Ming Shing is primarily operated through their indirectly wholly-owned Hong Kong operating subsidiaries. They mainly engaged in wet trades works, such as plastering works, tile laying works, brick laying works, floor screeding works and marble works.

Our Partners, Hank Lo and Gordon Tsang, and Associate Ben Chan, acted as the Hong Kong legal counsel for the Joint Underwriters in the Nasdaq Listing and provided comprehensive Hong Kong legal services.

Please contact Hank Lo or Gordon Tsang for any enquiries or further information about this transaction.

The inaugural award aims to recognize 40 young talent aged 40 years old or under across various legal fields in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Winners are selected for delivering the best and best-in-class work ethics to their clients, partners, and colleagues together with showing exceptional passion to grow and lead the development of the legal sector in Greater China.

Gordon Tsang | Partner
Practice Areas: China Practice, Corporate Commercial Law, Corporate Services, Corporate Finance

Gordon has experience handling a wide range of corporate and commercial matters, including pre-IPO restructuring and financing, Hong Kong and U.S. IPOs, mergers and acquisitions, loan and financing transactions, corporate governance and general compliance for listed companies as well as private enterprises.

Gordon has a strong sense of community. He has been awarded by the Law Society of Hong Kong’s Pro Bono and Community Work Recognition Programme for 8 consecutive years and Professional Volunteer Service Accreditation Programme for 3 consecutive years. He is also the Think Tank Member of Dashun Foundation since 2021.

Gordon Tsang has been recognized by IFLR1000 Asia Pacific Guide 2023 and IFLR1000 Asia Pacific Guide 2024 as a Rising Star Partner in Capital Markets- Equity and The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2024 as a Recommended Lawyer in Capital Markets- Equity.

Gordon is a Non-Executive Director of CROSSTEC Group Holdings Limited (Stock Code: 3893). He is also the Company Secretary of Mabpharm Limited-B (Stock Code: 2181), Sundy Service Group Co. Ltd (Stock Code: 9608) and 1957 & Co. (Hospitality) Limited (Stock Code: 8495).

For any enquiries, please contact our Partner Gordon Tsang.

Hank Lo said, “As investment ties between the Middle East and China (including Hong Kong) grow stronger, our role in connecting capital and opportunities between these regions has become more important than ever. This collaboration will enable us to foster greater global coverage and facilitate access for our Asian clients to one of the most international, diverse, and liquid capital markets in the Middle East.”

For further information, please contact our Hank Lo or Terence Lau.

Enhanced Application Timeframe

The Enhanced Application Timeframe is designed to give applicants more certainty regarding the timeline for reviews. For applications that fully meet all applicable requirements, both the SFC and the Exchange will provide their regulatory assessments within 40 business days, after a maximum of two rounds of comments. Applicants are expected to take around 60 business days to address all comments and complete the application process within the six-month validity window.

An illustration of the Enhanced Application Timeframe is extracted from the joint statement and set out as follows:

1. The business days taken for each round of comments may be subject to slight adjustments, but overall it is expected that the time taken by each regulator will be no more than 40 business days.
2. It refers to the acknowledgement of listing application.
3. If the SFC shares the same regulatory concerns as those included in the Exchange’s comment letters, it will issue a letter via the Exchange to notify the applicant through its sponsor, which will be counted as one round of comments from the SFC.
4. Upon confirmation of no material regulatory concerns, the Exchange will issue a Hearing Bundle Letter (HBL) setting out the matters to be dealt with or addressed by the applicants and their sponsors to finalise the disclosure in the listing document. When the applicants and their sponsors have a listing document that is ready for Listing Committee Hearing, and having obtained all requisite approvals from other authorities or regulators, where applicable, the application will proceed to the Listing Committee Hearing.

Accelerated Timeframe for A-share Listed Companies

A company may qualify for an accelerated process if it has already been listed in Mainland China (A-share listed) with a market capitalisation of at least HK$10 billion, and complied, in all material respects, with the laws and regulations applicable to it’s A-share listing for the past two full financial years. In this case, the review process will be completed in just one round of comments, with the regulators completing their assessments within 30 business days.

Applications Requiring Longer Review

For applications where material regulatory concerns arise, or where responses are incomplete, the review process may take longer. In such circumstances, the regulators will engage closely with the applicant and their advisers, offering further guidance to address concerns. If problems persist after two rounds of comments, a formal requisition letter may be issued, lengthening the process.

Strengthening Hong Kong’s Capital Markets

Both the SFC and the Exchange are confident that the Enhanced Application Timeframe will improve the listing experience by offering greater predictability for applicants. The new process will help Hong Kong maintain its competitive edge as a top destination for companies seeking to go public. Regulatory leaders emphasise their commitment to working with applicants and their advisers to ensure efficient, high-standard listings.

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.

Panellists and Discussion Highlights

The session featured panellists from firms across Asia and North America, including Elizabeth Chan of Stevenson, Wong & Co., Grant Kim of LimNexus LLP, Sunyoung Kim of Baker McKenzie, David McArthur of Yulchon, and Lexi Takamatsu of Mori Hamada & Matsumoto.

They engaged the audience on some of the most pressing issues involving AI-assisted work product in arbitration, examining AI’s potential to assist in the arbitration process while highlighting the essential safeguards needed to maintain fairness, transparency, and procedural integrity. The panel also discussed the practical application of the SVAMC Guidelines on Using AI in Arbitration (SVAMC Guidelines), which are the only comprehensive set of guidelines on using AI in arbitration generally as at the time of this article.

AI Assistance in Drafting Arbitral Awards

Opening with a discussion on AI’s role in assisting with arbitral awards, the panel emphasised that while AI can enhance efficiency, human tribunal members should not delegate decision-making authority to AI tools. Under the SVAMC Guidelines, arbitrators should ensure that AI complements rather than replaces their independent judgement.

The panellists debated the merits of transparency, noting that although the guidelines do not mandate a universal duty to disclose AI use to participants in an arbitration proceeding, arbitrators might consider proactive disclosure in certain cases to maintain trust in the arbitration process.

A parallel was drawn between controversial issues surrounding human tribunal secretaries’ assistance in drafting awards and similar concerns raised by generative AI tools. For example, panellists explored whether it could constitute improper delegation if an arbitrator used an AI tool to identify the top three pieces of evidence from a hearing transcript on a particular issue, even while maintaining overall authorship of the award.

AI Assistance in Expert Work Product

The panel then addressed the use of AI in preparing expert reports. Discussion centred on the role of cross-examination as an additional safeguard, with panellists noting that if an expert disclosed AI assistance in their report, it could prompt tactical questioning about the AI’s specific use and the extent of human verification of the work product.

AI in Document Production

The conversation moved to AI’s application in document production, with panellists noting that several existing tools, such as Relativity and Sightline, are widely used in e-discovery, and newer tools like Lawdify or Co-Counsel are being developed specifically for legal use.

The panel explored potential challenges if a party questions the completeness or sufficiency of a document production where AI tools were used.

While complete accuracy in document production is rarely achievable, panellists noted the risk of guerrilla tactics, where parties might make tactical challenges based on allegations of algorithmic bias and other issues.

The panel emphasised the need for arbitrators to have the technical competence to manage these situations effectively, ensuring both efficiency and the legitimacy of the process.

Confidentiality and Data Security

Confidentiality and data security emerged as central concerns, especially given AI’s potential use to handle vast amounts of sensitive information in arbitration. The SVAMC Guidelines underscore that all participants must ensure AI tools meet appropriate confidentiality requirements, favouring privacy-appropriate solutions whenever possible.

The panellists discussed practical actions to secure confidential information, including anonymising data, using AI tools with robust security protocols, and avoiding tools that cannot guarantee confidentiality.

This approach aligns with the SVAMC Guidelines’ broader emphasis on data protection, offering parties a framework for addressing security concerns in the event of a data breach. Where confidentiality lapses occur, steps such as audits or remedial assessments of AI tools may be warranted.

Conclusion

In closing, the panel reinforced the SVAMC Guidelines as a progressive framework for addressing the complex and evolving risks associated with AI in arbitration. These Guidelines represent a vital resource for the arbitration community, enabling practitioners to harness AI’s benefits responsibly while preserving core principles of fairness and procedural integrity.

Stevenson, Wong & Co. was delighted to be part of the 2024 Seoul ADR Festival, especially given the close trading ties between Korea and Hong Kong.

If you have any questions about this event or our firm’s arbitration practice, please contact Partner Heidi Chui.