Introduction

On 24 June 2022, the Hong Kong government gazetted the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Bill 2022 (the “Bill”)¹, proposing changes to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615) (the “AMLO”)². Following the Consultation Conclusions ³ on the same subject published by the Financial Services and Treasury Bureau on 21 May 2021 (please see our news update), the Bill introduces a licensing regime for virtual asset service providers (“VASPs”) and a registration regime for dealers in previous metals and stones (“DPMS”) to impose statutory anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (“AML/CTF”) obligations on the two sectors. The Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) for first reading on 6 July 2022. This news update focuses primarily on the regime for VASPs.

Scope of the proposed VASP licensing regime

The licensing regime for VASPs will come into effect on 1 March 2023 pursuant to the Bill. Under this regime, a licence issued by the Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”) will be required for the carrying on of a business of operating a virtual asset (“VA”) exchange.

The operation of a VA exchange is defined in the Bill as providing services through means of electronic facilities:-

(a) whereby-
(i) offers to sell or purchase VAs are regularly made or accepted in a way that forms or results in a binding transaction; or

(ii) persons are regularly introduced, or identified to the other persons in order that they may negotiate or conclude, or with the reasonable expectation that they will negotiate or conclude sales or purchases of VAs in a way that forms or results in a binding transaction; and

(b) where client money or client VAs comes into direct or indirect possession of the person providing such service.

Any person who carries or holds themselves out as carrying on a business of providing VA service; and any person, whether in or outside Hong Kong, who actively markets to the public in Hong Kong any VA services he provides or purports to provide will have to submit a licensing application to the SFC. Licensees will be required to meet fit and proper requirements and comply with the AML/CTF and other regulatory requirements.

Definition of virtual assets

Following the proposed amendments, VAs will be defined under the AMLO as a cryptographically secured digital representation of value that:

• is expressed as a unit of account or a store of economic value;
• either:
  • is used, or is intended to be used, as a medium of exchange accepted by the public, for (i) payment for goods or services, (ii) discharge of a debt and/or (iii) investment; or
  • provides rights, eligibility or access to vote on the management, administration or governance of the affairs in connection with, or to vote on any change of terms of any arrangement applicable to, any cryptographically secured digital representation of value;
• can be transferred, stored or traded electronically; and
• satisfies other characteristics prescribed by the SFC;

or alternatively:

• a representation of value prescribed as a virtual asset by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury by notice published in the Gazette.

Echoing the clarifications made in the Consultation Conclusions, the definition of VA currently excludes any digital representation of value that⁴:

• is issued by a central bank or by an entity that performs the functions of a central bank or by an entity authorized by a central bank on its behalf;
• is issued by a government of a jurisdiction, or by an entity authorized by the government of a jurisdiction and acting pursuant to an authority to issue currency in that jurisdiction;
• is limited purpose digital tokens;
• constitutes securities or a futures contract;
• constitutes any float or SVF deposit of a stored value facility as defined in the Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Ordinance (Cap. 584);
• satisfies other characteristics prescribed by the SFC which precludes it from being a VA; or
• is prescribed not to be a VA by notice published in the Gazette by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury.

Licensing requirements
To be eligible for a VASP licence, applicants must be a locally incorporated company with a permanent place of business in Hong Kong or a company incorporated elsewhere but registered in Hong Kong under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622). This is to ensure that the SFC can effectively monitor the operation of the licensed VASPs.

In addition, the SFC must be satisfied that:

• the applicant is a fit and proper person to be licensed for the VA service;
• the applicant will appoint at least 2 SFC-approved responsible officers (“ROs”), each of whom is a fit and proper person to be associated with the business of providing the VA service, and at least one of whom is an executive director;
• each director of the applicant is fit and proper; and
• the ultimate beneficial owner of the applicant is fit and proper.

ROs are held to be personally accountable in case of non-compliance. Only individuals licensed by the SFC to be licensed representatives and whose accreditation to a VASP are approved by the SFC may carry out regulated functions on behalf of the VASP. Licensed representatives are expected to meet the qualification requirements and should be competent to carry out VA trading services.

Investor protection

At the initial stage of the regime, VASPs can only provide services to professional investors⁵. This requirement will likely be imposed by the SFC as a licensing condition, allowing SFC room and flexibility to expand the scope of VASP services and to allow VA exchanges to operate and provide services to retail investors in the future.

Furthermore, the VASP regime will consider licensing applicants’ company and management structure, and soundness of their business models. In addition, there will be requirements for detailed risk management policies as well as listing and counter-market manipulation measures. The Bill provides a list of possible licensing conditions the SFC may impose, apart from the abovementioned conditions, it may also require AML/CTF policies and procedures, financial reporting and disclosure, virtual asset listing and trading policies, cybersecurity and more⁶.

Supervisory powers of the SFC

The Bill grants the SFC broad supervisory powers over licensed VASPs. These include the power to enter the premises of the licensed VASP and its associated entities for routine inspections⁷, request the production of documents and records⁸, investigate non-compliances, impose disciplinary sanctions against non-compliant licensees⁹ and appoint an auditor to look into the affairs of a licensed VASP and its associated entities¹⁰.

The SFC is also empowered to impose prohibitions and requirements on the operation of a licensed VASP where the circumstances so warrant¹¹. Intervention powers of the SFC may include prohibiting the licensed VASP from entering into further transactions¹² and restricting the licensed VASP from dealing with or disposing of any relevant property¹³.

Offences under the proposed VASP regime

Enhancing and amending AML/CTF regulations entail creating a new enforcement regime to monitor regulated VA exchange activities in Hong Kong.

Providing a VA service without the relevant licence, or actively marketing (in Hong Kong or elsewhere) to the public of Hong Kong the services of an overseas VA exchange without a licence by the SFC, will be an offence punishable, on conviction on indictment, to a fine of HK$5 million and to imprisonment for seven years, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine of HK$100,000 for every day during which the offence continues; or, on summary conviction, to a fine of $500,000 and to imprisonment for 2 years and a further fine of $10,000 for each day during which the offence continues¹⁴.

Time frame and transitional period

The Bill provides for transitional arrangements for existing VA exchange business operators. The transitional period will last for 12 months beginning on 1 March 2023 for any corporation carrying on a business of providing a VA service¹⁵.

If an existing operator files an application with the SFC within the first 9 months (by 1 December 2023) and confirms that it will comply with the regulatory requirements applicable to a licensed provider of the VA service and that it has arrangements in place to ensure it complies with such requirements, the operator will be deemed to be licensed until the SFC has made a decision on its application.

The SFC will be empowered by the Bill to issue a notice to unsuitable applicants informing them that they will not have a deemed licensed status. These applicants will be required to close down their business by the end of the 12-month transitional period.

Therefore, prospective applicants for the VASP licence and VA exchanges considering entering the Hong Kong market should ensure they are operating in Hong Kong as soon as possible prior to the enactment of the Bill so they can benefit from the transitional arrangements.

Analysis and Takeaways

Despite not being named directly in the Legislative Council Brief on the Bill or the Bill itself, the definition of VA appears to apply equally to “stablecoins” in consonance with the Consultation Conclusions. It is also worth mentioning that the definition in the Consultation Conclusions did not include elements such as “the provision of rights, eligibility, or access to vote”, which are now included in the Bill. This seems to broaden the scope of VAs covered by the licensing regime.

In particular, we note that whether an NFT is a VA depends on the circumstances, and it is important to consider not merely its form but also its substance. We understand that an NFT project could sometimes involve a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (“DAO”), a community-led organisation which allows members to vote on the direction of their entity. DAOs related tokens granting members voting rights seem to fit part of the definition of a VA under the Bill for its nature as a “governance token”. As such, it is therefore important for service providers to think about the true nature of a NFT in ascertaining whether they need to apply for a VASP licence.

It is also noteworthy that the regulatory ambit seems to align with that of the SFC as stated in its first substantive statement on NFTs released on 6 June 2022 – if an NFT is a genuine digital representation of a collectible, activities related to it do not fall within the SFC’s regulatory remit.

While it is arguable that certain NFTs may not be captured by the definition of VA at the moment, the Bill provides that the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury will be empowered to prescribe particular digital representation of value as a VA by publishing a notice in the Gazette, thereby expanding the scope of VAs in the future.

Please contact our Partner Mr. Rodney Teoh for any enquiries or further information. Rodney would like to thank Mr. Calvin Lo (Trainee Solicitor) and Ms. Gladys Wong (Intern) for their contributions to this news update.

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.

¹ Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Bill 2022 (the “Bill”)
² Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615)
³ Consultation Conclusions on Public Consultation on Legislative Proposal to Enhance Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Regulation in Hong Kong published by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau dated May 2021
⁴ Section 53ZRA(2), the Bill
⁵ Para 6, Legislative Council Brief Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Bill 2022
⁶ Section 53ZRK(5), the Bill
⁷ Part 2, Division 2, Clause 11(1B)(a), the Bill
⁸ Part 2, Division 2, Clause 11(1B)(b), the Bill
⁹ Section 53ZSO, the Bill
¹⁰ Section 53ZSG, the Bill
¹¹ Section 53ZSX, the Bill
¹² Section 53ZSY, the Bill
¹³ Section 53ZSZ, the Bill
¹⁴ Section 53ZRD, the Bill
¹⁵ Schedule 3G, Part 2, the Bill
¹⁶ SFC reminds investors of risks associated with non-fungible tokens” announcement published by the Securities and Futures Commission, dated 6 June 2022

(中文) 立法背景及引言：

本港律师现时处理诉讼案件主要是按时收费。根据现行相关法例、行为操守的守则， 以及普通法下禁止包揽诉讼和助讼的法则，律师目前不得就争讼事务与当事人订立按条件收费或按判决金额的收费安排，即一般「不成功、不收费」的讼费安排为不合法的。

但这局面将会在仲裁案件方面迎来突破性的进展。香港特区政府在2022年3月25日将《2022年仲裁及法律执业者法例 (与仲裁结果有关的收费架构) (修订) 条例草案》(简称“《条例草案》”) 刊登宪报，在同月30日提交立法会，《条例草案》经三读表决通过后，《2022年仲裁及法律执业者法例 (与仲裁结果有关的收费架构) (修订) 条例》(简称“《条例》”)自2022年6月30日起正式实施。

《条例》旨在修订《仲裁条例》及《法律执业者条例》，以订定在仲裁案件采用与结果有关的收费架构 (Outcome related fee structures (简称 “ORFS”) ) 的协议之有效性及可强制执行性，并准许律师就在香港及香港以外地方进行的仲裁采用以下三类ORFS协议。

《条例》亮点:

《条例》主要采纳香港法律改革委员会于2021年12月发布报告书中的建议，并提出3种容许律师与当事人订立的ORFS协议：包括 (1) 按条件收费模式 (Conditional Fee Agreement)，(2) 按损害赔偿收费模式 (Damages-based Agreement) 及 (3)混合式按损害赔偿收费模式 (Hybrid Damages-based Agreement)。

1.按条件收费协议 （「成功先收费」及/或「不成功，低收费」模式）
按条件收费协议大概细分为两种模式。
「成功先收费」的安排是指，律师在法律程序过程中不收取费用，只有当事人在该事宜中取得成果的情况下（如当事人索赔成功），该律师才可以就该事宜收取「成功费用」。
另一种「不成功、低收费」的安排即是指，律师在法律程序过程中按惯常收费率或折扣收费率收取费用，如当事人索赔成功，其向律师支付一笔额外的「成功费用」。

就以上两种安排而言，「成功费用」的数额既可以是由双方议定的固定金额，也可以按照法律程序过程中所收取费用的某个百分比额外计算。

2.按损害赔偿收费协议 （「不成功，不收费」模式）
在按损害赔偿收费协议底下，只有当事人在该法律程序中取得「财务利益」的情况下，其律师才可以就该事宜收取费用（简称“DBA费用”）。
简单而言，如当事人的案件败诉，其律师将不收取费用，即「不成功，不收费」。如当事人获得胜诉，根据按损害赔偿收费协议，其律师的收费则参照法律程序的结果计算，如当事人在仲裁中获判给或讨回的款额的某个百分比。

3.混合式按损害赔偿收费协议（「不成功，低收费」模式）
混合式按损害赔偿收费协议结合了「按条件」及「按损害赔偿」两种模式。律师不但可以就其所提供的法律服务收取费用（一般按折扣收费率收取），并在当事人索赔成功时，另收取额外按损害赔偿收费协议费用。

《条例》范围及披露要求:

值得关注的一点为，《条例》始终围绕仲裁程序而定，仅适用于以香港和香港以外的地方为仲裁地的仲裁，其适用性并未伸延至包括民事或刑事诉讼程序，因此助讼和包揽诉讼在本港仍然禁止。另外，《条例》亦明确订明，仲裁ORFS协议在人身伤害申索的范围内应属无效且不可执行。
同时，《条例》也就仲裁ORFS协议订立及完结需作的披露做出相关规定。如果当事人与其律师订立了ORFS协议，《条例》要求该律师须在仲裁展开时或在该ORFS协议订立后的15日内，向仲裁的其他每一方及仲裁机构发出书面通知，说明 (i) 已订立ORFS协议的事实，以及 (ii) 当事人的姓名或名称。

相关规则及实务守则:
值得注意的是，虽然《条例》已就容许律师与当事人订立的ORFS协议的大方向定局，但相关细节及ORFS协议条款仍有待司法机构及相关业界人士进一步商讨及敲定。《条例》第98ZL条明确订明 「咨询机构」 可就仲裁ORFS协议订立一般条款及各ORFS 协议个别订立指定条款（如律师可收取当事人财务利益作DBA费用的上限等），以利便有效施行《条例》。另外，《条例》第98ZM条亦明确表示，「授权机构」可就仲裁ORFS协议发出实务守则。

业界要密切留意有关ORFS协议规则及实务守则的最新发展，以了解《条列》的实际操作。

點评
随着仲裁当事人对另类费用安排的需求日益增长以及其他首要仲裁地纷纷认可及容许ORFS安排，《条例》的出台无疑是香港仲裁发展史上一大突破性的进展，开创对当事人、仲裁业界以及香港三赢的局面。
ORFS协议的出现让原本因仲裁费用昂贵而却步的当事人获得更多循仲裁途径寻求公义的机会。受惠于《条例》带来的裨益，仲裁业界现有更大自由度与当事人订立收费架构及选项，从而得到更多商机。最后，对于香港而言，此修订有助香港可在公平的环境下，与其他热门仲裁地竞争，进一步提高香港作为仲裁地的吸引力，维持香港作为国际仲裁中心的地位。

本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师和陆卓楠实习律师共同撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师。

感谢实习助理郑晓蓝同学就本文内容的背景研究作出的贡献。

于本文中提供的一切资料仅供参考，不构成任何法律意见，资料亦受制于适用规定及法例不时的更新与修改。若需取得相关法律意见，须咨询法律顾问。

(中文) 一直以来，债权人若想在香港申请将一家非香港成立公司清盘，首先需要满足三项核心要求 (下文将详细列出) ， 以确立香港法院有司法管辖权针对该公司颁下清盘令。近日，香港终审法院在Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11一案中，进一步对其中第二项核心要求进行了澄清，明确指出在香港清盘可带来的“利益”(benefit) 要求， 不一定要来自于作出清盘命令 (making of the winding up order)的后果，亦不需要是金钱的或实体的利益，确认了由清盘呈请对债务人造成的商业压力 (leverage/ commercial pressure) 是足以满足利益要求的合法形式 (legitimate form)。

案件背景简介

本案的上诉人Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited为一家分别在深圳及香港上市的内地造纸龙头企业，但在香港并无资产及/或业务。上诉人曾与答辩人Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited (亦是本案的债权人) 于2005年期间成立合资公司，合资公司主要经营生产特种纸、装饰纸及图纸等业务。在2012年期间，答辩人就合资协议的争议在香港国际仲裁中心针对上诉人提出了仲裁，并于2015年取得了胜诉仲裁裁决 (下称「该胜诉裁决」)。随后，上诉人于2016年取得了香港法院的许可 (leave) 执行该胜诉裁决，并基于该胜诉裁决向上诉人送达了法定要求偿债书 (statutory demand)。上诉人拒绝根据法定要求偿债书偿还债项，要求香港法庭颁下命令宣告三项核心要求 (下文将详细列出) 未能符合，并禁止答辩人对其提起清盘呈请。

清盘非香港成立公司的三项核心要求

一般而言，根据香港终审法院在Kam Leung Sui Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai (2015) 18 HKCFAR 501 (又称「镛记案」) 一案中订立的原则，香港法院在依据《公司(清盘及杂项条文)条例》(第32章) 行使管辖权将非香港成立公司清盘时需要满足以下三项核心要求：

1. 有关公司必须与香港具备充分关联，但未必须在本司法管辖区内拥有资产(there must be a sufficient connection with Hong Kong, but this did not necessarily have to consist in the presence of assets within the jurisdiction);

2. 清盘令必须有合理的可能性，能够使申请者获得利益 (there must be a reasonable possibility that the winding-up order would benefit those applying for it)(在本文中统称为“第二项核心要求”或 “利益要求”)；及

3. 法院必须能够对在公司资产分配中有利益的一人或多人行使司法管辖权 (the court must be able to exercise jurisdiction over one or more persons in the distribution of the company’s assets)。

在本案中，上诉人并未就应否支付该胜诉裁决下的债务提出异议，且承认本案满足上述第一及第三项核心要求。上诉人唯一的主张，便是本案未能符合第二项核心要求，即答辩人无法从香港法院颁布之清盘令中获得利益。

原讼法庭判决
原讼法庭认为，(1) 答辩人能够从清盘呈请对上诉人造成的商业压力中获得利益，且 (2) 根据案件的具体情况，法庭有理由对第二项核心要求作出适度的调整 (moderation)。考虑到清盘令的即时严重后果，原讼法庭认为答辩人可以对上诉人施加一定的商业压力，包括上诉人在香港的控制权将转移至清盘人委任的董事；自提出清盘呈请之日起的股份转让将失去效力；以及对上诉人香港上市地位的不利影响。有鉴于此，原讼法庭驳回了上诉人的申请，而上诉人随即向上诉法庭提出了上诉。

上诉法庭判决
上诉法庭维持了原讼法庭的判决，驳回了上诉。上诉法庭认为，本案确实存在合理的可能性能够使答辩人通过法院作出的清盘命令而获得利益。然而，上诉法庭并不同意原讼法庭有关第二项核心要求可以适度调整的说法。上诉人最后向终审法院提出了上诉，令有关第二项核心要求的法律原则有机会在终审法院获得审视。

终审法院判决
在终审法院的审理过程中，上诉人主要提出的理据有两点。首先，上诉人认为，核心要求是香港法院订立的司法约束，其依据是司法礼让原则 (comity) 和附带的反对治外法权的推定 (concomitant presumption against extra-territoriality)，因此对核心要求的正确解读必须基于相关的限制及不干扰的原则，而接受商业压力作为合适的利益形式与司法礼让原则相悖。

再者，上诉人指出第二项核心要求一般要求认定利益是由作出清盘命令而产生的利益，该等利益的本质是财产，即金钱或可以转换为金钱的事物 (比如资产或者据法权产 (choses in action))，而非广义上的一种无形的利益。换而言之，上诉人主张呈请人需证明可藉香港法院颁下的清盘令获得实质的金钱上的回报，方可满足第二项核心要求。

司法礼让原则

然而，终审法院表示镛记案中订立的三项核心要求并非法律条文规定，因此不应以法条解读 (statutory construction) 的方式对其进行解释：这三项核心要求仅仅是香港法院在行使司法管辖权时做出的自我约束，与法院是否具备司法管辖权的问题无关。就礼让原则而言，终审法院认为，与香港的充分关联已经在第一项核心要求下得到满足 (上诉人为香港上市公司且在香港设有登记营业地点)，因此任何关于方便法院 (forum conveniens) 的议题都只是香港法院在决定是否颁下清盘令时考虑的其中一个因素，而非行使司法管辖权时的重要要求。

利益要求

同时，在回顾了众多清盘案件的判例之后，终审法院拒绝接受上诉人提出的利益必须是因作出清盘令而产生的充分和实质的利益。终审法院总结认为：

• 没有任何教条式的理由 (doctrinal justification) 要求相关的利益需要狭隘地局限于清盘人在公司清盘中的资产分配(There is no doctrinal justification for confining the relevant benefit narrowly to the distribution of assets by the liquidator in the winding up of the company)；
• 仅仅是清盘呈请人享有利益就已经足够
  (It is sufficient that the benefit would be enjoyed solely by the petitioners)；
• 没有任何教条式的理由要求利益需要来源自公司的资产
  (There is also no doctrinal justification requiring the relevant benefit to come from the assets of the company)；
• 在一些案件中，即使没有资产可供清盘人管理，只要能够确定这对清盘呈请人的合法权益能够起到一些实际的作用，法庭在判定第二项核心要求得到满足时没有遇到任何困难
  (There are cases where even though there was nothing for the liquidator to administer the courts did not find any difficulty in holding that the second requirement was satisfied so long as some useful purpose serving the legitimate interest of the petitioner can be identified)；
• 利益不一定需要是金钱的或有形的
  (The benefit need not be monetary or tangible in nature)；以及
• 能够通过其他方式取得类似结果，并不能排除清盘呈请人依赖某一特定的利益以满足第二项核心要求
  (The fact that a similar result could be achieved by other means does not preclude a particular benefit from being relied upon for the purposes of fulfilling the second requirement)。

终审法院进一步指出，利益不需要直接从作出清盘令而产生。由于债权人通过清盘呈请对债务人施加商业压力以追讨无争议的债务是完全合理的，清盘呈请第二项核心要求下的利益亦包括施加的商业压力 (例如本案中对上诉人在香港的上市地位的不利影响)。
终审法院同意原讼法庭和上诉法庭对于本案满足第二项核心要求的认定，亦确立了在本案中的利益是从答辩人提起清盘呈请及展开法庭清盘程序而非最后作出清盘命令产生的。基于上述的理由，终审法院驳回了上诉人的上诉。

观察及评论

本案是香港终审法院首次对清盘非香港成立公司的利益要求作出澄清，将对在香港上市的非香港成立公司产生重大影响，也为拟在香港针对非香港成立公司申请清盘的债权人提供了明确的指引。

终审法院拒绝了上诉人提出的金钱的或有形的利益限制，并明确表明有关利益的要求只是为了确保清盘程序能够起到一些实际的作用，其中包括对公司施加的商业压力 (如本案中对上诉人香港上市地位的不利影响)。终审法院在本案中对“利益”的条件采用了更为广义和宽泛的解读，确定第二项核心要求下的“利益”并不需要是金钱的或有形的，也不需要是在作出清盘令而产生的。相对而言，这一解读无疑是更容易满足的，将大大降低债权人在香港清盘非香港成立公司需要满足的门坎。在满足其他条件的情况下 (包括公司与香港的充分关联)，非香港成立公司的债权人将比以往更容易透过在香港法院提出清盘呈请，对非香港成立公司施加压力，以追讨无争议的债务。

本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、卢家俊律师高级律师和黄晊晄律师共同撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师。

于本文中提供的一切资料仅供参考，不构成任何法律意见，资料亦受制于适用规定及法例不时的更新与修改。若需取得相关法律意见，须咨询法律顾问。

Following the US$165 million offshore bond issue earlier in May this year (see our news update ), Stevenson, Wong & Co. acted for Zunyi Road and Bridge Construction (Group) Limited (the “Issuer”) in its successful issue of US$58.6 million 7.2% 3-year offshore bonds due 2025. Haitong International Securities Company Limited and Dongxing Securities (Hong Kong) Company Limited acted as the joint global coordinators. Haitong International Securities Company Limited, Dongxing Securities (Hong Kong) Company Limited, CNCB (Hong Kong) Capital Limited, Pulsar Capital Limited and Glory Sun Securities Limited acted as the joint lead managers and joint bookrunners.

The Issuer, established in the PRC, is a large construction company headquartered in Zunyi, Guizhou province. Its business primarily focuses on infrastructure projects in Zunyi and other cities in Guizhou province. The Issuer has also obtained a broad range of industry qualifications, as well as an entity credit rating of “AA+”.

Our team was led by our partner Mr. Rodney Teoh, supported by team members including Ms. Angela Lau (associate), Ms. Carmen Liu (trainee solicitor) and Ms. Celine Chen (paralegal).

Please contact our partner Mr. Rodney Teoh and associate Ms. Angela Laufor 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.

(中文) 简介

作为一种在国际商事合同内常见的仲裁协议或争议解决条款，多层次争议解决条款 (multitiered dispute resolution clauses) 用意在于为诉讼或仲裁设定前置条件即要求当事人双方依次先进行友好协商 (negotiation in good faith)、调解 (mediation) 及/或其他类似机制，并唯有在协商及/或调解无效的情况下，将该争议诉诸诉讼或仲裁。在国际仲裁中，虽然多层次争议解决条款的初衷旨在促使双方尝试友好解决，以避免花费不必要的时间和金钱，但若仲裁前置条款定义模糊不清，其中一方当事人有可能在日后争议已进展至仲裁尾声阶段，方就协商及/或调解相关程序不合规等事宜，向法庭提出异议或撤裁，令仲裁最终裁决增添不确定性。

就香港法院如何诠释多层次争议解决条款影响仲裁庭管辖权及其取态，本所在去年就著名案例C v D [2021] HKCFI 1474 (下称「C v D案」) 发布有关仲裁法动态 (请参阅本所2021年7月2日的香港仲裁案例分析)。随后，C v D案的败诉方（即该案的申请人）向香港高等法院上诉庭 (下称「香港上诉法院」) 提出上诉。时隔一年，香港上诉法院在C v D [2022] HKCA 729 (下称「本案」) 一案中，不但对香港原讼法院的判决表示认可，且藉此再次确认有关多层次争议解决条衍生的争议，理应由仲裁庭解决，法院将不会介入处理该争议。除特殊情况外，仲裁庭的裁决应视为最终(final)及具有约束力(binding)，当事方不应以与多层次争议解决条款有关的争议为由，向管辖法院提出异议或撤裁，以推翻仲裁最终裁决。

下文将跟进 C v D案的后续发展及分析香港上诉法院就本案在解读多层次争议解决条款争议方面的判决。

关键事实背景

涉案的仲裁条款（下称 「该条款」）设定了仲裁前置条件，订明当事方在争议发生时应先真诚地尝试以协商的方式解决争议 (“the Parties shall attempt in good faith promptly to resolve such dispute by negotiation”)。该条款进一步约定，如果在六十个工作日或双方认同的时限内，争议未能通过协商解决，任何一方可以将争议进行仲裁。

本案案情的关键在于，在争议开端阶段及被申请人向申请人发出仲裁通知前，前者的行政总裁曾去信申请人的董事会，告知有关争议的出现，且提出其愿意根据该条款将该争议提交由双方的管理层解决，但前者之后并未有将该争议提交至后者的行政总裁，便随即针对申请人展开仲裁程序。申请人因协商要求不合规为由，提出了管辖权异议，意图挑战仲裁庭的管辖权。

仲裁庭则认为该条款在仲裁前真诚地尝试以协商方式解决争议是强制的 (mandatory)，但将争议交由双方的行政总裁解决则是选择性的 (optional)。该信函满足了该条款的协商要求。因此仲裁庭驳回了申请人的管辖权异议。

香港原讼法院判决

申请人认为仲裁庭并不具备管辖权，进而向香港原讼法院申请撤销该裁决（即C v D案）。在参考其他国家案例后，香港原讼法院就C v D案中作出判决，认为当事方有否依据协议中的前置争议解决程序进行协商或调解是仲裁申请可否受理的问题 (issue of admissibility)，而非仲裁庭管辖权的问题 (jurisdiction of the tribunal)。在C v D案中，该仲裁庭的管辖权并没有因当事方有否遵循前置争议解决程序的问题而遭受影响，香港原讼法院因而驳回了申请人的撤裁申请。

有关本案的详细事实背景及香港原讼法院判决，请参阅本所2021年7月2日的香港仲裁案例分析。

上诉争议点

申请人在香港原讼法院败诉后，便向香港上诉法院提出上诉，其上诉理据如下：

01
根据《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》(下称「《贸法委示范法》」)第34(2)(a)(iii)条下，因为双方未有完全遵从仲裁前的协商或调解的步骤，以使 “裁决处理的争议不是提交仲裁意图裁定的事项或不在提交仲裁的范围之列” 。申请人亦辩称就仲裁可否受理的问题及仲裁庭管辖权，两者之间的分别无关紧要，因为《贸法委示范法》第34(2)(a)(iii)条并无就此作出界定 (下称「申请人第一上诉理据」)。

02
根据《贸法委示范法》第34(2)(a)(iv)条下，申请人辩称 “仲裁程序与当事人的约定不一致” 中的 “当事人的约定” 包括仲裁前的协商或调解的步骤。由于未满足仲裁先决条件，本案仲裁没有按照 “当事人的约定” 进行(下称「申请人第二上诉理据」)。

03
申请人坚持认为，被申请人需将该争议提交至申请人的行政总裁，以满足仲裁前协商或调解的步骤，而申请人未能满足仲裁先决条件 (下称「申请人第三上诉理据」)。

香港上诉法院裁决

香港上诉法院驳回申请人以上上诉理由。

就申请人第一上诉理据，香港上诉法院就区分仲裁申请可否受理及仲裁庭管辖权之间的概念，认为两者的不同是由“仲裁自身性质” 而非《贸法委示范法》第34(2)(a)(iii)条文所体现，亦有其他普通法案例及学术著作支持及承认两者为不同的概念。据此，由于本案争议是出于仲裁申请可否受理的问题，而不是仲裁庭是否具备管辖权的问题，该争议应视为第34(2)(a)(iii)条所指“在提交仲裁的范围之列”。

其次，香港上诉法院驳回申请人根据合同法先决条件概念所作的主张，并引用经典英国案例 Fiona Trust & Holding Corp & Ors v Privalov & Ors [2007] UKHL 40及其所提倡的”一站式”原则(“one-stop shop” principle)，表示由于仲裁为一项涉及双方协商的过程 (consensual process），本案的关键问题取决于当事人是否旨在将仲裁先决条件合规的问题交由仲裁庭处理。若双方同意，则属“在提交仲裁的范围之列”。基于本案的仲裁先决条件是源于该条款而来，香港上诉法院认为仲裁庭在此事宜具有管辖权， 并支持及认可仲裁庭对此作出相关的裁决，因而驳回申请人第一上诉理据。

就申请人第二上诉理据，首先，香港上诉法院并不认为被申请人违反 “仲裁程序”。 其次，假设《贸法委示范法》第34(2)(a)(iv)条当中“当事人的约定”适用于及包括仲裁前的协商或调解步骤，“当事人双方皆明确表示，有关满足仲裁先决条件与否的问题应交由仲裁庭处理。据此，双方并无意图因仲裁先决条件事宜而要中止仲裁。

就申请人第三上诉理据，在驳回以上申请人两项上诉理据后，香港上诉法院认为不再需要考虑申请人第三上诉理据及作出相关判决。

评论及要点

对于国际及香港仲裁法发展而言，本案判决为一项具影响力的案例。香港上诉法院重申当事人是否遵从多层次争议解决条款为仲裁申请可否受理的问题 (issue of admissibility)，而非仲裁庭管辖权的问题。仲裁庭对仲裁前协商或调解的步骤、是否受理其仲裁申请具有管辖权的，除特殊情况下，法庭将不介入仲裁庭受管辖的事宜。因此，仲裁先决条件的不合规并不直接构成对仲裁庭管辖权的挑战，仲裁败诉方并不能轻易地据此向管辖法院提出异议或撤裁，以推翻仲裁最终裁决 。

由此可见，多层次争议解决条款引起的争议将在一般情况下受仲裁庭所管辖。若想稳妥开展仲裁程序，当事方在展开仲裁前，仍需要谨慎遵从仲裁条款中多层次争议解决条款所列明的步骤，以避免有关仲裁申请的受理性或对于仲裁结果被挑战的问题。

本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、法律顾问李明茵律师和陆卓楠实习律师共同撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师。
感谢实习助理陈诺言同学就本文内容的背景研究作出的贡献。

于本文中提供的一切资料仅供参考，不构成任何法律意见，资料亦受制于适用规定及法例不时的更新与修改。若需取得相关法律意见，须咨询法律顾问。

Partner Gordon Tsang Invited to Attend Elegance Financial Communications’ New Office Grand Opening Ceremony

On 23 June 2022, our Partner Gordon Tsang and Paralegal Arthur Hung were invited to attend the new office grand opening ceremony of Elegance Financial Communications Limited (“EFC”). Mr. Tsang delivered a speech at the ribbon-cutting ceremony together with EFC management.

Our Partner Gordon Tsang (2nd from the left) at the ribbon-cutting ceremony.

EFC, a subsidiary of Cornerstone Technologies Holdings Limited (stock code: 8391), is a one-stop professional financial printing and communication solutions provider dedicated to serving listed companies and financial and professional institutions in Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and the United States. EFC is registered as the Edgar Agents to handle all SEC filings in Hong Kong.

Stevenson, Wong & Co. has advised several companies, including Oriental Culture Holding LTD (NASDAQ: OCG) and Zhong Yang Financial Group Limited (NASDAQ: TOP) on their successful listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market; and Hywin Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: HYW) on its successful listing on the Nasdaq Global Market. In addition, Stevenson, Wong & Co. has advised over 10 companies on their confidential filing and public filing for their Nasdaq listing applications.

As EFC long-term business partner, Mr. Tsang would like to take this opportunity to thank EFC for their invitation and wish them prosperous business in the years to come.

For more information, please contact our Partner Gordon Tsang.

Gordon Tsang delivered a speech at the ceremony.

EFC’s Managing Director Amiko Yip presented souvenir to Gordon Tsang.