficial AI, and
reliability, robustness and security.

To ensure the Values and the Ethical Principles are practicable, organisations should take into consideration the recommended practices in the following areas, as set out in the AI Guidance, when they develop and use AI and formulate appropriate policies, practices and procedures:

establishing AI strategy and governance;
conducting risk assessment and human oversight;
executing development of AI models and management of AI systems; and
fostering communication and engagement with stakeholders.

Model framework

On 11 June 2024, the PCPD published the Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework ( Model Framework ). The Model Framework provides recommendations on the best practices for organisations that procure, implement and use any type of AI systems or solutions involving the use of personal data, including predictive AI and generative AI.

Similar to the AI Guidance, the Model Framework outlines recommended measures to ensure the implementation of the Values and the Ethical Principles. Organisations should consider these recommended practices in the following areas when procuring, implementing and using AI solutions, as well as when formulating appropriate policies, practices and procedures:

establishing AI strategy and governance;
conducting risk assessment and human oversight;
executing customisation of AI models and implementation and management of AI systems; and
fostering communication and engagement with stakeholders.

An evolving landscape

While the AI Guidance and the Model Framework do not impose mandatory requirements and their recommendations are not exhaustive, their publication is a significant step towards supporting the responsible and ethical development of AI in Hong Kong. Given the rapid development and groundbreaking advancement of AI, it is likely that the relevant legal and regulatory landscape in Hong Kong will continue to evolve to address new issues and challenges.

For the time being, data users must ensure they comply with the PDPO and the six DPPs, and follow the best practice recommendations in the AI Guidance and the Model Framework, especially when it comes to the collection, use and retention of personal data during the development, operation and use of AI.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

First published in July 2024 YYC Legal - legal trends of China Business Law Journal.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

朱静文律师接受《信报》访问谈论香港IPO的问题

Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:48:58 GMT

EN / 简

朱静文律师接受《信报》访问谈论香港IPO的问题

本所合伙人朱静文律师接受《信报》访问，在题为【中企弃港赴美追逐上市梦】的文章中，论及香港IPO的问题，文章刊登于《信报财经月刊》第567期，2024年6月号。

内文提要︰

中企弃港赴美追逐上市梦

- 业界忧IPO高不成低不就

香港一向以完整且专业的IPO产业链闻名于世，在很长一段时间是内地企业首选的上市地。然而，中港经济及股市疲软，企业盈利大打折扣。香港高门坎上市要求形同落闸，中小企业舍近取远，投奔美国上市。金融业界呼吁港交所转变思维，要重发展多于监管，不要只重吸纳巨无霸企业。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

原文请阅《信报财经月刊》第567期，2024年6月号 >> 【中企弃港赴美追逐上市梦】

近期消息

Ms. Rossana Chu was interviewed by Hong Kong Economic Journal on the issues of Hong Kong IPOs

Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:40:50 GMT

EN / 简

Ms. Rossana Chu was interviewed by Hong Kong Economic Journal on the issues of Hong Kong IPOs

Our Partner Ms. Rossana Chu was interviewed by Hong Kong Economic Journal in the article entitled “ 中企弃港赴美追逐上市梦 ” (Chinese companies abandon Hong Kong and go public in United States) and shared her comments on the issues of Hong Kong IPOs. The article was published on Hong Kong Economic Journal Monthly Issue No. 567, 6/2024.

Abstract:

Chinese companies abandon Hong Kong and go public in United States - The industry worries that Hong Kong IPOs cannot go up-market or accept down-market

Hong Kong has always been proud of its comprehensive and professional IPO industry chain and has been the preferred listing venue for mainland Chinese companies for a long time. However, the economies and stock markets of the mainland and Hong Kong are weak, and corporate profits drop heavily. Hong Kong's high threshold listing requirements are fencing off the IPOs of small and medium-sized enterprises which may then give up Hong Kong and go listing in the United States. The financial industry urges the Hong Kong Stock Exchange to keep an open mind, focus more on development rather than mostly on regulation, and not to target merely on mega IPOs.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To read the article, please visit Hong Kong Economic Journal Monthly Issue No. 567, 6/2024 >> 中企弃港赴美追逐上市梦 - (Chinese version only)

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所荣获Global Law Experts 2024-2025年度两个奖项

Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:04:38 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所荣获Global Law Experts 2024-2025年度两个奖项

我们非常荣幸地宣布杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙获Global Law Experts (GLE) 推选为2024-2025年度香港区国际商业事务领域 “ 推荐律所 ” ；本所管理合伙人杨岳明律师个人同时获评选为 “ 推荐律师 ” ，表彰本所及杨律师同获GLE唯一认可为香港区国际商业事务领域法律地位和专家名衔。

GLE 是全球领先法律从业员的首要指南。GLE推荐来自超过140 个国家的 2,000 多名律师（覆盖范围从大型国际律师事务所到专业精品律师事务所），涉及 150 多个专业领域。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲了解更多有关Global Law Experts的鉴定资格信息，请浏览该网址︰ https://globallawexperts.com/about-global-law-experts-awards/

近期消息

YYC Legal is recognised with two awards by Global Law Experts 2024-2025

Mon, 03 Jun 2024 08:54:22 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal is recognised with two awards by Global Law Experts 2024-2025

We are pleased to announce that YYC Legal LLP has been named by Global Law Experts (GLE) as the “ Recommended Firm ” and our Managing Partner Victor Yang is also recognised as a “ Recommended Attorney ” in International Commercial for Hong Kong for 2024-2025, to endorse our firm and Mr. Yang’s exclusive International Commercial law position and expert in Hong Kong by GLE.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

For more information about Global Law Experts accreditation, please visit the website: https://globallawexperts.com/about-global-law-experts-awards/

Recent News

港交所修改关于足够业务运作的评估指引

Thu, 16 May 2024 04:31:25 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

港交所修改关于足够业务运作的评估指引

反面案例

港交所在最新的指引更新中列载了几个没有满足足够业务运作要求的案例，具体如下：

某上市公司的煤炭贸易业务收入仅维持在每年140万美元的水平，并只来自数名客户。该公司在几年前购入煤矿的采矿权，但因监管限制，一直未开始采煤业务。公司录得重大亏损，总资产为260万美元，负债净额达770万美元。而公司拟改善业务营运的计划没有实际资料支撑。
某经营二手汽车零售业务的公司在过去五年收入跌近95%。公司录得净亏损，营运现金流呈负数，总资产为640万美元。公司拟停止这项业务，转向新品牌汽车的批发业务，但公司的汽车批发业务经营历史短，客户群有限。
某GEM上市公司停止其收入占比高达90%的金属买卖业务。公司开展了多项互不相关的新业务，但业务量很低。公司过去六个月净亏损770万美元，负债净额达5,100万美元。
某公司大幅缩减其原来的时尚饰品业务，并收购一家从事软件及应用程式开发业务的公司且开始相关业务。收购所产生的商誉占其总资产3,590万美元的一半。随后，整个软件开发团队离职，导致软件业务中断。审计师基于其对商誉帐面值能否恢复的担忧，出具了对公司财报无法发表意见的审计报告。
某公司拟将其主营业务出售给控股股东，该控股股东再将其所持有该公司的全部股权出售给某投资者。但公司没能证明余下业务的可行性和可持续性。
某公司拟出售营运其主要业务的附属公司的25%权益，并授予买方一项关于收购附属公司余下75%权益的认购权，但该认购权在出售事项24个月后方可行使。公司的业务和资产都主要由该附属公司营运和持有，买方一旦行使认购权，公司即不再持有任何实质的业务营运或资产。
某公司拟出售占公司总收入和资产70%的建筑业务，而其去年收购或建立的新业务在最近一个财政年度只录得亏损或极少收入。
某公司在收购一家顾问服务公司不到半年时间，拟出售其占据着公司的全部收入及纯利来源的包装业务。该顾问公司的收入在被收购不久前大增超过99%，而大部分增幅均来自同一个客户。

应用原则

如出现以下情形，港交所可能认定发行人没有足够的业务营运：

上市公司终止或大幅缩减其主营业务，或主营业务不断倒退，而余下业务不能产生足够的收入来应付营运成本，公司出现结构性而非暂时性的净亏损或负营运现金流。
另一方面，公司拟收购或开启新业务，但新业务营运历史短，不能证明其可行且可持续。
一些上市公司继续营运其主营业务只为维持其上市地位，而非真正为发展相关业务。令港交所怀疑发行人是否有实质业务的常见情形包括：业务进入/退出门槛极低、公司依赖数目不多的交易或客户。比如，从事借贷业务的发行人只有少数员工且客户高度集中；再如，从事订单贸易业务的发行人仅能提供有限的增值服务。
出现财政困难、破产或失去主要营运附属公司的发行人也可能不再拥有足够的业务营运，尤其在没有切实的扭转经营计划的情况下。

港交所的评估过程

在评估上市公司是否有足够业务运作时，港交所一般会考虑其业务模式、业务性质、营运规模、过往业绩和新业务、资产构成，以及上市公司是否有转让控股权益的提议等因素。

但港交所旗下负责上市决定的团队所作出的决定可能会被其上市委员会或上市复核委员会推翻。比如，中基长寿科学集团就在2022年7月25日宣布上市复核委员会推翻了上市委员会的决定，后者此前确认了港交所作出的公司不再维持足够业务运作的评估结果。但随后，上市复核委员会认为公司的借贷业务可持续，符合足够的业务运作要求。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

SEHK’s guidance on sufficiency of operations

Thu, 16 May 2024 04:08:40 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

SEHK’s guidance on sufficiency of operations

Negative examples

The following paragraphs have depicted several examples where the company has failed to satisfy the operation sufficiency requirement:

A listed company maintained only coal trading with annual revenue of USD1.4 million from a few customers. It had acquired coal mine rights but was prohibited from commencing exploration due to regulatory restrictions. It incurred losses, and had total assets of USD2.6 million and net liabilities of USD7.7 million. Plans to improve business operations lacked details.
A company engaged in retail sales of second-hand motor vehicles saw its revenue drop by 95% in the past five years. It recorded net losses and negative operating cashflows, with total assets amounting to USD6.4 million. It would cease that business and start wholesale distribution of new branded motor vehicles. However, the company’s wholesale business had a short operating history and limited customer base.
A GEM-listed company ceased its metal trading business, which accounted for 90% of its revenue. It started a number of new businesses with no correlation with one another, and that involved few activities. The company incurred a net loss of USD7.7 million in the past six months and had net liabilities amounting to USD51 million.
Having substantially scaled down its original fashion accessories business, a company started a new business via acquisition of a company engaging in software and applications development. Goodwill arising from the acquisition accounted for half of its total assets of USD35.9 million. Subsequently, the entire software development team left the company, resulting in suspension of the new business. The auditor issued a disclaimer of opinion on its financial statements due to concerns over the recoverability of the goodwill.
A company proposed to dispose of its major business to its controlling shareholder, who would in turn sell his entire stake in the company to an investor. The company failed to demonstrate that the remaining businesses were viable and sustainable.
A company proposed to sell a 25% interest in its main operating company, and granted an option to the purchaser to acquire the remaining 75% interest 24 months later. As the company’s business operations and assets were primarily carried out and held through the operating company, it would not have any material business operations or assets left once the purchaser exercised its option.
A company proposed to dispose of its construction sector, which accounted for 70% of its revenue and assets. Its other businesses that were acquired or established within the past year had recorded either a loss or minimal profit in the latest financial year.
A company acquired an advisory services company, then in less than six months proposed to sell off its packaging sector, which has been accounting for its entire revenue and net profit. The revenue of the advisory services company increased by more than 99% shortly before the acquisition and most of the increase came from one client.

Principles of application

The SEHK is more likely to consider the following circumstances as not having sufficient operations:

The core business of the listed company is discontinued, substantially scaled down or deteriorated. The remaining businesses do not generate enough revenue to offset operating costs, resulting in net losses and negative operating cashflow on a structural, rather than temporary, basis.
The company proposes to acquire or start a new business with only a short operating history to demonstrate its viability and sustainability.
Some listed companies carry on their main operating activities merely to maintain the listing status, rather than genuinely developing such business. Common telltale signs include low barrier of entry/exit and limited number of transactions or customers. These can refer to money lending businesses with only a few employees and high concentration of customers, or trading activities that add little to no value to the company.
Companies in financial difficulty, becoming insolvent, or losing their major operating subsidiaries may cease to have sufficient operations, especially in the absence of concrete turnaround plans.

SEHK assessment process

In assessing whether a listed company has sufficient operations, the SEHK will consider factors such as its business model, business nature, operating scale, history of existing and new businesses, asset composition, and whether any transfer of controlling stake is proposed.

Nevertheless, a decision of the SEHK’s listing division may be overturned by its listing committee or the listing review committee.

Zhong Ji Longevity Science Group announced, on 25 July 2022, that the listing review committee overturned the listing committee’s decision, which had confirmed the listing division’s assessment that the company failed to maintain a sufficient level of operations. The listing review committee concluded that the company’s money lending business was sustainable and fulfilled the operations sufficiency requirement.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

加强《个人资料(私隐)条例》下对资料私隐保障的建议

Tue, 07 May 2024 12:47:42 GMT

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

律师，香港

EN / 简

加强《个人资料 (私隐) 条例》(「《私隐条例》」) 下对资料私隐保障的建议

香港个人资料私隐专员公署（下称「私隐专员公署」）负责监督《个人资料（私隐）条例》（香港法例第486章）（下称「《私隐条例》」）的执行情况，该条例旨在保障与个人资料有关的个人私隐。

根据政制事务委员会最近于2024年2月19日的会议上就私隐专员公署的工作所发出的背景资料简介，私隐专员公署现正研究进一步修订《私隐条例》以加强对个人资料的保护。

拟议的修订内容包括设立强制性资料外泄通报机制、要求资料使用者制订个人资料保留时限政策及赋予私隐专员公署判处行政罚款的权力。一旦完成具体草案的拟定后，便将会征询政制事务委员会的意见。

以下摘要重点介绍了《私隐条例》中与私隐专员公署所提出的修订建议有关的一些关键点。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

近期文章

近期消息

Proposed enhancement of data privacy protection under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance

Tue, 07 May 2024 11:52:44 GMT

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

Beverly Fu

Associate, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Proposed enhancement of data privacy protection under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (the "PDPO")

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong (the “PCPD”) oversees the enforcement of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Chapter 486 of the laws of Hong Kong) (the “PDPO”), which protects individuals’ privacy in relation to personal data.

According to a recent meeting of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs on 19 February 2024 regarding background brief on the work of the PCPD, the PCPD is studying further amendments to the PDPO to enhance personal data protection.

The proposed amendments include establishing a mandatory data breach notification mechanism, requiring data users to have a data retention period policy and giving PCPD the power to impose administrative fines. The Panel on Constitutional Affairs will be consulted once a concrete proposal is formulated.

The summary below highlights some of the key aspects of the PDPO in relation to the proposed amendments advised by the PCPD.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

Recent articles

Recent News

杨杨朱律师事务所入选《钱伯斯》2024亚太及大中华区大奖决赛榜单

Fri, 03 May 2024 10:45:09 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨朱律师事务所入选《钱伯斯》2024亚太及大中华区大奖决赛榜单

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙（前称杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙）与战略合作伙伴天达共和律师事务所共同入围《钱伯斯》(Chambers and Partners) 2024亚太及大中华区大奖「年度中国大湾区合资律师事务所」类别决赛榜单。

该奖项旨在表彰亚太及大中华区国内外律所的卓越表现，入围律所在过去 12 个月中表现出色、策略增长成绩骄人、及卓越客户服务。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

查看完整入围律所名单发布，请访问钱伯斯2024亚太及大中华区大奖

近期消息

YYC Legal shortlisted at the Chambers Asia-Pacific and Greater China Region Awards 2024

Fri, 03 May 2024 10:23:04 GMT

EN / 简

YYC Legal shortlisted at the Chambers Asia-Pacific and Greater China Region Awards 2024

YYC Legal LLP (formerly known as Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP) together with our strategic partner East & Concord Partners have been jointly named among the finalists in the China Greater Bay Area Joint Venture Law Firm of the Year category at the Chambers Asia-Pacific and Greater China Region Awards 2024.

The awards recognise the pre-eminence of national and international law firms across the Asia-Pacific and Greater China region which have demonstrated outstanding work, impressive strategic growth and excellence in client service over the past 12 months.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

View the full shortlist for the Chambers Asia-Pacific and Greater China Region Awards 2024

Recent News

《雇佣条例》下的连续性合约要求：从「418」到「468」的转变

Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:43:39 GMT

杨岳明 Victor Yang

管理合伙人，香港

胡铭深 Sam Wu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

《雇佣条例》下的连续性合约要求：从「418」到「468」的转变

根据「连续性合约」受雇的雇员可享有《雇佣条例》下的权益及福利，如法定假日薪酬、有薪年假、疾病津贴、产假/侍产假、遣散费及长期服务金等。

拟议修订

劳工顾问委员会最近达成了共识，「418」要求将被修改和放宽。根据拟议修订，在连续4星期内受雇于同一雇主且工作总共68小时或以上的雇员会被视为根据「连续性合约」受雇。

拟议修订尚未生效。立法程序正在进行中，修订草案将会提交立法会审议。

对雇主和雇员来说意味着什么?

从「418」要求到「468」要求的拟议转变将增强保障工時較短或聘用期較短的雇员的权利和福利，如兼职员工、散工及替工。在实施拟议修订后，预计更多的雇员将有资格享有上述《雇佣条例》下的福利。

雇主应开始评估即将生效的「468」要求下的法律、运营和财务影响，并审阅或调整其劳动力结构和雇佣合约以确保合规性。此外，雇主还应仔细保持准确的雇佣记录，因为这些记录对于履行法定义务和促进「468」要求下的扩展福利范围至关重要。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Continuous contract requirement under the Employment Ordinance: The Shift from “418” to “468”

Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:23:54 GMT

Victor Yang

Managing Partner,
Hong Kong

Sam Wu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Continuous contract requirement under the Employment Ordinance: The Shift from “418” to “468”

Employees who are employed under a “continuous contract” are entitled to various rights and benefits under the EO, such as statutory holiday pay, paid annual leave, sickness allowance, maternity/paternity leave, severance payment and long service payments, etc.

Proposed Amendments

The Labour Advisory Board recently reached a consensus that the “418” requirement will be modified and relaxed. Pursuant to the proposed amendments, employees who are employed by and work for the same employer for an aggregate of 68 hours or more in four consecutive weeks will be regarded as being employed under a “continuous contract” of employment.

The proposed amendments are not yet effective. The legislative process is underway, and an Amendment Bill will be introduced into the Legislative Council for scrutiny.

What it means for Employers and Employees?

The proposed shift from the “418” requirement to the “468” requirement will provide enhanced protection of the rights and benefits of employees with shorter working hours or shorter employment period such as part-time employees, casual workers and substitute workers. It is anticipated that a larger pool of employees will become eligible for the EO benefits listed above upon the implementation of the proposed amendments.

Employers should start assessing the legal, operational and financial implications under the “468” requirement which will come into effect and review or adjust their workforce structures and employment contracts to ensure compliance. Moreover, employers should also carefully maintain accurate employment records, as these are essential for fulfilling statutory obligations and facilitating the extended benefits coverage under the “468” requirement.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港《上市规则》就库存股份概念作出的修订

Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:58:08 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港《上市规则》就库存股份概念作出的修订

其中的要点包括：

上市公司将无需注销其购回的股份。如果其注册成立地点的法律及其组织章程文件容许，上市公司可以以“库存”方式持有该等购回股份。
上市公司须向相关人士（如股份过户登记处，券商等）提供适当指示，以确保能适当地识别及区分库存股份。
上市公司如再出售库存股份，此项出售将如发行新股一样受优先购买权所规限，即须按持股比例向所有股东出售该等库存股份。如库存股份不会按照上述形式出售，上市公司必须获得股东预先批准的一般或特定授权方可进行再出售。
根据一般授权在公开市场内再出售库存股份的价格折让上限为以下较高者的20%：(i)再出售之前一个交易日的收市价或(ii)再出售之前五个交易日的平均收市价。发行新股的价格折让上限亦适用于根据一般授权在公开市场外再出售库存股份以收取现金代价的情况。
如果上市公司的股份计划是以发行新股操作的，也可运用库存股份，但亦须遵守《主板规则》第十七章或《GEM规则》第二十三章的规定。
某些适用于发行新股的现有《上市规则》规定亦会扩大至再出售库存股份，包括关联交易、披露及提交文件的相关要求。
现时上市公司于购回其股份后的30天内不得发行新股。此30天的暂止期亦将适用于不论场内或场外再出售库存股份，但豁除 (i) 资本化发行（如红股发行和以股代息）、(ii) 根据股份计划授出的股份奖励或期权、及 (iii) 根据股份计划授出的股份奖励或期权获归属或行使时发行新股或转让库存股份。
以联交所为主要上市地的上市公司在再出售库存股份后的30天内，不得购回其任何股份。
上市公司在其董事会通过任何年度或半年度业绩前的一个月内不得购回其股份。此交易限制亦将适用于场内库存股份再出售，但该限制期限将由一个月调整至30天。
新上市申请人必须在其招股书披露其库存股份的详情，而且在上市后六个月内不得再出售其库存股份。
就《上市规则》的规定下须经股东批准的事宜，库存股份持有者均须放弃投票。
库存股份将不被计算在《上市规则》项下的已发行股份内，例如上市公司的公众持股量及规模测试计算等。
上市公司必须在股东通函中就有关股份回购之授权的章节中披露其意向，即其所购回的股份会予以注销、还是被持作“库存股份”。
库存股份再出售须根据《印花税条例》（香港法例第117章）缴纳从价印花税。

库存股份再出售提供了另一途径为上市公司筹集资金，相比发行新股，这新途径可让投资者更快捷地获得股份。修订后的《上市规则》亦提供措施以减低市场操控及内幕交易等风险，因此受大众普遍支持。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Hong Kong Listing Rules changes to adopt the treasury shares concept

Tue, 23 Apr 2024 01:30:57 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong Listing Rules changes to adopt the treasury shares concept

The key highlights are:

Listed issuers will no longer be required to cancel repurchased shares and may hold the repurchased shares as “treasury shares” if the laws of their incorporation jurisdictions and their constitutional documents so allow.
Listed issuers should provide appropriate instructions to the relevant parties (e.g. share registrars, brokers) to ensure that treasury shares are appropriately identified and segregated.
A resale by the listed issuer of its treasury shares will be subject to pre-emption similar to an issuance of new shares, i.e. the treasury shares shall be offered to all shareholders on a pro-rata basis. If they are not to be re-sold on such basis, the resale must have been approved in advance by its shareholders in a general or a specific mandate.
An on-market resale of treasury shares under a general mandate shall not be at a discount of 20% or more of the higher of (i) the closing price on the trading day immediately prior to the resale and (ii) the average closing price in the five trading days immediately prior to the resale. An off-market resale of treasury shares under a general mandate for cash consideration shall be subject to the same price discount limit applicable to an issuance of new shares.
A share scheme using treasury shares to satisfy share grants shall be subject to the same requirements as a share scheme funded by new shares under Chapter 17 of the Main Board Listing Rules or Chapter 23 of the GEM Listing Rules.
Certain existing Listing Rules requirements applicable to an issuance of new shares will be extended to a resale of treasury shares, including the relevant connected transaction, disclosure and documentary requirements.
Currently, a listed issuer shall not issue new shares for a period of 30 days after any repurchase of shares. Such 30-day moratorium period will be extended to any resale of treasury shares (whether on or off-market) with the carve-outs of (i) capitalisation issues e.g. bonus issues and scrip dividends, (ii) grants of share awards or options under a share scheme and (iii) issue of shares or a transfer of treasury shares upon vesting or exercise of share awards or options under the share scheme.
A listed issuer whose primary listing is on the HKEX shall not repurchase its shares on the market for 30 days after any on-market resale of treasury shares.
A listed issuer shall not repurchase its shares on the market during the period of one month prior to its board approving the annual or interim results. Such dealing restriction will also apply to on-market resales of treasury shares but the restricted period will be adjusted to from one month to 30 days.
A new listing applicant must disclose details of its treasury shares held in its prospectus. It shall not re-sell any of its treasury shares within six months after listing.
A holder of treasury shares is required to abstain from voting on matters that require shareholders’ approval under the Listing Rules.
Treasury shares are excluded in the calculation of issued shares amount under Listing Rules, e.g. public float and size test calculation.
A listed issuer must disclose in the explanatory statement for share repurchase mandate its intention as to whether the repurchased shares will be cancelled or kept as treasury shares.
A resale of treasury shares is subject to ad valorem stamp duty under the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Chapter 117 of the Laws of Hong Kong).

The resale of treasury shares may serve as a channel for listed issuers to raise funds and buyers may obtain listed shares more promptly than in the case of new share issuance. The amendments to the Listing Rules also provide measures to mitigate risks of market manipulation and insider dealing, and are therefore generally welcomed by the public.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

本所已更名为杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙

Thu, 18 Apr 2024 23:03:09 GMT

EN / 简

本所已更名为杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙

我们非常高兴地宣布，本所已从杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙 ( Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP ) 更名为杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙 (YYC Legal LLP) 。随着朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 和她的团队的到来，正是更新本所公司名称和品牌形象的最适当时机。作为更名的一部分，我们推出了新的律所标志 (logo)、网站 www.yyc-ec.com 以及律所 LinkedIn 帐户。

本所与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所 (East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm) 联营，该律所为国内天达共和律师事务所 (East & Concord Partners) 的香港办事处。两家律所共同竭诚为中国内地、香港特别行政区以及其他地区的客户提供更全面优质的法律服务。

近期消息

Change of our firm name to “YYC Legal LLP”

Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58:51 GMT

EN / 简

Change of our firm name to “YYC Legal LLP”

We are pleased to announce that our firm name has been changed from “Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP楊楊律師事務所有限法律責任合夥” to “ YYC Legal LLP 楊楊朱律師事務所有限法律責任合夥 ”. With the arrival of Rossana Chu and her team, it is the most opportune time to update our firm name and brand identity. As a part of the name change, we have launched a new firm logo, firm website at www.yyc-ec.com and our firm LinkedIn account .

We are in association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm which is the Hong Kong office of the PRC-based law firm, East & Concord Partners . The two firms together provide more comprehensive legal services to clients from Mainland China, Hong Kong and other places.

Recent News

香港就稳定币发行人监管制度咨询公众

Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:40:34 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港就稳定币发行人监管制度咨询公众

受监管的活动有两种类型：

稳定币的发行，包括：(a) 在香港发行稳定币，(b) 发行与港元维持相对稳定价值的稳定币（无论是否在香港发行），以及 (c) 向香港公众人士积极推广稳定币的发行；以及
提供购买稳定币的服务，包括：(a) 在香港提供购买稳定币，以及 (b) 向香港公众人士积极推广稳定币供购买。

未获发牌或授权从事上述受监管活动的，将构成刑事罪行。金管局将负责管理拟议稳定币发行人的发牌事宜及监管制度。

稳定币发行

咨询文件建议所有稳定币发行人都应获取金管局发放的牌照。发牌的要求包括：

稳定币的储备资产价值在任何时候都必须至少相等于流通稳定币的面额。以套戥或演算法得出稳定币价值的发行人不会获得牌照。
储备资产（通常以参考货币计值）必须为高质量及高流动性，且其市场、信贷和集中风险最小。
稳定币发行人应制定有效的信托安排，以确保稳定币的储备资产与其他资产分隔保管，并放置于持牌银行所设立或在金管局批准的其他托管安排下的独立账户中，用作满足赎回要求。
稳定币发行人必须制定健全政策、指引及管控措施以妥善管理所有储备资产的投资活动，确保有足够资金应付赎回要求。
来自储备资产的任何收入或损失（如利息、股息或资本收益或损失）均归稳定币发行人所有，但稳定币发行人不得向稳定币持有者支付利息。
稳定币发行人必须是在香港成立的公司。其行政总裁、高级管理团队及主要人员必须常驻香港并对其稳定币发行及相关活动实施有效管控。
稳定币发行人的已缴股本须最少为2,500万港元（即320万美元），或流通稳定币面额的2%，以较高者为准。金管局也可实施更高的已缴股本要求。
稳定币持有者应有权要求按照他们的稳定币所参考的相关货币面额赎回稳定币。赎回要求应及时处理及不附带不合理费用，且发行人不得施加不合理的赎回条件（如非常高的最低门槛数额）。
必须制定适当的风险管理程序及措施，如足够的安全及内部管控措施，确保数据及系统的安全及完整性；有效的欺诈监察及侦测措施；技术风控措施和稳健的应变安排，以应对业务运作受阻的情况。
稳定币发行人须制定健全和适当的管控制度，以防止及打击可能涉及洗钱及恐佈分子资金筹集的活动。
稳定币发行人在开始任何新业务前必须得到金管局批准。在任何情况下，稳定币发行人均不得进行借贷和财务中介的活动，亦不应进行其他在香港受规管的活动。
稳定币发行人必须发布白皮书，以披露有关该发行人的一般资料、稳定币持有者的权利与责任、稳定币稳定机制、储备资产管理安排，以及所采用的技术、风险以及赎回政策和程序。
稳定币发行人必须定期向公众披露流通稳定币的总额、储备资产的市值及储备资产的组成。
稳定币发行人须每年向金管局提交经审计的财务报表。

提供购买稳定币服务

只有获发牌的稳定币发行人和其他受监管实体，如受香港证券及期货事务监察委员会监管的持牌法团、获金管局发牌的认可机构以及持牌的虚拟资产交易平台，可以在香港提供购买稳定币的服务。由非获发牌的稳定币发行人发行的稳定币只能售给专业投资者。

拟议监管制度的特点

香港监管部门提议的这一监管制度将为稳定币持有者提供充足的保护，并解决稳定币可能给货币和金融稳定性带来的风险。拟议监管制度提出了地域方面的元素（如稳定币发行人必须是香港公司，且其高级管理人员必须常驻香港），这样金管局能够对此类实体和个人实施有效监督。为保护香港公众，拟议监管文件还规定了非获发牌的稳定币发行人所发行的稳定币不得售给零售投资者。

对部分国际稳定币发行人来说，该监管制度可能过于繁重，但对香港而言，却是建立健康的稳定币生态系统，维护其国际金融中心的地位踏出的重要一步。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Hong Kong consultation on regulatory regime for stablecoin issuers

Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:27:37 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong consultation on regulatory regime for stablecoin issuers

The two types of activities to be regulated are:

FRS issuance, including: (i) issuing an FRS in Hong Kong; (ii) issuing an FRS with reference to the value of the Hong Kong dollar (regardless of whether the issuance is in Hong Kong); and (iii) active marketing of an FRS issuance to the Hong Kong public; and
FRS offering, including: (i) offering an FRS in Hong Kong; and (ii) active marketing of the offering to the Hong Kong public.

Engaging in such regulated activities without the relevant licence or authorisation will constitute a criminal offence. The HKMA will administer the proposed FRS-issuer licensing and regulatory regime.

FRS issuance

It is proposed that all FRS issuers be licensed by the HKMA. The licensing requirements would include:

The value of the reserve assets backing the FRS must be always at least equal to the par value of the FRS in circulation. Issuers that derive FRS value from arbitrage or algorithm will not be granted licences.
The reserve assets (normally in the referenced currency) must be of high quality and high liquidity, with minimal market, credit and concentration risks.
An effective trust arrangement is required such that the reserve assets of the FRS are segregated from the issuer’s other assets, put in segregated accounts maintained with licensed banks in Hong Kong, or placed under other custodial arrangements approved by the HKMA, and are available to satisfy FRS redemptions.
The FRS issuer must have adequate policies, guidelines and controls for managing all investment activities of the reserve assets to ensure funds are available to satisfy redemption requests.
Any income for or loss from the reserve assets (e.g. interest payments, dividends or capital gains or losses) must be attributed to FRS issuers, but FRS issuers must not pay interest to FRS holders.
An FRS issuer must be a company incorporated in Hong Kong. Its chief executive, senior management team and key personnel must be based in Hong Kong and exercise effective management and control of the company’s FRS issuance and related activities.
An FRS issuer’s minimum paid-up share capital is either HKD25 million (USD3.2 million) or 2% of the par value of FRSs in circulation, whichever is higher. The HKMA may impose a higher level of paid-up share capital requirement.
FRS holders should have the right to redeem their FRS at par value in the relevant currency referenced by the FRS on a timely basis, without having to pay undue costs and without being subject to unreasonable redemption conditions (e.g. a very high minimum threshold amount).
Appropriate risk management processes and measures must be in place, e.g. adequate security and internal controls to safeguard the integrity of data and systems, effective fraud monitoring and detection measures, technology risk-management measures, and robust contingency arrangements to address operational disruptions.
Adequate and appropriate systems of control must be in place to prevent and combat possible money laundering and terrorism financing.
The FRS issuer must seek the HKMA’s approval before commencing any new line of business. In any event, it should not carry on lending and financial intermediation, or conduct other Hong Kong regulated activities.
It must publish a white paper to disclose general information about itself, FRS holders’ rights and obligations, a stabilisation mechanism, reserves management arrangements, the underlying technology, risks and redemption policies and processes.
The total amount of the FRS in circulation, the mark-to-market value of reserve assets and the composition of reserve assets must be disclosed regularly to the public.
The FRS issuer must submit audited financial statements to the HKMA annually.

FRS offering

FRS can be offered in Hong Kong only by licensed FRS issuers and other regulated entities, such as licensed corporations regulated by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, authorised institutions licensed by the HKMA, and licensed virtual asset trading platforms. Where the FRS is not issued by a licensed FRS issuer, the offering can be made only to professional investors.

Features of regulatory regime

This regime proposed by the Hong Kong regulators will provide adequate protection to FRS holders and address potential monetary and financial stability risks posed by FRSs. Certain locality elements are proposed (e.g. the FRS issuer must be a Hong Kong company with locally based senior management) to allow the HKMA to exercise effective supervision over such entities and persons. To protect the Hong Kong public, it fences Hong Kong retail investors off from being offered FRSs not issued by licensed FRS issuers.

This may be onerous to certain international FRS issuers, but it is an important step for Hong Kong to maintain its status as an international financial centre while developing a healthy stablecoin ecosystem at the same time.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP welcomes Dennis Yeung as a new Partner

Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:18:05 GMT

EN / 简

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP welcomes Dennis Yeung as a new Partner

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP is pleased to announce Mr. Dennis Yeung has joined our firm as a Partner on 1 April 2024. He has more than 20 years of legal experience in a wide variety of practice areas, including mergers & acquisitions, securities and public listings, private equity, regulatory compliance and corporate & commercial matters. His clients include Chinese and multi-national corporations, fund houses, financial institutions, listing applicants and listed companies. Prior to joining the firm, Dennis was a Representative and Senior Counsel at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Beijing.

Dennis will bring a wealth of experience to our firm. At the same time, he will work closely with our strategic partner, East & Concord Partners, to further develop legal practices with clients in Mainland China.

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

Recent News

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙欢迎杨家奇律师 (Dennis Yeung) 加入成为新合伙人

Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:18:03 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙欢迎杨家奇律师 (Dennis Yeung) 加入成为新合伙人

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙非常荣幸地宣布杨家奇律师 (Dennis Yeung) 于2024年4月1日正式加入成为本所合伙人。杨律师拥有超过20年的广泛领域法律服务经验，专业领域包括兼并与收购、证券及公开上市、私募股权、监管合规以及企业和商业事务等。杨律师的客户包括国有和跨国企业、基金公司、金融机构、上市申请人和上市公司。在加入本所之前，杨律师是艾金‧岗波律师事务所驻北京代表处的代表及资深顾问。

杨律师的加入将更充裕本所的专业领域经验。同时，他将与我们的战略合作伙伴天达共和律师事务所 (East & Concord Partners) 密切合作，进一步拓展本所法律业务与中国内地客户的机遇。

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

近期消息

杨杨律师事务所荣获 LegalOne Merits (典范) 评级 2024

Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:14:58 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨律师事务所荣获 LegalOne Merits (典范) 评级 2024

本所欣然宣布杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙 (杨杨律师事务所) 成功助力中信集团转让上市公司中信股份5.01%股份予中国华融交易项目涉及投资总额超过130亿港元获LegalOne评级为LegalOne Merits (典范)，并于2024年3月20日公布了结果。

本所战略合作伙伴天达共和律师事务所 (天达共和)，邢冬梅律师团队为是次项目代表中信集团的中国法律顾问。两家律师事务所律师团队携手在本交易项目中充分发挥了在并购、银行融资以及相关法律法规合规的领域上的专业优势和深厚经验，并为客户提供了切实可行的交易方案。

我们热烈祝贺天达共和管理合伙人邢冬梅律师（Dorothy Xing）及其团队；杨杨律师事务所管理合伙人杨岳明律师（Victor Yang）、顾问蒋智坚律师（Stephen Chiang）、合伙人胡铭深律师（Sam Wu）和符曼姿律师（Beverly Fu）获此殊荣！

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

如欲了解有关该交易的更多信息，请访问：

近期消息

Yang & Yang Solicitors receives LegalOne Merits (Exemplary) Award 2024

Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:03:17 GMT

EN / 简

Yang & Yang Solicitors receives LegalOne Merits (Exemplary) Award 2024

We are pleased to announce that Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP (Yang & Yang Solicitors) has received the LegalOne Merits (Exemplary) Award for representing CITIC Group in the transfer of 5.01% stake in CITIC Limited to China Huarong at over HK$13 billion, as published on 20 March 2024.

Our strategic partner East & Concord Partners (East & Concord), led by Dorothy Xing, served as the PRC legal adviser for CITIC Group. The two law firms’ lawyers collaboratively delivered their deep experience and professional advantages in areas of mergers and acquisitions and banking and finance services as well as compliance with the relevant laws and regulations and furthermore, provided practical solutions to the client.

Our warmest congratulations to Dorothy Xing (Managing Partner) and her team at East & Concord; Victor Yang (Managing Partner), Stephen Chiang (Consultant), Sam Wu (Partner) and Beverly Fu (Associate) at Yang & Yang Solicitors on this well-deserved award!

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

To learn more about the deal, please visit:

Recent News

Hong Kong's voluntary code of conduct for ESG ratings and data products providers

Mon, 04 Mar 2024 18:39:55 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong's voluntary code of conduct for ESG ratings and data products providers

ESG service providers use different approaches in sourcing data. Some also employ unique and proprietary methodologies to bridge any data gap or derive their ratings products. Therefore, ESG products from different providers for the same covered entity may not be correlated and comparable with each other.

Data unavailability and the quality of data being disclosed by covered entities are the most common challenges for ESG service providers.

There is, generally, a lack of standardised corporate sustainability disclosure standards in the market.

The major concerns of asset managers and other users of ESG products are also data quality and coverage, including the insufficiency of data on private companies and emerging markets.

Another challenge facing the asset managers is the lack of transparency on the part of ESG service products, e.g., their methodologies, assumptions, sources of raw data and pricing frameworks. Thus, asset managers have to conduct due diligence on the ESG service providers.

Certain asset managers even have their in-house ESG specialists, responsible for analysing the information provided by ESG service providers (i.e. not wholly relying on the service providers) before investment decisions are made.

Some asset managers may formulate ESG ratings for internal use or for their clients by utilising their own methodologies.

Conflicts of interest is another concern. Some asset managers worry about the possibility that an ESG service provider downgrades a covered entity’s ESG rating, while its business line subsequently solicits business with the downgraded entity.

The SFC concludes that the data availability and reliability issue stems from the lack of a standardised corporate sustainability disclosure framework. In this regard, the SFC envisages that the introduction of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) sustainability-related corporate disclosure standards and its collaboration with local stakeholders (including the Hong Kong Stock Exchange) to develop a comprehensive roadmap for adopting the ISSB standards in Hong Kong will help narrow the data gap gradually. However, these efforts may not address the lack of data on private, unlisted enterprises which do not have to attract investments from funds or asset managers.

The working group is established to address the other concerns by way of introducing “voluntary” code of conduct. This approach is also taken by the UK, Singapore and Japan, while the European Union elects to expand its regulatory remit to cover ESG service providers.

Tackling the issue

The SFC is the sponsor of the working group, while the ICMA acts as the secretariat. Its members include ESG service providers, asset managers, financial institutions and Hang Seng Indexes Company Limited. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Insurance Authority sit as observers.

The objectives of the working group include:

developing a globally consistent voluntary code of conduct for ESG ratings and data product providers which provide products and services in Hong Kong; and

setting out baseline best practices governing the conduct of ESG service providers based on the recommendations of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions’ (IOSCO) which cover four key elements, namely, (1) transparency including disclosure of the source of data and underlying methodologies used, (2) governance, (3) systems and controls, e.g. ensuring the issuance of high-quality products, protecting all non-public information received; and (4) management of conflicts of interest.

ESG service providers will be encouraged to adopt the voluntary code of conduct going forward, as the code may help them better communicate with covered entities and ESG products users in terms of their transparency, quality and reliability of products.

Also, a self-attestation document will be appended to the voluntary code. ESG service providers will be encouraged to complete and publish (e.g. on their websites) the self-attestation in order to foster greater transparency.

According to the terms of reference of the working group, the first draft of the voluntary code will be made available for public consultation in the first quarter of 2024. The working group will then consider the public responses and prepare a final version for publication approximately one month after the end of public consultation.

The voluntary code of conduct will be periodically reviewed by the working group to continue to reflect best practices and address concerns raised by market participants.

Positive impacts

The voluntary code of conduct is expected to provide a streamlined and consistent basis for various types of stakeholders (including covered entities, asset managers and other users of ESG products) to better understand the ESG service providers in terms of their data source, methodologies and governance. At the same time, it may reduce the ESG service providers’ burden in responding to due diligence or assessment requests from their clients.

When the voluntary code of conduct is finalised, the SFC plans to issue principles-based guidance to licensed corporations on using the voluntary code of conduct for their due diligence and on-going assessment of ESG service providers.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港为ESG评级和数据产品供应商编制自愿操守准则

Mon, 04 Mar 2024 08:31:11 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港为 ESG 评级和数据产品供应商编制自愿操守准则

ESG服务供应商采取不同的方法来采集数据。一些供应商也会采用独特专有的方法来填补数据空缺或制订评级产品。因此，不同供应商针对同一受涵盖实体（covered entity）而提供的ESG产品未必彼此有关联，亦不能互相比较。
数据不足和受涵盖实体披露数据的质素是ESG服务供应商最常面对的挑战。
整体而言，市场上欠缺标准的企业可持续披露准则。
对于资产管理公司和ESG产品的其他用户，主要关切点亦涉及数据的质素和涵盖范围，包括有关私营公司和新兴市场的数据供应不足。
资产管理公司面对的另一挑战是ESG服务产品缺乏透明度，如供应商采用的方法和假设、原始数据的来源，以及定价框架。因此，资产管理公司必须对ESG服务供应商进行尽调。
某些资产管理公司在作出投资决策之前，甚至会先请公司内部的ESG专家对ESG服务供应商提供的资讯进行分析（即不完全依赖服务供应商）。
部分资产管理公司会利用自己的方法制定ESG评级供内部或其客户使用。
利益冲突也是另一个担忧点。一些资产管理公司担心ESG服务供应商可能一方面下调受涵盖实体的ESG评级，同时该供应商的业务部门又向评级被下调的该实体招揽生意。

证监会得出结论，数据的可用性及可信性会产生疑虑主要是因为市场缺乏标准的企业可持续披露框架。就此，证监会预期，随着香港引入国际可持续准则理事会（ISSB）的可持续相关企业披露准则，加上证监会与本地持份者（包括港交所）合作就在香港采纳ISSB准则制订全面路线图，将有助逐步收窄数据空缺。但这些努力不一定能够解决关于私营非上市公司数据缺乏的问题，因这些公司不需要吸引来自基金公司或资产管理公司的投资。

工作小组的成立是为了通过制定“自愿性”的操守准则来解决业界的其他担忧。这也是英国、新加坡和日本采用的作法。欧盟的应对方法则是扩展其监管范围，将ESG服务供应商纳入其监管框架内。

解决问题

证监会是工作小组的提倡者，而ICMA是工作小组秘书。工作小组成员包括ESG服务供应商、资产管理公司、金融机构和恒生指数有限公司。香港金管局和保险业监管局担任观察员。

工作小组的目标包括：

为在香港提供产品及服务的ESG评级和数据产品供应商制定一套全球一致的自愿操守准则；以及
根据国际证券事务监察委员会组织（IOSCO）的建议提供一套基准性最佳作业手法以规管ESG服务供应商的操守，当中将涵盖四大要素：(1) 透明度（包括披露数据的来源和供应商采用的方法）；(2) 管治；(3) 系统与监控（如确保发布高质素的产品，保护所收到的所有非公开资料）；以及 (4) 利益冲突管理。

ESG服务供应商获鼓励在日后采纳自愿操守准则，预计自愿操守准则将加强供应商与受涵盖实体的沟通及提高ESG产品用户可获得有关产品的透明度、质素和可信度。

自愿操守准则将随附一份自我评核文件。ESG服务供应商将被鼓励填写和发布（如在其网站上）该自我评核，以提高ESG服务供应商的透明度。

据工作小组的职权范围文件披露，工作小组将在2024年第一季度发表自愿操守准则的第一份草拟本作公众咨询。工作小组将考虑把收到的公众回应及意见，在公众咨询结束后约一个月编制自愿操守准则最终版本，以供发布。

工作小组将定期检视自愿操守准则，以便持续反映最佳作业手法和回应市场参与者提出的疑虑。

正面影响

自愿操守准则将提供一个精简而一致的基准，以便不同持份者（包括受涵盖实体、资产管理公司和ESG产品的其他用户）更好地理解ESG服务供应商，包括它们采集的数据来源、所使用的编制方法和管治。同时，它可减轻ESG服务供应商在应对客户的尽调或评估要求时的负担。

香港证监会计划在自愿操守准守最终版发布后发布一份原则性指导文件，指引持牌照公司如何使用自愿操守准则，以协助它们对ESG服务供应商的尽调和持续评估。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP enters an alliance with East & Concord Partners

Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:29:26 GMT

EN / 简

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP enters an alliance with East & Concord Partners

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP, an all-encompassing law firm with a global outlook, is incredibly pleased to announce its in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm – a Hong Kong branch of East & Concord Partners. East & Concord Partners is a reputable China law firm with 600 legal professionals – over 200 of whom are partners located across Canada, China, and Hong Kong. Through this alliance, both firms will be able to pool its resources, talent, and industry knowledge to address complex legal issues across various industry sectors. By doing so, collectively, we can better accommodate our clients’ requests by utilizing the firm’s broad network of legal professionals, enhanced expertise, and increased efficiency in delivering concrete and actionable legal advice. Lastly, this milestone will uniquely position the firm in China, granting the firm access to prospective China-based clients, and ultimately, bridging the gap between China and the world.

About Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP is an all-encompassing law firm with a global outlook and strong cultural roots in Hong Kong. With a comprehensive understanding of the legal landscape, we are committed to delivering high-quality legal services with a focus on efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We have a keen understanding of the intricacies of Hong Kong's legal system. Our team has extensive experience working with domestic and international clients, ranging from start-ups and small businesses to multinational corporations.

About East & Concord Partners

East & Concord Partners is a China law firm with headquarters in Beijing, China. As of today, East & Concord Partners has 600 legal professionals – over 200 of whom are partners located across Canada, China, and Hong Kong – providing legal services to over 7,000 clients. The firm currently has ten domestic offices (Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Hong Kong, Nanjing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Wuhan, and Xi’an), and one international office (Vancouver, Canada).

Recent News

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与天达共和律师事务所联盟

Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:26:41 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与天达共和律师事务所联盟

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙，一家集全球视野兼提供全面高效法律服务的律师事务所，非常荣幸地宣布与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所 (East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm) 联营 - 该律师事务所乃国内天达共和律师事务所 (East & Concord Partners) 的香港分所。天达共和律师事务所是一家享誉中外的中国律师事务所拥有法律专业人员达600名，其中合伙人超过200名分布在加拿大、中国和香港。是次联盟惠及两家律师事务所能够共享资源、人才和行业知识，提升能力为各个行业领域解决复杂法律问题。联盟成为合作伙伴使两家律师事务所能通过法律专业人员网络的紧密合作，全面强化专业知识以及发挥更高效率为客户提供最深入精辟的建议和切实可行的解决方案。最后，联盟标志着本所将迈向新的里程碑︰在中国拥有独特的地位，进一步接触到中国内地的潜在客户，且成为中国向世界进发方便互通的桥梁。

关于杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙是一家集全球视野兼具深厚的香港文化根基的律师事务所。凭借对法律环境全面了解的优越性，本所致力于提供高质量的法律服务，注重效率和成本效益。本所对香港法律制度的复杂性有着敏锐的触觉。本所的专业律师团队在与国内和国际客户合作方面拥有丰富的经验，服务对象包括初创企业、小型企业到跨国公司。

关于天达共和律师事务所

天达共和律师事务所是一家总部位于北京的中国的律师事务所。目前，天达共和律师事务所拥有法律专业人员达600名，其中合伙人超过200名分布在加拿大、中国和香港，为超过7,000多个客户提供专业法律服务。事务所目前拥有10个国内办事处（北京、成都、广州、杭州、香港、南京、上海、深圳、武汉和西安）以及一个海外国际办事处（加拿大温哥华）。

近期消息

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP welcomes Rossana Chu as a new Partner

Tue, 23 Jan 2024 06:29:28 GMT

EN / 简

Yang & Yang Solicitors LLP welcomes Rossana Chu as a new Partner

We are excited to announce that Miss Rossana Chu has joined our firm as a Partner on 23 January 2024. Rossana has more than 26 years of legal experience with deep knowledge and skills. She is best known for her expertise in M&As including takeovers and privatisations of Hong Kong listed companies, capital markets, corporate financing, asset management, corporate restructuring, private equity/venture investments, trusts and family offices, ESG and sustainability, technology law as well as employment legal issues. She advises multi-national and Chinese corporations, securities firms, investment banks, funds, non-profit making organisations, families and individuals in respect of their domestic and overseas legal matters.

Rossana has been profiled as a leading individual in Chambers, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, IFLR1000, asialaw, China Business Law Journal, Global Law Experts, Leaders in Law, Legal Media 360 and In-House Community. She was named as the “Lexology Legal Influencer (Individual Expert)” in Q1 and Q2 of 2021 and Q1 of 2022.

Rossana has been a partner in international law firms since 2008. From 2018 to early 2024, she was the Managing Partner of a Hong Kong law firm as a member of the global network of a Big Four accounting firm. She is a co-founder of the Association of Retired Elderly Limited, a non-profit-making organisation with a focus on improving the welfare of the elderly in Hong Kong. She is also an affiliate member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants of the United Kingdom.

Rossana’s joining solidify our legal team and enhance our competitive advantages in different practice areas.

Recent News

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙迎来新合伙人朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 加盟

Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:08:17 GMT

EN / 简

杨杨律师事务所有限法律责任合伙迎来新合伙人朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 加盟

我们欣然宣布朱静文律师于 2024 年 1 月 23 日加盟本所成为合伙人。朱律师拥有超过 26 年的法律经验，具丰富法律知识及技能。她在并购（包括香港上市公司的收购和私有化）、资本市场、企业融资、资产管理、企业重组、私募股权/风险投资、信托和家族办公室、环境、社会和公司治理与可持续发展、科技相关法律以及雇佣法律范畴等专业领域均为人熟知。她为跨国及中国企业、证券公司、投资银行、基金、非牟利组织、家族以及个人提供本地和海外法律事务方面的法律服务。

朱律师获《钱伯斯亚太指南》(Chambers)、《亚太法律 500 强》(Legal 500 Asia Pacific)、《国际金融法律评论1000》(IFLR1000)、《亚洲法律》(asialaw)、《商法》(China Business Law Journal)、《全球法律专家》(Global Law Experts)、《Leaders in Law》、《Legal Media 360》和《法律媒体企业法务联盟》(In-House Community) 等权威法律评级机构推荐为領先律师。她在 2021 年第一季度和第二季度以及 2022 年第一季度获评为 "Lexology 具影响力法律作者（个人专家）"。

朱律师自2008年起一直位居多家国际律师事务所合伙人要职。于2018年至2024年初，她更是一家四大会计师事务所全球网络成员的香港律师事务所管理合伙人。她是香港退休长者协会有限公司（Association of Retired Elderly Limited）的共同创办人，该协会是一家非牟利组织，致力為改善香港长者福祉谋划。朱律师也是英国特许公认会计师公会的附属会员。

朱律师的加盟将巩固我们的法律团队，并加强我们在不同业务领域的竞争优势。

近期消息

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 — 香港章》第13版

Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:16:25 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 —— 香港章》第13版

本所合伙人 朱静文律师 (Rossana Chu) 撰写 Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场》第 13 版 — 香港章并在2023 年 12 月 12 日线上发表。

本材料仅供一般参考。它不构成法律或其他专业建议。(仅具英文版)

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets - Hong Kong, Edition 13

Tue, 12 Dec 2023 06:52:50 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets - Hong Kong, Edition 13

We are delighted to share our partner Rossana Chu ’s contribution to Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets, Edition 13, Hong Kong Chapter published on 12 December 2023.

Introduction

Hong Kong is one of the most important international capital markets in the world. As of 30 December 2022, 2,597 companies were listed in the city with a total market capitalisation of HK$35,666 billion. The size of funds raised by initial public offerings (IPOs) in Hong Kong was US$12.7 billion in 2022, ranking fourth place in the world for that year. The 2022 total turnover of the Hong Kong securities markets reached HK$30,727 billion, while the turnover of securitised derivatives hit the US$469.6 billion mark for the first 11 months of 2022. [2]

The city attracts funds from all over the world. In addition, the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect and the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect (Stock Connect) offer a mutual market access mechanism through which investors in Mainland China and Hong Kong can trade and settle shares listed on the other market via the stock exchanges and clearing houses in their home market.

The capital markets are mainly regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (SFC) which is an independent statutory body responsible for safeguarding market integrity, enforcing securities and futures market legislation and providing protection for the investing public in respect of financial products.

The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) is the operator of Hong Kong's central securities and derivatives marketplace and the front-line regulator of listed issuers. HKEX and its subsidiaries (including the stock and futures exchanges and associated clearing houses) also administer listing, trading and clearing rules, and provide exchanges, clearing, settlement and depository services.

Despite the challenges arising from covid-19 in recent years, Hong Kong has been putting a lot of effort into maintaining its competitiveness as an international financial centre in terms of listing qualifications, product diversification, environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG), connectivity with Mainland China and market regulations.

Year in review

Developments affecting debt and equity offerings

Increased profit requirement

The most debated proposal made by HKEX in recent years was the increase in profit requirement for companies applying to be listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

In November 2020, HKEX proposed a substantial increase in the profit requirement, up to three times the then-existing profit thresholds. However, due to the adverse effects of covid-19 on Hong Kong at that time, the proposal was met with negative responses and opposition from 83 per cent of respondents. [3]

In the end, the profit requirement was increased by an aggregate of 60 per cent, that is, from HK$20 million to HK$35 million for the last financial year in the three-year track record and from HK$30 million to HK$45 million for the two preceding years, effective from 1 January 2022.

Special purpose acquisition companies

Following the popularity of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) in most international capital markets, HKEX introduced rules for SPACs and successor companies to be listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in January 2022. [4]

A SPAC is a type of listing vehicle that has no substantial business operations or assets. Its primary objective is to raise capital through an IPO in order to facilitate the acquisition or merger of a target company within a specified time frame. Upon completion of the acquisition or merger, the SPAC and the target company will be combined, resulting in the listing of a successor company. Such process is commonly referred to as a 'De-SPAC transaction'.

The minimum amount of funds to be raised by a SPAC through its Hong Kong IPO is HK$1 billion. Only professional investors are permitted to subscribe for and engage in post-IPO trading of SPAC shares and warrants.

Each SPAC is required to complete the De-SPAC transaction within 36 months of its listing, although it may request an extension of up to six months with the approval of its shareholders. The target of a De-SPAC transaction must meet all new listing requirements of the Main Board, including the appointment of an IPO sponsor, due diligence requirements, financial eligibility tests and minimum market capitalisation requirements. HKEX makes it very clear that it will treat each listing application of a successor company as a deemed new listing.

Specialist technology companies

HKEX introduced in March 2023 a new regime for specialist technology companies to be listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, [5] even if those companies do not satisfy the usual profits, revenue and cash flow listing criteria. [6] This represents a further advancement following the implementation of rules in 2018 that permitted biotech companies to be listed on the Main Board even when they do not meet the standard eligibility criteria. [7] In addition, starting from 2018, companies with weighted voting rights structures are allowed to be listed in Hong Kong, [8] and a concessionary route to secondary listing was established for overseas issuers already listed on a qualifying exchange [9] . All these measures demonstrate HKEX's continued commitment to fostering growth of the equity capital market and facilitating the diversification of companies listed in Hong Kong.

The new regime is open to technology companies engaging in acceptable industries. Up to the end of August 2023, those industries are next-generation information technology, advanced hardware and software, advanced materials, new energy and environmental protection, as well as new food and agriculture technologies. A listing applicant falling outside the list may still be considered if:

it has high growth potential;
its success can be demonstrated to be attributable to the application of new technology to a new business model that differentiates it from traditional market participants serving similar consumers or end users; and
its research and development (R&D) significantly contributes to its expected value and constitutes a major activity and expense.

There are two types of specialist technology companies, namely, a commercial company that has commercialised its technology products with revenue of at least HK$250 million for the most recent audited financial year, and a pre-commercial company that has not met such revenue threshold. The minimum market capitalisation of a commercial company and a pre-commercial company is HK$6 billion and HK$10 billion, respectively.

The R&D expenditure of a commercial company should constitute at least 15 per cent of its total operating expenditure. The percentage for a pre-commercial company is 50 per cent if its revenue is less than HK$150 million for its most recent financial year and 30 per cent if its revenue for its most recent financial year reaches HK$150 million. The applicant must meet the applicable R&D expenditure percentage threshold on a yearly basis for at least two out of the three financial years prior to listing, and on an aggregate basis over all the three financial years prior to listing.

A pre-commercial company must also disclose in its listing document a credible path to the commercialisation of its specialist technology product or products, and ensure that it has available sufficient working capital to cover at least 125 per cent of its group's costs for at least 12 months from the publication of its listing document after taking into account the IPO proceeds.

The listing applicant is expected to have received investments from sophisticated independent investors.

One notable feature of this regime is that certain expectations (such as the list of acceptable industries, expected investments from sophisticated independent investors, liquidity arrangements for applicants listed on another stock exchange and listing document disclosure requirements) are outlined in HKEX's guidance [10] rather than being explicitly stated in the Listing Rules. This represents a departure from the standard listing qualifications and provides flexibility for HKEX to adjust listing requirements so as to catch up with the changes in technology industries.

Sustainable finance products

Developing as a sustainable finance products hub is another important objective of HKEX. Out of the global sustainability, green, social, transition or sustainability-linked bond issuance of US$863.4 billion in 2022, [11] US$29.2 billion was raised by sustainability, green, social, transition or sustainability-linked bonds listed in Hong Kong, [12] which were denominated in different currencies including Hong Kong dollars, renminbi, US dollars and the euro.

As at the end of August 2023, there were 126 bonds shown on the Sustainable & Green Exchange (STAGE) portal of HKEX as sustainable finance products, out of which 101 are green bonds. The other categories are five social, five sustainability, four sustainability-linked, one covid, four blue and six transition bonds. [13]

Out of the 101 green bonds or bond programmes listed in Hong Kong, 38 were issued by financial institutions, mostly banks, and the proceeds used for financing or refinancing, or both, 'eligible' green assets or projects such as energy conservation and efficiency, renewable energy, green buildings, clean transportation, pollution control, and environmentally sustainable management of living natural resources and land use. Corporate issuers of 44 green bonds included property developers and public utilities companies as they are identified as consuming high amounts of energy and are more motivated to enhance their green efforts. Notably, 18 green bonds were issued by the Hong Kong government.

The intended uses of proceeds of the five social bonds included social projects such as affordable basic drinking water, sanitation and transport infrastructure, access to essential health and education services, and affordable housing.

Three out of the five sustainability bonds were issued by a bank and the other two were issued by the government of China.

Among the four sustainability-linked bonds, one was issued by a Hong Kong-based property developer that set a target percentage of utilising renewable energy in its rental properties located in the Greater Bay Area of China. If such target cannot be achieved by a certain deadline, the issuer group will make a purchase of carbon offsets equivalent to a percentage increase in the coupon of the bond until it is fully redeemed. One sustainability-linked bond was issued by a manufacturer of optical components that has set decarbonisation targets as its sustainability commitments.

Blue bonds were issued by the provincial and municipal governments of China and banks for projects with marine or ocean-based benefits.

Transition bonds provide financing for high carbon sectors to transition away from fossil fuels. The issuers of Hong Kong listed transition bonds included a power company and banks.

Hong Kong government green bond programme

Under the government green bond programme launched in 2019, the government has been issuing bonds locally. The proceeds are used exclusively to finance or refinance public works projects of the government in eight eligible categories, namely renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation, pollution prevention and control, waste management and resource recovery, water and wastewater management, nature conservation and biodiversity, clean transportation and green buildings. Bonds issued under this programme included the Hong Kong government green bonds listed on HKEX, as mentioned above.

Up to the end of January 2023, the programme raised funds close to an aggregate of US$22 billion, out of which 89 per cent was from institutional investors and the remaining 11 per cent was from an issue to retail investors in May 2022. [14] The second retail issue was scheduled in October 2023.

Tokenised green bond

One remarkable breakthrough achieved by Hong Kong was the first tokenised green bond issued by the Hong Kong government in February 2023, which was also the world's first tokenised green bond issued by a government. [15] It paves the way for future tokenisation of financial products.

The HK$800 million tokenised green bond carries a coupon rate of 4.05 per cent per annum and is due in 2024. It was issued using distributed ledger technology that brings the bond and relevant activities onto a single digital platform, making possible end-to-end automation and substantially reducing transaction times and costs. Not only was the primary issuance settled on a delivery-versus-payment basis, but the full lifecycle process is also tokenised. Settlement of secondary trading, coupon payment, all the way to maturity redemption will be performed in a digitalised way using self-executing smart contracts. The on-chain records on the private blockchain network will be the legally definitive and final records of ownership of the securities tokens and cash tokens for the parties on the platform.

In this green bond, the payment is also tokenised. HK$ cash tokens, minted by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) in exchange for fiat cash, are used in the bond settlement, coupon payment and final redemption. The issuance and redemption of the cash tokens are built on a similar mechanism adopted by the HKMA in the cross-border central bank digital currencies payment platform called mBridge, on which HKMA partners with the Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub and the central banks of Mainland China, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. [16]

Hong Kong government silver bonds series

2023 broke the record in terms of silver bonds issuance scale. The silver bonds series is designed to offer stable returns on investments for senior residents of Hong Kong aged 65 and above. This initiative also serves as a model for local financial institutions to tap into the 'silver market' by introducing a broader range of products suitable for senior citizens.

The government conducted eight issuances of silver bonds from 2016 to 2023, with one issuance each year. [17] Each bond has a term of three years. The interest rate is the higher of a fixed rate and a floating rate that is the arithmetic average of the year-on-year rates of change in the local composite consumer price index compiled by the government. That essentially means that the minimum interest rate is the fixed rate, which was escalated gradually from 2 per cent per annum for the bonds issued in 2016 and 2017 to 5 per cent per annum for the bonds issued in 2023.

The issue scale also increased from HK$3 billion in 2016 to HK$55 billion in 2023, indicating its growing popularity among golden agers.

New bookbuilding and placing requirements

In August 2022, new requirements took effect on bookbuilding, marketing and distribution of securities in both debt and share offerings including IPOs and secondary market placing of listed shares.

The SFC noted the earlier concerns over increasing behaviours that might not be in line with maintaining a healthy capital market. For example, some firms marketed securities to investors without a mandate from the securities issuer and subsequently convinced the issuer to accept them as syndicate members. In other cases, the issuers provided fee incentives at a late stage, bringing about last-minute scrambles for orders and fees. [18]

The new requirements are reflected in the amendments to the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission (Code).

The role of overall coordinator (OC) is introduced in the amended Code as a syndicate capital market intermediary (CMI), which conducts the overall management of the offering, coordinating the bookbuilding and placing activities, advising the issuer on the offer price and exercising discretion in share reallocation and over-allotment options. Each syndicate CMI (including an OC) should be appointed by the issuer under a written agreement (including the fixed fee payable to the CMI and a payment schedule) before the CMI may conduct any bookbuilding or placing activities. The OC is to provide guidance to the issuer about the market's fee split practice. In a Main Board IPO, the issuer should appoint at least one OC, where such OC (or its group company) acts as an independent sponsor of the IPO, at least two months before submitting the listing application for the IPO.

When placing orders, a CMI should provide to the OC the name and a unique identification number (e.g., identity card number) of each investor for orders placed on an omnibus basis and the identities of all other investors in order to ensure transparency in the bookbuilding process and assist in eliminating duplicate orders.

Share and debt securities should be allocated on a fair basis. Priority should always be given to satisfying investor clients' orders over the CMIs' own proprietary orders (including orders placed for funds and portfolios in which the CMI or its group member has a substantial interest).

Developments affecting derivatives, securitisations and other structured products

HKEX has been developing and enhancing its capabilities in respect of derivatives and structured products. [19]

Hong Kong has the most extensive and vibrant offshore A-share derivatives ecosystem in the world, demonstrated by robust volumes in the MSCI China A 50 Connect Index Futures contracts and the US dollar/offshore renminbi futures in 2022. The first MSCI China A 50 Connect Index derivative warrants were listed in August 2022, providing additional tools for investors to manage their Chinese exposure.

HKEX also launched its Hang Seng TECH Index Futures Options in November 2022, alongside further enhancements to its existing Hang Seng TECH Index derivatives products.

The introduction in May 2022 of derivatives holiday trading allows trading of non-Hong Kong dollar products during Hong Kong holidays when the markets of their underlying securities may be open.

HKEX included for the first time ETFs in Stock Connect in July 2022.

Under the Swap Connect launched in May 2023, investors can participate in the interest rate swap market in Mainland China and trade and clear onshore renminbi interest rate swaps without changing their existing trading and settlement practices and without having to open onshore accounts in Mainland China.

Cases and dispute settlement

Proposed amendments to statutory provisions on insider dealing

The scope of insider dealing provisions of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) [20] will be expanded to cover insider dealing perpetrated in Hong Kong with respect to overseas-listed securities or their derivatives, and insider dealing perpetrated outside of Hong Kong if it involves Hong Kong-listed securities or their derivatives.

Currently, the SFO sets out civil and criminal regimes in respect of insider dealing with respect to Hong Kong-listed securities or their derivatives, and securities dually-listed in Hong Kong and another jurisdiction or their derivatives. They do not apply to insider dealing perpetrated in Hong Kong with respect to securities listed on overseas stock markets. The SFO also does not expressly apply to insider dealing perpetrated outside Hong Kong in respect of Hong Kong-listed securities or their derivatives. Nevertheless, from the SFC's statistics, approximately 61 per cent of the insider dealing cases handled by the SFC between 2017 and 2021 concerned insider dealing perpetrated outside Hong Kong in respect of Hong Kong-listed securities or their derivatives. [21]

The SFC announced in August 2023 that, after considering responses to its June 2022 consultation paper, the proposed expansion of scope of insider dealing regime will be proceeded with in order to tackle cross-border securities crimes and market misconduct, and preserve the integrity and reputation of Hong Kong's financial markets. [22]

In respect of insider dealing involving overseas-listed securities or their derivatives, the amended provisions will stipulate that such misconduct would also need to be unlawful in the relevant overseas jurisdiction. One example of the impact is that the amended regime would apply to over-the-counter transactions in overseas-listed debt securities, as it currently applies to over-the-counter transactions in Hong Kong-listed debt securities, unless one of the statutory defences applies.

Where any licensed or registered corporation becomes aware of any suspected insider dealing of overseas-listed securities conducted in Hong Kong by any person, it is required to report the incident to the SFC.

Keepwell deeds

In offshore bonds issued by a Mainland China-based enterprise or its offshore subsidiaries, it is not uncommon for the onshore ultimate parent in the Mainland to issue a keepwell deed in favour of the trustee that acts on behalf of the bond investors. Unlike a guarantee, such deed does not explicitly require the parent to fulfil the bond payment obligations if the issuer and guarantor fail to do so. Typically, the parent undertakes in the deed to cause the issuer (and the guarantor where applicable) to have sufficient liquidity or net worth, or both, and to maintain its shareholding in the issuer and guarantor. The comfort given is that the parent's promise to keep the issuer and guarantor well, and this is where the description of the deed comes from. One primary reason of giving a keepwell deed is that its nature is normally not subject to the Mainland China regulatory requirements applicable to guarantees.

Two recent Hong Kong cases demonstrate that the Hong Kong court is ready to recognise the contractual rights and obligations in keepwell deeds.

In Nuoxi Capital Limited v. Peking University Founder Group Company Limited , [23] the court held that the disputes in the keepwell deeds should be determined in Hong Kong in accordance with the contractual exclusive jurisdiction clause in the deeds. In that case, the defendant promised to cause the bond issuers and guarantors to have a certain level of net worth and to have sufficient liquidity to ensure timely performance of bond payment obligations under keepwell deeds that were governed by English law and carried exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction clauses. The issuers and guarantors defaulted on the bonds and the defendant did not fulfil its promises under the keepwell deeds. The onshore administrator of the defendant applied for a stay of actions in Hong Kong so that all debts could be resolved in the reorganisation proceedings in a Beijing court. The Hong Kong court refused to stay the actions, although it recognised the Mainland reorganisation proceedings. The plaintiffs' rights to rely on the exclusive jurisdiction clause was upheld by the court.

In Citicorp International Limited v. Tsinghua Unigroup Co, Ltd , [24] the defendant undertook in a keepwell deed to cause the bond issuer and guarantor to have sufficient liquidity and to cause the guarantor to have a specific amount of consolidated net worth. Subsequently, the defendant went into reorganisation in Mainland China. Following the bond default, the bond trustee submitted a claim in the reorganisation proceeds but such claim was left pending in the proceedings. In the action taken by the trustee against the defendant, the Hong Kong court awarded the trustee an amount consisting of the bond principal, accrued interests and certain trustee costs.

Relevant tax and insolvency laws

Profits tax concessions for investment holding vehicles of single family offices

The Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles) Ordinance 2023 came into operation in May 2023, which amended the Inland Revenue Ordinance [25] to provide profits tax concessions for eligible family-owned investment holding vehicles managed by eligible single family offices in Hong Kong and family-owned special purpose entities.

Investment profits generated by those types of vehicles and entities from qualifying transactions can be exempted from profits tax in Hong Kong where specific conditions are met. The exemption applies in respect of a year of assessment commencing on or after 1 April 2022.

This tax concession covers transactions in most financial products such as equities, bonds and funds. It not only helps developing single family offices, but also injects impetus into Hong Kong's capital markets.

Hong Kong court's approach on recognition to foreign liquidators

A liquidator or administrator appointed in a foreign jurisdiction may request recognition and assistance from the Hong Kong court especially when the company's assets are in Hong Kong. The court's approach is particularly noteworthy because most issuers of securities listed and offered in Hong Kong are not Hong Kong incorporated and foreign liquidators are very common for troubled issuers.

In Global Brands Group Holding Limited (in liquidation) , [26] a provisional liquidator was appointed by the Bermudian court in respect of Global Brands Group Holding Limited, which was a Bermuda company listed in Hong Kong. The custodians required the provisional liquidator to obtain a recognition order from the Hong Kong court before they would release the company's local assets to the provisional liquidator. In addition to the criterion that the foreign proceedings constitute a collective insolvency process, the court in this case introduced a new element, which is that the foreign proceedings should be conducted in a jurisdiction in which the company's centre of main interests (COMI) is located. Factors to determine a company's COMI include the locations of the company's principal place of business, directors, board meetings, operations, assets, bank accounts, books and records. If the liquidator is not appointed in the COMI of the company but its country of incorporation, then recognition and assistance should be declined unless only limited assistance or 'managerial assistance' is sought or the recognition and assistance sought is a matter of practicality. In this case, the provisional liquidator was appointed in the company's place of incorporation (Bermuda) while its COMI is not in that jurisdiction. However, the recognition was allowed by the court as managerial assistance was sought so that the provisional liquidator could demonstrate that it was the company's lawful agent entitled to direct the funds to be transferred to another bank account. The listing of the company in Hong Kong was eventually cancelled in July 2022.

In Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation , [27] the court confirmed the COMI criterion used in Re Global Brands Group Holding Ltd (in liquidation) in assessing whether or not the Hong Kong court should recognise a foreign liquidation and assist a foreign liquidator.

Role of exchanges, central counterparties and rating agencies

Core Climate as a carbon credits trading platform

Core Climate, an international platform for the trading of carbon credits and climate-related products, was launched by HKEX in late 2022. It marks a further step made by Hong Kong to develop the city as a carbon trading hub as part of the long-term commitment to achieve a low-carbon economy.

Participants are able to source, hold, trade, settle and retire voluntary carbon credits through the Core Climate platform. The carbon credits come from internationally-certified carbon projects from around the world including carbon avoidance, reduction and removal projects. All projects listed on Core Climate are verified against international standards, such as Verra's verified carbon standard.

From the launch until December 2022, approximately 400,000 tonnes of carbon credits coming from China and around the world were traded on this new platform, placing Core Climate among the most active voluntary carbon marketplaces in Asia. [28]

Hong Kong Dollar-Renminbi Dual Counter Model for listed shares

The Hong Kong Dollar-Renminbi Dual Counter Model was launched on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on 19 June 2023. [29] Hong Kong is again proving itself a global hub for offshore renminbi and is playing an active role in furthering the internationalisation of renminbi by introducing more renminbi-denominated investment products and thus widening the uses of offshore renminbi in the capital markets.

The first batch covers 24 companies that already have their shares listed on the Main Board and traded in HK$. Those companies engage in different industries including technology, finance, properties and consumer products, and their shares are actively traded.

Under the new model, investors have the option to trade shares using their offshore renminbi, which circulates outside of Mainland China, on the renminbi counter. The shares in both counters have the same rights, entitlements, status and par value (if applicable); the only difference is the currency used for trading in each counter. Shares on either counter are fully interchangeable with those of the other counter. A dual counter market making programme has been implemented to provide liquidity for the renminbi counter and minimise price discrepancies between the two counters.

ESG ratings of HKEX-listed issuers

The STAGE portal of HKEX showcases HKEX-listed issuers that have received ESG ratings from at least one of three ESG rating agencies that partner with HKEX, providing additional information to investors on ESG aspects of the issuers. This feature may also encourage companies to strengthen their sustainability endeavours and recognitions. The portal also hyperlinks the individual ESG ratings to their respective profiles at the providers' sites if the profiles are available, providing direct access to further ESG information. [30] The three ratings are as follows:

HSI/HKQAA ratings are provided by Hang Seng Indexes Company, which appoints Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency to evaluate the ESG performance of approximately 500 Hong Kong-listed companies. Its ESG rating model is designed to rate a company's management system maturity and risks with regard to sustainability performance. The assessment captures both general and industry-specific criteria covering seven core subjects.
MSCI ESG ratings are designed to measure a company's resilience to long-term, industry-material ESG risks. A rules-based methodology is used to identify industry leaders and laggards according to their exposure to ESG risks and how well they manage those risks relative to peers.
S&P ESG ratings are based on information collected in the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment using a rules-based, industry-specific approach built by investment practitioners to capture the ESG factors expected to have an impact on a company's growth, profitability, capital efficiency and risk exposure.

Other strategic considerations

HKEX announced its three strategic pillars in March 2022 to set out the roadmap to build the 'Marketplace of the Future' and to facilitate the vital two-way capital flows between the East and the West. [31]

The 'connecting China and the world' strategy

Building on its unique strength, HKEX will continue to both bring the China growth story to international investors and help Chinese capital access global opportunities. HKEX's goal is to be the go-to international market for capturing China-related flows and opportunities by expanding and enhancing its 'Connect' programmes, becoming China's go-to offshore risk management centre, solidifying its role as China's preferred offshore fundraising centre, and growing its portfolio of China-related product offerings.

The 'connecting capital with opportunities' strategy

HKEX will connect people, capital, companies and markets to new ideas, focusing on the long-term sustainable development of its business, markets and communities. Through building a more client-centric organisation, HKEX commits to enhancing the attractiveness, depth, vibrancy and diversity of its markets, strengthening its position as a preferred capital-raising, risk management and trading venue of choice.

The 'connecting today with tomorrow' strategy

HKEX is part of a global industry that is rapidly transforming through and being disrupted by such things as digitisation, tokenisation, big data, personalised finance and ESG considerations.

Developing an agile platform business that leverages modern and digitised infrastructure will allow Hong Kong to connect today with tomorrow, supporting its vision for the future. HKEX will modernise its infrastructure, evolve from an infrastructure-led model to a client-led model and develop digital capabilities while exploring new opportunities in digital assets, ESG, private markets and other emerging sectors, and leveraging its data.

Outlook and conclusions

Hong Kong has been implementing forward-looking strategies to strengthen connectivity with Mainland China and the rest of the world and to remain resilient. When China's economic stimulus measures begin to take effect and the global interest rate hike cycle ends, the Hong Kong capital markets will regain vibrance. Nevertheless, geopolitical factors and the ever-changing macro economies will continue to bring challenges to Hong Kong. It is important for the city to keep diversifications in terms of products, investor base, industry segments and market operation models, while keeping itself aligned with worldwide recognised focuses such as ESG, climate change and the further internationalisation of renminbi.

Footnotes:

Rossana Chu has been advising on capital markets and M&A transactions for more than 26 years and has been a partner in different reputable international law firms.
'Market Statistics 2022', Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. See https://www.hkex.com.hk/Market-Data/Statistics/Consolidated-Reports/Annual-Market-Statistics?sc_lang=en .
'Consultation Conclusions: Main Board Profit Requirement', Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, May 2021, page 2.
Chapter 18B (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) of the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited.
Chapter 18C (Specialist Technology Companies) of the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited.
'Consultation Conclusions: Listing Regime for Specialist Technology Companies', Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, March 2023.
Chapter 18A (Biotech Companies) of the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited.
Chapter 8A (Weighted Voting Rights) of the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited.
Chapter 19C (Secondary Listings of Overseas Issuers) of the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited.
As at the end of August 2023, the effective 'Guidance on Specialist Technology Companies' (Guidance Letter HKEX- GL115-23) was issued by HKEX in March 2023.
Source: Climate Bonds Initiative as quoted by the official website of the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. See https://www.hkex.com.hk/Join-Our-Market/Sustainable-Finance/HKEX-STAGE/Product-Repository?sc_lang=en .
Statistics compiled by Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. See https://www.hkex.com.hk/Join-Our-Market/Sustainable-Finance/HKEX-STAGE/Product-Repository?sc_lang=en .
For STAGE portal of HKEX, see https://www.hkex.com.hk/Join-Our-Market/Sustainable-Finance/HKEX-STAGE/Product-Repository?sc_lang=en .
'Green Bond Report 2023', Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
Press release entitled 'HKSAR Government's Inaugural Tokenised Green Bond Offering', Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, 16 February 2023.
Article entitled 'Tokenised Bond: Huge Potential to be Unlocked', Eddie Yue, Chief Executive of Hong Kong Monetary Authority, 16 February 2023.
Refer to the issue circulars set out on the official webpage https://www.hkgb.gov.hk/en/retail/Silver_Issue_Circulars.html .
'Consultation Conclusions on (i) the Proposed Code of Conduct on Bookbuilding and Placing Activities in Equity Capital Market and Debt Capital Market Transactions and (ii) the 'Sponsor Coupling' Proposal', Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong, October 2021.
'HKEX in 2022: Year in Review', Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 20 December 2022. See https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2022/221220news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=2022%20has%20been%20an%20extremely,as%20an%20international%20financial%20centre .
Cap 571 of the Laws of Hong Kong.
'Consultation Paper on Proposed Amendments to Enforcement-related Provisions of the Securities and Futures Ordinance', Securities and Futures Commission, June 2022, page 16.
'Consultation Conclusions on Proposed Amendments to Enforcement-related Provisions of the Securities and Futures Ordinance', Securities and Futures Commission, August 2023.
Nuoxi Capital Limited v. Peking University Founder Group Company Limited [2021] HKCFI 3817.
Citicorp International Limited v. Tsinghua Unigroup Co, Ltd [2023] HKCFI 1572.
Cap 112 of the Laws of Hong Kong.
Global Brands Group Holding Limited (in liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 1789.
Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340.
'HKEX in 2022: Year in Review', Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 20 December 2022. See https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2022/221220news?sc_lang=en#:~:text=2022%20has%20been%20an%20extremely,as%20an%20international%20financial%20centre .
See https://www.hkex.com.hk/Services/Trading/Securities/Overview/Trading-Mechanism/HKD-RMB-Dual-Counter-Model?sc_lang=en .
For STAGE portal of HKEX, see https://www.hkex.com.hk/Join-Our-Market/Sustainable-Finance/HKEX-STAGE/Product-Repository?sc_lang=en .
News release entitled 'HKEX hosts 2022 Corporate Day', Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, 29 March 2022.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

Amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance of Hong Kong

Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:05:07 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance of Hong Kong

Adoption of proposed amendments to the “insider dealing” provisions of the SFO

Insider dealing of “listed securities” is prohibited under section 270 (civil liability) and section 291 (criminal liability) of the SFO. The term “listed securities” covers only securities listed on the Hong Kong stock market, securities dually listed in Hong Kong and other jurisdictions and their derivatives.

The regime does not apply to insider dealing taking place in Hong Kong with respect to overseas-listed securities or their derivatives. This limited coverage might damage the reputation of Hong Kong's financial markets and its status as an international financial centre.

The SFO also does not expressly apply to insider dealing perpetrated outside Hong Kong in respect of Hong Kong-listed securities or their derivatives. But approximately 61% of the insider dealing cases handled by the SFC between 2017 and 2021 concerned insider dealing perpetrated outside Hong Kong in respect of Hong Kong-listed securities or their derivatives.

To close the loophole, the SFC proposed to include (i) any acts of insider dealing involving overseas-listed securities or their derivatives if any one or more of such acts occur in Hong Kong; and (ii) any acts of insider dealing involving Hong Kong-listed securities or their derivatives regardless of where they occur.

Respondents to the consultation generally welcomed the proposal. Accordingly, the SFC decided to proceed with the amendments, the actual wordings of which will be available for review during the forthcoming legislative process.

SFC put on hold the proposed expansion of its power towards regulated persons

If the regulated person (i.e. an individual or institution carrying on SFC regulated activities) is guilty of misconduct or the SFC is of the opinion that such person is not a fit and proper person to remain the relevant type of regulated person, the SFC may take disciplinary actions including suspension or revocation of such person’s licence or registration, imposing fines and issuing reprimands.

Section 213 of the SFO empowers the SFC to apply for court orders against the regulated person in the case of contravention with SFO provisions or licensing/registration conditions. The SFC’s codes and guidelines do not carry legal force, and thus a breach of those codes and guidelines by a regulated person, however serious, does not give the SFC a right to apply for a court order against the person.

The SFC proposed to amend section 213 of the SFO so that the SFC may apply for a court order after exercising its powers against the regulated person. This proposal aroused serious public concerns. Some respondents commented that it would give rise to “legal” remedies based on breaches of “non-statutory” SFC codes and guidelines. Some raised the concern that all forms of SFC disciplinary actions might potentially trigger section 213 court order applications, which might be disproportionate or unfair to regulated persons.

Having considered the public submissions, the SFC decided to put this proposal on hold and will consider a full range of other options to achieve the policy objective including strengthening its disciplinary regime.

SFC put on hold the proposed amendment to the advertisement authorisation exemption for financial products

At present, section 103 of the SFO prohibits the issue of advertisements of financial products or collective investment schemes unless the issue has been authorised by the SFC or any exemption in such section applies (a common one is the professional investors exemption).

Generally, if an advertisement of investment products is issued to the general public but the products are sold only to professional investors, such advertisement is still exempted from SFC authorisation. However, the SFC worried that retail investors may still be exposed to unauthorised offers to invest in risky or complex products which are only suitable for professional investors.

Thus, it sought to amend section 103 of the SFO so that advertisements (if not authorised by the SFC beforehand) of products to be sold to professional investors can only be issued to professional investors who have been identified as such in advance through know-your-client procedures, i.e. such advertisements cannot be issued to the general public at all.

A majority of respondents raised concerns over this proposal. Some doubted whether such amendment is necessary when retail investors are not exposed to risks of investment products which cannot be sold to them. Many respondents highlighted that the amendment would bring about increased operational difficulties and impact on intermediaries’ marketing processes.

Before sending the advertisement, the intermediary would have to conduct pre-checks to ensure all target recipients are professional investors. This might limit the recipient groups for smaller intermediaries vis-a-vis large financial institutions which already have sizeable pre-existing professional investor base to market their new products.

The SFC eventually decided not to proceed with this proposal but reminded that, to invoke the professional investor exemption, the intermediary must demonstrate a clear intention to sell the products only to professional investors.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

关于修订《香港证券及期货条例》的建议

Mon, 11 Dec 2023 08:09:02 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

关于修订《香港证券及期货条例》的建议

付诸落实有关将条例下内幕交易条文的范围扩大的建议

条例的第270条（民事法律责任）及第291条（刑事法律责任）均禁止对“上市证券”进行内幕交易。“上市证券”只涵盖香港联合交易所上市的证券、香港和其他司法管辖区双重上市的证券，以及这些证券的衍生工具。

但相关规定不适用于就境外上市的证券或其衍生工具在香港进行的内幕交易。这有限的涵盖范围可能损害香港金融市场的声誉和作为国际金融中心的地位。

条例也没有明确将香港以外地区对香港上市证券或其衍生品进行的内幕交易纳入涵盖范围。然而，证监会在2017年到2021年间处理的内幕交易个案中，约61%涉及在香港以外地区对香港上市证券或其衍生工具进行的内幕交易。为弥补这些漏洞，证监会建议将条例适用范围扩大至涵盖：（1）就境外上市证券或其衍生工具进行的内幕交易行为（只要其中一个或多个行为在香港发生）；（2）就香港上市证券或其衍生工具进行的内幕交易行为（无论在何处发生）。

咨询文件的大多数回应者支持这一建议。因此，证监会决定付诸落实提议，有关修订的草拟本将在接下来的立法过程中供业界审阅。

证监会暂时搁置有关扩大证监会对受规管人士的权力的建议

如果受规管人士（即从事条例规管活动的个人或机构）有失当行为，或证监会认为受规管人士并非留任受规管人士的适当人选，则证监会可对其采取纪律性处分，包括暂时吊销或撤销其牌照或注册，施加罚款和作出谴责。

条例第213条赋权证监会，在受规管人士违反本条例规定或牌照/注册条件时，申请法庭作出命令。由于证监会的守则和指引没有法律效力，因此，如果受规管人士违反守则和指引，不论情节多么严重，证监会都无权针对该等人士申请法庭命令。

证监会提议修订条例第213条，赋权证监会在行使其对受规管人士的权力后申请法庭命令。这一提议引起了强烈的公众忧虑。一些回应者认为如果实施该建议，就算只违反“非法定”的证监会守则或指引亦可能引起“法律”后果。有些回应者则担心证监会所有类型的纪律处分都将有可能引发第213条的法庭命令申请，这或许对受规管人士不公平或与其行为不相称。

在参考公众意见后，证监会决定暂时搁置该建议，并将评估其他方案，以实现加强纪律处罚制度等政策目的。

证监会暂时搁置有关修订金融产品广告授权豁免的建议

条例第103条禁止发出金融产品或集体投资计划的广告，除非获得证监会授权，或适用该条文所述的豁免（常见豁免是专业投资者豁免）。

一般而言，如果某个投资产品仅以专业投资者为销售对象，而其相关广告却面向公众，该广告仍享有证监会授权豁免。但证监会担心散户投资者仍因为接触到此类未经授权的邀约，从而投资仅适合专业投资者的高风险或复杂产品。

因此，证监会拟修订条例第103条，确保在没有事先获得证监会授权的情况下，以专业投资者为对象的产品广告仅可向事先透过“认识你的客户”（know-your-client）程序识别为专业投资者发出，即该等广告不可向公众发出。

大部分回应者对此提议表达担忧。有部分回应者质疑此修订是否必要：既然此类投资产品无法出售给散户投资者，那么散户投资者并不会暴露在此类产品的风险中。许多回应者亦强调，这一建议会加大操作难度，也会对中介机构的市场推广造成影响。

根据修订建议，在发出广告前，中介机构必须先作客户审查，确保所有目标受众都是专业投资者。这将限制小型中介机构的广告受众群体，对大型金融机构不会有太大影响，因为他们本身有巨大的专业投资者群体可进行新品推销。

证监会最终决定不推行此建议，但提醒业界，任何中介机构如欲引用专业投资者豁免，必须明确表示该投资产品只拟发售予专业投资者的意图。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Hong Kong's proposed company re-domiciliation regime

Wed, 08 Nov 2023 10:18:40 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong’s proposed company re-domiciliation regime

Key benefits

Unlike some other jurisdictions like Singapore, Canada and New Zealand, Hong Kong currently does not allow re-domiciliation. If a foreign company wishes to move its identity and business to Hong Kong, a new Hong Kong company must be set up to take over its business. This process is cumbersome and may result in substantial taxes and/or costs as well as disruption to a company’s operations and corporate history.

The proposed regime would now allow non-Hong Kong companies to change their place of incorporation to Hong Kong while preserving their legal status as body corporates, their properties, rights, obligations, liabilities and contracts, giving companies maximum business continuity while reducing administrative complexity and costs in the process.

Eligibility

The proposed regime imposes no economic substance test of thresholds of asset, revenue or employee numbers on the applicant. The Registrar of Companies will be empowered to consider and approve applications based on the factors including the following:

Whether the type of Hong Kong company that the applicant is seeking to re-domicile (i.e. private company limited by shares, public company limited by shares, company limited by guarantee, private unlimited company with a share capital or a public unlimited company with a share capital) is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s type of company in its original place of incorporation;
Whether the applicant has complied with the legal requirements of its jurisdiction of incorporation for the transfer of incorporation in Hong Kong;
Whether at the application date the applicant’s first financial year end in its place of incorporation has passed;
Whether the applicant will comply with the naming requirements for the incorporation of a Hong Kong company under the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance;
The applicant will not be used for an unlawful purpose, contrary to public interest of endangering national security;
The re-domiciliation application is made in good faith and not intended to defraud existing creditors of the applicant;
Whether a resolution for the transfer of incorporation has been approved by at least 75% of the votes cast by entitled members at a meeting of which members were given at least 21 days’ notice, if the applicant’s original place of incorporation does not include members’ consent to the transfer;
Whether the applicant can pay its debts as they fall due in the 12 months after the application date;
The applicant is not in liquidation or being wound up and no proceeding for liquidation or winding up against the applicant is ongoing or pending;
No receiver, or receiver and manager, is in possession of, or has control over, any property of the applicant and no relevant proceeding is ongoing or pending; and
No compromise or arrangement made between the applicant and any entity/person is being administered and no relevant proceeding is ongoing or pending.

Effects of re-domiciliation

Once re-domiciled, the company will have the same rights and obligations as other Hong Kong incorporated companies of its type and will need to comply with the relevant Companies Ordinance provisions. Its corporation information will then be available for public inspection. If the company needs to be licensed to conduct certain businesses in Hong Kong, it will need to apply for the relevant licence(s) separately.

Applicant companies which are earlier registered with the Companies Registry of Hong Kong as registered non-Hong Kong companies will cease to be registered as such when they are granted with their certificate of re-domiciliation.

It is proposed that the company must provide the Registrar of Companies with evidence of its de-registration in its original place of incorporation within 60 days of its re-domiciliation to Hong Kong. Failure to do so will result in the revocation of the application and the termination of the re-domiciliation.

However, market practitioners consider that 60 days will be too short. The de-registration process in the original jurisdictions may involve public notices and/or court procedures (for protection of members and creditors) as well as tax clearance, and thus may take much longer than 60 days. It is also hoped that the regime will, instead of terminating the re-domiciliation right after the expiry of the required de-registration period, provide flexibility for the Registrar of Companies to extend this de-registration period if justifiable grounds are given.

The de-registration process in the original jurisdictions may be beyond the applicants' control. Also, some applicants may need to open bank accounts in Hong Kong before they may start de-registration in their original jurisdictions.

Key takeaway

Industries have reflected that non-Hong Kong incorporated companies, especially enterprises with business operations in Hong Kong and those hoping to leverage on Hong Kong’s geographic and economic advantage to expand their business, are interested in re-domiciling to Hong Kong. As a response to such market demands, a company re-domiciliation regime with a straight-forward application process is a welcome initiative.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港拟引入公司迁册制度

Wed, 08 Nov 2023 07:56:07 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港拟引入公司迁册制度

迁册制度的关键好处

与新加坡、加拿大和新西兰等司法管辖区不同，香港目前仍不允许非香港公司迁册来港。如果外国企业有意落户香港，来港运营，则必须在香港成立一家新公司接管其业务。这个过程繁琐复杂，可能造成高额的课税及/或其他成本，也会扰乱公司的业务经营以及发展历史。

拟引入的迁册制度将允许非香港公司将其注册成立地改成香港，同时保留其法人团体的法律地位，公司资产、权利、义务、债务和合同亦不受影响，以最大程度保障公司迁册前后营运连贯，简化行政流程，减少相关成本。

合资格条件

拟引入的迁册制度不会对申请人的资产、营收或雇员人数做经济实质门槛测试。公司注册处将负责审批公司迁册个案并会考虑以下因素：

非香港公司在原注册成立地法律下所属的公司类别，与申请迁册时所指明的类别是否相同或大致相同（即私人股份有限公司、公众股份有限公司、担保有限公司、有股本的私人无限公司或有股东的公众无限公司）；
申请人是否已遵从其注册成立地就公司迁册来港的法律规定；
截至申请日，申请人在其注册成立地的首个财政年度结算是否已结束；
申请人是否会遵从香港《公司条例》下有关香港公司注册的公司名称要求；
拟迁册的公司不会用作非法用途，有违公众利益或危害国家安全；
迁册申请是真诚的，而非意图借此欺骗公司现有债权人；
如果申请人原注册成立地的法律没有规定公司必须就迁册取得股东同意，申请人是否已向股东提交迁册决议，该决议已获得有表决权股东以至少75%的票数通过，且股东已就相关会议和拟决议获给予最少21日通知期；
申请人是否有能力偿付其在申请日期后12个月内到期的债项；
申请人并无进行清盘，也没有针对申请人的清盘程序正在进行或有待进行；
无论是接管人，还是接管人兼经理人，均无占有或控制公司资产，也没有相关法律程序正在进行或有待进行；以及
并无申请人与其他任何实体或个人订立的妥协或安排正在执行，也没有相关法律程序正在进行或有待进行。

迁册的效应

一旦迁册成功，公司会与其他在香港成立的同类型公司一样，拥有相同的权利，承担相同的义务，并和其他公司一样须遵守《公司条例》的相关规定。其注册成立的信息亦将受公众审查。如果公司在港开展的业务须持有牌照，则公司须另外申请牌照。

如申请人在早前曾在香港公司注册处注册成为非香港公司，在获发迁册证明书后，其非香港公司的注册将被注销。此外，公司须在迁册至香港的60天内通知公司注册处处长其在原注册成立地的注册已撤销，并提供相关证明。否则该公司在香港的注册会被注销，迁册程序亦会终止。

不过，现有市场从业人员认为60天的时间太短。原注册成立地的注册注销程序可能包括公示及/或法庭程序（为保护公司成员和债权人）以及税务结算，因此整个注销程序所需的时间可能长于60天。市场希望迁册制度在这方面能更灵活处理，在法定的注销期届满后，不立即终止迁册程序，而是让公司注册处处长酌情（有合理理由的前提下）延长注销期。

毕竟，原注册成立地的注销程序不在申请人的控制范围内。此外，一些申请人可能要在启动注销程序前先在香港开设银行账户。

结语

业界向当局反映有现时并非在香港成立的公司，尤其是在香港已有一定业务规模的企业或希望利用香港的地理和经济优势拓展业务的企业，都会有兴趣迁册来港。此次香港提出引入公司迁册制度，为来港落户公司提供一个简单直接的申请流程，可谓顺应市场需求，广受市场欢迎。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

ESG系列 - 香港上市债券中引用国际资本市场协会可持续金融工具的原则的情况

Mon, 04 Sep 2023 07:02:45 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

ESG系列 - 香港上市债券中引用国际资本市场协会可持续金融工具的原则的情况

绿色债券

在香港上市的101项绿色债券或计划中，有38项由金融机构（大部分是银行）发行。银行发行的绿色债券募集资金用于为 “符合条件” 的绿色资产或项目提供资金及/或再融资，例如节能和提高能源效率、可再生能源、绿色建筑、清洁交通、污染控制，以及对生物自然资源和土地使用进行环境可持续管理。合格标准因不同债券而异，但须符合ICMA制定的《绿色债券原则》所载的绿色项目类别。一些总部设在中国的银行也会引用中国人民银行发布的《绿色债券支持项目目录》来确定用途是否符合发行标准。此外，某些用途通常被排除在外，例如与化石燃料、碳密集或核燃料有关的项目，或与任何奢侈品行业、烈酒、烟草和赌博有关的活动。

在44家企业发行的绿色债券中，常见的发行人是房地产开发商和公共服务企业。他们所处的行业被认定为高耗能行业，因此更有动力加强绿色工作。房地产开发商发行债券募集资金的典型用途是绿色建筑、能效改善、污染控制和污水管理。

余下的绿色债券由中国广东省深圳市人民政府发行，旨在为深圳的多个项目提供融资，包括水务处理和清洁交通项目。

香港特区政府自2019年推出政府绿色债券计划以来，已发行了18项绿色债券。如果您想了解更多关于该计划的信息，可以查阅我们之前的文章《ESG系列 – 香港政府绿色债券计划》 ^[3] 。

社会责任债券

在5项社会责任债券中，有2项社会责任债券是由同一家总部设在中国的银行之澳门分行发行。事实上，每项债券都是一个可持续发展系列债券，结合了绿色债券、社会责任债券和可持续发展债券的特点，因此，其管理声明符合ICMA的《绿色债券原则》、《社会责任债券原则》和《可持续发展债券指引》的规定。募集资金可用于资助典型绿色类别的合格项目以及社会项目，包括符合当地政策的可负担基本基础设施（如清洁饮用水、卫生设施、交通）、基本服务（如保健、教育）和符合当地政策的可负担住房。余下2项社会债券由一家香港政府拥有的实体公司发行，而最后1项社会债券则由一家公司发行。

可持续发展债券

在5项可持续发展债券中，有3项可持续发展债券是由一家总部设在中国的银行之香港分行发行，资金既可用于符合条件的绿色项目，也可用于符合条件的社会项目，后者包括通过提供中小企业融资创造就业机会、可负担的基础生活设施及基本服务需求。其余2项可持续发展债券由中国政府发行。

可持续发展挂钩债券

在4项可持续发展挂钩债券中，有一家香港房地产开发商发行了1项可持续发展挂钩债券，募集资金将用于发行人集团的一般企业用途。发行人将其在粤港澳大湾区的出租物业中可再生能源的百分比设定为关键绩效指标，在其2019/2020财政年度的基线中该比例不足1%，而发行人的目标是在2025/2026财年达到100%。如果到那时还不能实现该目标，发行人集团将购买碳抵消，价值相当于在债券的剩余期限内的票面利率提高0.25%，直到完全赎回债券。这虽没有给投资者带来具体收益，但却创造了环境利益，并增加了发行人的融资成本。

另外2项可持续发展债券由同一家总部设在中国的银行之香港分行发行，每一项都是绿色债券、社会责任债券、可持续发展债券和可持续发展挂钩债券相关的综合债券。每项债券所依据的债券框架都符合ICMA的《绿色债券原则》、《社会责任债券原则》和《可持续发展债券指引》的规定。对于任何将在该框架下发行的可持续发展挂钩债券，银行将根据其当时的可持续发展战略来定义关键绩效指标，并将根据所选择的可持续发展绩效目标与其可持续发展战略的一致性、其实现可持续发展绩效目标的计划、相关控制和其他关键因素进行校准，如果任何可持续发展绩效目标没有得到满足，那么可持续发展挂钩债券的财务和/或结构特征都会受到相关的更改。剩余的可持续发展挂钩债券由一家全球领先的集成光学组件和产品制造商发行 - 是首家在香港上市的国内光学企业，目标是实现其脱碳目标和整体可持续发展承诺。

蓝色债券

蓝色债券是政府、主权国家、开发银行发行的债务工具，旨在为具有海洋或海洋效益的项目筹集资金。在4项蓝色债券中，有2项蓝色债券由中国政府发行。其余2项蓝色债券分别由一家中资银行澳门分行和一家中资银行香港分行发行。

过渡债券

过渡债券为工业公司等高碳行业提供了一种融资替代方案，以摆脱化石燃料。随着企业开始向碳中和过渡，它还弥合了传统融资和可持续融资之间的差距。简而言之，过渡债券的目的是帮助企业从棕色过渡到 “更少棕色” 或 “更绿色”。

在6项过渡债券中，有2项由一家中资银行香港分行发行，1项由一家中资银行新加坡分行发行，以及3项由一家香港电站公司发行。

要点

香港上市的债券遵循了ICMA的原则，但重要的是要关注发行人如何使用募集资金和披露这些债券创造的正面环境影响以实现可持续发展的目标。正如ICMA所强调的，金融产品的成功，核心在于发行人向持份者报告信息的透明度、准确度及真实性。

附注：

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

ESG Series: ICMA - Principles on Sustainable Finance Instruments - Applications in Hong Kong listed bonds

Mon, 04 Sep 2023 06:43:53 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

ESG Series: International Capital Market Association - Principles on Sustainable Finance Instruments - Applications in Hong Kong listed bonds

Green bonds

Out of the 101 green bonds or programmes listed in Hong Kong, 38 were issued by financial institutions, mostly banks. The uses of proceeds generated from green bonds issued by banks are for financing and/or refinancing the “eligible” green assets or projects, e.g. energy conservation and efficiency, renewable energy, green buildings, clean transportation, pollution control, and environmentally sustainable management of living natural resources and land use. The eligibility varies in different bonds but is accordance with the green project categories set out in the Green Bond Principles of ICMA. Some China-based banks refer to the Catalogue of Projects Supported by Green Bonds (绿色债券支持项目目录), issued by the People’s Bank of China, for determining eligibility. Also, certain purposes are often excluded, e.g. fossil fuel, carbon intensive or nuclear fuel related projects, or activities connected with any luxury sector, spirits, tobacco and gambling.

Amongst the 44 green bonds issued by corporations, common issuers are property developers and public utilities companies. They are in sectors identified as consuming high amounts of energy and thus are more motivated to enhance their green efforts. Typical uses of bond proceeds for property developer issuers are green buildings, energy efficiency improvement, pollution control and water management.

The remaining green bond was issued by People’s Govt of SZ Municipality of GD Province of the PRC for the purpose of financing various projects in Shenzhen including water treatment and clean transportation projects.

18 green bonds are issued by the Hong Kong Government since the Government Green Bond Programme was launched in 2019. Please refer to our earlier article titled “ESG series – Hong Kong Government Green Bond Programme“ ^[3] if you would like to know more about that programme.

Social bonds

Out of the 5 social bonds, two social bonds were issued by the Macau branch of the same China-based bank. In fact, each bond is a sustainability series bond combining the features of green, social and sustainability bonds. Thus, the management statement aligns with the Green Bond Principles, the Social Bond Principles and the Sustainability Bond Guidelines of ICMA. The net proceeds will be allocated to fund eligible projects in the typical green categories and also social projects such as affordable basic infrastructure (e.g. clean drinking water, sanitation, transport), access to essential services (e.g. health, education) and affordable housing which meet the local policies. The remaining two social bonds were issued by a Hong Kong Government owned entity and one social bond was issued by a corporation.

Sustainability bonds

Out of the 5 sustainability bonds, three sustainability bonds were issued by the Hong Kong branch of a China-based bank. In fact, the proceeds can be used for either financing eligible green projects or eligible social projects. The latter may involve employment generation through small and micro-enterprises financing, affordable basic infrastructure as well as access to essential services. The remaining two sustainability bonds were issued by the PRC Government.

Sustainability-linked bonds

Out of the 4 sustainability-linked bonds, one sustainability-linked bond was issued by a Hong Kong based property developer. The net proceeds from the bond will be used as general corporate purposes for the issuer group. The issuer sets the percentage of renewable energy in its rental properties in the Greater Bay Area of China as the key performance indicator (KPI). Such percentage was less than 1% in the baseline of the financial year 2019/2020, while the issuer’s sustainability performance target (“SPT”) is to reach 100% by the financial year 2025/2026. If such target cannot achieved by then, the issuer group will make a purchase of carbon off-sets equivalent to a 0.25% increase in the coupon of the sustainability-linked bond for the remaining life of the bond until it is fully redeemed. This does not lead to a financial benefit to the investors but creates an environmental benefit because it increases the funding cost to the issuer.

The other two sustainability bonds were issued by the Hong Kong branch of the same China-based bank. Each is a combined green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bond. The bond framework underlying each bond is in line with the Green Bond Principles, the Social Bond Principles and the Sustainability Bond Guidelines of ICMA. For any sustainability-linked bond to be issued under the framework, the bank will define the KPIs according to its prevailing sustainable development strategy. It will calibrate the selected SPTs in terms of their consistency with its sustainable development strategy, its plans to meet the SPTs, the relevant controls and other critical factors. Each sustainability-linked bond will carry the variation of its financial and/or structural characteristics if any SPT is not met. The remaining sustainability-linked bond was issued by a leading manufacturer of integrated optical components and products manufacturer in the world and is the first domestic optical enterprise listed in Hong Kong with a goal to achieve its decarbonization targets and overall sustainability commitments.

Blue bonds

Blue bonds are debt instrument issued by governments, sovereigns, development banks to raise capital for projects with marine or ocean-based benefits. Out of the 4 blue bonds, two blue bonds are issued by the PRC government. The remaining blue bonds are issued by a Macau branch of a Chinese bank and a Hong Kong branch of a Chinese bank.

Transition bonds

Transition bonds provide a financing alternative for high carbon sectors such as industrial companies to transition away from fossil fuels. It also bridges the gap between traditional and sustainable financing as businesses begin the transition to carbon neutrality. In short, the purpose of transition bonds is to help companies transition from brown to "less brown" or "greener".

Out of the 6 transition bonds, 2 transition bonds are issued by a Hong Kong branch of a Chinese bank, 1 transition bond issued by a Singaporean branch of a Chinese bank and 3 transition bonds issued by a power station company in Hong Kong.

Key takeaway

While bonds listed in Hong Kong following the ICMA principles, it is important to follow how the issuers apply the proceeds and disclose the impacts of such bonds to achieve the sustainability objectives. As ICMA stresses, the transparency, accuracy and integrity of the information to be reported by issuers to stakeholders play a core role in the success of the finance products.

Footnotes:

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

Hong Kong's new regulatory regime of virtual asset trading platform operators

Mon, 28 Aug 2023 11:59:57 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Hong Kong's new regulatory regime of virtual asset trading platform operators

The retail investors issue

As all licensed VA trading platforms may admit both security and non-security tokens, the first controversial question is whether those platforms allow retail investors to trade. Under the VATP regime, retail clients may be included subject to certain robust protection measures. For example, before onboarding any retail investor, the VATP has to conduct a holistic assessment of the investor, e.g. his/her understanding and knowledge of VAs, risk tolerance level, prior VA work and trading experience.

A VATP has to conduct due diligence on each VA before admitting it for trading and consider factors such as the development and management team of the VA, the VA’s regulatory status in Hong Kong, its compliance with local laws in other jurisdictions, track record (at least 12 months for a non-security token), liquidity, technical aspects, as well as market, governance and legal risks.

To admit any VA for trading by retail clients, in addition to the above admission criteria, the VATP has to ensure the VA does not fall within the definition of “securities” under the Securities and Future Ordinance unless its offering complies with the prospectus requirements of the Hong Kong public offering regime. The VA must also be of high liquidity and be an eligible large-cap VA (i.e. have been included in a minimum of two acceptable indices issued by at least two different index providers).

Safeguarding of client assets

The SFC noted the international focus on the risks posed by stablecoins, the push for regulation and the need to ensure that stablecoin reserves are properly managed to maintain price stability and fulfil investors’ redemption rights. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority published in January 2023 the conclusion on its discussion paper on crypto-assets and stablecoins, and indicated to regulate certain activities relating to stablecoins. The SFC will not allow stablecoins for retail trading prior to the implementation of Hong Kong regulations on stablecoins, which is expected to be in 2023 or 2024.

Regarding the trading process, the VATP should establish and maintain policies and control measures to prevent or detect errors, omissions, fraud, market manipulation, abusive activities and other improper actions. A VATP is not permitted to provide algorithmic trading services to its clients, offer any gift to its clients for trading VAs other than a discount of fees or charges, or make any asset lending/borrowing arrangements with its clients.

The VATP should only hold client assets on trust for its clients through its associated entity (i.e. a wholly-owned Hong Kong subsidiary of the VATP which holds a “trust or company service provider licence” under the AMLO regime). Such associated entity should not conduct any business other than holding those client assets. Also, 98% of the client VAs should be stored in cold storage, except otherwise permitted by the SFC, to minimise exposure to losses arising from hacking, cyberattack or any other compromise of the platform. The SFC does not accept custody by third-party custodians of client assets.

The VATP must have in place an SFC-approved compensation arrangement to cover loss of client VAs. Such arrangement should cover potential loss of 50% of client VAs in cold storage and 100% of client VAs in hot and other storages. It should include any or a combination of third-party insurance, demand deposit, time deposit with maturity period of six months or less, bank guarantees provided by a Hong Kong authorised financial institution, and VAs of the VATP or its group companies set aside on trust.

Travel rule

The term “travel rule” refers to the application of the wire transfer requirements set out in the Financial Action Task Force Recommendation 16 in a modified form in the context of VA transfers (in particular, the requirements to obtain, hold, and submit required and accurate originator and required recipient information immediately and securely when conducting VA transfers).

It is a key anti-money laundering measure for VA service providers and financial institutions as it provides fundamental information for carrying out sanctions screening and transaction monitoring, as well as other risk mitigating measures. To respond to the practical difficulties in implementing the travel rule immediately, the SFC accepts an interim measure until 1 January 2024 allowing that the required information to be submitted to the beneficiary institution as soon as practicable after the VA transfer. The VATPs should comply with the rest of the travel rule from 1 June 2023.

The SFC will adopt a streamlined process so that only a single consolidated application needs to be submitted for a dual licence application under the VATP Regime and the AMLO Regime.

The SFC’s Guidelines for Virtual Asset Trading Platform Operators took effect on 1 June 2023. It also revised the Guideline on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (For Licensed Corporations and SFC-licensed Virtual Asset Service Providers) and the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Guideline issued by the Securities and Futures Commission for Associated Entities of Licensed Corporations and SFC-licensed Virtual Asset Service Providers, which became effective on the same day.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港针对虚拟资产交易平台营运者实施监管新规

Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:59:26 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港针对虚拟资产交易平台营运者实施监管新规

零售投资者

因所有持牌虚拟资产交易平台都可接受证券型和非证券型代币，这就引发了第一个争议问题：这些平台是否允许零售投资者参与交易。根据虚拟资产交易平台新规，在有妥当保护措施的前提下，平台可接纳零售客户。例如，在引进新零售客户前，虚拟资产交易平台必须对投资者开展全面的评估，包括评估投资者是否了解虚拟资产和具备相关知识、投资者的风险承受能力，以及过往与虚拟资产相关的工作和交易经验。

虚拟资产交易平台在纳入任何虚拟资产以供买卖前，必须对每一类虚拟资产开展尽职调查，并考虑如下因素：该类虚拟资产的开发和管理团队、在香港的监管状态、是否符合其他司法管辖区的法律、往绩记录（如果是非证券型代币，必须有至少12个月的往绩记录）、流通性、技术范畴，以及市场、管治和法律风险。

如拟纳入的虚拟资产供零售客户买卖，除作上述评估外，交易平台还须确保此类虚拟资产不属于《证券及期货条例》下“证券”的定义范围，除非其发行符合香港公开发行制度下的招股说明书要求。该虚拟资产必须具有高流通性，属于合资格大型虚拟资产，即此虚拟资产已获纳入由至少两个不同指数提供者所推出的至少两个获接纳的指数中。

保护客户资产

证监会密切关注国际上对稳定币相关风险的担忧，并意识到各界都在推动相关监管措施的出台，有必要确保稳定币储备得到妥善管理，以维持价格稳定，保证投资者的赎回权。香港金融管理局在2023年1月发布了加密资产和稳定币讨论文件的总结，建议将与稳定币有关的活动纳入监管。在香港实施稳定币监管前，证监会不会允许稳定币的零售交易活动。香港对稳定币的监管措施预计将在2023年或2024年出台。

对于交易活动的流程，虚拟资产交易平台应订立和维持相关政策和程序，以防止或侦测错误、遗漏、欺诈、市场操控及其他滥用或不当行为。交易平台不得向客户提供程式化交易服务，不得就个别虚拟资产的买卖向客户提供任何赠品（费用或收费折扣除外），也不得与客户作任何资产借贷安排。

虚拟资产交易平台只能通过其关联实体，以信托方式持有客户资产。关联实体指持有《打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集条例》下的“信托或公司服务提供者牌照”的虚拟资产交易平台的香港全资子公司。除以信托方式持有客户资产外，关联实体不得开展其他商业活动。此外，98%的客户虚拟资产都应在线下储存，以尽量减少因平台遭黑客入侵或受网络攻击而造成损失的风险，除证监会特别准许的少数情况外。证监会亦不接受第三方托管人托管客户资产。

虚拟资产交易平台必须实施经证监会核准的补偿安排，以防范因保管客户虚拟资产而产生的任何损失。补偿安排应为线下储存的客户虚拟资产的潜在损失提供50%的保障，为线上和以其他方式储存的客户虚拟资产的潜在损失提供100%的保障。补偿安排应包括以下任何一项或多项结合的选择：第三方保险、活期存款、将在六个月内到期的定期存款、由香港获认可财务机构提供的银行担保，以及虚拟资产交易平台或其集团公司分隔开、以信托方式持有的虚拟资产。

转账规则

转账规则指金融行动特别工作组第16项建议所载的电汇规定在经调改的形式下对虚拟资产转账的应用，尤其是，当中规定在进行虚拟资产转账时，必须取得及持有必要而准确的汇款人及收款人资料，并立即且安全地提交该等资料。

这对虚拟资产服务提供者和金融机构而言是重要的反洗钱措施，因为它为制裁筛查和交易监督，以及其他风险减轻措施提供基本信息。立即实施这一规则在实践中有难度，为此，证监会采取了过渡措施，即在2024年1月1日前，所要求的信息可在虚拟资产转账后切实可行的范围内尽快提交给收款机构。从2023年6月1日起，虚拟资产交易平台应遵守转账规则的其他要求。

针对需要在《适用于虚拟资产交易平台营运者的指引》和《打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集指引》下作双重牌照申请的营运者，证监会将采取简化流程，申请人只须提交同一份申请即可。

证监会发布的《适用于虚拟资产交易平台营运者的指引》于2023年6月1日起实施。证监会还修订了《打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集指引（适用于持牌法团及获证监会发牌的虚拟资产服务提供者）》以及《证券及期货事务监察委员会发出适用于持牌法团及获证监会发牌的虚拟资产服务提供者的有联系实体的防止洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集的指引》，修订后的指引也在同日开始实施。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Employee Share Option Plans in Hong Kong

Thu, 10 Aug 2023 05:42:24 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Employee Share Option Plans in Hong Kong

The terms of the ESOP are tailor-made based on the company’s own human resources strategies, and usually set out the form of the incentive, administration of the plan, eligibility of grantees, any limit of grant to an individual, circumstances that unvested grants will lapse and clawback mechanisms (e.g., upon the employee’s resignation, dismissal by the employer). Subject to the terms of the ESOP, the company may stipulate vesting conditions for individual employees (e.g., service period, the company’s financial performance, such employee’s own key performance indicators).

An employee may make a profit equivalent to the difference between the price he/she has to pay and the market price or fair value of the company’s shares when the vesting conditions are fulfilled. On the company’s side, ESOP is a useful tool to reward and motivate employees by granting them equity interests to share the future growth of the company. ESOP is also seen as an alternative way to incentivize key persons for the company to achieve IPO (by then, their return on the ESOP grants are usually quite substantial) while the company needs not pay them high salaries in cash before the IPO is completed.

There is no universal rule on how large the grant pool should be unless the company is a listed company and is thus subject to the regulatory requirements. Depending on factors such as industry sector, size of the company, types of talent to be attracted and management culture, companies are willing to offer between 5% to 20% of its total share capital.

Company and securities laws

Where an ESOP involves grants in Hong Kong, whether it is a plan of a Hong Kong or overseas company, it is still subject to Hong Kong company and securities laws including the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance and the Securities and Futures Ordinance.

If a grant offer is made to

a bona fide present or former director, employee, officer or consultant of the company or its group company,
a bona fide dependent of any such person or
the trustee of a trust for such persons,

then the offer is exempted from the Hong Kong prospectus requirement.

However, the following warning statement should still be included in the ESOP:

WARNING: The contents of this document have not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in Hong Kong. You are advised to exercise caution in relation to the offer. If you are in any doubt about any of the contents of this document, you should obtain independent professional advice.

A Chinese translation of the above warning statement should also be provided.

Employment law

An ESOP typically excludes the employee’s rights under the plan from the damages that can be awarded to the employee on termination of employment. The employee usually losses its grants if the vesting conditions have not been fulfilled when the employment is terminated by the employer. However, the court may still award damages in respect of loss of ESOP grants in cases such as constructive dismissal or employer’s wrongful termination of employment.

Deduction from wages is strictly regulated in Hong Kong. The Employment Ordinance of Hong Kong permits deductions to be made from wages, upon the employee’s written request, in respect of contributions to be paid by him through the employer for the purpose of any medical benefit scheme, superannuation scheme, retirement scheme or thrift scheme lawfully established for the benefit of the employee or his dependents.

An ESOP is clearly not a medical benefit scheme, superannuation scheme or retirement scheme. A “thrift scheme” is generally referred to savings scheme that would not cause risks and offer absolute benefits to the employee or his dependents.

An ESOP carries the risk of fluctuating share value or prices and is therefore an investment option for the employees. Thus, it is generally not regarded as a thrift scheme and falls outside any of the categories of deductions permitted under the ordinance. It follows that the employer may have to pay full wages to the employees and makes arrangements to collect their exercise prices when they become payable.

Employers who make illegal deductions from the wages of employees are liable to prosecution and, upon conviction, to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for one year.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

解读香港雇员持股计划

Thu, 10 Aug 2023 03:59:43 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

解读香港雇员持股计划

ESOP的条款根据公司自身的人力资源战略量身定制，通常规定激励的形式、计划的行政管理、授予对象资格、个别授予对象的授予限额、未归属的股份授予在何种情形下失效，以及退扣机制（比如在雇员辞职或被解雇时退扣）。在不违反ESOP的前提下，公司可能就个别雇员制定归属条件，如服务期、关键业绩指标、公司的财务情况。

雇员可赚取行使价和归属条件获满足时公司股份的市场公允价之间的差额，从中获利。对于公司而言，ESOP让雇员获得公司股权，分享公司的未来增长，是一个有效的奖励和激励雇员的工具。

未上市的公司还可以通过ESOP来激励关键人员推动公司IPO。当公司IPO成功时，他们的ESOP回报通常异常丰厚。在IPO完成之前，公司不需要支付高额现金薪酬。

至于公司的ESOP授予池该多大并没有统一标准，除非是上市公司因而须遵守监管要求。通常，公司会划拨其总股本的 5%至20%到ESOP，具体大小视乎公司所处行业板块、规模、拟吸引的人才类型和管理文化等因素而定。

公司法及证券法

如果公司的ESOP要在香港实施授予，那么无论该公司是香港公司或海外公司，该计划都必须遵守香港的公司法和证券法，包括《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》和《证券及期货条例》。

如果股权被授予给（1）确为公司或其集团公司现任或前任董事、雇员或顾问的人士；（2）上述人士的真正受养人；或（3）为上述人士设立的信托的受托人，则该授予豁免遵守香港招股章程要求。但ESOP中仍须包含警告声明的英文原文和中文翻译。

其中，中文翻译如下：

警告：本文件的内容未经在香港的规管当局审核。你应就有关要约谨慎行事。
如你对本文件的任何内容有任何疑问，你应寻求独立专业意见。

雇佣法

ESOP通常会剥夺雇员在雇佣关系终止时获得计划相关损害赔偿的权利。如在雇主终止雇佣关系时归属条件未获满足，雇员通常就失去了授予的股份。但在构定解雇或雇主违法解雇的情况下，法庭仍会判决雇员获得ESOP损失赔偿。

扣薪行为在香港是受严厉监管的，《香港雇佣条例》允许雇主在雇员以书面提出要求时在工资中扣除代雇员缴交的医疗福利计划、公积金计划、退休计划或储蓄计划的供款。这些计划均是为雇员或其受养人之利益合法建立的计划。

ESOP显然不是医疗福利计划、公积金计划或退休计划。而“储蓄计划”通常指不会对雇员或其受养人造成风险，且能给他们带来绝对利益的计划。ESOP有股份价值或股价波动的风险，它是授予雇员的一种投资选择。因此，ESOP通常不被视为储蓄计划，也就不在条例允许的扣薪条件范围内。

由此可得出结论，雇主须向雇员支付全额工资，另通过其他安排收取雇员行使期权时支付的行使价。雇主违法扣薪会被检控，如被定罪，可能被判处10万港币罚款以及一年监禁。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

HKD-RMB Dual Counter Model in Hong Kong’s stock market

Wed, 21 Jun 2023 13:55:18 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

HKD-RMB Dual Counter Model in Hong Kong’s stock market

The 24 companies cover industries in technology, finance, properties and consumer products, and account for about 40% of the average daily turnover of Hong Kong's stock market.

Although China is the world’s largest trading nature, the proportion of trade payment settlement in RMB is rather low at the moment. Hong Kong as a global hub for offshore RMB business can play an active role in furthering the internationalization of RMB by introducing more RMB-denominated investment products and thus widening the uses of offshore RMB in the international markets. The introduction of the Dual Counter Model is one of such measures. Other recent initiatives included the launch of RMB interest rate swaps in May 2023 and the issue of RMB tranches of green bonds in June 2023.

The Financial Secretary of Hong Kong also indicates that the securities traded on the RMB counter may be included under the Southbound Trading of the Shanghai-Hong Kong and Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connects, so that Mainland investors can reduce exchange rate risks when they trade Hong Kong listed securities ^[2] . This will help increasing the trading volume of the securities eligible to be traded in dual counters.

Footnotes:

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港股市的港币-人民币双柜台模式

Wed, 21 Jun 2023 04:24:24 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港股市的港币 - 人民币双柜台模式

中国虽然是世界最大贸易国，但目前以人民币进行贸易支付结算的比例较低。香港作为全球离岸人民币业务枢纽，可以通过推出更多以人民币计价的投资产品，从而扩大离岸人民币在国际市场上的使用，在推动人民币国际化方面发挥积极作用；双柜台模式的引入就是其中一项措施，近期的其他举措包括2023年5月推出人民币利率互换合同交易和2023年6月发行的人民币绿色债券。

香港财政司司长还表示，在人民币柜台买卖的证券或将纳入沪港通及深港股的南向通，让内地投资者买卖香港上市的证券时可减低汇率风险 ^[2] ，这也将有助于增加可在双柜台交易的证券的成交量。

附注：

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

White Paper sheds light on China’s ESG requirements

Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:40:01 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

White Paper sheds light on China’s ESG requirements

Data details

The statistics are based on a survey of 8,660 companies comprising 5,069 issuers of publicly offered credit bonds in China’s domestic bond market, and 4,070 A-share listed companies from 2018 to 2021 (there is some overlapping between the two types).

The proportion of listed companies making ESG disclosures increased from 23.3% in 2018 to 27.9% in 2021, while the increase among bond issuers was from 15.5% to 16.4% in the same period.

In terms of the social aspects, percentages of enterprises organising labour union activities, customer satisfaction surveys, supplier social responsibility assessments and investments in community projects continued to increase from 2018 to 2021.

By the end of 2021, there were more than 160 public ESG-related fund products, with nearly RMB400 billion in assets under management, compared to 65 products with below RMB40 billion in 2018. ESG-themed wealth management products developed rapidly and increased from 12 products in 2019 to 103 products, with outstanding volume of almost RMB100 billion, in 2021.

Since the first green bond was issued in 2016, the cumulative issuing volume of green bonds in China’s domestic markets reached RMB1,729 billion by the end of 2021, with an average annual growth rate of nearly 25% over five years.

Policy categories

China’s ESG-related policies have developed rapidly and cover business entities, financial institutions and financial instruments. These policies can be divided into the following categories:

High-level guidance, which educates business entities and financial institutions on the concept of ESG;
Incentive mechanisms, which provide preferential policies for business entities and financial institutions that adopt ESG in financing, e.g., incorporating ESG in performance evaluation, tax incentives, interest discounts and local incentive policies; and
Information disclosure, which aims to improve the transparency of ESG-related practices through improving information disclosure mechanisms.

Disclosure guidance

Policies and guidance on ESG disclosure requirements were issued by different official bodies including environmental protection bureaus, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges, the People’s Bank of China, and the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council.

The key requirements include:

Bond issuers should disclose information on use of proceeds and environmental impacts;
State-owned enterprises are expected to fulfil their social responsibilities, improve corporate governance, and issue social responsibility reports or sustainable development reports;
Financial institutions are encouraged to actively disclose environmental risk management, environmental impacts and carbon emissions generated by business operations;
Enterprises that may have a greater impact on the environment (e.g., pollutant discharging entities) must disclose information including pollutants, carbon emissions and compliance with ecological environment laws;
Companies that issue securities in the securities market must disclose information on climate change, environment protection and funded projects; and
Issuers of carbon neutral bonds have to disclose environmental information on the underlying projects, focusing on environmental impacts, calculation methods and reference points.

White Paper recommendations

Key short-term recommendations include:

Developing China’s ESG-related standards system for corporate disclosure, financial institution investment and third-party institution evaluation, in combination with current ESG practices domestically and internationally;
Accelerating the standardisation of ESG information disclosure is also encouraged – based on current ESG disclosure practices by Chinese enterprises – providing a uniform disclosure template to reduce enterprises’ cost burden of information disclosure; and
Fully utilising financial infrastructures in terms of their ESG-related services provided to bond issuers and listed companies, and promoting the use of ESG evaluations and the incorporation of ESG factors in financial institutions’ investment decisions.

Key medium and long-term recommendations include:

Keeping all parties including enterprises, financial institutions, third-party service institutions and scientific research institutions engaged;
Exploring the establishment of a data co-construction and sharing mechanism;
Improving China’s ESG evaluation system and theories;
Participating in global ESG governance and promoting the coordinated development of international sustainable finance;
Facilitating the participation of international investors in China’s sustainable finance market; and
Leveraging the role of international sustainable finance institutions and organisations, and participating in the development of international ESG-related rules and international cooperation.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

白皮书发布：聚焦中国ESG现状及政策要求

Mon, 12 Jun 2023 04:46:46 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

白皮书发布：聚焦中国ESG现状及政策要求

ESG 政策类别

中国的ESG相关政策发展迅速，其适用范围涵盖了实体企业、金融机构和金融工具。这些政策可分为以下三类：

理念指引，引导实体企业和金融机构践行ESG理念；
激励机制，对实体企业和金融机构进行的ESG相关工作给予政策优惠，比如将ESG纳入金融机构业绩评价指标，颁布税收优惠及贴息奖补政策，出台地方激励政策；以及
信息披露，旨在通过完善信息披露机制提升ESG相关实践透明度。

信息披露指引

不同的官方机构，包括环境保护部门、证监会、沪深交易所、中国人民银行和国资委均出台了ESG信息披露的相关政策和指引。

主要要求包括：

债券发行人披露募集资金用途、环境效益信息；
国企应履行社会责任、完善公司治理，鼓励定期发布社会责任报告或可持续发展报告；
鼓励金融机构主动披露环境风险管理、业务产生的环境影响以及碳排放信息；
对环境可能产生较大影响的企业（如排污单位）必须披露污染物情况、碳排放情况、生态环境违法信息内容；
在证券市场发行证券的企业须披露其融资所投项目应对气候变化、生态环境保护相关信息；以及
碳中和债券发行人需披露项目环境相关信息，重点披露环境效益测算方法及参考依据。

白皮书相关建议

主要短期建议包括：

结合当前中外ESG实践现状，从企业披露，到金融机构投资，再到第三方机构的评价等多个角度推进中国ESG相关标准的构建；
立足中国企业ESG信息披露实践，加快中国企业ESG信息披露制度完善，提供统一披露模板，尽可能降低信息披露给企业带来的成本负担；以及
在为债券发行人和上市公司提供ESG相关服务方面充分发挥金融基础设施的先导作用，并推动应用ESG评价，引导金融机构在投资决策中考虑ESG因素。

主要中长期建议包括：

进一步鼓励企业、金融机构、第三方服务机构、科研机构广泛参与；
探索建立数据的共建共享机制；
优化中国ESG评价体系和理论；
参与全球ESG治理，促进国际可持续金融协同发展；
便利国际投资者参与中国可持续金融市场；以及
充分发挥国际可持续相关金融机构和组织的作用，参与国际ESG相关规则制定和国际合作。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

ESG系列 - 国际资本市场协会：可持续金融工具的原则

Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:22:43 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

ESG系列 - 国际资本市场协会：可持续金融工具的原则

国际资本市场协会（ICMA） ^[1]

ICMA是一个根据《瑞士民法典》成立的非营利协会，其使命是促进坚毅、运作优良的国际性及全球协调一致的跨境债券市场。

目前，ICMA在全球拥有600多个从事国际债券市场业务的会员，其种类广泛的会员来自银行、券商及经纪、资产和基金经理、保险公司、中央银行、证券交易所、结算行、交易设施和交易系统提供者、信用评级机构和专业机构等。会员遍布全球64个司法管辖区，包括中国内地和香港。

ICMA与其会员共同努力，通过开创规则、原则和建议，促进国际资本和证券市场的发展，实现其目标，其优先事项之一就是可持续金融。

ICMA 指引

《绿色债券原则》、《社会责任债券原则》、《可持续发展债券指引》和《可持续发展挂钩债券原则》属ICMA一系列自愿性框架，概述了以绿色、社会及/或环境为目的发行债券的最佳做法，强调发行人向持份者（不仅限于投资者，还包括政府机构、发行人的雇员、商业伙伴和客户，以及公众）披露和报告的信息必须透明、准确及真实。

《绿色债券原则》 ^[2]

“绿色债券”的定义是将募集资金或等值金额专用于为新增及/或现有合格绿色项目提供部分/全额融资或再融资的各类型债券工具，绿色债券需具备《绿色债券原则》中提及的以下四大核心要素：

1. 募集资金用途

所有合格绿色项目须具有明确的环境效益，发行人应对其进行评估，并在可行的情况下进行量化。

《绿色债券原则》列举以下广泛的资格项目类别，这些也是绿色债券市场最常支持的项目种类：

可再生能源，例如能源生产、传输、相关器械及产品
能效提升，例如新建/翻新建筑节能、储能、区域供热、智能电网、相关器械及产品
污染防治，例如减少废气排放、温室气体控制、土壤修复、预防和减少废弃物、废弃物循环利用、高效或低排放废弃物供能
生物资源和土地资源的环境可持续管理，例如可持续发展农业、可持续发展畜牧业、气候智能农业投入，如作物生物保护或滴灌、可持续发展渔业及水产养殖业、可持续发展林业，例如造林或再造林、保护或修复自然景观
陆地与水域生态多样性保护，例如海洋、沿海及河流流域的环境保护
清洁交通，例如电动、混合能源、公共、轨道、非机动、多式联运等交通工具类型、清洁能源车辆相关及减少有害排放的基础设施
可持续水资源与废水管理，例如可持续发展清洁水和/或饮用水基础设施、污水处理、可持续城市排水系统、河道治理以及其余形式的防洪措施
气候变化适应，例如提高基础设施抵御气候变化影响的能力，以及气候观测和预警系统等信息支持系统
循环经济产品、生产技术及流程，例如可重复利用、可回收和翻新的材料、组件和产品的设计和推广，循环工具和服务，和/或经认证的生态高效产品
符合地区、国家或国际认可标准或认证的绿色建筑

上述中“项目”一词包括资产、投资及研发费用等其他相关支持性质的支出。

2. 项目评估与遴选流程

绿色债券发行人应向投资者阐明：一、合格绿色项目对应哪些环境可持续目标；二、发行人判断项目是否为认可绿色项目类别的评估流程；及三、发行人如何识别和管理与项目相关的社会及环境风险的流程。

3. 募集资金管理

绿色债券的募集资金净额或等额资金应记入独立子账户、转入独立投资组合或由发行人通过其他适当途径进行追踪，并经发行人内部正式程序确认。

追踪的资金净额应用于合格的绿色项目，发行人并应向投资者披露闲置资金的临时投放方式。

《绿色债券原则》建议发行人引入外部审计师或其他第三方机构，对绿色债券募集资金内部追踪方法和分配情况进行复核。

4. 报告

发行人应当记录、保存和每年更新募集资金的使用信息，直至募集资金全部投放完毕，并在重大发展事项时及时进行更新。年度报告内容应包括绿色债券募集资金投放的项目清单，及项目简要说明、获配资金金额和预期效益。

《绿色债券原则》建议使用定性绩效指标，并在可行情况下使用定量指标，并披露定量分析的主要方法及/或假设。发行人应尽可能参考并采用《效益报告统一框架》 ^[ ^[3] ^] 提供的指引和效益报告模板。

发行人应在其“绿色债券框架”或法律文件中说明其绿色债券或绿色债券发行计划与《绿色债券原则》四个核心要素的一致性。

《社会责任债券原则》 ^[4]

“社会责任债券”指将募集资金或等值金额专用于为新增及/或现有合格社会责任项目提供部分/全额融资或再融资的各类型债券工具，社会责任债券需具备《社会责任债券原则》中提出的以下四大核心要素。

1. 募集资金用途

所有拟定的合格社会责任项目应具有明确的社会效益，发行人应对其进行评估，并在可行的情况下进行量化评估。社会责任项目的直接目的在于帮助特定目标人群（亦可不局限于该目标人群）解决或减轻特定社会问题及／或努力实现积极的社会效益。社会问题所指的是威胁、阻碍或损害社会或特定目标人群福祉的问题。

以下是《社会责任债券原则》列举的社会项目类别说明性示例，这些也是社会责任债券市场最常支持的项目种类：

可负担的基础生活设施，例如清洁饮用水、地下排污管道、卫生设施、交通运输、能源
基本服务需求，例如健康、教育和职业培训、医疗保健、融资和金融服务
可负担的住宅
创造就业机会，以及预防和/或缓解因社会经济危机导致失业的措施，包括通过提供中小企业融资和小额信贷等间接方式
食品安全和可持续食物系统，例如在物质、社会渠道和经济能力等方面帮助获得安全、有营养和充足的食物，以满足饮食需求和需要；稳定有韧性的农业生产活动；减少粮食损失和浪费；提高小规模生产者的生产力
社会经济发展和权利保障，例如公平获取及拥有资产、服务、资源和机会；公平参与和融入市场和社会，包括减少收入不平等

目标人群的例子包括：

生活在贫困线以下的人群
遭排斥或边缘化的人群或社会群体
残障人士
移民及／或流离失所的人群
低教育程度群体
因缺乏优质的基本物资和服务所形成的底层群体
失业群体
女性和/或性少数群体
老龄化群体和弱势青年
其他弱势群体，包括遭受自然灾害的群体

2. 项目评估与遴选流程

3. 募集资金管理

4. 报告

《绿色债券原则》对以上三大核心要素的指导和建议同样适用于《社会责任债券原则》。

发行人应在其“社会责任债券框架”或法律文件中解释其社会责任债券或社会责任债券发行计划与《社会责任债券原则》四个核心要素的一致性。

《可持续发展债券指引》 ^[5]

“可持续发展债券”指将募集资金或等值金额专项用于绿色和社会责任项目融资或再融资的各类债券工具。可持续发展债券应符合《绿色债券原则》和《社会责任债券原则》的四大核心要素。

一些社会责任项目可能同时带来环境效益，而一些绿色项目也可能衍生出社会效益。在判断专项资金债券的具体分类时，由发行人根据募集资金投资的项目之首要目标来判定该债券是绿色债券、社会责任债券，还是可持续发展债券。

《可持续发展挂钩债券原则》 ^[6]

“可持续发展挂钩债券”具有一定财务和/或结构特征，该特征根据发行人是否实现其预设的可持续发展/ESG目标而发生改变。这意味着，发行人须明确（包括在债券文件中）承诺在预定时间内改善其在可持续发展方面的绩效表现。可持续发展挂钩债券是前瞻性的、基于绩效指标的债券工具。

可持续发展挂钩债券原则为发行人规划了清晰的流程和信息披露框架，投资人、银行、承销商、销售机构及其他各方可据此了解可持续发展挂钩债券的财务和/或结构特点。《可持续发展挂钩债券原则》有五个核心要素。

1. 关键绩效指标的遴选

发行人的可持续发展表现是通过关键绩效指标来衡量，该指标可以适用外部机构公布的标准，也可以发行人自行公布。关键绩效指标应符合以下条件：

对发行人的核心可持续发展和业务战略具有实质性意义，切实应对该行业在ESG方面的相关挑战
发行人管理层可以通过管理而实现该指标
对于发行人整体业务相关性高，有核心价值和实质性意义，并且对发行人的当前和/或未来运营具有重要的战略意义
可基于一致的方法论进行计量或量化
可进行外部验证
可以进行基准标杆比对，换言之，尽可能使用外部参考或定义，有助于评估可持续发展绩效目标是否足够激进，不过于宽松

发行人应披露以下内容：

选择其关键绩效指标的理由（即相关性、重要性）
每个关键绩效指标的明确定义，其中应包括指标应用范围和计算方法。指标应用范围的例子：发行人总排放量占某一基准的百分比
计算方法，例如在使用与经济活动强度相关的关键绩效指标时明确定义选取的种类的经济活动强度，通过设置可行的、有科学依据的或对标行业标准的基准线来计算关键绩效指标
制定可持续发展绩效目标的动机（例如高标准、高要求，符合整体战略规划和基准标杆）
导致债券财务和/或结构特征受触发事件影响发生改变/变化的
这种改变/变化的性质

2. 可持续发展绩效目标的校验

与关键绩效指标对应的持续发展挂钩债券反映了发行人在可持续发展方面的决心。可持续发展绩效目标应该按照高标准、高要求设定，并应代表每个关键绩效指标有实质性改进，例如比“一切照常”情景的碳排放气候情景更好。可持续发展绩效目标尽可能与基准标杆值或外部参考进行比较，应与发行人的整体可持续性/ESG战略保持一致，并在债券发行之前（或同时）在预设的期限内衡量可持续表现。

设定目标应综合考虑与多个基准标杆相比较的结果：

在可行的情况下，建议通过对选定的关键绩效指标进行至少三年的测量跟踪和记录来评价发行人的表现，并对关键绩效指标进行前瞻性指导
与发行人的同业相比，其可持续发展绩效目标在同业中所处的水平（如有且存在可比性，例如平均表现、同业最佳表现），或现行行业标准
以科学为依据，即基于科学的情景假设、绝对水平（例如碳预算）或国家/地区/国际的官方目标（例如《巴黎气候变化协定》和净零排放目标、可持续发展目标等），或对标公认的行业最佳技术，来设定与环境与社会效益主题相关的目标

3. 债券特征

可持续发展挂钩债券的特性在于，因所选的关键绩效指标达到预定的可持续发展绩效目标，而触发其财务和/或结构特征发生改变，即可持续发展挂钩债券的结构设计需包括其财务和/或结构特性受触发事件影响所产生的变化。

票息变化在该类债券中最为常见，此外也可以考虑设计其他财务和/或结构特征变化，但该类债券财务和/或结构特征的变化应与发行人债券起始的财务特征相称，并具有合理的意义。

发行人应在发行前文件中陈述后备机制，以应对可持续发展绩效目标无法通过恰当的方法计算或得出的可能情况。如有必要，发行人还应考虑在债券文件中列举可能发生的特殊事件（例如重要的并购重组）可能会对可持续表现计量范围产生重大变化，以及极端事件，比如重大监管环境变化可能严重影响关键绩效指标的计算、导致重新订立可持续发展绩效目标及/或对基准线或关键绩效指标范围进行形式上的调整。

4. 报告

可持续发展挂钩债券的发行人应当公布并确保以下信息：

每年更新所选关键绩效指标的绩效结果，包括相关的基准线数据
可持续发展绩效目标的验证报告，需列示可持续发展绩效目标的绩效结果、实现可持续发展效益及其对应期间、该表现结果对此债券的财务和/或结构特征所产生的影响
任何有助于投资人监控发行人可持续发展绩效目标是否足够积极的信息，例如，发行人可持续发展战略的修订，或相关关键绩效指标/ESG治理政策的任何更新，以及可用来分析关键绩效指标和可持续发展绩效目标的信息

该报告应定期发布，至少每年一次，以及应披露每个评估日期/阶段的相关报告，披露该期间内可持续发展绩效目标的评估结果是否会导致需对财务和/或结构特征进行调整。

5. 验证

发行人应公开其可持续发展绩效目标的实现程度的验证信息。

有别于在债券发行前取得外部评审的建议性质，此项发布债券存续期验证报告是《可持续发展挂钩债券原则》的必要元素。

市场发展

附注：

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

ESG Series: ICMA - Principles on Sustainable Finance Instruments

Thu, 28 Apr 2022 05:26:07 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

ESG Series: International Capital Market Association - Principles on Sustainable Finance Instruments

ICMA ^[1]

ICMA is a not-for-profit association (Verein) under the Swiss Civil Code. Its mission is to promote resilient well-functioning international and globally coherent cross-border debt securities markets.

ICMA currently has around 600 members engaging in international debt capital markets. The wide variety of members include banks, securities dealers and brokers, asset and fund managers, insurance companies, central banks, stock exchanges, clearing houses, trading facilities and systems, credit rating agencies and professional firms. Members come from 64 jurisdictions globally, including Mainland China and Hong Kong.

In pursuit of its objectives, ICMA and its members work together to promote the development of international capital and securities markets by pioneering rules, principles and recommendations. One of its priorities is sustainable finance.

ICMA guidance

The Green Bond Principles, the Social Bond Principles, the Sustainability Bond Guidelines and the Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles are a collection of voluntary frameworks and outline best practices when issuing bonds serving green, social and/or environmental purposes. They emphasize transparency, accuracy and integrity of the information to be disclosed and reported by issuers to stakeholders (which should not be limited to the investors, but also include governmental bodies, issuers’ employees, business partners and customers, as well as the public).

Green Bond Principles ^[2]

Green bond is defined as any type of bond instrument where the proceeds or an equivalent amount will be exclusively applied to finance or re-finance, in part or in full, new and/or existing eligible green projects and which are aligned with the four core components of the Green Bond Principles which are:

1. Use of proceeds

All designated eligible green projects should provide clear environmental benefits, which will be assessed and, where feasible, quantified by the issuer.

The Green Bond Principles explicitly recognise the following broad categories of eligibility projects which are the most commonly used types of projects supported, or expected to be supported, by the green bond market:

Renewable energy, e.g. production, transmission, appliances and products
Energy efficiency, e.g. new and refurbished buildings, energy storage, district heating, smart grids, appliances and products
Pollution prevention and control, e.g. reduction of air emissions, greenhouse gas control, soil remediation, waste prevention, waste reduction, waste recycling and energy/emission-efficient waste to energy
Environmentally sustainable management of living natural resources and land use, e.g. environmentally sustainable agriculture; environmentally sustainable animal husbandry; climate smart farm inputs such as biological crop protection or drip-irrigation; environmentally sustainable fishery and aquaculture; environmentally sustainable forestry, including afforestation or reforestation, and preservation or restoration of natural landscapes
Terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity conservation, e.g. protection of coastal, marine and watershed environments
Clean transportation, e.g. electric, hybrid, public, rail, non-motorised, multi-modal transportation, infrastructure for clean energy vehicles and reduction of harmful emissions
Sustainable water and wastewater management, e.g. sustainable infrastructure for clean and/or drinking water, wastewater treatment, sustainable urban drainage systems and river training and other forms of flooding mitigation
Climate change adaptation, e.g. efforts to make infrastructure more resilient to impacts of climate change, as well as information support systems, such as climate observation and early warning systems
Circular economy adapted products, production technologies and processes, e.g. the design and introduction of reusable, recyclable and refurbished materials, components and products; circular tools and services; and/or certified eco-efficient products
Green buildings that meet regional, national or internationally recognised standards or certifications for environmental performance

The term “projects” includes assets, investments and related or supporting expenditures such as research and development.

2. Process for project evaluation and selection

The issuer should communicate clearly to investors (a) the environmental sustainability objectives of the eligible green projects, (b) its process in determining how the projects fit within eligible categories, and (c) complementary information on processes by which the issuer identifies and manages perceived social and environmental risks associated with the relevant projects.

3. Management of proceeds

The net proceeds of the green bond should be credited to a sub-account, moved to a sub-portfolio or otherwise tracked by the issuer, and attested to in a formal internal process.

The tracked net proceeds should be applied to eligible green projects. The issuer should disclose to investors the intended types of temporary placement for the balance of unallocated net proceeds.

The Principles recommend that the use of an external auditor, or other third party, to verify the internal tracking method and the allocation of funds from the proceeds.

4. Reporting

Issuers should make, and keep, readily available up to date information on the use of proceeds to be renewed annually until full allocation, and on a timely basis in case of material developments. The annual report should include a list of the projects to which proceeds have been allocated, as well as a brief description of the projects, the amounts allocated, and their expected impact.

The Green Bond Principles recommend the use of qualitative performance indicators and, where feasible, quantitative performance measures and disclosure of the key underlying methodology and/or assumptions used in the quantitative determination. Issuers should refer to and adopt, where possible, the guidance and impact reporting templates provided in the “Handbook on Harmonised Framework for Impact Reporting” ^[3] developed by ICMA.

Issuer should explain the alignment of its green bond or green bond programme with the four core components of the Green Bond Principles in a “green bond framework” or in the bond legal documentation that is readily accessible to investors.

Social Bond Principles ^[4]

Social Bond is defined as any type of bond instrument where the proceeds, or an equivalent amount, will be exclusively applied to finance or re-finance in part or in full new and/or existing eligible social projects and which are aligned with the four core components of the Social Bond Principles, such components being:

1. Use of proceeds

All designated eligible social projects should provide clear social benefits, which will be assessed and, where feasible, quantified by the issuer. They should directly aim to address or mitigate a specific social issue and/or seek to achieve positive social outcomes especially but not exclusively for a target population. A social issue is an issue that threatens, hinders, or damages the well-being of society or a specific target population.

The Social Bond Principles give the following illustrative examples of social project categories which are the most common projects supported, or expected to be supported, by the social bond market:

Affordable basic infrastructure, e.g. clean drinking water, sewers, sanitation, transport, energy
Access to essential services, e.g. health, education and vocational training, healthcare, financing and financial services
Affordable housing
Employment generation, and programs designed to prevent and/or alleviate unemployment stemming from socioeconomic crises, including through the potential effect of Small and medium-sized enterprises financing and microfinance
Food security and sustainable food systems, e.g. physical, social, and economic access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food that meets dietary needs and requirements; resilient agricultural practices; reduction of food loss and waste; and improved productivity of small-scale producers
Socioeconomic advancement and empowerment, e.g. equitable access to and control over assets, services, resources, and opportunities; equitable participation and integration into the market and society, including reduction of income inequality

Examples of target populations include:

Living below the poverty line
Excluded and/or marginalised populations and/or communities
People with disabilities
Migrants and/or displaced persons
Undereducated
Underserved, owing to a lack of quality access to essential goods and services
Unemployed
Women and/or sexual and gender minorities
Aging populations and vulnerable youth
Other vulnerable groups, including as a result of natural disasters

2. Process for project evaluation and selection

3. Management of proceeds

4. Reporting

The guidance and recommendations in the Green Bond Principles apply to these three components of the Social Bond Principles.

Issuer should explain the alignment of its social bond or social bond programme with the four core components of the Social Bond Principles in a “social bond framework” or in the bond legal documentation that is readily accessible to investors.

Sustainability Bond Guidelines ^[5]

Sustainability Bonds are any type of bond instrument where the proceeds or an equivalent amount will be exclusively applied to finance or re-finance a combination of both green and social projects. Sustainability bonds are aligned with the four core components of both the Green Bond Principles and the Social Bond Principles.

Certain social projects may also have environmental co-benefits, and certain green projects may have social co-benefits. The classification of a use of proceeds bond as a green bond, social bond, or sustainability bond should be determined by the issuer based on its primary objectives for the underlying projects.

Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles ^[6]

Sustainability-linked bonds are any type of bond instrument for which the financial and/or structural characteristics can vary depending on whether the issuer achieves predefined sustainability or ESG objectives. In that sense, issuers are thereby committing explicitly (including in the bond documentation) to future improvements in sustainability outcome within a predefined timeline. A sustainability-linked bond is a forward-looking performance-based instrument.

The Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles recommend a clear process and transparent commitments for issuers, which investors, banks, underwriters, placement agents and others may use to understand the financial and/or structural characteristics of a sustainability-linked bond. The Principles have five core components:

1. Selection of key performance indicators (KPIs)

The issuer’s sustainability performance is measured using sustainability KPIs that can be external or internal. The KPIs should be:

material to the issuer’s core sustainability and business strategy and address relevant ESG challenges of the industry sector
under management’s control
relevant, core and material to the issuer’s overall business, and of high strategic significance to the issuer’s current and/or future operations
measurable or quantifiable on a consistent methodological basis
externally verifiable
able to be benchmarked, i.e. as much as possible using an external reference or definitions to facilitate the assessment of the SPT’s level of ambition
Issuers should publicly communicate:
their rationale for the selection of their KPIs (i.e. relevance, materiality)
a clear definition of each KPI and the applicable scope or perimeter, e.g. percentage of the issuer’s total emissions to which the target is applicable
calculation methodology, e.g. definition of the denominator of intensity-based KPI, definition of a baseline, where feasible, science-based or benchmarked against an industry standard
motivation for the SPTs (i.e. ambition level, consistency with overall strategic planning and benchmarking approach)
trigger events leading to a change/variation of bond financial and/or structural characteristics
nature of such a change/variation

2. Calibration of sustainability performance targets (SPTs)

A sustainability-linked bond is the issuer’s expression of its ambition level with respect of the KPI. SPTs must be set in good faith and should represent a material improvement in the respective KPIs, i.e. should be beyond a “business as usual” trajectory. Where possible, they can be compared to a benchmark or an external reference. They should be consistent with the issuers’ overall strategic sustainability / ESG strategy, and be determined on a predefined timeline, set before (or concurrently with) the issuance of the bond.

The target setting exercise should be based on a combination of the following benchmarking approaches:

the issuer’s own performance over time for which a minimum of 3 years, where feasible, of measurement track record on the selected KPI(s) is recommended and, when possible, forward-looking guidance on the KPI
the issuers’ peers, i.e. the SPT’s relative positioning versus its peers’ where available (average performance, best-in-class performance) and comparable, or versus current industry or sector standards
reference to the science, i.e., systematic reference to science-based scenarios, or absolute levels (e.g. carbon budgets), or to official country/regional/international targets (Paris Agreement on Climate Change and net zero goals, Sustainable Development Goals, etc.) or to recognised best-available-technologies or other proxies to determine relevant targets across environmental and social themes

3. Bond characteristics

The cornerstone of a sustainability-linked bond is that the bond’s financial and/or structural characteristics can vary depending on whether the selected KPIs reach the predefined SPTs, i.e. the bond will need to include a financial and/or structural impact involving trigger event(s).

The potential variation of the coupon is the most common example, but it is also possible to consider the variation of other financial and/or structural characteristics of the bond. The variation should be commensurate and meaningful relative to the issuer’s original bond financial characteristics.

Any fallback mechanisms in case the SPTs cannot be calculated or observed in a satisfactory manner should be explained. Issuers may also consider including disclosure in the bond documentation potential exceptional events (e.g. as significant change in perimeters through material merger/acquisition activities) or extreme events, including drastic changes in the regulatory environment that could substantially impact the calculation of the KPI, the restatement of the SPT, and/or pro-forma adjustments of baselines or KPI scope.

4. Reporting

Issuers should publish, and keep readily available and easily accessible:

up-to-date information on the performance of the selected KPI(s), including baselines where relevant
verification assurance report relative to the SPT outlining the performance against the SPTs and the related impact, and timing of such impact, on the bond’s financial and/or structural characteristics
any information enabling investors to monitor the level of ambition of the SPTs, e.g. any update in the sustainability strategy or on the related KPI/ESG governance, any information relevant to the analysis of the KPIs and SPTs

This reporting should be published regularly, at least annually, and in any case for any date/period relevant for assessing the SPT performance leading to a potential adjustment of the SLB’s financial and/or structural characteristics.

5. Verification

Issuers should seek independent and external verification (e.g. limited or reasonable assurance) of their performance level against each SPT for each KPI by a qualified external reviewer with relevant expertise, e.g. an auditor or an environmental consultant, at least once a year, and in any case for any date/period relevant for assessing the SPT performance leading to a potential adjustment of the SLB financial and/or structural characteristics, until after the last SPT trigger event of the bond has been reached.

The verification of the performance against the SPTs should be made publicly available.

As opposed to the pre-issuance external review which is recommended, post issuance verification is a necessary element of The Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles.

Market development

In structuring sustainability and ESG related bonds, the market practitioners should keep themselves abreast of the development in international guidance and standards, technological advancements, regulatory environment changes and, last but not least, the public expectations.

Footnotes:

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

ESG系列 – 香港政府绿色债券计划

Mon, 14 Mar 2022 05:53:39 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

ESG系列 – 香港政府绿色债券计划

1. 绿色债券募集所得的资金之使用、报告和管理

债券发行所得的资金将专用于对为政府的公共工程项目融资或再融资，该等工程项目须符合以下八个合资格类别中最少一个：

可再生能源
能源效益和节约能源
污染预防及管控
废物管理及资源回收
水及废水管理
自然保育/生物多样性
清洁运输
绿色建筑

所得的资金将拨入由财经事务及库务局管理的基本工程储备基金，以待指定用于合资格的项目。库务局通过年度《绿色债券报告》提供关于绿色债券发行净收益分配的信息。

2. 项目评估和选择

该计划的督导委员会由财政司司长担任主席，并由财经事务及库务局局长、环境局局长及香港金融管理局副总裁等人士组成，负责监督该计划的实施。

委员会的重要职责是审查和批准 (a) 各绿色债券的发行、(b) 每一批债券募集所得的资金对合资格项目的分配、 (c) 在债券有效期内继续符合资格标准的项目，以及 (d) 就该计划编写的报告。

机构绿色债券

截至2022年3月初，该计划已向来自世界各地的不同机构投资者发行了九批绿色债券，募集所得的总额为70亿美元，期限从三年到三十年不等，最高票面息率为3%。该等债券以美元、人民币和欧元发行。 ^[3]

确定为符合资格的项目

根据《2021年绿色债券报告》 ^[4] ，截至2021年7月31日，已有14个工程项目获确定为符合资格的项目，可使用绿色债券募集所得的资金：

零售绿色债券

财政司司長在2021-22年《财政预算案》宣布了一项发行政府零售绿色债券的计划，供广大市民参与。债券的期限为三年，总发行量为60亿港元（相当于7.7亿美元），利息将每6个月支付一次，利率与香港的通货膨胀率挂钩，最低利率为2%。 ^[5]

此首次政府零售绿色债券的发行之认购期原定为2022年3月1日至3月11日，但鉴于疫情的最新发展，政府决定推迟该发行。政府将视疫情发展情况，尽快重新启动此批零售绿色债券的认购安排。

附注：

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

ESG Series: Hong Kong Government Green Bond Programme

Mon, 14 Mar 2022 04:20:51 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

ESG Series: Hong Kong Government Green Bond Programme

The framework of the Programme sets out how the Government intends to issue green bonds with the vision to improve the environment, combat climate change and transition to a low carbon economy. The framework was first published in March 2019 and was updated in February 2022. The updated framework reflects Hong Kong’s latest climate commitments and strategy that aligns with the latest international standards and practices in the green bond market.

1. Usage, reporting and management of proceeds of green bonds

The proceeds of bond issuance will be used exclusively to finance or re-finance public works projects of the Government that fall under one or more of the eight eligible categories, namely:

renewable energy
energy efficiency and conservation
pollution prevention and control
waste management and resource recovery
water and wastewater management
nature conservation/biodiversity
clean transportation
green buildings

The proceeds will be credited to the Capital Works Reserve Fund, administered by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau pending earmarking to eligible projects. The Bureau provides information on the allocation of the net proceeds of the green bond issuance via annual Green Bond Reports .

2. Project evaluation and selection

The Steering Committee on the Programme chaired by the Financial Secretary and comprising the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, the Secretary for the Environment and Deputy Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority among others is set up to oversee the implementation of the Programme.

One important duty of the Committee is to review and approve (a) each green bond issuance, (b) the allocation of proceeds of each tranche of bonds to eligible projects and (c) eligible projects which continue to meet the eligibility criteria during the life of the bond and (d) reports prepared on the Programme.

Institutional Green Bonds

As of early March 2022, nine tranches of green bonds of a total of US$7 billion have been issued under the Programme to a diverse group of institutional investors from around the world. The tenor ranges from 3 years to 30 years. The highest coupon rate is 3%. The bonds were issued in US Dollar, Renminbi and Euro. ^[3]

Identified eligible projects

According to the Green Bond Report 2021 ^[4] , 14 eligible projects have been identified as at 31 July 2021 for utilizing the bond proceeds:

Retail Green Bonds

The Financial Secretary announced in the 2021-22 Budget a plan to issue retail Government green bonds for the participation of the general public. The bonds will be of a tenor of 3 years and the total issuance amount will be of HK$6 billion (equivalent to US$770 million). The interest will be paid once every six months at a rate linked to inflation in Hong Kong, subject to a minimum rate of 2%. ^[5]

However, in light of the latest developments of the COVID-19 epidemic, the Government recently decided to postpone the launch of the inaugural retail green bond offering although the subscription period was originally scheduled from 1 March to 11 March 2022. Subject to the development of the epidemic situation, the Government will relaunch the subscription arrangement for the retail green bond as soon as possible.

Footnotes:

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

特殊目的收购公司- 香港上市制度

Thu, 13 Jan 2022 12:26:06 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

特殊目的收购公司 - 香港上市制度

特殊目的收购公司的典型特征

特殊目的收购公司是一种无实际业务或资产的上市主体，而其唯一目的是透过首次公开发售集资，于上市后一段时间内收购标的公司或与其合并。特殊目的收购公司一般由具有私募投资及企业融资的专业管理人（即特殊目的收购公司发起人）成立。特殊目的收购公司在首次公开发售时发行股份供投资者认购，同时可能提供权证作为首次公开发售的“甜头”。特殊目的收购公司可以于进行收购时加入新投资者，收购或合并完成后，特殊目的收购公司与该标的公司将结合从而达到“继承公司”的上市，这被称为“特殊目的收购公司并购交易”。如特殊目的收购公司没有于特定时间内完成该种交易，则其需要寻求股东批准延长该公司的有效期，或将公司清盘并把首次公开发售款项返还予股东。

载于《主板上市规则》第十八B章列出的香港特殊目的收购公司制度 ^[3]

企业管治

特殊目的收购公司发起人: 特殊目的收购公司发起人须符合联交所就其合适性及资格的规定。每家特殊目的收购公司须有至少一名持有香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（“证监会”）发出的第6类（就机构融资提供意见）及／或第9类（提供资产管理）牌照。发起人可认购特殊目的收购公司的股份（“发起人股份”）及权证（“发起人权证”），但至少一名发起人须持有至少10%的发起人股份。
特殊目的收购公司的董事: 特殊目的收购公司的董事会须包括至少两名持有证监会第6类或第9类牌照的人士（其中一名须为代表持有证监会牌照的特殊目的收购公司发起人）。任何特殊目的收购公司发起人所提名的董事会成员须为该发起人的高级人员。

上市及上市后的责任

投资者的合适性： 专业投资者可以认购特殊目的收购公司的股份及权证。在上市时，特殊目的收购公司的股份及权证须分发予至少75名专业投资者，而其中至少20名须为机构投资者，且机构专业投资者须持有至少75%的待上市证券。
特殊目的收购公司股份及权证的交易： 首次公开发售后的特殊目的收购公司的证券交易仅限供专业投资者参与，特殊目的收购公司的股份及证券可分开作交易。
集资规模： 特殊目的收购公司预期从首次发售筹集到的资金须至少为10亿港元。
托管安排： 特殊目的收购公司在首次发售中所筹集的款项总额（发行发起人股份及发起人权证的收益除外）须全部存入香港封闭式托管账户，并由受托人或保管人操作，账户款项须以现金或现金等价物的形式持有。
股份交易单位: 特殊目的收购公司股份的交易单位及认购额须至少为100万港元。
特殊目的收购公司权证： 特殊目的收购公司权证的最低行使价须为较特殊目的收购公司股份发行价高出至少15%。行使期须于特殊目的收购公司并购交易完成后才开始，而且其到期日为由交易完成之日起不少于一年及不多于五年内，行使仅能引发继承公司发行股份，发行的特殊目的收购公司股份数目不得超过该等权证发行时已发行股份数目的50%。
发起人股份及发起人权证： 特殊目的收购公司向其发起人发行的股份及权证不具有上市地位。如特殊目的收购公司发行发起人股份及/或发起人权证，该发起人须一直是该等发起人股份或发起人权证的实益拥有人。特殊目的收购公司不得向发起人配发、发行或授予多于在上市之日已发行股份总数20%的发起人股份。发起人权证的发行价不得低于特殊目的收购公司股份于首次公开发售时发行价的10%，而且在完成特殊目的收购公司并购交易完成日期起计12个月内发起人权证不得被行使。
买卖限制： 特殊目的收购公司发起人及其董事及雇员、特殊目的收购公司董事及雇员，以及其紧密联系人于特殊目的收购公司并购交易完成前，严禁买卖特殊目的收购公司的任何上市证券。

发起人或董事的重大变动

特殊目的收购公司股东及联交所的批准： 如以下范畴发生重大改变：(1) 任何控制50%或以上发起人股份的特殊目的收购公司发起人、(2) 任何持有证监会发出的第6类或第9类牌照的特殊目的收购公司发起人、(3) 特殊目的收购公司发起人的资格及/或合适性、或 (4) 持有证监会第6类及/或第9类监管活动牌照的特殊目的收购公司董事，则特殊目的收购公司于该重大变动后的“存续”须获得（a）由股东于该变动起计一个月内于股东大会透过特别决议批准及（b）联交所的批准。
赎回机会： 于特殊目的收购公司重大变动后，而在特殊目的收购公司是否存续的股东表决前，特殊目的收购公司的股东（发起人股份的持有人除外）须有机会选择赎回其股份。

特殊目的收购公司并购交易

继承公司的上市申请： 收购标的须符合所有新上市的要求（包括委聘首次公开发售保荐人、尽职审查要求、财务资格测试及最低市值要求）。特殊目的收购公司并购交易的条款须包含一项条件：除非继承公司的股份上市申请获得联交所的批准，否则交易将不会完成。须委聘至少一名保荐人以协助继承公司的上市申请。
特殊目的收购公司首次公开发售款项的使用： 特殊目的收购公司并购标的的公允值须达到特殊目的收购公司首次公开发售筹集的资金（进行任何股份赎回前）的至少80%。根据联交所于2022年1月发布的《有关特殊目的收购公司的指引》 ^[4] （“《指引》”），当评估特殊目的收购公司董事会对“公允值”形成的意见时，联交所将会全面考虑多方面因素，例如(a)该意见依赖的基础；(b)特殊目的收购公司并购各方就标的议定的价值；(c)保荐人的意见；(d)独立第三方投资者投入的金额；及(e)与并购标的可比的公司之估值。
独立第三方投资： 特殊目的收购公司须于特殊目的收购公司并购交易中从独立投资者（仅限于专业投资者）募集资金。独立投资的最低百分比为25%：如果标的之议定估值为20亿港元以下；15%：如果标的之议定估值为20亿港元或以上但少于50亿港元；10%：如果标的之议定估值为50亿港元或以上但少于70亿港元，或7.5%：如果标的之议定估值为70亿港元或以上。
独立第三方投资者的资格： 独立第三方投资需包括资深投资者的重大投资，根据《指引》，联交所期望独立第三方投资额至少50%来自不少于三名具有以下特征的投资者：(a)管理资产总值至少达80亿港元的资产管理公司或(b)规模至少达80亿港元的基金。
公告及上市文件： 特殊目的收购公司就特殊目的收购公司并购交易而发布的公告及上市文件须由联交所事先审核，两份文件须于发出批准特殊目的收购公司并购交易的股东大会的通知时同时公布并寄发予特殊目的收购公司股东。
股东批准： 特殊目的收购公司并购交易须经过特殊目的收购公司股东于股东大会批准（拥有重大利益的股东及特殊目的收购公司发起人须放弃表决权），股东大会不能以股东书面批准代替。任何为完成并购交易而进行的第三方投资的条款须于同一个股东大会被股东考虑。
期限： 特殊目的收购公司须在上市后24个月内刊发特殊目的收购公司并购公告，并在36个月内完成特殊目的收购公司并购交易。如其已在股东大会上经股东批准延长任何期限，则可向联交所提出延期要求。联交所有酌情权批准或拒绝延期要求，但任何延长最多为6个月。

赎回

赎回情况:于股东批准 (1) 重大变动后特殊目的收购公司是否存续、(2) 特殊目的收购公司并购交易，或 (3) 延长上述任何期限前，特殊目的收购公司的股东须有机会选择赎回其股份。

清盘及除牌

款项返还予股东：如特殊目的收购公司未能于出现重大变更后一个月内就该变更获得所需的股东批准，或未能符合任何上述的期限，则特殊目的收购公司须清盘，并将被托管的全数款项退还给股东，联交所随即会取消特殊目的收购公司的上市地位。

《公司收购、合并及股份回购守则》的适用情况 ^[5]

特殊目的收购公司并购交易完成前: 《公司收购、合并及股份回购守则》（“《收购守则》”）适用于特殊目的收购公司。当一位人士认购特殊目的收购公司股份至其及其一致行动人士持有特殊目的收购公司的30%或以上的投票权，其须向其他特殊目的收购公司证券的持有人作出强制性全面要约。
特殊目的收购公司并购交易的豁免： 证监会可豁免在《收购守则》下有关特殊目的收购公司并购交易的强制性全面要约责任，即使特殊目的收购公司并购标的的拥有人于并购交易完成后获得继承公司的30%或更多之投票权，其强制性全面要约责任可被豁免。证监会考虑豁免申请时会考量以下因素：（a）特殊目的收购公司并购标的拥有人于特殊目的收购公司的持股量，及特殊目的收购公司证券的交易记录，及（b）特殊目的收购公司并购标的拥有人与特殊目的收购公司发起人及其各自一致行动人士之间是否存在任何关系。

特殊目的收购公司发起人

特殊目的收购公司投资者依赖特殊目的收购公司发起人找到合适的并购交易对象，及就并购交易的条款进行谈判的能力，以便为其投资提供有吸引力的回报。为了避免发起人安排特殊目的收购公司与低标准的目标进行并购交易，联交所仅认定经验丰富及信誉良好的发起人为合适人选。《指引》列出对发起人在营运其他特殊目的收购公司、资金筹集及投资管理之往绩的期望，以及相关标准，如其牌照的细节、与特殊目的收购公司的潜在竞争、及遵守适用法律及法规的历史。虽然此高门槛有助于保障投资者的利益，但也限制了有资格成为香港特殊目的收购公司发起人的机构及个人的数量。

赎回权与额外的第三方投资

赋予特殊目的收购公司股东的另一项保护是其赎回特殊目的收购公司股份的权利，但是，联交所提及的联合研究 ^[6] 发现，在其2019至2020年研究对象中赎回率的平均及中位数分别高达58%及73%，当中四分之一的赎回率超过95%，平均而言92%的特殊目的收购公司之机构投资者于并购交易结束前都会通过赎回或于二级市场上出售其特殊目的收购公司股份以退出特殊目的收购公司的投资。

股份赎回必然减少完成并购交易的现金，许多特殊目的收购公司会通过寻求以并购交易完成为先决条件的第三方投资以缓解这种问题。联合研究发现，在其研究对象中，有三分之一的特殊目的收购公司筹集的资金大部分并不是源于特殊目的收购公司的首次公开发售款项，而是来自额外的第三方投资。

虽然赎回权为特殊目的收购公司股东提供一个退出的机会，但其也为特殊目的收购公司完成并购交易的资源带来了不确定性，然而，并购交易恰恰是特殊目的收购公司的主要目标。

继承公司的上市申请之审核

联交所在2021年9月发布咨询文件前，公众关于特殊目的收购公司的讨论中有一个颇具争议的课题：继承公司的上市申请除了股东对并购交易的批准外，是否应遵守目前的新上市要求；而如不需要，特殊目的收购公司可为原本不符合新上市要求的标的的上市打开一条通道。

联交所建议以与“反收购项目”相同的方式考虑特殊目的收购公司并购交易（即视为新上市），并要求继承公司符合所有新上市要求。虽然33%的回应咨询的人士反对该建议，但联交所仍然强调引入特殊目的收购公司上市制度并非要取代传统首次公开发售的途径。

最后，联交所采纳了自身原本的建议，所有新上市要求将适用于继承公司的上市申请，包括首次公开发售保荐人，以确保对标的作出尽职审查，及透过特殊目的收购公司并购上市的资产及业务具有一定的质素。而就管理层及拥有人维持不变的规定而言，联交所可个别考虑是否给予豁免。

除新上市要求外，特殊目的收购公司并购交易的完成还取决于与标的公司拥有人的谈判、是否可引入独立第三方的投资及联交所对上市申请的审核，包括对标的公司的估值（这比传统上市申请的审核不太可能更快）。

运用特殊目的收购公司这途径似乎并不能让并购标的更容易于香港上市。

市场失当行为的风险

特殊目的收购公司没有任何业务运作，其证券的市场价值很大程度取决于其是否能寻找合适的并购标的，并完成特殊目的收购公司并购交易。这意味着，在宣布交易之前，拥有这类交易的内幕消息的人可能会在宣布交易前通过对特殊目的收购公司的证券进行内幕交易而获取巨大收益。因此，在上市的特殊目的收购公司中发生内幕交易的概率往往高于一般上市公司。

特殊目的收购公司的股份及权证的价格可能对潜在并购交易的谣言非常敏感，这可能使特殊目的收购公司证券更容易受到欺诈者的市场操纵，例如透过故意散布即将进行并购交易的谣言（包括通过社交媒体平台），将特殊目的收购公司股份及/或权证的价格提高到出售有利的水平。

监管机构将需要加强对特殊目的收购公司证券交易的监督，以应对市场失当行为的风险。

香港特殊目的收购公司制度的总体影响

特殊目的收购公司制度的推出提供更多的投资选择，从而加强香港作为领先的国际金融中心的地位，但香港严格的要求在短期内不太可能吸引大量的特殊目的收购公司于香港进行首次公开发售。

附注︰

https://www.hkex.com.hk/-/media/HKEX-Market/News/Market-Consultations/2016-Present/September-2021-Special-Purpose-Acquisition-Co/Consultation-Paper/cp202109_c.pdf?la=zh-CN
https://www.hkex.com.hk/-/media/HKEX-Market/News/Market-Consultations/2016-Present/September-2021-Special-Purpose-Acquisition-Co/Conclusions-(Dec-2021)/cp202109cc_c.pdf
https://en-rules.hkex.com.hk/sites/default/files/net_file_store/HKEX4476_5770_VER18989.pdf
https://cn-rules.hkex.com.hk/sites/default/files/net_file_store/HKEXCN_TC_12463_VER17320.pdf
请详阅于上述附注1提及的联交所总结第397至422段。
“A Sober Look at SPACs”，一项由Michael Klausner（史丹福大學法學院教授）、Michael Ohlrogge（紐約大學法學院助理教授）和Emily Ruan（史丹福大學法學院研究員）共同进行的研究，2020年10月 28日。（僅供英文版）

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies – Listing Regime in Hong Kong

Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:42:01 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies – Listing Regime in Hong Kong

Typical features of a SPAC

SPAC is a listing vehicle with no substantial business or asset, and its sole purpose is to raise capital through initial public offering (“ IPO ”) for future acquisition or merger with a target within a certain time period. It is typically formed by professional managers (i.e. SPAC promoters) who have private equity and corporate finance experience. At the IPO, the SPAC will issue shares for subscription by investors. It may at the same time offer SPAC warrants as a form of “sweetener” in the IPO. The SPAC may introduce new investors in the acquisition. Upon completion of the acquisition or merger, the SPAC and the target will then be combined, resulting in the listing of a “ Successor Company ” – this is referred to as a " De-SPAC transaction ". If the SPAC does not complete a De-SPAC transaction within the specified time frame, it has to seek approval from its shareholders for an extension of the life of the SPAC, or be liquidated and the funds raised in the IPO will be returned to the SPAC investors.

Hong Kong’s SPAC regime set out in Chapter 18B of the Main Board Listing Rules ^[3]

Corporate governance

SPAC promoters: SPAC promoters must meet the Stock Exchange’s suitability and eligibility requirements. Each SPAC must have at least one promoter being a firm that holds a Type 6 (advising on corporate finance) and/or a Type 9 (asset management) license issued by the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”). They may subscribe for shares in the SPAC (“Promoter Shares”) and warrants (“Promoter Warrants”) but at least one such licensed promoter must hold at least 10% of the Promoter Shares.
SPAC directors: The SPAC board must include at least two individuals licensed by the SFC to carry out Type 6 and/or Type 9 regulated activities (one of whom must be a licensed person of a SPAC promoter). Any director nominated by a SPAC promoter to the SPAC board must be an officer of the SPAC promoter.

Listing and post-IPO obligations

Investors’ suitability: Professional investors may subscribe for SPAC shares and warrants. At the time of listing, SPAC shares and warrants must be distributed to a minimum of 75 professional investors of which at least 20 must be institutional professional investors and such institutional professional investors must hold at least 75% of the securities to be listed.
Trading of SPAC shares and warrants: Post-IPO trading of SPAC securities are limited to professional investors only. SPAC shares and warrants can be traded separately.
Fund raising size: Funds expected to be raised by a SPAC from its IPO must be at least HK$1 billion.
Escrow arrangement: A SPAC must hold 100% of its IPO proceeds (excluding proceeds raised from the issue of Promoter Shares and Promoter Warrants) in a ring-fenced escrow account in Hong Kong operated by a trustee or custodian. The monies must be held in the form of cash or cash equivalents.
Board lot size: The board lot size and subscription size must be of at least HK$1,000,000 for the SPAC shares.
SPAC warrants: The exercise price of the SPAC warrants must be at least 15% above the issue price of the SPAC shares. The exercise period must commence after the completion of a De-SPAC transaction, and must expire not less than one year and not more than five years from the date of the completion of a De-SPAC transaction. It will only result in the issuance of shares in the Successor Company upon exercise. The number of shares to be issued upon exercise of all outstanding warrants must not exceed 50% of the total number of shares in issue.
Promoter Shares and Promoter Warrants: Shares and warrants issued by a SPAC to any of its promoters will not have listing status. If the SPAC issues Promoter Shares and/or Promoter Warrants, the promoter must remain as the beneficial owner of such shares or warrants at the listing of the SPAC and for the lifetime of such securities. A SPAC must not issue any Promoter Shares to promoters that represent more than 20% of the total number of shares in issue as at the date of its listing. Promoter Warrants must not be issued at a price that is less than 10% of the issue price of SPAC shares at IPO and must not be exercisable during the period ending 12 months from the completion of a De-SPAC transaction.
Dealing prohibitions: SPAC promoters and their directors and employees, SPAC directors and employees, as well as their close associates are prohibited from dealing in any of the SPAC’s listed securities prior to the completion of a De-SPAC transaction.

Material change in promoters or directors

Approval by SPAC shareholders and the Stock Exchange: If there is a material change in (1) any SPAC promoter who controls 50% or more of the Promoter Shares, (2) any SPAC promoter which holds a Type 6 or Type 9 license issued by the SFC, (3) the eligibility and/or suitability of a SPAC promoter, or (4) a SPAC director licensed by the SFC to carry out Type 6 and/or Type 9 regulated activities, then the “continuation” of the SPAC following such a material change must be approved by (a) a special resolution of the SPAC shareholders at a general meeting within one month from the change and (b) the Stock Exchange.
Redemption opportunity: Prior to the vote on the continuation of the SPAC following a material change, the SPAC shareholders (other than holders of Promoter Shares) must be given the opportunity to elect to redeem their shares.

De-SPAC transaction

Listing application by the Successor Company: The target must meet all new listing requirements (including IPO sponsor appointment, due diligence requirements, financial eligibility tests and minimum market capitalisation requirements). The terms of a De-SPAC transaction must include a condition that the transaction will not complete unless listing approval of the Successor Company’s shares is granted by the Stock Exchange. At least one sponsor must be appointed to assist the listing application of the Successor Company.
Use of the SPAC IPO proceeds: The De-SPAC target must have a “fair market value” representing at least 80% of the funds raised by the SPAC from the IPO prior to any share redemption. According to the Stock Exchange Guidance on SPAC issued in January 2022 ^[4] (“SPAC Guidance”), when assessing the SPAC board’s opinion on the satisfaction of the “fair market value” requirement, the Stock Exchange will adopt a holistic approach and take into account factors such as (a) the basis of the opinion, (b) the negotiated value of the De-SPAC target as agreed by parties, (c) the sponsor’s opinion; (d) the independent third party investment amount and (e) the valuation of comparable companies.
Independent third-party investment: The SPAC must obtain funds from independent investors (restricted to professional investors only) in the De-SPAC transaction. The minimum percentage of independent investments required is 25% for a target with negotiated value of less than HK$2 billion, 15% if the value is HK$2 billion or more but less than HK$5 billion, 10% if the value is of HK$5 billion or more but less than HK$7 billion, and 7.5% if the value is of HK$7 billion or more.
Qualification of independent third-party investors: Independent third-party investment must include significant investment from sophisticated investors. According to the SPAC Guidance, the Stock Exchange expects at least 50% of the value of the independent third-party investment be contributed by no fewer than three investors who each is (a) an asset management firm with assets under management of at least HK$8 billion or (b) a fund with a fund size of at least HK$8 billion.
Announcement and listing document: The announcement and the listing document to be made by the SPAC for a De-SPAC transaction must be pre-vetted by the Stock Exchange. Both documents must be published and despatched to the SPAC shareholders by the time the SPAC gives notice of the general meeting to approve the De-SPAC transaction.
Shareholders’ approval: A De-SPAC transaction must be approved by SPAC shareholders at a general meeting (shareholders with a material interest and the SPAC promoters must abstain from voting). Written shareholders’ approval will not be accepted in lieu of holding a general meeting. The terms of any third-party investment to complete the transaction must be subject to shareholders’ vote at the same general meeting.
Deadlines: A SPAC must publish a De-SPAC transaction announcement within 24 months of its listing. It must complete a De-SPAC transaction within 36 months of its listing. It may submit a request to the Stock Exchange for an extension of any of the deadlines if it has received shareholders’ approval of the extension. The Stock Exchange retains the discretion to approve or reject an extension request, but any extension will be for a period of only up to 6 months.

Redemption

Redemption circumstances: SPAC shareholders must be given the option to redeem their shares prior to a general meeting to approve (a) the continuation of the SPAC following a material change referred to above, (2) a De-SPAC transaction or (3) the extension of any of the deadlines mentioned above.

Liquidation and delisting

Return of funds to shareholders: If a SPAC fails to obtain shareholders’ approval for the continuation of the SPAC following a material change referred to above or fails to meet any of the deadlines as mentioned above, it must be liquidated and return all of the funds kept in the escrow arrangement to its shareholders. The Stock Exchange will then delist the SPAC.

Application of Hong Kong Codes on Takeovers and Mergers and Share Buy-backs ^[5]

Application to the SPAC prior to a De-SPAC transaction: The Hong Kong Codes on Takeovers and Mergers and Share Buy-backs (“ Takeovers Code ”) will apply to a SPAC. Where a person acquires SPAC shares such that it and its concert parties hold 30% or more of the voting rights of a SPAC, then it will have the obligation to make a general offer to holders of the other SPAC securities.
Waiver of application to a De-SPAC transaction: The SFC may waive the application of mandatory general offer obligation under the Takeovers Code in relation to a De-SPAC transaction, i.e. even if an owner of the De-SPAC target obtains 30% or more of the voting rights in the Successor Company after completion of the De-SPAC transaction, its obligation to make a general offer will be waived. When considering the waiver application, the SFC may consider factors such as (a) the De-SPAC target owner’s shareholding in the SPAC and its dealings in SPAC securities and (b) any relationship between the owner of the target and the SPAC promoters, and parties acting in concert with any of them.

SPAC promoters

SPAC investors rely on the SPAC promoters’ ability to identify suitable De-SPAC targets and negotiate terms for the De-SPAC transactions that will provide them with attractive returns on their investments. In order to avoid SPAC promoters signing up for De-SPAC transactions with sub-standard targets, the Stock Exchange will consider only experienced and reputable promoters to be suitable. The SPAC Guidance sets out expectations on a promoter’s track record in SPACs, fund raising and investment management, as well as relevant criteria such as details of its licenses, potential competition with the SPAC, and history of compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Although such high entry point will help safeguard the investors’ interests, it limits the pool of institutions and persons to be eligible as SPAC promoters.

Redemption rights vs additional third-party investments

Another protection afforded to SPAC shareholders is their rights to redeem shares in the SPAC. However, the Joint Study referred to by the Stock Exchange ^[6] found that the average and median redemption rates among its 2019-20 study cohort were as high as 58% and 73%, respectively. A quarter of the cohort saw redemption rates of over 95%. An average of 92% of institutional investors in SPACs divested their SPAC shareholdings prior to the closure of De-SPAC transactions, either through redemption or selling their SPAC shares in the secondary market.

Where redemptions reduce the cash amount for completing De-SPAC transactions, many SPACs mitigate this concern by seeking third party investments that are contingent upon the closing of the De-SPAC transactions. The Joint Study found, for a third of the SPACs in its study cohort, the majority of overall funds raised by a SPAC were not from the SPAC IPO proceeds, but from additional third-party investments.

While the redemption right provides an exit to the SPAC shareholders, it also creates uncertainty to the SPAC resources for closing De-SPAC transactions which ironically is the primary objective of the SPAC.

Vetting of the listing application of the Successor Company

During the public discussions on SPACs before the Stock Exchange issued its consultation paper in September 2021, one controversy was, apart from the SPAC shareholders’ approval of the De-SPAC transaction, whether the Successor Company’s listing application should be subject to the current new listing requirements, and if not, whether SPACs might open a leeway for listing of De-SPAC targets which would not otherwise satisfy the new listing requirements.

The Stock Exchange proposed to consider a De-SPAC transaction in the same way as a reverse takeover (i.e. a deemed new listing) and require the Successor Company to meet all new listing requirements. Although such proposal received opposition from 33% of the respondents, the Stock Exchange stressed that the intention of introducing the SPAC regime is not to replace the traditional IPO route.

Therefore, the Stock Exchange adopted its proposal. All new listing requirements apply to the listing application of a Successor Company which include IPO sponsors who are to ensure the quality of assets and businesses listed via De-SPAC transactions by ensuring due diligence on the targets. In respect of the management continuity and ownership continuity requirements, the Stock Exchange may grant waivers on a case-by-case basis.

On top of the new listing requirements, the completion of a De-SPAC transaction also depends on the negotiation with the target owner, the availability of independent third-party investments and the Stock Exchange’s vetting of the listing application including the valuation of the target (which is unlikely to be faster than the vetting of a traditional listing application).

It seems that a SPAC structure does not put the De-SPAC target in a position that makes it easier to list the target’s business in Hong Kong.

Market misconduct risks

A SPAC does not have any business operations. The market value of its securities depends very much on whether it is able to seek suitable De-SPAC targets and complete a De-SPAC transaction. This means that someone possessing inside information regarding such a transaction prior to its announcement might make a substantial gain from insider dealing in the SPAC securities before the transaction is announced. Consequently, the probability of insider dealing occurring in a listed SPAC tends to be higher than for an ordinary listed company.

A SPAC’s share and warrant prices are likely to be very sensitive to rumours on potential De-SPAC transactions. It may make SPAC securities more susceptible to market manipulation attempted by fraudsters who deliberately spread rumours (e.g. via social media platforms) of a forthcoming De-SPAC transaction to raise the prices of SPAC shares and/or warrants to levels at which it is advantageous for them to sell.

Regulators will need to step up their oversight on dealings in SPAC securities in order to address the risks of market misconduct.

Overall implications of the Hong Kong SPAC regime

The launch of the SPAC regime offers more investment alternatives and thus strengthens Hong Kong’s position as a leading international financial centre, but the stringent requirements are not likely to attract a large number of SPAC IPOs in the short run.

Footnotes:

https://www.hkex.com.hk/-/media/HKEX-Market/News/Market-Consultations/2016-Present/September-2021-Special-Purpose-Acquisition-Co/Conclusions-(Dec-2021)/cp202109cc.pdf?la=en
https://www.hkex.com.hk/-/media/HKEX-Market/News/Market-Consultations/2016-Present/September-2021-Special-Purpose-Acquisition-Co/Consultation-Paper/cp202109.pdf?la=en
https://en-rules.hkex.com.hk/sites/default/files/net_file_store/HKEX4476_5770_VER18989.pdf
https://en-rules.hkex.com.hk/sites/default/files/net_file_store/gl113-22.pdf
Please see paragraphs 397 to 422 of the Stock Exchange’s conclusions referred to in footnote 1 above.
“A Sober Look at SPACs”, a joint study by Michael Klausner (Nancy and Charles Munger Professor of Business and Professor of Law at Stanford Law School), Michael Ohlrogge (Assistant Professor of New York University School of Law) and Emily Ruan (Research Associate of Stanford Law School), 28 October 2020.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

运营香港慈善团体的常见问题

Thu, 04 Mar 2021 05:28:59 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

运营香港慈善团体的常见问题

香港的慈善团体的监管和注册

到目前为止，香港尚没有正式的慈善团体注册制度，也没有专门的政府机构来监管慈善团体的成立和运作。税务局保存的免税慈善团体名单并不是香港所有慈善团体的完整名单（原因将在下文讨论）。

随着为慈善或类似目的向公众募集资金的组织数量的增加，香港法律改革委员会通过其慈善组织小组委员会于2011年6月发布了一份咨询文件，建议为慈善组织建立一个广泛的监管制度，并为慈善组织建立一个监管机构；然而，该咨询受到了利益相关者的严重关切和两极化的意见。法律改革委员会于2013年12月出具的报告中指出，当时由于公众在这个问题上缺乏普遍共识，不宜设立慈善委员会。不过，委员会还是提出了建设性的建议，以提高慈善团体的透明度和建立问责制，从而为公众提供更好的保障。此后，尽管香港的慈善事业自2011年以来进一步发展，但与慈善团体监管有关的问题并没有提升到立法层面。

这与英格兰和威尔士慈善委员会明显不同，该委员会是英国慈善团体的监管机构，并负责维护慈善团体的登记，其身份是一个独立的、非部委的政府部门，但向国会负责。

香港税务局的角色

根据《税务条例》（香港法例第112章）（“《税务条例》”）第88条，任何具有公共性质的慈善团体或信托基金均可获豁免缴税。在某些情况下，对这些慈善团体的捐款也可以免税。香港税务局不时发布和更新《属公共性质的慈善团体及信托团体的税务指南》（“《指南》”），其中包括该等免税规定。

值得注意的是，《指南》中明确和直接地提出以下几个重要的观点：

税务局不负责慈善团体的注册，也没有监督其行为的法定权力。
《税务条例》第88条并没有为规范和监督慈善团体的运作或治理提供一个立法框架。
税务局的工作严格来说并不包括提供有关设立或经营慈善团体的建议。
根据《税务条例》第88条获豁免缴税的慈善团体名单并不构成正式的慈善团体登记册，其功能仅是让公众知道，根据《税务条例》，向某机构作出的捐款会否被认定为认可慈善捐款。该名单不包括(a)没有根据第88条寻求豁免缴税的慈善团体，例如：不需要免税地位的慈善团体，因为它们不需要向公众筹集捐款，以及(b)不同意税务局公布其名称的慈善团体。

慈善的含义

在香港，“慈善团体”或“慈善目的”并没有法定定义。即使《指南》或香港其他法例解释了什么是慈善团体，但这些解释有两个问题：

(i) 该等解释往往局限于其提供的特定的例子及

(ii) 解释仅仅描述了特定的例子和模糊的原则，因此不够明确或清晰。

例如，《指南》告诉了公众税务局如何识别慈善团体，但这种识别只限于豁免缴税。因此，《指南》并没有为日常生活中其他用途的慈善团体赋予普遍的定义。事实上，香港并没有官方的慈善团体登记册供公众（包括企业和家庭办公室）在为履行社会责任而进行捐赠或捐款时参考。但香港公众通常把税务局保存的豁免缴税慈善团体名单作为香港慈善团体的名，但如上所述，这并不完全正确。

鉴于公众对这种豁免缴税慈善团体名单的严重依赖，本文现介绍税务局如何识别慈善团体。《指南》指出，由于缺乏慈善团体的法定定义，税务局因此要参考案例法。税务局认为，要成为法律上的慈善团体，机构或信托必须是“纯粹为慈善目的”而设立。

指南中提到的“慈善目的 ”的定义是基于Lord Macnaghten在1891年对慈善目的的四个主要部分的陈述，该陈述本身是基于英国1601年《慈善用途法》的序言。这四个部分是：

(a) 救济贫困；

(b) 促进教育；

(d) 不属于前述任何一项的其他有益于社会的慈善性质的目的。

很明显，尽管《指南》中给出了一些被法院认定为慈善目的的例子以及不属于慈善目的的情况，但 (d)项对什么是“有益于社会”的表述并不明确。

此外，《指南》还强调，志愿或非营利组织不一定是慈善团体。例如，如果一个组织以宣传某些政治观点为目标，即使它是非营利性的，也不是慈善组织。

香港还有其他一些关于“慈善”或“慈善目的”的立法定义，但这些定义也仅是针对特定用途的，而且含糊不清。其中一项定义是在《注册受托人法团条例》（香港法例第306章）中，其对“慈善目的”进行了定义，明确了几个目的，并给出了一个开放式的定义，即“任何其他有利于社会的目的”。但这样的定义也只限于该条例，而不具备普遍确定的意义。

豁免缴税的慈善团体的章程

《指南》阐述了税务局在考虑慈善团体根据《税务条例》第88条提出的豁免缴税申请时，对其规管文书（例如：章程）的期望。规管文书应包括以下条款：

准确和清楚地说明慈善团体成立的宗旨；
限制其资金用于实现其表述宗旨；
禁止在其成员之间分摊其收入和财产；
禁止其管治组织成员（例如董事、执行委员会成员、受托人等）收取薪酬；
规定其管治组织成员（例如董事、执行委员会成员、受托人等）披露重大利益及不可对其具有利益关系所涉及的交易、安排或合约行使投票权；
规定在其解散时如何处理余下资产（例如，余下的资产通常应捐赠予其他慈善团体）；及
规定备存足够的收支纪录（包括捐款收据）、妥善的会计帐目及每年编制财务报表的条款。

一家慈善团体可能打算向提供真正实质性服务的董事支付合理报酬，特别是当该董事熟悉慈善团体的宗旨和运作，因此是提供此类服务的合适人选。有时，如果工作量很大，慈善团体不容易找到候选人以自愿或纯无偿的方式在其理事机构任职。在这种情况下，慈善团体要偏离上文(4)段所述的要求，但根据《指南》，慈善团体必须向税务局证明：

管治组织的受薪成员持有特别的资历，就管治组织的受薪成员所持有特别的资历来说，该慈善团体不仅无法从其他途径物色到具备相同资历的人选，而且这将使其更有效地进行管理；
管治组织会议讨论受薪成员有关其任命、服务条件和薪酬时该受薪成员必须避席及不能就有关事宜行使投票权；及
管治组织受薪成员的人数必须少于其会议法定人数的大多数。

香港慈善团体的税务豁免活动

根据《税务条例》第88条，受香港法院管辖的慈善团体，即(i)在香港设立的慈善团体和(ii)海外慈善团体在香港的机构，可以获得免税。

《税务条例》第88条包含两个部分：开头段和但书段。

开头段规定，具有公共性质的慈善团体或信托机构应予豁免，并应被视为始终免于缴税。

但书涉及到该机构或信托机构从事贸易或业务的情况。只有在满足以下三个条件的情况下，从这种贸易或业务中获得的利润才可免于缴税：

所得利润是纯粹作慈善用途，及
所得利润大部分不是在香港以外地方使用，及
(i) 该贸易或业务是在实际贯彻该慈善团体明文规定的宗旨时经营的；或 (ii) 与该贸易或业务有关的工作主要是由某些人士进行，而该慈善团体正是为该等人士的利益而设立的。

《指南》详细说明了什么是“贸易”或 “业务”，以及如何满足上文(3)段所述的条件。尽管如此，并非所有慈善团体的活动都构成贸易或业务。例如，如果一个慈善团体向公众筹集捐款，并将该等款项（无论是否在香港）用于其慈善目的，那么它就不是在进行贸易或业务，而且这些捐款也不限制主要在香港使用。事实上，许多国际慈善团体在香港的机构所筹集的捐款并不在香港使用或支出，例如，相当多的慈善团体规定，香港的捐款将用于缓解贫困或在不发达国家提供医疗服务。

此外，《指南》还列出了一些特殊活动的影响，如对慈善团体提供的服务或设施收费、进行投资、提供贷款和财产出租。由于读者可以参考《指南》有关内容，本文将不详细讨论这些影响。但本文作者想提醒的是，慈善团体的管理机构必须首先仔细检查慈善团体的章程或规管文书是否明确允许此类活动，以避免任何越权行为。例如，董事不应假定慈善团体的章程总是允许慈善团体将其资金借给他人，将其闲置现金用于投资，或将其财产出租。《指南》规定了豁免缴税继续适用于这些活动的情况，但并没有授权慈善团体开展这些活动。

了解你的捐赠者

犯罪分子利用慈善团体来绕过有关国家安全、打击恐怖活动和打击洗钱活动的法律，或实施欺诈行为的情况并不罕见。

假如一个诈骗分子向一个慈善团体捐款100万港币，条件是40%的款项要用于一个据称有类似慈善目的的海外组织，这意味着该慈善团体可以按常规方式使用剩余的60万港元，这听起来是个很有吸引力的建议。但事实上，这100万港元来自一张被盗的信用卡，因此该慈善团体随后被要求归还全部100万港元，甚至可能因洗钱而受到调查。更糟糕的是，该慈善团体被骗走了汇给指定海外机构的40万港币，而这实际上是诈骗分子的一个圈套。

慈善团体应进行适当了解你的捐赠者流程，特别是涉及大额捐赠的方面，例如：

捐赠者的名称和业务或职业
捐赠者的背景以及（如果捐赠者是一个组织）其股东和董事的背景
捐赠者是否为当地个人或实体，或捐赠者来自高风险国家或在高风险国家经营
捐赠者的业务是否与慈善团体的使命、价值观或宗旨相一致
捐赠者是否是政治人物或有政治背景的人
捐赠的资金来源
识别大额匿名捐款的捐赠者之机制，以及慈善团体是否应设定其可接受的匿名捐款的最高金额
捐赠者此前是否向该慈善团体捐赠过，或与该慈善团体建立过任何其他关系
捐赠给该慈善团体的目的
捐赠者是否定期向其他慈善团体捐款
捐赠是一次性的还是分阶段进行的
进行捐赠的方式，例如通过银行转账、支票、信用卡、现金或加密货币等
是否会从香港以外的地方进行捐赠
如果捐款款项不是由捐款人支付，原因是什么
捐赠是否带有任何条件
捐赠者是否要求慈善团体将全部或部分捐赠用于任何特定的人、实体或组织（本地或海外）
是否有可能由慈善团体向捐赠者支付资金，例如，如果捐赠条件未得到满足时需退还捐赠，或偿还捐赠者提供的贷款

慈善团体也可以参考香港政府发布的资料，包括廉政公署发布的《防贪锦囊–慈善团体及筹款活动管理》，社会福利署、民政事务总署及食物环境卫生署发布的《慈善筹款良好实务指引》以及保安局禁毒处发布的《防止慈善团体被利用作恐怖分子资金筹集指引》。

结论

为了保护自身和发起人的声誉并保持良好的治理，香港的慈善团体必须注意有关陷阱。第一步是如果慈善团体于香港申请免税地位，则需要确保其章程起草得当，明确说明慈善目的，并符合税务局的要求。在成立之后，慈善团体还必须根据章程的规定处理其事务，并采取合理的了解捐款人的措施。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Common issues in operating a Hong Kong charity

Thu, 04 Mar 2021 05:10:19 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Common issues in operating a Hong Kong charity

Regulation and registration of charities in Hong Kong

So far, Hong Kong has no formal registration system for charities and also no specific government authority regulating the establishment and operation of charities. The list of charities exempted from tax maintained by the Inland Revenue Department is not a conclusive list of all the charities in Hong Kong (the reason is discussed below).

As the number of organizations collecting monies from the public for philanthropic or similar purposes grew, the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong via its Charities Sub-committee published a consultation paper in June 2011, proposing a wide ranging regulatory regime for charities and the establishment of a regulatory body for charities. However, the consultation met with stakeholders’ heavy concerns and polarized views. The Law Reform Commission reported in December 2013 that it would be prudent not to recommend the setting up of a charity commission at that time due to the lack of general consensus among the public on this issue. Still, the Commission provided constructive recommendations which would improve the transparency and accountability of charities and thus provide better safeguards to the public. Since then, the issues relating to charities regulation were not escalated to legislative moves although philanthropy in Hong Kong grew further since 2011.

This is markedly different from the Charity Commission for England and Wales which is the regulator of charities in England and Wales and maintains the charity register, in its identify as an independent, non-ministerial government department accountable to the Parliament.

Role of the Inland Revenue Department of Hong Kong

Any charitable institution or trust of a public character is exempt from tax under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“IRO”). Donations to such charities can be tax deductible under certain conditions. The Inland Revenue Department of Hong Kong issues and updates from time to time the “Tax Guide for Charitable Institutions and Trusts of a Public Character” (“Guide”) which includes such tax exemptions.

It is important to note that the Department makes the following salient points very clear and direct in the Guide:

The Inland Revenue Department is not responsible for the registration of charities, and does not have the statutory powers in the monitoring of their conducts.
Section 88 of the IRO does not provide a legislative framework for regulating and monitoring charities’ operations or governance.
The Inland Revenue Department’s work strictly does not include the giving of advice regarding the setting up or running of charities.
The list of charities that are exempt from tax under section 88 of the IRO does not constitute a formal register of charities, and its function to let the public know whether donations to an organization will be accepted as approved charitable donations under the IRO. Such list does not include (a) charities which do not seek tax exemption under section 88, e.g. charities which do not require the tax exemption status as they do not need to raise donations from the public and (b) charities which do not give consent to the Inland Revenue Department for publishing their names;

Meaning of charity

There is no general statutory definition of “charity” or “charitable purpose” in Hong Kong. Even though the Guide or other pieces of legislation in Hong Kong explain what amounts to a charity, such explanations carry two problems –

they are confined to specific purposes; and
they are less than definite or clear as they give particular examples and an open-ended sub-section setting out merely descriptions of general and vague principles.

For instance, the Guide tells the public how the Inland Revenue Department identifies what amounts to a charity, but such identification is limited to tax exemptions. Thus, it is not giving a generalized meaning to a charity for other purposes that are used in everyday lives. Indeed, there is no official register of Hong Kong charities for the public (including corporations and family offices) to refer to when they make donations or contributions for fulfilling social responsibilities. But the Hong Kong public commonly use the list of tax exempted charities maintained by the Inland Revenue Depart as a list of Hong Kong charities – which is, as explained above, not entirely true.

Given the heavy reliance of the public on such list of tax exempted charities, it is time to understand how the Inland Revenue Department identifies charities. The Guide points out that, due to the lack of a statutory meaning of a charity, the Inland Revenue Department therefore is to look to the case law. The Department considers that, to be a charity at law, the institution or trust must be established "for purposes which are exclusively charitable".

The Guide refers to the definition of "charitable purpose" is based on Lord Macnaghten's 1891 statement of the four principal divisions of charitable purposes which was itself based on the preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601 in England. The four divisions are:

(a) the relief or poverty,

(b) the advancement of education,

(d) other purposes of a charitable nature beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads.

It is obvious that head (d) is far from clear of what counts for “beneficial to the community”, although the Guide gives some examples of purposes held by the courts to be charitable purposes as well as situations held not to be charitable purposes.

Also, the Guide stresses that a voluntary or non-profit-making organization is not necessarily a charity. For instance, if an organization carries the objective of promoting certain political views, it is not a charity even if it is non-profit-making.

There are other legislative definitions of “charity” or “charitable purpose”, but such definitions are again for specific uses and ambiguous. One effort made is in the Registered Trustees Incorporation Ordinance (Cap. 306 of the Laws of Hong Kong) which defines the term "charitable purpose" by specifying several purposes and giving an open-ended one as “any other purpose beneficial to the community”. Such definition is limited to such ordinance and is less than a certain meaning.

Constitution of a tax exempted charity

The Guide sets out the expectations of the Inland Revenue Department on the governing instrument of a charity in considering the charity’s application for tax exemption under section 88 of the IRO. The governing instrument should include clauses:

stating precisely and clearly the objects for which the charity is established;
limiting the application of the charity’s funds towards the attainment of its stated objects;
prohibiting distribution of its incomes and properties amongst its members;
prohibiting members of its governing body (e.g. directors, members of the executive committee, trustees) from receiving remuneration;
requiring members of its governing body (e.g. directors, members of the executive committee, trustees) to disclose material interest and not to vote in respect of a transaction, arrangement or contract in which they are so interested;
specifying how the assets should be dealt with upon its dissolution (e.g. the remaining assets should normally be donated to other charities); and
requiring the keeping of sufficient records of income and expenditure (including donation receipts), proper accounting books.

A charity may intend to pay reasonable remuneration to a director for genuine and substantial services, especially when the director is familiar with the charity’s objects and operation and is thus a suitable person to provide such services. Sometimes, it is not easy for a charity to source candidates to serve on its governing body on a voluntary or purely unremunerated basis if the workload is heavy. Under such circumstances, the charity is to deviate from the requirement mentioned in paragraph (4) above but has to, according to the Guide, demonstrate to the Inland Revenue Department that:

the remunerated members of governing body have special qualifications which are not otherwise available to the charity and which would make for its more effective administration;
the remunerated members of governing body are absent from meetings and discussions concerning their own appointment, conditions of services and remuneration and must not vote thereon; and
the number of such remunerated members must be less than majority of quorum of meetings of the governing body.

Tax exempted activities of a Hong Kong charity

Tax exemption under section 88 of the IRO is available to charities subject to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts, i.e. (i) the charities that are established in Hong Kong and (ii) the Hong Kong establishments of overseas charities.

There are two parts to section 88 of the IRO – the opening paragraph and a proviso.

The opening paragraph stipulates that a charitable institution or trust of a public character shall be exempt and shall be deemed always to have been exempt from tax.

The proviso relates to the situation where such institution or trust carries on a trade or business. The profits derived from such trade or business shall be exempt from tax only if all the three following conditions are fulfilled:

the profits are applied solely for charitable purposes;
the profits are not expended substantially outside Hong Kong; and
either (i) the trade or business is exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of the expressed objects of such institution or trust; or (ii) the work in connection with the trade or business is mainly carried on by persons for whose benefit such institution or trust is established.

The Guide elaborates on what constitutes a “trade” or “business” and how the conditions referred to in paragraph (3) above can be fulfilled. Nonetheless, not all activities of a charity constitute a trade or business. For instance, if a charity raises donations from the public and applies the money (whether or not in Hong Kong) for its philanthropic purposes, it is not carrying on a trade or business and the donations should not be restricted to be expended substantially in Hong Kong. In fact, donations raised by the Hong Kong establishments of many international charities are not to be used or expended in Hong Kong, e.g. quite some charities specify that the Hong Kong donations are to be used to relieve poverty or provide medical services in underdeveloped countries.

Additionally, the Guide sets out the implications of particular activities such as charging for services or facilities the charity offers, making investments, extending loans and property letting. This article will not discuss such implications in detail as readers may refer to the Guide. But the author would like to remind that the governing body of a charity must first double-check that the charity’s constitution or governing instrument specifically allows such activities - in order to avoid taking any action which is ultra vires. For example, a director should not assume that the constitution of the charity will always allow the charity to lend its money to someone else, apply its spare cash in investments, or lease out its property. The Guide provides the circumstances where tax exemption continues to apply to such activities, but does not empower the charity for undertaking the activities.

Know your donor

It is not uncommon for criminals to take advantage of charities in order to bypass laws on national security, anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering, or to commit frauds.

For example, a fraudster makes a donation of HK$1 million to a charity on the condition that 40% of the money be applied to an overseas organization which is alleged to have similar charitable purposes. That means the charity can apply the remaining HK$600,000 in the usual manner which sounds like an attractive proposal. But in fact the HK$1 million comes from a stolen credit card and therefore the charity is subsequently required to return the entire HK$1 million and may even be subject to investigation for money laundering. To make it worse, the charity has been defrauded of the HK$400,000 remitted to the designated overseas organization which is actually a set-up made by the fraudster.

A charity should conduct appropriate know-your-donor procedures especially regarding sizeable donations on aspects such as:

the name and business or profession of the donor
the background of the donor and (where the donor is an organization) its shareholders and directors
whether the donor is a local individual or entity, or the donor is from or operates in a high-risk country
whether the donor’s business is in line with the charity’s mission, values or purposes
whether the donor is a politically exposed person or a political figure
fund source of the donation
identification of the donor for any large amount of anonymous donation, and whether the charity should set a maximum amount of anonymous donation it may accept
whether the donor has made prior donations to the charity or has established any other relationship with the charity
the purpose of making such donation to the charity
whether the donor makes donations regularly to other charities
whether the donation will be made in one-go or by stages
how the donation will be made, e.g. by bank transfer, cheque, credit card, cash or cryptocurrency
will the donation be made from outside Hong Kong
if the donation is not paid by the donor, the reason
is there any condition to the donation
whether the donor requires the charity to apply the whole or part of the donation to any particular person, entity or organization (locally or overseas)
is there any possibility that money will be paid by the charity to the donor, e.g. refund of the donation if the donation conditions are not fulfilled, the repayment of loan extended by the donor

A charity may also refer to materials published by the Hong Kong Government, including the “Best Practice Checklist – Management of Charities and Fund-raising Activities” issued by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the “Good Practice Guide on Charitable Fund-raising” issued by the Social Welfare Department, the Home Affairs Department and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, and the “An Advisory Guideline on Preventing the Misuse of Charities for Terrorist Financing” issued by the Narcotics Division of the Security Bureau.

Conclusions

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港《公司收购及合并守则》下的强制性及自愿性收购要约

Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:42:43 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港《公司收购及合并守则》下的强制性及自愿性收购要约

或者，投资者可以通过向其他股东提出全面或部分自愿要约来一次性获得公众公司的控制权。

强制要约

一般而言，投资者（要约人）及其一致行动人士在下列情况下，必须根据《守则》第26条向公众公司的所有其他股东发出强制要约：

通过单笔或一系列交易取得公司30%或以上投票权；或
持有一间公司不少于30%但不多于50%投票权，又取得额外的投票权，并因此其投票权比之前12个月的最低持股量增加了2%以上。

当引起强制要约义务时，要约人应将其要约扩大至各类别股本的所有持有人（不论该相关类别是否具有投票权），以及公司的各类别有投票权的非股权股本。因此，股票期权、可转换债券和认股权证的持有人也可以享受要约和退出公司的机会。

要约人向接纳该项要约的股东支付的代价必须以现金或现金替代方式进行，并不少于要约人或其一致行动人士就要约期间以及要约期开始前六个月内具有投票权的股份所支付的最高价。

强制要约必须仅以要约人获得股东的接纳为条件，而且此类要约股份以及要约人已经取得的股份将占公司投票权的50%以上。除了这个接纳条件之外，不得附加其他条件限制（例如，关乎要约的接纳必须达到某个最低或最高水平的条件）。

这意味着，如果要约人在要约结束后，最终拥有超过50％的投票权，则必须接受要约的所有接纳。在接纳程度很高的极端情况下，公众持有的股份数量可能少于25%（或适用于公众公司的较低公众持股量水平）。之后，要约人如果打算保持公司的上市地位，就必须出售一些股份以维持公众的持股量。

虽然强制要约义务主要是在投资者从控股股东或公开市场购得上市公司30%以上的股份时触发，但这种义务也可能由其他事件引起，例如：

投资者将30 %或以上的股份转让给一致行动人士；
公司向投资者发行新股以换取现金，从而使投资者持股比例达到30％或以上；
公司向一间企业发行30 %或以上的新股，作为从该企业购买业务的对价；
公司回购股票，间接增加持股比例至30 %或更高；以及
公司通过配股发行新股，从而使股东在公司中的权益增加到30％以上。

在上述某些情况下，如果满足特定条件，证监会可豁免《守则》所规定的强制要约规定的适用。

自愿要约

全面自愿要约是由要约人发起的要约，以购买所有其他股东的股份（即该等股份的投票权）。

与全面强制要约不同，自愿要约：

可以附带接纳要约水平超过50%的条件；并且/或者
可以在其他条件下提出，但条件不可取决于要约人或上市公司的判断。

如果要约人打算提出自愿要约以取得其他股东所持的部分投票权，则该部分要约须经证监会事先同意。

自愿要约的对价可能是现金（即”现金要约”）、证券（即”证券交易要约”）或现金和证券的组合。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Mandatory, voluntary offers under Hong Kong takeover and mergers code

Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:29:31 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Mandatory, voluntary offers under Hong Kong takeover and mergers code

Alternatively, the investor may acquire the controlling interest in a public company in one go, by putting forward a voluntary general or partial offer to the other shareholders.

Mandatory offers

In general, an investor (the offeror) must make a mandatory offer under rule 26 of the code to all other shareholders of the public company if it, together with persons acting in concert with it:

Has acquired 30% or more of the voting rights of the company, whether as a single or a series of transactions; or
While holding 30-50% of the voting rights, has acquired additional voting rights so that its holding of voting rights has increased by more than 2% from the lowest percentage holding of the previous 12 months.

When a mandatory offer obligation arises, the offeror shall extend its offer to all holders of each class of equity share capital (regardless of whether such relevant class carries voting rights or not), and each class of voting non-equity share capital of the company. Therefore, holders of share options, convertible bonds and warrants can also enjoy the offer, and the opportunity to exit from the company.

The consideration to be paid by the offeror to the accepting securities holders must be in cash, or accompanied by a cash alternative at not less than the highest price paid by the offeror, or person acting in concert with it, for shares carrying voting rights during the offer period, and within the six months prior to its commencement.

A mandatory offer must only be conditional upon the offeror having received acceptances from shareholders to the extent that such accepting shares, together with shares already acquired by the offeror, will be more than 50% of the voting rights of the company. Other than such acceptance condition, a mandatory offer must not be made subject to any other conditions (e.g., as to the maximum or minimum levels of acceptances required to be received).

That means if the offeror ends up holding more than 50% of the voting rights after the close of the offer, it has to take all acceptances of the offer. In the extreme case where the acceptance level is high, the amount of shares that remain to be held by the public may become less than 25% (or a lower public float level applicable to the public company). Then the offeror has to sell down some of the shares to maintain the public float level, if it intends to keep the listing status of the company.

Although the mandatory offer obligation is mostly triggered when the investor has acquired more than 30% of shares in a public company from a controlling shareholder or the open market, such obligation may also arise from other events such as:

The investor’s transfer of 30% or more of the shares to a concert party;
The company’s issue of new shares to an investor for cash, so that the investor’s shareholding will become 30% or more;
The company’s issue of 30% or more of new shares to an enterprise as payment of consideration for a purchase of business from such enterprise;
A repurchase of shares by the company, which indirectly increases the shareholding to 30% or more; and
The company’s issue of new shares by way of rights issue, whereby a shareholder’s interest in the company increases to above 30%.

In some of the above-mentioned scenarios, the SFC may waive the mandatory offer requirement under the code, if certain conditions are met.

Voluntary offers

A voluntary general offer is an offer initiated by the offeror to buy up the shares, and therefore voting rights, of all other shareholders. Distinct from a mandatory general offer, a voluntary general offer may be:

Made conditional on an acceptance level of more than 50%; and/or
Made subject to other conditions, provided that such conditions do not depend on the judgment by the offeror or the public company.

If the offeror intends to make a voluntary offer to acquire less than 100% of the voting rights held by the other shareholders, such partial offer is subject to the SFC’s prior consent.

The consideration for a voluntary offer may be cash (a cash offer), securities (a securities exchange offer), or a mix of cash and securities.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

在港交所上市之公司的私有化

Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:13:20 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

在港交所上市之公司的私有化

两种私有化方法均应遵守《香港收购及合并守则》（“《收购守则》”）、《香港联合交易所有限公司证券上市规则》以及上市公司注册所在的司法管辖区法律。

以自愿全面要约方式私有化

控股股东可以向所有其他股东提出全面要约，以购买其在上市公司中的股份。对于在香港注册成立的上市公司，一旦控股股东及其一致行动人获取合计占要约收购股份价值之90%的股份，则控股股东可以选择强制收购其他未接受要约的股东持有的剩余股份，随后上市公司将被退市。对于在海外注册成立的上市公司，私有化要约应根据相关司法管辖区的法律进行。

以协议安排方式私有化

私有化也可以通过一项协议安排来实现，这是一种法定的公司重组程序。作为要约人的控股股东将要求上市公司向其他股东（计划股东）提出协议安排。

《收购守则》要求，该计划必须由在股东大会上亲自投票或委派代表投票之无利害关系股份（即控股股东及其一致行动人持有的股份以外的股份）所附表决权的股东至少75%批准，而无论股东是否已在会议上投票，对该决议所投的反对票数不超过所有无利害关系股份所附表决权的10%。在某些司法管辖区（例如，开曼群岛和百慕达），还要求该计划必须由亲身出席和投票或委派代表出席和投票的计划股东大比数批准，即俗称的“数人头测试”。作为要约人的控股股东无权对该计划决议进行投票。该计划经计划股东批准后，仍须获得法院的批准。

一旦该计划获得股东和法院的批准，港交所将批准上市公司撤回上市的申请。

两种方式的比较

根据港交所网站上的公开信息，从2019年1月至2020年9月，于港交所上市的公司共宣布了33项私有化要约（不包括H股公司所发的要约），其中，在2019年宣布的11项私有化已经完成，有关公司被摘牌。截至2020年9月30日的9个月中宣布的22项要约，一项未经私有化而终止，七项已完成，一项正在等待撤回上市，而13项正在进行中。在33项私有化要约中，只有三项是通过自愿全面要约进行的，其余30项则是通过协议安排进行的。

两种私有化方法具有一个共同特点，即尽管作为要约人的控股股东已经持有上市公司的大量股份，成功与否仍取决于其他股东。

采用自愿全面要约方式的私有化，要求要约股份至少90%的股东接纳要约—— 这是一个很高的门槛。一些股东可能会发现该要约价格没有吸引力，而另一些股东根本就不注意该要约。这就是此种私有化方法吸引力较小的一个原因。

协议安排方式需要计划股东的绝对多数票通过，但未对股东大会限定最低投票数。因此，即使在会议上只有少量投票，但只要满足了绝对多数票通过的要求，该计划仍可能继续进行，因为如果该计划获得股东批准，法院就不大可能表示异议。

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

Privatisation of companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited

Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:02:14 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

Privatisation of companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited

A privatisation is proposed by an offeror (the controlling shareholder of a listed company in most cases) to acquire the shares held by the other shareholders and cancel the company’s listing status on the Stock Exchange. Privatisation is usually effected by either (i) a voluntary general offer or (ii) a scheme of arrangement. The consideration of privatisation offer may be cash or securities with or without a cash option.

Both privatisation methods are subject to the Hong Kong Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the “Takeovers Code”), the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, and the laws of jurisdiction in which the listed company is incorporated.

Privatisation by way of Voluntary General Offer

A controlling shareholder may make a general offer to all other shareholders to buy out their shares in the listed company. For listed companies incorporated in Hong Kong, once the controlling shareholder and its concert parties have obtained acceptances which in aggregate represent 90% in value of the shares for which the offer is made, the controlling shareholder may opt to compulsorily acquire the remaining shares held by the other shareholders who have not accepted the offer. The listed company will then be delisted. For listed companies incorporated overseas, the privatisation offer shall be conducted under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

Privatisation by way of Scheme of Arrangement

A privatisation may also be achieved by way of a scheme of arrangement which is a statutory corporate restructuring procedure. The controlling shareholder as offeror will request the listed company to put forward the scheme of arrangement to the other shareholders (scheme shareholders).

The Takeovers Code requires the scheme to be approved by at least 75% of the voting rights attached to the disinterested shares (i.e. shares other than those held by the controlling shareholder and its concert parties) that are cast in person or by proxy at a shareholders’ meeting, and the number of votes cast against the resolution is not more than 10% of the voting rights attached to all disinterested shares whether or not the holders have cast votes at the meeting. In certain jurisdictions (e.g. Cayman Islands and Bermuda), the scheme is also required to be approved by a majority in number of the scheme shareholders present and voting in person or by proxy, i.e. the so-called “headcount test”. The controlling shareholder as the offeror is not entitled to vote on the scheme resolution. After the scheme is approved by the scheme shareholders, it is still subject to sanction by the Court.

The Stock Exchange will approve the listed company’s application for withdrawal of listing once the scheme is approved by the shareholders and the Court.

Comparison of the Two Methods

Based on the public information on the Stock Exchange website, from January 2019 to September 2020, a total number of 33 privatisation offers has been announced by companies listed on the Stock Exchange (excluding those made by H-share companies), among which all the 11 privatisations announced in 2019 were completed and the shares were delisted. For the 22 offers announced during the nine months ended 30 September 2020, one offer closed without being privatised, seven were successfully completed, one is pending listing withdrawal, while 13 are ongoing. Out of the 33 privatisation offers, only three were made through voluntary general offers while the remaining 30 were made by way of schemes of arrangement.

Both privatization methods share one common feature - the chance of success rests with the other shareholders even if the controlling shareholder as offeror already holds a large amount of shares in the listed company.

Privatisation by a voluntary general offer requires the other shareholders to take the steps to accept the offers to the extent of at least 90% of the shares subject to the offer – which is a very high threshold. Some shareholders may find the offer price unattractive while others simply do not pay attention to the offer. That is one reason why this privatization method is less appealing.

A scheme of arrangement requires super majority votes by scheme shareholders but does not impose the minimum number of votes cast at the shareholders’ meeting. So even if a small number of votes cast at the meeting fulfils the super majority requirement, the scheme may proceed because the Court is unlikely to object if the scheme passes through the shareholders’ approval.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

香港私人公司并购概览

Wed, 01 Apr 2020 11:41:58 GMT

朱静文 Rossana Chu

合伙人，香港

EN / 简

香港私人公司并购概览

股份收购与资产收购的区别

决定进行股份收购还是资产收购取决于买方的目的以及目标公司和其业务的状况。一些关键的考虑因素如下：

整体性

在股份收购中，目标公司的所有资产、负债和义务会都会实际上转移给买方。相反，在资产收购中，买方仅获取特定已识别的资产和负债。

在其他情况下，交易中的买卖可能只涉及广泛业务中的一个部份。除非拟收购的业务刚好是完整地包含在卖方持有的一家公司中，否则将交易规整为资产出售是较合理的，这样能方便买方筛选其所需的资产，并将该资产适当地投放在自己业务群中的适当位置。

另一个方式是：卖方先进行内部业务重组，以便将拟出售的资产转移到一家公司中，然后由买方收购该公司的所有股份。简而言之，先进行内部资产转移，继而进行股份收购。

税务

两种方式或许存在一些税务的优点或劣点，取决于目标资产的性质，这也可能促使决定交易架构时倾向于某一种选项。

收购股份的好处

简易性

尽管收购股份有时需要事先征询第三方的同意，但收购股份具有转移目标公司全部业务的效果。相反，收购资产则需对每项目标公司的资产和负债进行个别的识别和转让。

对现有合同的影响

目标公司的现有合同（即供应协议、客户合同等）通常不受股份收购的影响（视乎控制权变更的条款及交易对方可能终止与目标公司合同关系的商业风险）。然而，在资产收购中，只有在合同双方同意的情况下，才可对现有合同进行变更或把资产转让给买方。

对牌照及许可证的影响

目标公司现有许可证和牌照仍可保留, 但也取决于牌照及许可证是否有关于控制权变更的要求。

税务

一般而言，在目标公司不拥有任何其他资产的情况下，房地产控股公司的股份转让征收的香港印花税可能会低于对直接转让公司所持有房地产所征收的印花税。

收购资产的好处

筛选

买方可按其意愿筛选和选择目标公司的特定资产和负债，将买方不想要的资产和负债留下。筛选的另一个好处是赋予买方一定程度的保证，即交易完成后无需处理任何不必要的目标公司债务。在股份收购中，买方将一并收购和承担目标公司的所有资产和负债，除非交易中特意剔除某些资产或负债。

优先购股权

资产收购可以避免在收购私人公司的股份时可能存在的其他股东的优先购股权问题，例如在寻找失踪的目标公司的少数股东时可能产生的问题。

股份收购

香港最常见的公司形式为私人股份有限公司。根据香港法例第622章(《公司条例》)(“公司条例”)，私人公司的特点为限制股份转让、将股东人数限制为50人，并禁止邀请公众认购公司股份。

转让私人公司的股份是受公司章程或股东协议所限制的。从现有股东收购股份时,可能需要其他股东同意放弃其按目标公司的章程或相关股东协议所享有的优先购股权、跟售权或其他转让方面的限制。一般而言，除非目标公司的业务隶属于银行业 ^[1] 、保险业 ^[2] 、证券和期货商业 ^[3] 、公积金业 ^[4] 、电讯 ^[5] 或广播业 ^[6] 、否则对于转让在香港注册成立的公司的股份并没有法律、法规或政府方面的限制。此外，根据香港《竞争条例》 ^[7] ，电讯行业也应遵守《合并守则》。

资产收购

对于资产的收购或出售，各应查阅公司章程和股东协议中的规定，了解转让是否有任何限制及/或须先获得股东的批准。各方应遵守转让权利、许可、牌照和准许的程序，以便其香港业务能持续，及/或在收购业务或资产时获得新许可及/或牌照。之前与目标公司签约的业主、债权人、债券持有人、抵押权人或其他缔约方可能因资产转移或目标公司控制权变更而受影响，因此资产转移可能也需要该等缔约方的同意。

流程

最常见的流程是买卖双方经过协商，就转让目标私人公司或目标公司的业务和资产之买卖协议的条款和条件达成共识。可是，若卖方希望从不同潜在买方获取更大的利益，则出售流程可以采取受控拍卖的形式。涉及的流程如下：

起草一份信息备忘录以营销目标公司、业务或资产；
提供卖方尽职调查报告；
起草买卖协议和其他交易文件；
第一轮潜在买方表达兴趣；
卖方在第一轮有兴趣的买方中选择适合的买方，然后允许该等买方进行尽职调查；
第二轮潜在买方提供确实出价及对交易文件的反馈意见；及
与一位或多位买方进行交易文件的谈判，直到与一方达成协议。

在某些特殊情况下，买方也可以通过“合同要约”，并之后以强制收购少数股东的股份的形式来收购私人公司，前提是要约需根据《公司条例》第13部 ^[ [8] ^] 进行。此外，目标公司也可以根据《公司条例》第4部 ^[ [9] ^] 的“计划安排”来进行收购。

尽职调查

尽职调查可助潜在的买方及其融资人评估目标公司业务或资产的法律、财务、税务、商业地位和经营前景。买方的法律顾问进行的法律尽职调查通常包括：公司或业务的所有权和产权负担、法律结构、财务义务条款、牌照和许可证、重大合同、信息科技的使用及拥有权、知识产权和房地产、实物资产、员工安排、诉讼和法律合规性。

卖方出具尽职调查报告是香港受控出售中一个常见的特征，即卖方提供目标公司的业务信息和数据以加快出售过程、减少对目标公司的干扰，并解释与交易有关的复杂性。成功的买家及其融资人通常可以依赖卖方出具的尽职调查报告。尽管如此，买方也通常进行其确认性尽职调查以完成对交易的评估。

文件

典型私人并购包含以下文件：

保密协议：规管与交易有关的机密信息的交流；
谅解备忘录或条款大纲：列出关键条款，有时还包括诚意金和谈判专有权；
收购协议：列出交易的条款和条件；而业务或资产的转让协议通常包括关于业务范围、需转让的业务、资产和负债范围的详细规定；
披露函件：卖方在披露函件中进行一般和特定披露，以限制其于买卖协议中的保证条文需负上的责任；
权益转让文件：例如，股份转让的转让文书和买卖票据、不动产和知识产权的转让文书；及
目标公司管理层的主要成员签订新雇佣协议，以确保他们在交易完成后继续受雇。

对价

对价可以是固定的，也可在交割后进行调整。对价如以现金支付可以一次性支付，也可分期支付。非现金的对价可以采用买方的股份（如买方为上市公司）或其他证券的形式，例如可转换为买方股权的可换股债券，非现金交易的支付结构通常较为复杂。

时间表和延误

为避免偏离时间表，各方应首先确保他们无论对内和对外（就聘用顾问方面）都做好进行并购交易的准备。在复杂或跨国的交易中，或目标公司的财务或税务状况复杂的情况下，各方应了解：

对于交易结构的讨论可能会在交易早期花费大量时间，讨论的过程也会导致交易过程的延迟；
尽职调查的范围可能延误签约交易时间表；
文件的准备和谈判是任何并购交易中不可或缺的一部分，其耗时取决于双方的讨价还价能力和交易的复杂性；
任何延误都可能打断买方的融资计划或增加融资成本；及
争取股东批准、监管批准及/或第三方同意也可能会影响并购交易的完成。

附注︰

第155章《银行业条例》
第41章《保险业条例》
第571章《证券及期货条例》
第485A章《强制性公积金计划(一般)规例》
第106章《电讯条例》
第562章《广播条例》
第619 章《竞争条例》
《公司条例》第13部（安排、合并及在进行收购和股份回购时强制购入股份）载有关于与债权人或成员订立的安排或妥协计划、公司的重组和合并，以及在作出收购要约或回购股份的公开要约后强制购入股份的条文。详情请参阅 https://www.cr.gov.hk/tc/companies_ordinance/docs/briefingnotes_part13-c.pdf
《公司条例》第4部（股本）载有与”股本”核心概念以及股本形成、转让和更改有关的条文。详情请参阅 https://www.cr.gov.hk/sc/companies_ordinance/docs/briefingnotes_part04-c.pdf

杨杨朱律师事务所有限法律责任合伙与北京天达共和（香港）律师事务所联营。

本篇文章仅是对有关题目提供的一般概述，并非旨在成为可依赖的专业意见。
请联系我们获取进一步的具体法律意见。

近期文章

近期消息

An overview on private mergers and acquisitions in Hong Kong

Wed, 01 Apr 2020 04:45:29 GMT

Rossana Chu

Partner, Hong Kong

EN / 简

An overview on private mergers and acquisitions in Hong Kong

Share purchase versus asset purchases

Whether to proceed by way of a share purchase or asset purchase will depend on the objectives of the buyer and circumstances of the target entity and its business. Some of the key considerations are set out below:

Entirety

In a share acquisition, all the assets, liabilities and obligations of the target company will in effect pass to the buyer. By contrast, in an asset acquisition, the buyer acquires only specific identified assets and liabilities.

In other cases, a transaction may involve the sale and purchase of a division of a wider business. Unless the relevant division is neatly contained within one target entity owned by the seller, it would probably make sense for the transaction to be structured as an asset sale whereby the buyer can cherry-pick the assets it requires and house them in an appropriate entity in its own group.

Another potential avenue in this case is for the buyer to implement an intra-group reorganization so that the assets of the relevant division are transferred into one dedicated entity, followed by the acquisition by the buyer of the shares in such entity. In short, an internal asset transfer followed by a share purchase.

Tax

There may be certain tax advantages or disadvantages, depending mainly on the nature of the target’s assets, which may drive the structuring decision in favor of one option over the other.

Advantages of share purchases

Simplicity

A share purchase has the effect of transferring the target’s entire business, although sometimes prior consents of third parties are required. This is in contrast to an asset purchase, which requires each piece of target asset and liability to be individually identified and transferred.

Effect on existing contracts

Existing contracts (i.e., supply agreements, customer contracts etc.) are generally unaffected by a share purchase (subject to any change of control provisions and commercial risk that counterparties may cease their contractual relationship with the target). However, under an asset purchase, such contracts must be specifically novated or assigned to the buyer under the consents of the contract parties.

Effect on licenses and permits

The target’s existing licenses and permits remain in place, subject to any change of control requirements.

Tax

In general, stamp duty on transfer of shares of a property holding company is likely to be lower than the stamp duty on a direct transfer of its underlying properties, assuming that company does not own any other assets.

Advantages of asset purchases

Cherry-picking

The buyer can pick and choose the target’s specific assets and liabilities that it wishes to acquire, leaving behind any undesired assets and liabilities with the seller. An added advantage of cherry-picking assets is that the buyer has a reasonable degree of comfort that it needs not deal with any unwanted liabilities following the completion of the transaction. Under a share purchase, the buyer acquires all the target’s assets and liabilities unless these are specifically carved out from the transaction.

Pre-emption rights

Asset purchases avoid any problems in relation to pre-emption rights which may arise when purchasing shares in a private company. For example, there may be problems in locating missing minority shareholders.

Share purchases

The most common Hong Kong corporate form is a private company limited by shares. Under the Companies Ordinance Cap. 622, Laws of Hong Kong (“Company Ordinance”), a private company is a company that restricts the right to transfer shares, limits the number of members to 50 people and prohibits any invitation to the public to subscribe for shares in the company.

Shares in private companies are subject to transfer restrictions set out in the company’s articles of association or shareholders’ agreement. For purchases of shares from an existing shareholder, the consent of the other shareholders may be required to waive pre-emptive rights, tag-along rights or other restrictions on transfer that are usually specified either under the articles of association of the target company or the relevant shareholders’ agreements. In general, there are no legal, regulatory or governmental restrictions on transfers of shares in a Hong Kong incorporated company unless the target business belongs to the banking ^[1] , insurance ^[2] , securities and futures ^[3] , provident fund ^[4] , telecommunications ^[5] or broadcasting ^[6] sectors. Moreover, businesses in the telecommunications sector are also subject to the ‘Merger Rule’ under the Competition Ordinance ^[7] .

Asset purchases

For acquisition or disposal of assets, parties should inspect the provisions under the articles of association and shareholders’ agreement to see if there are any restrictions on the transfer and/or prior shareholders’ approval for the transfer. The parties should follow the procedures for transferring rights, permits, licenses and consents for the transition and continuous operation of the business in Hong Kong and/or for obtaining new permits and/or licenses when acquiring a business or assets. Consents from third parties may be required under previous agreements of the target company with its landlords, creditors, debenture holders, mortgagees or other contracting parties that may be affected because of a transfer of assets or upon a change in control of the target company.

Processes

The most common process is that the seller and the buyer, after bilateral negotiations, agree on the terms and conditions of a sale and purchase agreement on the transfer of the target privately-owned company or target businesses and assets.

However, where the seller wishes to solicit interest from several buyers, the disposal process may take the form of a controlled auction which typically involves:

Drafting an information memorandum as the basis of marketing the company, business or assets;
Providing vendor due diligence report;
Drafting of a sale and purchase agreement and other transaction documentation;
Round one expressions of interest from potential buyers;
Seller’s selection of potential buyers in round one who will then be permitted to undertake their own due diligence;
Round two offers by potential buyers with mark ups of the transaction documentation; and
Negotiation of transaction documentation with one or more buyers until definitive terms are agreed with one party.

In certain special situations, private companies can also be acquired by ‘contractual offer’ followed by a minority squeeze-out, provided that the offer is made in accordance with Part 13 of the Companies Ordinance ^[8] , or by ‘scheme of arrangement’ proposed by the company to be acquired in accordance with Part 4 of the Companies Ordinance ^[9] .

Due Diligence

Due diligence provides potential buyers and their financiers with the opportunity to evaluate the legal, financial, tax, commercial position and business prospects of a company, business or asset. Legal due diligence conducted by legal advisers to the buyer typically covers the title to and encumbrances over the company or business, the legal structure, terms of financial obligations, licences and permits, material contracts, ownership and use of information technology, intellectual and real property, physical assets, employee arrangements, litigation and compliance with law.

Vendor due diligence reports are a common feature of controlled sale processes in Hong Kong, whereby the seller provides information on the target company or business in order to accelerate the sale process, minimize disruption to the target, and explain any complexities associated with the transaction. It is customary for a successful buyer, and its financier, to be able to rely on such vendor due diligence reports, although buyers may often also complete confirmatory due diligence to complete their evaluation of a transaction.

Documentations

The typical documents involved in a private M&A include:

a confidentiality agreement governing the exchange of confidential information relating to the transaction;
a memorandum of understanding or heads of terms setting out key terms and sometimes earnest monies and negotiation exclusivity;
a sale and purchase agreement setting out the terms and conditions of the transaction; and an agreement on transfer of a business or assets usually includes detailed provisions on the scope of the business, assets and liabilities that are to be transferred and the mechanisms to address the misallocation of assets and liabilities between the seller and buyer;
a disclosure letter in which general and specific disclosures are made by the seller qualifying the warranties included in the sale and purchase agreement;
documents to transfer the title (e.g., an instrument of transfer and a bought and sold note in the case of a share transfer, and an assignment in the case of real property and intellectual property rights);
key members of management in the target business may enter into new employment agreements to secure their continued employment following completion of the transaction.

Consideration

Payment by cash may be in the form of a lump sum or several instalments, and it may also be subject to post-closing price adjustments. Non-cash consideration may be in the form of shares in the buyer (where the buyer is a listed company) or other securities, such as loan notes convertible into the buyer’s shares. Non-cash transactions generally involve a more complicated payment structure.

Timetable and delays

To avoid deviating from the timetable, parties should first ensure they are prepared, both internally and externally (in terms of engaging advisers), to undertake an M&A transaction. In complex or cross-border transactions, or where the target has a complex financial or tax position, parties should understand that:

structuring discussions might dominate the early part of a timetable and result in a delay to processes which depend on the outcome of these discussions;
the scope of the due diligence exercise conducted can extend a transaction timetable prior to signing;
the preparation and negotiation of documentation is an integral part of any M&A process and the duration depends on the relative bargaining powers of the parties and the complexity of the transaction;
any delay to the buyer might interrupt its funding plan or funding cost; and
obtaining shareholder approval and/or regulatory approvals may impact completion of an M&A transaction.

Footnotes:

Banking Ordinance (Cap 155)
Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap 41)
Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap 571)
Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes (General) Regulation (Cap 485A)
Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap 106)
Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap 562)
Competition Ordinance (Cap 619)
Part 13 (Arrangements, Amalgamation, and Compulsory Share Acquisition in Takeover and Share Buy-Back) of the new Companies Ordinance (“the new CO”) contains provisions relating to schemes of arrangement or compromise with creditors or members, reconstructions or amalgamations of companies, and compulsory acquisitions of shares following a takeover offer or following a general offer for a share buy-back. Please see https://www.cr.gov.hk/en/companies_ordinance/docs/briefingnotes_part13-e.pdf for more details
Part 4 (Share Capital) of the new Companies Ordinance (“new CO”) contains provisions relating to the core concept of “share capital” and its creation, transfer and alteration. Please see https://www.cr.gov.hk/en/companies_ordinance/docs/briefingnotes_part04-e.pdf for more details.

YYC Legal LLP is in Association with East & Concord Partners (Hong Kong) Law Firm.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice. Please contact us for specific advice.

Recent articles

Recent News

YYC Legal LLP

Hong Kong’s capital markets performance in 2025

Rossana Chu

Hong Kong’s capital markets performance in 2025

香港资本市场2025年回顾

朱静文 Rossana Chu

香港资本市场2025年回顾

港交所就发行人2024财政年度报告发布审阅结果

朱静文 Rossana Chu

港交所就发行人2024财政年度报告发布审阅结果

HKEX’s review of issuers’ annual reports for financial year ended in 2024

Rossana Chu

HKEX’s review of issuers’ annual reports for financial year ended in 2024

《Lexology 宏观分析》- 网络安全法规: 香港篇

胡铭深 Sam Wu

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

《Lexology 宏观分析》- 网络安全法规: 香港篇

Lexology Panoramic - Online Safety Regulation: Hong Kong

Sam Wu

Beverly Fu

Lexology Panoramic - Online Safety Regulation: Hong Kong

Legal framework

Online harms covered

Harmful versus illegal content

Obligations for online service providers

Risk assessments and mitigation

Disinformation and misinformation

Enforcement and penalties

Authorities

Disputes

Remedies

Update and trends

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登《钱伯斯大中华区指南2026》榜单

杨杨朱律师事务所荣登《钱伯斯大中华区指南2026》榜单

YYC Legal is ranked in Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2026

YYC Legal is ranked in Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2026

朱静文律师获In-House Community 选为“2025年年度推荐外部法律顾问”

朱静文律师获In-House Community 选为“2025年年度推荐外部法律顾问”

Rossana Chu is recognised as a Commended External Counsel 2025 by the In-House Community

Rossana Chu is recognised as a Commended External Counsel 2025 by the In-House Community

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 — 香港章》第15版

朱静文 Rossana Chu

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 —— 香港章》 第15版

Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets – Hong Kong, Edition 15

Rossana Chu

Lexology In-Depth: International Capital Markets - Hong Kong, Edition 15

Introduction

Year in review

Developments affecting debt and equity offerings

Developments affecting derivatives, securitisations and other structured products

Cases and dispute settlement

Relevant tax and insolvency laws

Role of exchanges, central counterparties and rating agencies

Other strategic considerations

Outlook and conclusions

Hong Kong’s virtual asset regulation: Licensing for dealing and custody

Sam Wu

Beverly Fu

Hong Kong’s virtual asset regulation: Licensing for dealing and custody

The strategic rationale

The VA dealing regime

The VA custodian regime

Enforcement and the cost of non-compliance

Looking forward

港府拟推虚拟资产交易和托管发牌制度

胡铭深 Sam Wu

符曼姿 Beverly Fu

港府拟推虚拟资产交易和托管发牌制度

战略原因

VA交易制度

VA托管制度

执法与违规成本

展望

香港公开市场规定及首次公开招股机制

朱静文 Rossana Chu

香港公开市场规定及首次公开招股机制

New open market requirements and IPO offering mechanisms in Hong Kong

Rossana Chu

New open market requirements and IPO offering mechanisms in Hong Kong

Rossana Chu is named as a Visionary in China Business Law Journal A-List 2025-26

Lexology《深度解读：国际资本市场 —— 香港章》第15版