(中文) 2021年5月14日，最高人民法院与香港律政司签署了《最高人民法院和香港特别行政区政府关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和协助破产程序的会谈纪要》（以下简称“《会谈纪要》”）。为了细化、落实《会谈纪要》，最高人民法院制定《关于开展认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点工作的意见》（以下简称“《试点意见》”）。

这是内地和香港首次就跨境破产协助出台专门性文件，《试点意见》在案件受理、审查条件、认可对象、协助方式、破产财产分配等方面提供了契合时间的明确指引，开内地和香港跨境破产专门性文件之先河，符合开展跨境破产协助的需求趋势。

本文将为读者简要介绍《试点意见》的主要内容。

一、 试点地区范围

《试点意见》明确支持在内地采用试点方式，划定试点地区。考虑到与香港相互投资的规模、港资企业数量等因素，《试点意见》将内地试点地区划定为上海市、福建省厦门市、广东省深圳市，并由这三个城市的中级人民法院开展认可和协助香港破产程序的试点工作。

对于香港而言，香港依据普通法原则认可和协助内地破产程序，协助的范围不限于上述试点地区人民法院所进行的破产程序。在此前上海华信国际集团有限公司 [2020] HKCFI 167一案和深圳市年富供应链有限公司[2020] HKCFI 965一案中，香港法院已经以内地法院的破产程序与香港清盘程序一致，是一项集体清盘程序，且在不损害债权人利益的情况下，认可并协助了内地的破产管理人。

二、 申请内地法院认可和协助的香港破产程序的主体

《试点意见》第3条规定，香港破产程序中的清盘人和临时清盘人可作为申请内地法院认可和协助的香港破产程序的主体，即定义为“香港管理人”。

三、 适用案件范围

（一）破产程序的性质

在破产案件的程序性质方面，《试点意见》适用于内地与香港之间具有相似性的集体性债务清理程序。内地和香港的破产程序分别包括：

• 内地的破产程序：包括破产清算、重整以及和解程序。
• 香港的破产程序：在《试点意见》第2条指出“香港破产程序”是指依据香港特别行政区《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》《公司条例》进行的集体清偿程序，包括：
  　　　(1)　公司强制清盘；
  　　　(2)　公司债权人自动清盘；
  　　　(3)　由清盘人或者临时清盘人提出并经香港特别行政区高等法院依据香港特别行政区《公司条例》第673条批准的公司债务重组程序。

不予认可或者协助的香港破产程序

另外，《试点意见》也对内地法院应当裁定不予认可或者协助的香港破产程序的情形作出了规定，包括：

　(1)　债务人主要利益中心不在香港特别行政区或者在香港特别行政区连续存在未满6个月的；
　(2)　不符合《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第二条规定的；
　(3)　对内地债权人不公平对待的；
　(4)　存在欺诈的；
　(5)　人民法院认为应当不予认可或者协助的其他情形；及
　(6)　香港破产程序违反内地法律的基本原则或者违背公序良俗

（二）管辖要求

《试点意见》第4条对破产程序的地域以及时间作出了标准判断。第4条规定，适用于香港特别行政区系债务人主要利益中心所在地的香港破产程序。

“主要利益中心”一般指债务人的注册地。同时，人民法院也会综合考虑债务人主要办事机构所在地、主要营业地、主要财产所在地等因素认定。

对于时间标准，《试点意见》第4条也规定，香港管理人申请认可和协助时，债务人主要利益中心应当已经在香港特别行政区连续存在6个月以上。

（三）连接因素

《试点意见》第5条明确了香港破产程序与内地试点地区的连接点，包括债务人在内地的“主要财产”位于试点地区、在试点地区存在“营业地”或者在试点地区设有“代表机构”，香港管理人可以依据《试点意见》向该试点地区的中级人民法院提出申请认可和协助香港破产程序。

如果向两个以上有管辖权的人民法院提出申请的，由最先立案的人民法院管辖。

四、  香港管理人在内地的履职的职责范围

《试点意见》第14条规定，人民法院认可香港破产程序后，香港管理人可以依申请在内地履行相关职责。

然而，如香港管理人履行的职责涉及放弃财产权益、设定财产担保、借款、将财产转移出内地以及实施其他对债权人利益有重大影响的财产处分行为，需经人民法院另行批准。

另外，香港管理人履行职责，不得超出《中华人民共和国企业破产法》规定的范围，也不得超出香港特别行政区法律规定的范围。

五、  认可香港破产程序后的法律效力及临时措施申请

（一）在内地法院申请保全
《试点意见》第9条规定，内地法院在收到认可和协助申请之后、作出裁定之前，可根据香港管理人的申请，依法采取保全措施。

（二）法律效力
在内地法院认可香港破产程序后，即发生与内地启动破产程序类似的效力，例如：
　　(1)　债务人对个别债权人的清偿无效；
　　(2)　已经开始而尚未终结的有关债务人的民事诉讼或者仲裁应当中止；在香港管理人接管债务人的财产后，该诉讼或者仲裁继续进行；
　　(3)　有关债务人财产的保全措施应当解除，执行程序应当中止。

六、  协助方式

《试点意见》指出了内地法院认可和协助香港破产程序的两种方式：

（一）依申请允许香港管理人在内地履职。履职范围限于两地法律规定的交集部分，即香港管理人在内地履职不得超出其在香港破产程序中的职权范围，也不得获得超过内地管理人的更优待遇。

（二）依申请指定内地管理人，由其负责债务人在内地的事务和财产，两地管理人进行最大限度的合作。具体采用何种协助方式，由法官根据案件情况和申请事由来判断。

七、  总结

跨境破产协助利益关涉重大、法律问题复杂、实践经验不足，通过原有模式开展协助难度较大。内地和香港法律人一直以来不断探索解决问题的新思路新方案。《会谈纪要》的签署和《试点意见》的颁布，是内地和香港在民商事司法协助上取得的重大突破。这充分彰显了“一国两制”的独特性，使得香港进一步与内地实现优势互补，共同开展跨境破产协作机制。

《试点意见》为内地和香港破产程序相互承认与协助提供了明确的指引，我们期待《试点意见》未来的实际适用，并不断扩大其适用范围，为两地的跨境破产清盘提供更广阔的前景，进一步促进两地经济贸易的发展。

本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、卢家俊高级律师和甘子豪律师助理共同合著。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com) ，或点击参阅《试点意见》和《会谈纪要》的全文。

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。

On 1 January 2021, a tabloid reported the suicide of a 55-year-old American man, found inside a private car in Sai Kung. This was hardly sensational and would have easily gone unnoticed – except perhaps by the princes and barons of the financial sectors.

The deceased was Mr. Paul Lincoln Heffner (“Heffner”), the Founder/CEO/Managing Partner of Adamas Asset Management (HK) Limited (“Adamas”).

Flash back to the end of 2019, the Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”) penalised Adamas for regulatory breaches. This may have set in motion a chain of events ultimately leading to Heffner’s tragic demise.

The Prologue

Adamas is a Hong Kong company incorporated in August 2011. It has, since February 2013, been licensed under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (the “SFO”) to carry on Type 9 (asset management) regulated activity and used to act as a fund manager and adviser of various offshore funds offered specifically to professional investors.

In December 2019, the SFC announced that Adamas was reprimanded and fined HK$2.5 million for failing to make prompt and proper disclosure of its notifiable interests in the shares of eight companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (the “SEHK”) held in the client portfolios it managed between February 2013 and March 2016.

Adamas applied to the Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal for a review of the SFC’s sanction but aborted it soon thereafter.

Regulatory Requirements

The SFC’s sanction on Adamas is a reminder of the all-too-familiar disclosure and regulatory requirements, including, inter alia:

• Where a person acquires an interest in, or ceases to be interested in, voting shares in a listed corporation, or any change occurs affecting a person’s existing interest in voting shares in a listed corporation, such person may come under a duty of disclosure[1];
• The notifiable percentage level for notifiable interests is 5% and the specified percentage level for changes to notifiable interests is 1%[2].
• Notification should be given to the SEHK and the listed corporation within three business days after the day on which the relevant event occurs[3].
• A licensed corporation should comply with all regulatory requirements applicable to the conduct of its business activities so as to promote the best interests of clients and the integrity of the market[4].
• A licensed corporation should comply with, and implement and maintain measures appropriate to ensuring compliance with the law, rules, regulations and codes administered or issued by the SFC[5].

Hefty fine aside, it is curious how Adamas, being the manager and advisor of funds offered to professional investors, could have made the apparently “rookie” mistakes?

SFC’s Winding-up Petition & Appointment of Provisional Liquidators

Since Heffner’s death, all of Adamas’ employees have resigned and all of its operations and business activities had come to a standstill.

It transpired that Heffner was Adamas’ sole beneficial owner and director, thus no one other than Heffner was authorised to manage and handle the assets of the funds managed by Adamas and be the bank signatory of Adamas.

Against the backdrop that the business matters of Adamas had been left unattended, the SFC brought a winding-up petition against Adamas on public interest grounds (the “Petition”) and applied for the appointment of provisional liquidators to Adamas pending determination of the Petition pursuant to section 193 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (the “SFC’s Application”).

It appears that the SFC had over the years only sought to wind up a handful of companies, amongst which Adamas is the exceptional one not listed on the SEHK.

In March 2021, the High Court published a judgment in Securities and Futures Commission v Adamas Asset Management (HK) Ltd[6] in relation to the SFC’s Application.

The judgment sets out the Court’s reasons for allowing the SFC’s Application: –

• There is a strong prima facie case that Adamas should be wound up in the public interest so as to:

• The circumstances of the case rendered it appropriate and necessary to appoint provisional liquidators pending the hearing of the Petition.

The Epilogue, or the end of the First Chapter?

Underneath its professional façade, the ironically named Adamas was a flimsy one-man band, and its operation came to a grinding halt after the unexplained death of Heffner. This was followed by surreptitious attempts by unknown persons to usurp the control of the now unmanned company.

We expect this matter to spawn further regulatory and criminal investigations.

At the moment, we have more questions than answers.

Please contact our Partner Osbert Hui and Senior Associate Dominic Lau for any enquiries or further information.

This newsletter 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.

References:

1. Cap. 32 Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
2. Cap. 571 Securities and Futures Ordinance
3. News article titled “American man who committed suicide in a Tesla in Sai Kung was the CEO of Adamas Asset Management, ex-wife’s father – founder of Dragon Air (Updated)”: https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/american-man-who-committed-suicide-in-a-tesla-in-sai-kung-was-the-ceo-of-adamas-asset-management-wifes-father-founder-of-dragonair/
4. News article titled “SFC fines Fidelity and Adamas”: https://fundselectorasia.com/sfc-fines-fidelity-and-adamas/
5. SFC media release titled “SFC reprimands and fines Adamas Asset Management (HK) Limited $2.5 million”: https://apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announcements/news/enforcement-news/doc?refNo=19PR122
6. Securities and Futures Commission v Adamas Asset Management (HK) Ltd [2021] HKEC 1107 (HCCW 88/2021, Hearing Date: 9 March 2020; Date of Judgment: 24 March 2021)

[1] Section 310(1) of the SFO.
[2] Section 315 of the SFO.
[3] Section 325(1)(a) of the SFO.
[4] General Principle 7 of the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the SFC (the “Code of Conduct”)
[5] Paragraph 12.1 of the Code of Conduct
[6] HCCW 88/2021, Hearing Date: 9 March 2020; Date of Judgment: 24 March 2021

(中文) 引言：

1. 内地公司与境外公司在商谈业务合作的时候，是否经常遇到双方都不想在对方法域的法院解决争议？

2. 双方约定在内地进行仲裁，但在内地取得仲裁裁决之后，债权人却不知道如何对债务人在香港的资产进一步进行查询及确认？

3. 明知道债务人在香港和内地都有资产，债权人却不知道应该优先向何处的法庭申请执行仲裁裁决？

4. 债权人在考虑向香港法庭申请执行仲裁裁决的时候，发现债务人已经在香港变卖甚至准备转移资产离开香港，这时又该如何应对？

为解析以上问题，本文将会简要介绍香港最新的仲裁法例发展，及讨论香港仲裁要点。

全球最受欢迎的仲裁地之一

近日，英国伦敦大学玛丽皇后学院 (Queen Mary University of London) 公布2021年国际仲裁调查报告，其中香港获评为全球最受欢迎仲裁地第三位，而香港国际仲裁中心 (HKIAC) 获评为全球第三最受欢迎仲裁机构。其中，50％受访者选择香港作为首选仲裁地，自2018年以来增加22％；而44％的受访者选择HKIAC作为首选仲裁机构，比上次调查增加17％。

(摘自《2021年国际仲裁调查》)

作为在「一国两制」的框架下，中国唯一实行普通法的司法管辖区，香港长期以来都是广受认可的仲裁地。许多国际大型的仲裁机构，包括国际商会 (ICC) 和中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 (CIETAC) 都在香港设立有办事处。再加上强大的专业人士包括律师及金融业者的支持，香港依然是蝉联国际上最受欢迎的仲裁地之一。

内地与香港相互执行仲裁裁决的安排得到进一步完善及落实

自从2000年《关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行 仲裁裁决的安排》生效以来，内地仲裁裁决在香港的执行便得到了香港法院极大的支持。在2000年至2009年期间，香港法院共处理了84宗在香港强制执行内地裁决的申请，所有申请均获得批准。2009年至2017年，在香港申请执行仲裁裁决的案件数量达到249例，其中来自内地地区的裁决数量达到85宗，位居第一，占比34.13%。

与此同时，香港与内地有关仲裁裁决的执行安排也将于一周后，即2021年5月19日得到进一步的落实。长久以来，内地与香港存在不能同时在两地申请执行仲裁裁决的限制，因此经常会出现由于内地或者香港执行程序耗时较长，仲裁胜诉方在申请第二次执行程序时可能已经超出诉讼时效，或者债务人已经进行了资产转移。

在《关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的补充安排》及香港《2021年仲裁 (修订) 条例》(以下简称 “《修订条例》” 及 “《补充安排》”) 全面生效后，这一环节将得到完善，仲裁胜诉方将被允许同时向内地和香港法院申请执行仲裁裁决，对仲裁胜诉方的利益提供了保障，亦在一定程度上对债务人转移资产的恶意行为作出了限制，加强了两地仲裁裁决的执行效率和执行力度。

资产调查

在仲裁裁决已经进入执行阶段，但债务人的大部分资产位于香港，或债务人早已将其最有价值的资产转移至香港，债权人又该如何调查债务人在香港的资产？

一般而言，债权人可在香港对债务人进行资产调查 (asset search)，例如调查债务人在香港持有的房产、车辆、名下公司、仓库、香港公司股权、目前人士出任董事的公司、香港上市公司5%或以上股份权益等。同时，债权人如知悉债务人于香港持有银行户口，而有证据显示债务人存在转移资产逃债的情况，亦可申请第三方披露令 (norwich pharmacal order)，要求债务人开设户口的银行提供债务人在某段时间内的银行流水单和交易文件。债权人可通过此方法来查看债务人的银行户口内是否仍有存款，以及款项流向的相关资料，藉此证明债务人存在耗散资产的可能。

支援仲裁的临时措施

在调查到债务人在香港的资产同时，债权人亦需要留意是否有任何迹象显示债务人可能会转移或耗散其资产。如果有任何该等迹象，债权人应考虑第一时间采取行动，向香港法院申请资产禁制令，以确保仲裁裁决有资产可供执行。

在香港，法院和仲裁庭都可以颁发临时措施。香港《仲裁条例》第45条明确规定了不论仲裁是否在香港进行，香港法院都可以就仲裁颁发临时措施，并且在仲裁程序启动前也可以颁发临时措施，包括资产禁制令 (mareva injunction)。为免打草惊蛇，申请人可以在不通知债务人的情况下，单方面 (ex parte) 向香港法院申请资产禁制令，以禁制债务人的资产 (例如银行户口内的资金、公司股份及物业等)。香港法院亦有权限颁下限制债务人在香港以外的司法管辖区不当处置资产的资产禁制令，即全球资产禁制令 (worldwide mareva injunction)。

由于资产禁制令对债务人潜在影响极大，香港法院在审查资产禁制令的申请时，会严格审查，一般而言，申请人需要符合以下标准，法院会考虑作出资产禁制令：

• 案情具良好的胜算 (good arguable case)：就针对债务人所提出的实质申索而言，债权人的案情具有充分论据支持并有良好的胜算；
• 资产 (assets)：债务人在香港拥有资产；或就全球资产禁制令而言，债务人香港境内资产不足以偿付申索，但其在香港境外拥有资产；
• 方便上的衡量 (balance of convenience)：法院在考虑不发出资产禁制令对申请人的损害会否大于资产禁制令对债务人造成的不便后，认为适宜颁布资产禁制令；及
• 具有资产耗散的真实风险 (real risk of dissipation of assets)：存在债务人将其资产耗散或转移的实际风险。

特别需要留意的一点是，申请人必须就其所知坦诚全盘地披露一切重要事项(full and frank disclosure of material facts)。此外，于申请资产禁制令的同时，申请人亦可向香港法院申请附带披露令 (discovery order)，强制债务人披露其资产，让申请人监察是否存在资产转移的情况。

其中，一个著名的案例是俏江南案 (La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Ltd v Zhang Lan & Anor [2020] HKCFI 622)，法庭就被申请人张兰女士在香港的资产颁下了支援仲裁程序的资产禁制令 (mareva injunction in aid of arbitration)。2015年，CVC Capital Partners (以下简称 “CVC”) 和张女士因为股权交易卷入了激烈的法律纠纷，CVC在中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 (以下简称 “CIETAC”) 对张女士提起仲裁，仲裁地为北京 (以下简称该内地CIETAC仲裁程序为 “CIETAC仲裁”)。为了支持CIETAC仲裁，CVC在2015年2月26日向香港高等法院申请并取得了针对张女士的：

• 资产禁制令: 禁止张女士转移、处置及减少其名下或其联名拥有的在香港境内及境外约5千万美元的资产；及
• 资产披露令: 要求张女士以书面形式向CVC披露其在香港境内及境外的所有价值超过50万港币的资产，并披露所有这些资产的价值、位置及细节。

事实上，除了俏江南案，随着2019年10月1日《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院就仲裁程序相互协助保全的安排》的生效，内地与香港之间的仲裁互助保全措施亦有了稳固的法律基础，两地仲裁案件中的当事人向内地或香港法院申请临时措施的案例日渐增多。在本案中，CVC在内地CIETAC仲裁程序进行过程中成功向香港法院取得针对张女士的资产禁制令和披露令，能为日后仲裁裁决的有效执行增添了保障。

近期香港仲裁领域获得的国际认可以及仲裁法例的完善，进一步强化香港作为全球最受欢迎的仲裁地的地位。随着内地与香港仲裁实务的交流与互助的推进，以及《修订条例》及《补充安排》的全面实施，未来会有越来越多的当事方选择在香港进行仲裁解决双方的争议，而越来越多的内地仲裁裁决会在香港得到有效的执行，香港作为法律、促成交易及争议解决服务的国际法律枢纽地位亦会得到进一步的巩固。

本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师和黄晊晄律师撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com)。

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。

Background

On 31 March 2021, the Singapore Exchange Regulation (the “SGX”) published a consultation paper on the proposed listing framework (the “Proposed Framework”) for special purpose acquisition companies (the “SPACs”) and invited comments by 28 April 2021.  The Proposed Framework proposed to introduce a regime for SPACs in Singapore to list on the Mainboard of Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited (“SGX-ST”).  According to the SGX, the Proposed Framework was in light of various developments including the market development in United States SPACs listings in recent years and potential merger and acquisition opportunities in the Asia Pacific region.

SPACs

The SGX defined SPACs as typically listed on stock exchanges as companies with no prior operating history, operating and revenue-generating business or asset at the time of listing. They are formed to raise capital through IPOs for the sole purpose of acquiring operating business(es) or asset(s).  A SPAC is generally established and initially financed by experienced founding shareholders (typically referred to as sponsors). The majority of IPO funds raised are typically required to be placed in an escrow account, where the utilisation will be primarily for the consummation of the business combination. After listing, the SPAC begins its search for a target company for a business combination which must be completed within a permitted time frame.

The SGX has identified key benefits of SPACs to include: (i) sponsors are able to tap on public capital at the time of the listing, and through business combinations, invest in later-stage private companies and in turn stand to receive potential significant upside through the sponsor’s promote; (ii) A SPAC IPO process is relatively simpler and quicker as compared to a traditional IPO given that a SPAC is a newly-formed company with no operational history nor commercial operations at the time of listing; (iii) there is better market certainty and price certainty; and (iv) Investors have the opportunity to co-invest with experienced sponsors, who often have a demonstrated track record and experience in achieving meaningful investment returns.  However, the SGX also mentioned certain concerns and risks, including: (a) SPACs are susceptible to execution risks; (b) there is inherent uncertainty to the target company as the business combination is subjected to shareholders’ approval; (c) shareholders remaining with the resulting issuer may be subject to significant dilution; and the equitability of the regulatory treatment for the business combination as the target company is not subject to the level of initial listing review and scrutiny by the relevant securities regulators as compared to a traditional IPO, and limited market professionals’ due diligence may be conducted.

Proposed admission and related criteria, suitability assessment factors, permitted time frame for completion of business combination and other requirements

In the Consultation Paper, the SGX proposed to set admission and related criteria on minimum market capitalisation (S$300 million), public float (at least 25% of a SPAC’s total number of issued shares to be held by at least 500 public shareholders at the time of the SPAC listing on SGX-ST), minimum issue price (S$10 per share or unit), jurisdiction of incorporation (must be incorporated in Singapore) and dual class share structure (dual class share structure not permitted).

Under the Proposed Framework, in assessing the suitability of a SPAC for listing, SGX will consider factors such as (i) the profile including the track record and repute of the founding shareholders and experience and expertise of the management team of the SPAC; (ii) the nature and extent of the management team’s compensation; (iii) the extent of the founding shareholders and the management team’s equity ownership in the SPAC; (iv) the alignment of interests of the founding shareholders and the management team with the interest of other shareholders; (v) the amount of time permitted for completion of the business combination prior to the liquidation distribution; (vi) the dilutive features and events of the SPAC, including those which may impact shareholders and whether there are any mitigants for such dilution; (vii) the percentage of amount to be held in the escrow account that must be represented by the fair market value of the business combination; and (viii) such other factors as the Exchange believes are consistent with the aims of protecting investors and promoting public interest.

The SGX also proposed that the SPAC must complete a business combination within a maximum time frame of 36 months from the date of listing. SPAC sponsors may voluntarily specify a shorter time frame to complete the business combination in the SPAC’s constitution. The SPAC will be liquidated and the remaining funds (comprising a majority of the proceeds raised at IPO) held in the escrow account are returned to shareholders if the SPAC is unable to complete the business combination within the permitted time frame.

In relation to the minimum percentage of IPO proceeds to be held in escrow, it is proposed that the SPAC is required to place at least 90% of the gross proceeds raised from its IPO in an escrow account.  Until the completion of a qualifying business combination, the SPAC may invest the escrowed funds in permitted investments such as cash or cash equivalent short-dated securities of at least A-2 rating (or an equivalent).

It is also proposed that the business combination must comprise an initial acquisition of a business or asset with a fair market value forming at least 80% of the amount held in the escrow account.

Under the Proposed Framework, the founding shareholders and the management team will also be subject to a minimum aggregate subscription value for alignment of their economic interest in the SPAC with that of other shareholders. The minimum aggregate value will be dependent on the market capitalisation size of the SPAC at IPO.

Analysis and Takeaways

The Consultation Paper represented an attempt of the SGX to explore SPACs listings as a viable alternative to traditional IPOs for fund raising in Singapore and the region.

Following the examples of the United States, Canada and Malaysia, various regions have explored the feasibilities of introducing regimes to allow for SPACs listings.  Apart from Singapore, Hong Kong is also on this route.  In early March 2021, the Financial Leaders Forum chaired by Hong Kong’s Financial Secretary had asked the Securities and Futures Commission and Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited “to explore suitable listing regimes to enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong as an international financial centre, while safeguarding the interests of the investing public.”  The Financial Secretary had also said in an interview with Bloomberg TV that the government was seriously looking into allowing SPACs.

The proposal for the regime in Hong Kong is yet to be released.  Nevertheless, under the encouragement at official level and guided by overseas examples, it is expected that the market will embrace more discussions on a potential SPAC-listing regime in the future.  Such a regime, if introduced in Hong Kong, is expected to provide further avenues for listing of businesses, and more options for general investors to participate in the markets.

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

This newsletter 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.

Stevenson, Wong & Co. is honoured to announce that we have once again been ranked in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, a guide to the market’s leading litigation firms and lawyers.

This year, we are ranked in 5 categories:

• Commercial and transactions
• Insolvency
• White Collar Crime
• Family and Matrimonial
• Private Client

In addition, our partner and Head of SW Private Client, Ms. Catherine Por, has been named as a “Litigation Star” in Family and Matrimonial for 4 consecutive years.

Please contact Ms. Catherine Por, Ms. Heidi Chui, or Ms. Milly Hung for any enquiries or further information.

To view the full list of awards, please click here.

(中文) 简介

如果一名银行客户因为一名银行雇员的欺诈行为而遭受损失，银行需要负上法律责任吗？被欺诈的客户针对银行又可以寻求哪些救济方式呢？在最近的陆颖恩对招商永隆银行有限公司 [2021] HKCFI 279一案中，香港法院原讼法庭裁定被告人招商永隆银行不需要对其雇员欺诈客户所造成的损失负上法律责任。法庭在判决中详细讨论及审视了转承责任及Quincecare责任方面的法律，并确立了重要的法律原则。

背景事实

原告人为被告人银行 (下称「银行」) 的客户，涉事的银行雇员(下称「该雇员」)当时于北角分行任职证券经理。原告人是该雇员欺诈投资计划的其中一名受害者。

该雇员向原告人提出可让原告人参与只提供给银行雇员的「内部」投资，而该等「内部」投资将产生极高的回报 (大约是一般银行定期存款回报的100倍)。

原告人信以为真，并于2010年至2013年间将约3,500万港元转到该雇员的私人银行帐户用作「内部」投资。该雇员伪造收据、结单及其他记录，并前后向原告人支付约1,130万港元的「回报」，令原告人相信她转给该雇员的3,500万港元全部用作「内部」投资。

该雇员的欺诈行为于 2014 年 3 月曝光。该雇员继而受到刑事检控，被判定三项欺诈罪，并判处监禁 10 年。在整个欺诈投资计划中，原告人损失了约2,380万港元。

原告人其后向银行提起诉讼，要求银行赔偿她的损失。就此，法庭需要处理的议题是，银行是否需要对原告人因其雇员的欺诈行为而遭受的损失负上法律责任。

转承责任

首先，原告人依赖转承责任的原则向银行申索。该原则下雇主在某些情况下需要为其雇员的侵权行为 (tort) 负上法律责任。

在雇佣关系的情况下，香港终审法院于Ming An Insurance Co (HK) Ltd v Ritz-Carlton Ltd 一案中就转承责任的认定确立了「密切联系」测试 (“close connection” test)。该测试的准则是，雇员的未经授权侵权行为与其受雇工作的联系是否如此密切，以致于法庭裁定雇主须负上转承责任是公平公正 (fair and just) 的？

在本案中，法庭认为，由于侵权行为可能出现的情况是无限 (infinite) 的，「密切联系」测试无可避免地缺乏精确性 (lack of precision)，因此并非在所有情况下都适用。 法院认为，在涉及雇员欺诈行为的案件中，认定转承责任的法律测试应该是雇员的欺诈行为是否属于雇主实际或表见代理 (apparent authority) 的范围。 一般而言，表见代理成立的条件是:-

(1) 委托人 (principal) 以言语或行为向第三方表示 (represent)，代理人 (agent) 有权从事有关交易；

(2) 第三方依赖该陈述 (representation) 进行交易; 及

(3) 该等依赖是合理的。

就此，法庭接纳银行的说法认为银行不可能打算或授权其雇员代表银行向外部人员提供内部投资计划。法庭更指出，认为银行的雇员出售证券产品的表见代理权限会扩大至销售任何类型产品的权限，包括外部人员明确知道是银行无法提供给外部人员的投资产品，这样的想法是不合逻辑的。因此，法庭裁定银行没有表示或向外宣称 (hold out) 该雇员有权向原告人提供该等内部投资计划，而原告人亦不会有任何实际依赖 (actual reliance)，因此转承责任不成立。

Quincecare责任

除了转承责任外，原告人亦依赖Quincecare 责任向银行提出申索，该责任指当银行应当知道 (put on inquiry) 某授权代理人 (authorised agent) 发出的交易指令是为了欺骗 (attempt to defraud) 该客户时，银行有责任避免执行该代理人发出的交易指令。

然而，法庭指出，Quincecare 责任一般只有在银行收到代表客户作出的命令或指示，即从客户的授权代理人收到的命令或指示，而不是直接从客户收到指令或指示才适用。在本案中，由于付款指示是由原告人直接发出，且原告是有意向收款人支付款项的，因此Quincecare责任并不适用。法庭认为，原告人的损失不是由银行的任何疏忽或失职造成的，而是由「她自己的贪婪及轻信」 (her own greed and gullibility) 所造成的。

同时，法庭拒绝将Quincecare责任的范围扩大至银行需判断付款指示是否是任何人以任何方式欺骗客户的任何计划的一部分 (a duty arising whenever a bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the instructed payment is part of any scheme perpetrated by any person to defraud the customer in any way)。这种扩大的责任范围无疑会让银行执行客户指示的效率变低，且严重阻碍银行的首要责任。

评论及要点

毋庸置疑，银行界会欢迎陆颖恩案的裁决，特别是法庭确认了Quincecare责任的有限适用范围，并且拒绝将银行的责任范围扩大。然而，随着银行在人工智能以及金融科技领域的进一步发展，银行可能需要考虑制定并采取适当的监管措施，合法监管银行职员的行为，保障银行客户的利益。同时，在所有涉及客户代理人发出的交易指令或指示时，银行应该额外保持警惕，以确保完善履行Quincecare责任。　

本文由本所合伙人﹑银行及金融部和诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师和黄晊晄律师撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com)。

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。