29 Sep 2023

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION PUBLISHED THE CONSULTATION CONCLUSIONS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CODES ON TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS AND SHARE BUY-BACKS

Introduction

On 21 September 2023, the Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”) published the consultation conclusions (the “Consultation Conclusions”) addressing comments on the amendments to the Codes on Takeovers and Mergers and Share Buy-backs (the “Codes”) proposed in its consultation paper dated 19 May 2023 (the “Consultation Paper”).

During the consultation period which ended on 23 June 2023, the SFC received in total 12 responses from the public.  After considering the comments made by the respondents, the SFC has adopted all of the amendments proposed in the Consultation Paper, some with slight modifications.  For more details of the amendments to be made to the Codes, please refer to our news update on the Consultation Paper.  The said amendments have become effective on 29 September 2023.

The SFC has marked the several modifications to its original proposals in Appendix 2 of the Consultation Conclusions, of which the material changes from the Consultation Paper are summarised below:

Part 2: The Chain Principle
 
In the Consultation Paper, the SFC proposed to expand Note 8 to Rule 26.1 to give better guidance on the factors to be considered by the Executive Director of the Corporate Finance Division of the SFC (the “Executive”) in deciding whether a mandatory general offer for the second company is required when statutory control of the first company that holds 30% or more of the voting rights of the second company is obtained or consolidated by a person or group of persons.  The SFC adopted market capitalisation as one of the comparison parameters in light of its objectivity and that it is a widely accepted indicator of company size.

The proposed amendment was generally well received by the respondents as it could provide clarity on assessing whether a chain principle offer is required.  In response to one of the comments, the SFC made a slight modification in the Consultation Conclusions to clarify in the drafting that the market capitalisation test is only relevant where both companies are listed.
 
Part 3: Offer Period and Timetable (Last possible day for Day 60 in privatisations and take-private transactions)

The SFC proposed to amend Rule 15.5 to codify its practice that any consents to extend “Day 60” (the last day on which an offer must be declared unconditional as to acceptances) would not exceed 4 months after the despatch of the offer document, which is in line with the spirit of Rule 2.11.  Despite a comment suggesting the term “Day 60” be renamed, the SFC believes keeping the use of such term has its merits as it is commonly understood by the market to refer to the last day on which an offer can be declared unconditional as to acceptance.  In light of a comment requesting the Executive to clarify whether the 4-month period under Rule 15.5 should start from the initial offer document or the date of any revised offer document, the SFC made clear that it runs from the date of the initial offer document, consistent with the spirit of Rule 2.11.

Part 5: Partial Offers (Comparable offer for convertible securities, warrants, etc.)

Part 5 of the Consultation Paper proposed the addition of Rule 28.10, requiring Rule 13 comparable offers for convertibles, warrants options and subscription rights in a partial offer to incorporate the market practice of making such offers in a partial offer.  In the Consultation Conclusions, the proposed wording of the new Rule 28.10 has been modified and now refers to “comparable” offers rather than “appropriate” offers to elucidate that an offer for convertibles only have to be made for the same percentage as the partial offer for shares.

Part 7: Miscellaneous Amendments (Definition of “on-market share buy-back”)

The SFC proposed in the Consultation Paper to define that on-market share buy-backs are only limited to those made according to the Stock Exchange’s automatic order matching system where buy-orders and sell-orders are matched through an automated system.  Moreover, the company buying back its shares and its directors should not have any involvement in the solicitation, selection or identification of the seller of the shares (whether directly or indirectly).  The use of the automatic order matching system was considered by the SFC to be a good prima facie indicator that the company and its directors are not involved in the share buy-back.

All respondents were supportive of the proposed amendment, while one requested the SFC to confirm that the appointment of a broker to effect a share buy-back is not by itself considered as direct or indirect involvement by the company or its directors in soliciting, selecting or identifying sellers.  Therefore, in the Consultation Conclusions, the SFC added the following note:

Note to the definition of on-market share buy-back:
 
The appointment of a broker to effect buying-back of shares would not in itself be treated as the company or its directors being involved in the solicitation, selection or identification of sellers of shares.

Analysis and Takeaways

With a view to bringing greater certainty to the market, the SFC has put enormous effort in codifying the Executive’s existing practice in the Consultation Paper, and has further made clarifications to the same in the Consultation Conclusions.  As to the transactions that have already been announced before the amendments come into force, it is advised in the Consultation Conclusions that the Executive be consulted to then search for a fair solution for all parties involved.

Please contact our Mr. Rodney Teoh (Partner) for any enquiries or further information.

This news update is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.

29 Sep 2023

(中文) 港股除牌机制之解释(续篇):房地产公司的停牌与复牌现况分析

(中文) 1. 引言
本所在2022年3月连继推出了两篇关于香港上市公司除牌机制的文章,受到了不少读者的关注。在该两篇分析文章中,我们向读者详细解释了香港上市公司停牌、复牌和除牌的相关规则、程序以及成功复牌公司的实例。
自2022年开始,随着内地房地产市场的波动加剧,许多在香港上市的内地房地产企业和同系的物业管理企业相继停牌,至今仅有部分公司成功复牌。这种情况进一步加剧了投资者对香港上市公司停牌后复牌进程的关注度。针对这一现象,我们将在本文中专门探讨房地产板块上市公司的停牌与复牌现状,期望为市场投资者以及正在面对类似挑战的企业提供有价值的参考。
如您希望全面了解香港上市公司停牌、复牌和除牌的相关规则,我们建议您阅读我们之前的两篇文章:“港股除牌机制之解析(上篇):规则概要及最新数据”, 与“港股除牌机制之解析(下篇):因业务不足而停牌公司的复牌之路”。


2. 内地房地产企业及物业管理企业的停牌和复牌数据
香港上市公司遭停牌并不罕见,尤其是那些未能及时公布财务业绩的公司。自2022以来,在新冠疫情管控、资金流动性问题以及核数师辞职等因素叠加影响下,内地房地产板块成为因延发财务业绩而停牌的重灾区。在表一中,我们按照停牌日期先后顺序列出了2022年开始至2023年8月31日的部分停牌或曾停牌超过3个月的内地房地产企业和物业管理企业。这些企业都是因为未能按时发布2021年或2022年的财务业绩而停牌。
根据香港交易所指引信HKEX-GL95-18(「GL95-18」) ,联交所在上市公司停牌后会给予一段补救期(主板公司标准补救期为18个月)。在补救期内,联交所会根据公司所公布的具体导致停牌的事项以及所发现的问题而发出复牌条件/指引,这通常会在停牌后的首三个月内发出,并可根据后续发现的问题修订复牌条件/指引 。若停牌的公司未能在补救期内完全履行复牌条件/指引,则很可能会遭到除牌。
我们总结了表一所列公司的复牌条件,常见的复牌条件包括:
(1) 刊发财务业绩及处理任何审计修改
(2) 证明公司符合上市规则第13.24条
(3) 向市场发布公司的重要资料
(4) 进行独立内部监控检讨
(5) 进行独立调查或独立法证调查,公布调查结果并采取适当的补救措施
(6) 证明并无有关管理层诚信问题
(7) 证明公司董事具备应有之能力水平,以履行其应有技能、谨慎和勤勉行事的责任
(8) 撤回或撤销清盘呈请或清盘令

注1: 该公司的复牌条件还包括重新遵守上市规则第3.10及3.21条

注2: 该公司的复牌条件复牌条件证明公司符合上市规则第3.05及3.28条

注3: 该公司的复牌条件还包括重新遵守上市规则第3.10、3.10A、3.21条及3.27A条

注4:该公司的复牌条件还包括重新符合上市规则第3.10及3.21条

 

从表一中可以看到,所有停牌公司的复牌条件都包括刊发财务业绩及处理任何审计修改,证明公司符合上市规则第13.24条以及向市场发布公司的重要资料;需要进行独立内部监控检讨有7家;需要进行独立调查或独立法证调查有12家;需要证明无管理层诚信问题有7家;需要证明公司董事具备应有之能力水平,以履行其应有技能、谨慎和勤勉行事的责任的有3家;而需要撤回或撤销清盘呈请或清盘令则有5家。

我们盘点了在这些公司中截至2023年8月31日已经成功复牌的公司,并按复牌日期的先后顺序列于表二。

 

表二

3. 如何履行复牌指引

3.1 刊发财务业绩及处理任何审计修改

根据《主板上市规则》(「《上市规则》」)第13.50条,如上市公司未能如期发表定期的财务资料,联交所一般会要求该上市公司的证券停牌直至其按规定公布财务资料。由于房地产板块企业的停牌主要是由未能按时发布财务业绩造成,因此刊发财务业绩,是成功复牌的关健所在。从表二可见,已经复牌的四家物业管理企业中,荣万家、奥园健康生活和彩生活的审计意见为无保留意见,而恒大物业的核数师则出具了带强调段的无保留意见。而已复牌的房地产企业则均涉及持续经营的重大不确定性,其中融创、世茂、花样年和恒大集团的核数师更因持续经营的重大不确定性无法表示意见。根据自2019年起实施的《上市规则》第13.50A条,如上市公司发布年度业绩时,其核数师就上市公司的财务报表发出的「否定意见」或「无法表示意见」仅与上市公司的持续经营有关,则上市公司的股票则一般不会被停牌。因此,即使面临重大流动性问题,房地产企业在公布业绩后仍有可能复牌。

联交所对房地产企业似乎也作出了更为宽松的处理。例如,恒大集团的核数师无法发表意见并非仅与持续经常有关,还涉及“无法就期初结余及比较数据获取足够适当的审核凭证”,但仍然能够顺利复牌。

 

3.2 证明公司符合上市规则第13.24条

《上市规则》第13.24条规定,发行人经营的业务(不论由其直接或间接进行)须有足够的业务运作并且拥有相当价值的资产支持其营运,其证券才得以继续上市。

房地产板块的企业虽然是由延发业绩而导致停牌,但也需要符合13.24 条。这是因为在GL95-18于2022年6月的更新中,联交所新增了一项规定:“如发行人未能按《上市规则》的规定定期刊发财务业绩,联交所无法监察发行人的商业活动、营运状况及财务表现,以评估该发行人是否拥有《上市规则》第 13.24 条规定的足够的业务运作及资产,以支持其继续上市。在这些情况下,作为复牌条件/指引,联交所将要求发行人显示其符合《上市规则》第 13.24条方可复牌。”

如何证明上市公司拥有足够的资产及业务,并无量化准则,但有关业务必须为实质,业务模式必须为可行及可持续发展。在HKEX-GL95-18中联交所指出据过往经验,因未能遵守《上市规则》第 13.24 条而停牌的发行人,可能已(i)完全或大致上停止营运,或只维持有限度的营运;或(ii)因财政困难或失去主要营运附属公司而停止所有或大部分营运。因此,因未能符合13.24条而被停牌的发行人需要重新符合第 13.24 条比较困难(见下篇)。

对于房地产企业而言,其主要财务困难是流动性及到期债券未能兑付问题。因此,如果企业有正在进行的项目,有相当规模的收入,要符合足够的业务并不困难。至于是否有相当价值的资产支持其营运,已经复牌的房地产企业均是以其总资产的规模来满足13.24条的要求,联交所并未因房地产企业巨额负债而认为其资产不足。以最新复牌的恒大集团为例,其在复牌公告中披露截至2023年6月30日,集团总资产约为人民币17,439.97亿元。

 

3.3 向市场发布公司的重要资料

停牌的上市仍然需要根据《上市规则》披露公司的重要资料,例如更换核数师、董事变更、出售资产、债券未能兑付等资讯都需要及时披露。当公司履行了单项的复牌指引时,例如发出调查报告结果,也需要向市场及时披露。

 

3.4 进行独立内部监控检讨 \ 进行独立调查,公布调查结果并采取适当的补救措施

进行独立调查与内部监控检讨常常一起出现。在已复牌的公司中,景瑞控股、恒大物业、恒大集团、世茂和奥园健康生活均存在某些异常交易需要作进一步查核。这些问题通常是由核数师提出的疑问。联交所会要求上市公司就这些问题成立独立调查委员会以及聘请专家展开调查。公布调查结果后,联交所也可能要求就某些问题进行补充调查。以恒大物业为例,其独立调查结果显示,公司就第三方融资提供质押保证,资金最终划转到恒大集团。该些质押均由大股东恒大集团,而非恒大物业发起和审批。独立调查的结果反映公司的内控制度存在缺陷,上市公司受大股东影响过多,决策及授权过程不够独立。相应地,内部监控检讨集中在上市公司的独立性方面提出整改意见。

 

3.5 证明并无有关管理层诚信问题 / 证明公司董事具备应有之能力水平,以履行其应有技能、谨慎和勤勉行事的责任

如果发行人的独立调查报告显示某些管理人员涉及不当行为,则上市公司可以透过相关的管理人员辞职解决管理层诚信及能力问题。在恒大物业和奥园健康的复牌公告中,两家公司均披露涉及被调查事项的董事已辞职。两家公司也都委任了未在母公司任职的新董事以加强上市公司的管治及营运的独立性。

值得注意的是,恒大集团的独立调查报告显示,虽然主席许家印有接触及签署涉及质押担保的文件,但他表示并没有阅读相关文件,其签署只是走流程。恒大集团复牌公告中指出,由于积极参与质押担保的高管已离任,恒大集团认为公司管理层的诚信不存在监管疑虑。

 

3.6 解除清盘呈请

如上市公司在停牌时存在清盘呈请,联交所的复牌指引会要求公司先解除清盘呈请。例如,花样年在复牌前已经与提出清盘呈请的债权人达成协议撤回呈请。另外,上市公司的债务重组计划的进展也会对公司的复牌进程有重大影响。以融创为例,其在复牌时并未正式解除清盘呈请,但因为当时公司已经与境外债权人小组就境外债务重组达成协议,因此联交所并没有坚持必须要先解除清盘呈请才可以复牌。而恒大集团也披露已与境外债权人小组就建议境外债务重组达成支持协议,并正在推进重组协议安排法庭程序。因此,恒大集团也获联交所同意在清盘呈请未得到解除前复牌。

 

4. 已除牌房地产企业

在讨论了成功复牌的房地产企业后,我们再来看看已被除牌的企业。江西房企新力控股集团的股份自2021年 9 月 20 日起已暂停买卖。根据《上市规则》第 6.01A(1)条,若该公司未能于 2023 年 3 月 19 日或之前复牌,联交所可将该公司除牌。然而,新力控股并未于该限期前公布财务业绩。于2023年3月24 日,上市委员会决定根据《上市规则》第 6.01A(1)条取消该公司股份在联交所的上市地位。对于一众在2022年4月停牌的房地产板块企业而言,2023年的9月30日将会是它们履行复牌条件的限期,如在该限期前未能成功复牌,将会面临与新力控股一样的摘牌命运。

 

5. 结语

 

自2022年来,房地产企业的资金流动性问题突出,企业停牌集中爆发。对广大投资者而言,上市公司的证券一旦暂停买卖,即意味着手上持有的股票丧失流动性。因此,市场普遍非常关注这些上市公司的复牌消息。有的读者可能会有这样的疑问,当联交所允许某上市公司复牌时,那些涉及不当行为的上市公司管理层是否已经被监管机构处分?如果未被处分是否代表不再追究这些上市公司管理层?事实上,联交所要求的独立调查报告只是旨在找出事件的真相。联交所并不要求有关管理层被处分才可以复牌。因此,在上市公司成功复牌后,有关的监管机构仍然会继续调查,并在调查后按既定的程序采取适当的制裁或追究法律责任。

 

我们衷心希望本文能为企业与投资者提供有价值的信息。本所近期已协助多家上市公司成功复牌。如您有任何疑问,欢迎向我们查询。

 

本文由本所企业融资部劳恒晃律师、刘砚枫律师及黄虹博士共同合著。如有任何疑问或需要进一步的信息,请联系我们的劳恒晃律师刘砚枫律师

本文仅供参考之用。本文之内容不构成亦不应被视为法律意见。对于任何因资料不确或遗漏又或因根据或倚赖本文件所载资料所作决定、行动或不行动而引致的损失或损害,史蒂文生黄律师事务所概不负责。

 

 

28 Sep 2023

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION STEPS UP INFORMATION DISSEMINATION AND INVESTOR EDUCATION ON VIRTUAL ASSET TRADING PLATFORMS

Introduction

In response to growing concerns regarding unregulated virtual asset trading platforms (“VATPs”), on 25 September 2023, the Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”) announced the introduction of a series of measures aimed at reinforcing information dissemination and investor education.

Recognising both the potential benefits and risks associated with virtual asset activities, the SFC has been at the forefront of implementing a comprehensive regulatory framework since 2017.  The SFC has also been monitoring virtual asset activities in Hong Kong to detect possible breaches of law under its regulatory remit through gathering information from different sources, including market news, media reports, frequent dialogues with the industry, complaints and social media.  Where appropriate, the SFC would put entities on the Alert List and refer cases to the Police for further investigation.

 New Measures

The SFC has been working closely with its subsidiary, the Investor and Financial Education Council (the “IFEC”), to educate and warn investors about the risks associated with trading on unregulated virtual asset platforms.  The recent JPEX incident highlighted the importance of proper regulation and information dissemination to maintain market confidence.  In light of this, the SFC will be implementing the following measures:

Publishing VATP lists To ensure that information is disseminated in a clear, transparent and timely manner, the SFC will publish various lists, including:

  1. a “List of licensed VATPs”;
  2. a “List of closing-down VATPs” setting out the names of VATPs required by law to close down within a specified period;
  3. a “List of deemed licensed VATPs” consisting of the names of VATPs which are deemed to be licensed as of 1 June 2024; and
  4. a list of VATP applicants.

 

Issuing a dedicated list of suspicious VATPs The SFC will enhance and prominently display a dedicated list of suspicious VATPs on its website.  This list will help the public identify potentially fraudulent platforms and raise awareness about the associated risks.  The SFC will also consider providing additional information about these VATPs to alert investors at an earlier stage.

 

Launching public awareness campaign The SFC and the IFEC will launch a public campaign to raise awareness and educate the public about guarding against fraud.  Through mass media, social media platforms, and education talks, they aim to enhance understanding of the risks associated with virtual assets and potential fraudulent activities.

 

Strengthening intelligence gathering and enforcement The SFC will continue to strengthen its intelligence gathering process related to virtual asset businesses.  It will take follow-up actions and enforcement actions against suspicious VATPs that may have violated the law.  The SFC encourages the public to report any suspicious activities through its Online Complaint Form, as public complaints serve as a valuable source of intelligence.

 

Analysis and takeaways

With its comprehensive regulatory framework and proactive approach, the SFC is committed to protecting investors’ interests, maintaining market confidence, and fostering a sustainable and responsible development of the Web3 ecosystem in Hong Kong.  By implementing stringent measures, enhancing investor education, and collaborating with other regulators and stakeholders, the SFC aims to create a well-regulated environment for virtual asset trading and to mitigate any potential risks.

Please contact our Partner Mr. Rodney Teoh for any enquiries or further information.

This news update is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.

26 Sep 2023

(中文) 本所与前海金控成功合办「前海金融政策和营商环境推介会」

(中文) 为帮助香港企业了解前海最新金融业政策,深化深港金融合作,2023年9月15日,由前海金融控股有限公司和史蒂文生黄律师事务所联合主办,前海金融同业公会协办的「前海金融政策和营商环境推介会」在本所位于中环的办公室圆满举办。


前海金融控股总经理张平 (左) 和本所合伙人劳恒晃律师 (右) 为本次座谈会致开幕辞。

会上,本所投资基金团队负责人陈卓雁律师介绍了两种常见投资“合格境外有限合伙人”基金(QFLP 基金)的投资架构和香港的投资基金架构 – LPF (Limited Partnership Fund) 和OFC (Open-ended Fund Company),并分享了选择基金载体时的相关考虑因素。

前海地方金融监管局主任吕晓凯就《金融支持前海30条》和《支持前海深港风投创投联动发展“十八条”措施》进行了解读,帮助香港企业了解前海最新金融政策,掌握广阔的发展机遇和资源,充分发挥香港联通世界的优势,推动粤港澳大湾区金融业的发展。

本次座谈会得到了参会企业代表的一致好评,并在讨论交流环节积极进行交流讨论。未来,本所期待与前海有更深入的合作,毕力同心,深化深港合作,促进两地共同发展。

左起: 前海金控首席风控官黄键、本所合伙人劳恒晃律师、前海金控总经理张平、和深圳前海金融同业公会执行副会长雷振锋






如对此活动有任何查询,请联络本所合伙人劳恒晃律师

21 Sep 2023

Partner Heidi Chui Wins “Dispute Resolution Lawyer of the Year” at The ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2023

We are proud to announce that our Partner and Head of the Dispute Resolution department, Ms Heidi Chui, has won the “Dispute Resolution Lawyer of the Year” at the ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2023. The award ceremony took place on 15 September 2023 at the JW Marriott, with legal professionals from Hong Kong and globally gathered to celebrate excellence in the legal industry. Our Partners, Ms. Heidi Chui, Mr. Rodney Teoh, and Mr. Gordon Tsang attended the event.

From the left: Our Partners Mr. Gordon Tsang, Ms. Heidi Chui, Mr. Rodney Teoh

The ALB Hong Kong Law Awards is one of the most prestigious and longest-running awards in Hong Kong’s legal community, recognizing the outstanding performance by private practitioners and in-house teams in the region.

Our firm was named finalists in five award categories: “Civil Litigation Law Firm of the Year”, “International Arbitration Law Firm of the Year”, “Matrimonial and Family Law Firm of the Year”, “Private Wealth Law Firm of the Year” and “Hong Kong Law Firm of the Year”. In addition, Ms. Chui was also nominated as “Woman Lawyer of the Year, whilst our Partner Gordon Tsang, was nominated as “Young Lawyer of the Year”.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank ALB for organizing such an incredible event and congratulate all the winners and finalists.

Congratulations to Ms. Chui on this well-deserved recognition!