(中文) 交班准备知多少？

大象也能跳舞吗？家族企业传承之难
企业做大了，孩子也养大了，为什么退出放权这么难？

我不想接班！

刘某是一名海归－家里唯一的儿子。家族是做铜材料加工业务。他一直钟爱互联网游戏，对传统行业不感兴趣。家人和他沟通多次，让他放弃爱好，回家族企业为接班做准备。最近他离家出走半个月。

从计划生育实施的这三十几年，很多中国家庭都只有一个孩子。中国有一句古话叫肉要烂在锅里。所以多数的中国企业家会把自己辛苦经营的企业传给子女。但因为这些“二代”们几乎都拥有纯金的海外求学工作背景，对上一辈的经营理念和方式，存在极大异议。

转型需要引进外部，就是增加了更多的法律风险！

1. 换班安排，极度不安
大部分企业家在快要退休的时候，内心都会对后代未来的经济安全产生强烈的不安，对于传承的决策甚至接近恐惧。如果企业出现瓶颈，情况尤甚。

2. 企业转型带来的困惑
有一些企业家因为各种原因，企业都出现转型。为了让二代有一个能持续发展的业务，转型的动机更大。转型意味着设备，流程的改变，都需要增加投入。如果转型涉及到投资一个自己不熟悉的行业，资产的风险就更大。

3. 融资的利弊
有前景的行业一般都意味着门槛较高，如果新行业需要大量资金投入，企业融资如贷款，发债，上市等非常普遍。引进策略股东，意味着股权被稀释。惯常的对赌安排更是一个非常大的陷进，万一市场变化达不到预期业绩，策略股东就可以启动约定条款，很容易引发纠纷。

4. 引进职业管理人，涉及各种激励计划
投资不熟悉的领域，改善公司治理，发展内部制衡机制，留住贤臣辅助孩子接班；企业家都会考虑引进职业管理人，同时配套员工激励计划或股份奖励计划。策略引入家庭外部成员，需要制定多份合约，增加纠纷的风险。

5. 股权设计，非常头疼
家族企业股东结构一般比较简单；就是股权没有实际反应贡献或有隐名股东，比较少以诉讼处理异议。当然这个是因为全球资产还没有联网，企业家身体还好，没有出现继承或离婚的情况而言。
但是，一旦出现继承，股权由法定妻子，孩子，父母分摊；加上原有其他股东，外部策略股东和公众持股的情况下，如何将公司控制权集中在家族内部，又能平衡其他股东利益，绝对是头疼又影响企业存续的大事。

先留自留地，再集中股权

企业不可能因为以上原因不发展，不传承的。没有“退路”就只能好好走下去。

1. 确定自留地，先加保险垫
公司资产本来应该跟个人资产明确区分的。在企业有任何重大决策之前，更应该把个人资产“保护”起来。资产拥有权“锁定”在海外家族信托这个“保险柜”内。指定受益人享有受益权专款专用。这种家庭自留地的安排，避免企业纠纷等引起个人资产耗损，也避免企业负债导致个人财产置于风险之中。

2. 有控制权的转移，彻底消灭自然人持有资产的风险
股权由妻子继承后，就等于你的姻亲可以有分割的可能，当中还不包括丧偶再婚，孩子份额不能确定的风险！孩子确定拿到资产了，也就没有办法抵御他未来的婚姻风险，股权永远在不确定的状态！如果股权由信托持有，孩子只有管理权与受益权，有效巩固公司股份不被外人瓜分，对引进策略投资者，为其他股东与员工负责，都是看得到的体现！

3. 股权集中持有，企业有效管理
股权由自然人持有，终有一天出现继承安排。按照中国法定继承，股权起码划给妻子，孩子与父母；股权分散企业谁说了算？不用到第三代，第二代已经没法管理的了。资产是分掉了，但是价值消散，传了等于白传，分了等于白分！

4. 避免分配尴尬，维持家族和谐
如果两个孩子，一个懂事一个贴心，股权是一人一半吗？或者一个在国外一个在中国，在国外的给现金在国内的给国内公司股权与房子吗？或一个有能力一个能力较弱，能力强的多给？还是少给？少给不等于惩罚能力强的吗？
送礼物是一个艺术，公平不等于均分。通过信托集中持有资产，再按照需要分配生活费，除了避免尴尬，是维持家庭和谐的重要手段！

5. 增加家族凝聚力，凸显家族价值观
家族信托凝聚家庭资产，也稳定家庭成员间的和谐关系。通过信托定制条款引导继承人的各项发展方向，包括职业，创业，家庭，人格等。有效传递家族核心的价值，把空洞的家训变为实际的行动。

市场上拥有不同机构提供受托人服务，客户选择服务机构时需考虑相关机构的专业性。 一个有效的信托架构主要为客户对抗税务，婚姻，纠纷，继承等不同法律风险；对企业纠纷有诉讼经验，当然有助减少传承交接班可能产生的问题。律所背景的信托公司有一定的优势。另外信托公司与资产机构的独立性也为长远资产增值带来动力。

如需了解最适合你的信托规划，请主动联系你的法律顾问/理财顾问/家族办公室构建合理的资产保护方案。史蒂文生黄律师事务所成立了香港及新西兰信托公司，也为客户搭建私人信托公司，可为客户提供信托咨询或受托人服务。最近还获得香港家族办公室协会颁发“最具特色家族海外信托策划服务奖”。

分享资讯助人自助，谢谢关注微信公众号或浏览官方网站www.sw-hk.com。如需节录或转载，请注明资料来源为微信公众号swc_hk。

免责声明： 于此提供的资料只供参考，须以有关国家/地区法律顾问的法律意见和有关政府行政与司法机关对于适用的法例的解释和应用为准；上述资料亦受制于适用法例的任何不时的更新与修改，如因上述资料而引至任何人士或单位蒙受任何损失，该人士或单位须自行承担一切责任

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (hereinafter, “the Ordinance”) was published on 2nd June 2016. The purpose of the Ordinance, as per its preamble, is “to amend the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation to increase protection of creditors; to streamline the winding up process; to strengthen regulation under the winding up regime; and to make related, consequential and minor technical amendments.” This article will set out some of the main changes found in the Ordinance concerning the protection of creditors and the winding up process.

Creditor protection

The Ordinance aims to enhance the protection of creditors by introducing, inter alia, the following changes:

1) Unfair preferences: The Ordinance enables the court to set aside transactions entered into by a company prior to its winding up where it unfairly puts one creditor in a better position than others.
2) Transactions at an undervalue: The court has the power to set aside transactions at an undervalue entered into by a company within 5 years before the commencement of its winding up, but only where one of two conditions are met: either the company is unable to pay its debt at the time or it becomes unable to pay its debt as a result of the transaction or unfair preference.
3) Floating charges: The relevant time has now been extended such that floating charges made in favour of connected persons two years before the commencement of the company’s winding up will be caught.
4) Members’ and directors’ liabilities: Where a company is being wound up and it has made a payment out of capital relating to the redemption or buy back of any of its shares from a person and winding up commences within one year, both the past shareholder and the director who signed the solvency statement are jointly and severally liable to contribute an amount not exceeding the amount of the payment out of capital made by the company in respect of the shares redeemed or bought back from the past shareholder.

Winding up

The Ordinance also aims to streamline the winding up process by introducing, inter alia, the following changes:

1) Appointment of solicitor: The procedure whereby a liquidator appoints a solicitor to assist in court winding-up has been simplified.
2) Safeguards in voluntary winding up: The directors must deliver to the Registrar a winding up statement. Thereafter, the directors need to “cause a meeting of the company to be summoned for a date not later than 28 days after the delivery of” the said winding up statement. The directors are to appoint a provisional liquidator from the commencement of the winding up of the company.
3) Powers of provisional liquidators: For court winding up, the powers and duties of provisional liquidators are set out more clearly. The remuneration and tenure of the provisional liquidators are also set out more clearly.
4) People disqualified for appointment as provisional liquidator or liquidator: The list of disqualified people has been expanded to avoid conflicts of interest.

Summary

Whilst the operation date of the Ordinance is currently unknown, however, once the Ordinance comes into effect, they are likely to have an impact on the landscape of insolvency and winding up law in Hong Kong.

(中文) 不离婚就没事了吗？
中国有很多太太仍保留着中华民族传统女性美德－真善忍；却很少意识到面临的法律风险。无可确保的事情随时发生，最好的应对是提前做好预防。

同患难能共富贵吗？
方太太说：“早年和他一起奮鬥，从工厂到后来投资房地产公司和金融，这些年赚了很多钱。 孩子现在美国留学，本来我们俩考虑退休，最近外面有风声说，他在外面“包二奶”！”

方太太续说：“这些年房地产公司让我们身家增值不少。传言归传言，无论怎么折腾，先生名下的房地产公司是一人有限责任公司，如果未来丈夫提出离婚，公司股权，个人财产等都能分得到，现在更应该选择做一个智慧的女人，好好赡养老人，过好自己的退休生活。”

她的想法对吗？从一个传统的中国女性美德来说无可挑剔，但从资产保护的角度来说，这样的想法值得商榷。

风险防不胜防！
1. 公私不分：
方先生的公司是一人有限责任公司，如果公司账目清晰，公司收支和个人收支没有混同，出资到位，问题不大；但若不加注意，会导致方太太产生连带的经济责任！我们碰到的案例里面，公司把利润以不同的方式转移也比较常见。最后导致公司价值大大降低。家庭利益不易保障。

2. 婚后债务共有：
个人婚后财产共有虽然是中国婚姻法的核心。 但是另外一个意义是婚后债务共有。就是离了婚，只要是在婚姻存续期间发生的债务，哪怕是不知情的也要责任，曾经有案例债权人还是“小三”！爱情没了还要被牵连。

3. 丧偶再婚：
如果方太太去世在先，财产很可能被其他不知名的第一顺位继承人瓜分。丧偶再婚在“二奶转正”的家庭里更为普遍。二婚的争产一般都是鱼死网破的！

4. 继承流程难：
不管有没有遗嘱，继承流程都需要所有指定受益人一定的配合。只要是家庭成员之间可能不和谐，一般都没法顺利走毕公证流程而需要法院介入的！整个过程，很多私密就会曝光，一般披露的资料都会很伤感情的！也会对后代遗留非常不好的阴影。

5. 遗嘱定江山？
方先生如生前立下遗嘱，太太只能通过挑战遗嘱，才能避免遗嘱指定受益人瓜分财产。争产耗费时间与律师费用，效果还非常不确定！很有可能缺钱打官司的一方以接受不利的和解条款告终。

您专属的保险柜

到底是先有珠宝还是先有保险柜？

保险柜就是我们所说的海外家族信托，通过资产由信托公司持有，彻底剥离自然人持有资产的风险，包括债务，诉讼纠纷，婚姻，继承，税务等。对方先生做生意留自留地，确定孩子读书抚养费用等都是刚需。剥离在家族信托内的资产专项专用，如果规划得当，可以避免婚姻法析产的干扰。

海外信托持有的资产，除了现金或其他金融资产，也可以是房产或公司股权，分配方案灵活。有效对抗不同风险。

如需了解最适合你的信托规划，请主动联系你的法律顾问/理财顾问/家族办公室构建合理的资产保护方案。史蒂文生黄律师事务所成立了香港及新西兰信托公司，也为客户搭建私人信托公司，可为客户提供信托咨询或受托人服务。 最近还获得由香港家族办公室协会颁发“最具特色家族海外信托策划服务奖”。

分享资讯助人自助，谢谢关注微信公众号或浏览官方网站www.sw-hk.com。如需节录或转载，请注明资料来源为微信公众号swc_hk。

免责声明： 于此提供的资料只供参考，须以有关国家/地区法律顾问的法律意见和有关政府行政与司法机关对于适用的法例的解释和应用为准；上述资料亦受制于适用法例的任何不时的更新与修改，如因上述资料而引至任何人士或单位蒙受任何损失，该人士或单位须自行承担一切责任

照片来源： http://www.suibi8.com/baozhengshu/101756-baozhengshu-zhongcheng.html

The Court of Appeal in Tadjudin Sunny v Bank of America, National Association (CACV 12/2015) (hereinafter, “Ms. Tadjudin” and “the Bank” respectively) upheld the Court of First Instance’s decision that the Bank, when it terminated Ms. Tadjudin’s employment, was in breach of the implied term of anti-avoidance, in order to avoid her being eligible under the performance incentive programme.

The crux of the case was whether the Court of Appeal would uphold the Court of First Instance’s finding that there existed an implied term of anti-avoidance in Ms. Tadjudin’s employment contract. It was held that the term is necessary to give effect to the common, reasonable expectation of the parties such that the Bank could not exercise its power of termination under the employment contract in order to avoid Ms. Tadjudin being eligible under its performance incentive programme. The Court of Appeal held that without the existence of this term, the performance incentive programme would become illusory and could be easily taken away by the Bank through the termination of Ms. Tadjudin’s employment. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it was held that an implied term of anti-avoidance existed in Ms. Tadjudin’s employment contract, but it was not held that an implied term of anti-avoidance existed in all employment contracts.

The Court of Appeal held that Mr John Liptak (an employee of the Bank and Ms. Tadjudin’s supervisor) was an agent of the Bank, and his malice and intention could therefore be attributed to the Bank. It was also noted that the decision to terminate Ms. Tadjudin’s employment was made collectively by the senior management through the manipulation by Mr Liptak, and there was no reason why Mr Liptak’s intention should not be attributed to the directing mind and will of the Bank in this situation.

In summary, this case represents the judiciary taking a more assertive role in addressing the rights between employers and employees. It also serves as a reminder that employers should be careful when dismissing employees especially where discretionary bonuses are involved because termination of employment close to the payment of a bonus may lead to a claim that there is a breach of an implied term of anti-avoidance.

On 23 June 2016, our partners Mr. Willy Cheng, Mr. Eric Lui and Ms. Heidi Chui attended a gala dinner organised by the Association of China-Appointed Attesting Officers Limited to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the establishment of the China-Appointed Attesting Officer (CAAO) system. The gala was held at JW Marriott Hotel Hong Kong.

(From left to right): Mr. Willy Cheng, Ms. Heidi Chui and Mr. Eric Lui

Representatives from the Ministry of Justice PRC attended the gala to celebrate the milestone together with CAAOs and members of China Legal Service (Hong Kong) Limited and the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Mr. Rimsky Yuen, SC, the Honorary Secretary for Justice, also attended the gala.

(From left to right): Mr. Willy Cheng, Ms. Heidi Chui and Mr. Rimsky Yuen, SC

Please contact our Mr Willy Cheng, Mr Eric Lui or Ms Heidi Chui for any enquiries or further information about this event.

On 18 June 2016, our partners Mr. Willy Cheng and Mr. Eric Lui attended the opening ceremony of AllBright Law Offices (Zhengzhou), as well as a conference jointly hosted by AllBright Law Offices and Economic Law Studies Association of Henan Law Society. The conference, titled “Economic Transformation and Legal Services”, hosted numerous speakers who shared their insights on how to provide innovative legal services in order to effectively accommodate the rapidly-changing Chinese market and economy.

Please contact our Mr. Willy Cheng or Mr. Eric Lui for any enquiries or further information about this event.