The Society of Trusts and Estate Practitioners (STEP) has recently announced the finalists for each category of its 15th Annual STEP Private Client Awards (STEP PCA). Our firm’s partner, Ms. Sherlynn Chan, has been shortlisted as a finalist for “Vulnerable Client Advisory Practice of the Year”.

The competition this year is particularly intense. With a record-breaking number of nominations, STEP PCA has received 319 submissions across 27 countries. STEP PCA is judged by a worldwide panel of experts and is widely acknowledged as one of the most prestigious Awards in the industry.

The result will be announced at the first-ever Virtual Awards Ceremony on 9 Dec 2020.

About Ms. Sherlynn Chan

Ms. Sherlynn Chan, Partner of our firm and the Chairman and founding member of a charitable organization, MIP Care Resources Connect, specialises in private client work including contentious probate and family matters. She served as a Deputy District Judge in the Family Court in 2014 and is currently the Chairman of the Mental Health Law Committee of the Law Society of Hong Kong and Co-Chair of the Societies of Trusts and Estate Practitioners (STEP) HK’s Mental Health, Elderly and Capacity Law Sub-Committee.

She has been appointed by the High Court as Committee of the estate of mentally incapacitated persons and manages substantial assets on behalf of vulnerable clients.

About STEP Private Client Awards

The STEP Private Client Awards are seen as the hallmark of quality within the private client industry. The Awards recognise and celebrate excellence among private client solicitors, lawyers, accountants, barristers, bankers, trust managers and financial advisors.

Please contact Ms. Sherlynn Chan for more information or further enquiries.

The Hong Kong Court dismissed the Petitioner Wife’s Petition in a divorce case for want of jurisdiction, ruling that the Petitioner Wife had lacked substantial connection with Hong Kong.

Traditionally, the Hong Kong Court is one of the more popular jurisdictions to initiate divorce proceedings for couples with overseas connections, especially the expatriate community, due to the city’s international exposure.  In recent years, as the Mainland and Hong Kong integrate social-economically, cross-border marriages between the Mainland and Hong Kong have increased prevalently.  Currently, Mainland-Hong Kong cross-border marriages account for almost one-third of the 50,000 marriages registered every year in Hong Kong, while around 20,000 couples petition for divorce yearly.

A vital consideration in international or cross-border marriages is the choice of jurisdiction. In this respect, the Hong Kong Court has a set of clear guidelines in respect of its divorce jurisdiction. Not everyone can petition for a divorce in Hong Kong. By illustrating a recent Mainland-Hong Kong cross-border divorce case handled by our Private Client Department, this article sheds light on the Hong Kong Court’s approach to the issues of jurisdiction and forum in cross-border divorce cases.

Case Background

This is a divorce case in relation to Mr Y and Ms C, who is a Hong Kong Permanent Resident.  In August 2017, Ms C petitioned for divorce in the Hong Kong Family Court on the ground that she had substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of her petition.  Therefore, as per Ms C, the Hong Kong Court had jurisdiction over her divorce proceedings.

Our client Mr Y applied to the Court to dismiss Ms C’s Petition for the reasons as follows:- (a) the Court does not have jurisdiction over the case; or (b) the proceedings should be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens and be heard in the Beijing People’s Court.

In order to establish her substantial connection with Hong Kong, Ms C relied on a number of matters, namely, (1) Ms C is a holder of Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport and has obtained permanent residency; (2) Ms C was employed by a Hong Kong company and had come to Hong Kong regularly on business trip, establishing social network in Hong Kong; (3) the parties purchased a property in Hong Kong as their matrimonial home; and (4) Ms C maintains a bank account in Hong Kong.

Court’s Decision

Issue 1: Does the Hong Kong Court have jurisdiction – does Ms C have substantial connection with Hong Kong?

Section 3(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap. 179) sets out the Hong Kong Court’s position on divorce jurisdiction:- either party to the marriage is required to have substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of petition.

How to determine the issue of substantial connection – the Court quoted the principles in ZC v NC (Divorce jurisdiction) [2014] 5 HKLRD 43 in this respect:-

• Whether a party has substantial connection with Hong Kong is a question of fact, and the Court needs to look at surrounding factors on a case-by-case basis;
• At a starting point, the Court has to determine whether the party has connection with Hong Kong, thereafter to determine whether the connection is a substantial one;
• For the connection to be substantial, the party’s presence in Hong Kong cannot be transitory in nature, otherwise this will encourage “fly in” and “fly out” divorces;
• Resident status in Hong Kong is only one factor to be taken into account as the party may not be living in Hong Kong on a long term basis.  Other factors include the party’s past pattern of life, the frequency of visit to Hong Kong, the length and purpose of stay and whether the party is engaged in business or work in Hong Kong, whether the rest of the family is in Hong Kong, whether a home has been established, whether the children are at school in Hong Kong, etc.
• The fact that a party is shown to have substantial connection elsewhere may be used to contrast with the connecting facts he has in Hong Kong to determine if the Hong Kong connection is substantial.

Applying the legal principles above, the Court ruled on the matters relied by Ms C to establish substantial connection as such:-

1. Hong Kong permanent residency is insufficient to constitute substantial connection – Despite recognising that Ms C is a holder of Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport, the Court was of the view that on or before the date of her Petition, Ms C only stayed in Hong Kong for a limited number of days.  The Court held that Ms C did not treat Hong Kong as her home.  Moreover, the fact that she has no Hukou or identity card in the Mainland was not indicative of her substantial connection with Hong Kong.
2. Holding a property in Hong Kong is not equivalent to having a matrimonial home in Hong Kong – Ms C alleged that she holds a property in Hong Kong as the parties’ matrimonial home.  It has been shown by records of the Immigration Department that the parties had only been in Hong Kong at the same time for 4 to 7 days in the period between 2008 and 2012.  They had not been in Hong Kong together since 2013.  Therefore, contrary to Ms C’s contention, the Court held that the property in question was not the parties’ matrimonial home.
3. Maintaining a bank account in Hong Kong is only a matter for consideration of substantial connection – Ms C alleged that she had opened a bank account in Hong Kong in 2007 and is still using it as her primary bank account in Hong Kong. Nonetheless, in the era of globalisation and proximity between Hong Kong and the Mainland, it is commonplace to hold assets, bank accounts and companies in Hong Kong, particularly for individuals who travel across the border frequently.
4. Being once employed and having social network established in Hong Kong does not necessarily amount to substantial connection – Ms C alleged that she had come to Hong Kong regularly on business trips since 1990.  Thereafter she worked as an insurance broker in Hong Kong and had established social network here, being a member of a club in Hong Kong.  The Court held that, to determine whether there was substantial connection, the relevant time to be considered was the date of petition.  Given that Ms C had only been present in Hong Kong for a limited number of days for the past 9 years, the employment history of Ms C does not assist her case.

Issue 2:  Even if the Hong Kong Court has the relevant jurisdiction, is the principle forum non conveniens applicable such that the case should be heard in the Beijing Court?

The Court also ruled in favour of Mr Y for his application to stay the proceedings in Hong Kong on the ground of forum non conveniens.  Applying the guiding principles as set out in the Court of Final Appeal case SPH v SA [2014] 3 HKLRD 497, the Court came to the conclusion that:-

1. The Beijing Court is another available forum – the Court adopted the Mainland legal opinion adduced by Mr Y and held that Mr Y was entitled to commence relevant proceedings in the Beijing Court.
2. The Beijing Court is a more appropriate forum – Considering that the parties were married in the Mainland, they spent most of their marital life in the Mainland, they signed a pre-nuptial agreement in the Mainland and are currently subject to another company litigation in the Mainland.  The Court was of the view that the Hong Kong Court was not the natural or appropriate forum of the current divorce proceedings.
3. Ms C will not be deprived of her legitimate personal or juridical advantage if the case is tried in the Beijing Court.

Court’s Decision

Applying the legal principles to the facts of this case, the Court held that Ms C failed to prove that she had substantial connection with Hong Kong as at the date of Petition.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed Ms C’s Petition for want of jurisdiction.  Even if the Hong Kong Court had the relevant jurisdiction, the Court still considered the Beijing Court to be a more appropriate forum to hear the case.

Case Commentary

This is a very typical Mainland-Hong Kong cross-border divorce case, primarily on the Hong Kong Court’s approach to its divorce jurisdiction and incidental disputes.  When a marriage has come to an end, the party who is minded to petition for a divorce in Hong Kong is advised to produce sufficient evidence, especially for establishing either party’s substantial connection with Hong Kong.  This serves to invoke the divorce jurisdiction of Hong Kong Court and to establish that Hong Kong Court is the more appropriate forum to hear the case.

This article is co-authored by our experienced Private Client Team – our Partners Catherine Por and Wendy Lam, and our Senior Associates Karl Wong and Calvin Lo. Please contact our Catherine Por or Wendy Lam for any further enquiries or 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.

(中文) 红筹企业，是指注册地在境外、主要经营活动在境内的企业。关于红筹企业在境内上市路径，历经从最初的严格禁止，到国务院办公厅发文允许创新企业在境内发行股票或存托凭证，再到证监会发文支持红筹企业在上海证券交易所科创板（“科创板”）上市的过程，可见我国的资本市场正在逐步向境外上市的红筹企业开放上市路径。近期，随着科创板对于红筹企业上市利好政策频出以及中芯国际集成电路制造有限公司（以下简称“中芯国际”，HK：00981、SH：688981)在科创板成功挂牌上市，科创板上市更成为了众多香港上市的红筹企业回归的优选路径。

本文将从境外上市红筹企业科创板上市规则、香港上市企业红筹回归成功案例以及目前符合科创板上市规则的港股案例分析三个部分对于香港上市企业进行红筹回归进行梳理和分析，以期帮助众多香港上市红筹企业在规划资本市场策略布局时厘清红筹回归前的准备事项以及上市要点。

一、 境外上市红筹企业科创板上市规则介绍

作为股票发行注册制改革试点，科创板在股票发行方面进行了一系列制度创新，其中包括允许符合条件的境外上市红筹企业可以在科创板申请二次上市。对于境外上市红筹企业在科创板上市的主要规章、规范性文件以及业务规则梳理如下：

上述规则允许境外上市红筹企业回归科创板时可以根据自身情形决定发行股票或者存托凭证，但同时对于红筹企业在财务和行业领域方面提出一定的要求。值得注意的是，虽然科创板对于红筹企业的股权结构、公司治理、运行规范的发行条件有所放宽，允许其适用境外注册地公司法等法律法规规定，但在投资者保护方面则明确规定投资者权益保护安排应不低于境内法律要求。此外，对于存在投票权差异、协议控制架构或类似特殊安排的红筹企业，要求其在公开发行时进行详细的披露。因此，对于设置股权优先权等特殊安排的境外上市的红筹企业，需要提前采取相应处理措施并在招股书中进行详细披露。

二、 香港上市红筹企业回归科创板上市案例——中芯国际

中芯国际已于2020年6月29日通过上海证券交易所科创板上市委员会的审议，并于2020年7月16日在科创板挂牌上市（688981.SH）。中芯国际本次科创板发行的股票初始发行价格为27.46元/股，最终融资额为462.87亿元人民币。其是首例同时在香港和科创板两地上市的企业，也是首家回归A股的境外上市红筹企业。中芯国际的成功上市为香港、境内两地上市企业的境内外制度差异的处理方式提供了具有借鉴意义的思路。

1. 红筹架构

中芯国际作为注册于开曼群岛的公司，曾于2004年3月18日在香港联合交易所（“联交所”）上市。截至目前，其股权架构如下：

（图片来源：中芯国际招股说明书）

除中芯国际的股东有所变更外，该架构的境外部分保留了其香港上市时的红筹架构，而架构内的香港上市公司中芯国际集成电路制造有限公司（“Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation”）也是中芯国际此次科创板上市发行的发行主体。

中芯国际此次科创板上市保留了红筹架构，并且以境外上市公司作为境内A股发行主体，可见香港上市红筹企业在境内上市发行时,可以香港上市公司作为发行主体，而无需拆除红筹架构以股份制改革后的境内运营实体作为上市主体，极大地降低了重组成本。

2. 实际控制人

根据我国《公司法》，实际控制人是指“虽不是公司的股东，但通过投资关系、协议或者其他安排，能够实际支配公司行为的人”。在公司股权结构分散的情况下单一股东控制比例达到30%及以上且没有相反证据证明时即可能被上海证券交易所认定为公司实际控制人。对于实际控制人，科创板要求公司的实际控制人两年内不得发生变更且需要进行严格披露。

而对于境外上市的红筹企业，由于境内外上市规则差异，实践中开曼等地区的境外上市企业在其集团中可能不存在境内法定意义上的实际控制人，仅存在主要股东或各方的股权比例相近。如在科创板挂牌上市前，中芯国际的第一大股东和第二大股东分别为为大唐控股（香港）投资有限公司（“大唐香港”）和鑫芯（香港）投资有限公司（“鑫芯香港”），持股比例分别为17%和15.76%，且两位主要股东之间不存在关联关系和一致行动关系。考虑到境内外客观差异，科创板允许中芯国际认定其无实际控制人的情形下进行上市发行。

为协调衔接境内外上市发行条件差异，科创板突破性允许上市企业在确保公司决策有效性的前提下认定无实际控制人。这一举措减轻了红筹企业境内上市时对于实控人认定及披露的硬性要求。

3. 科创板上市规则适用

此次中芯国际科创板上市选择适用的具体上市标准为《相关安排》中规定的：“市值200亿元人民币以上，且拥有自主研发、国际领先技术，科技创新能力较强，同行业竞争中处于相对优势地位。”

3.1 市值标准

由于目前中芯国际仍是香港主板上市公司，根据中芯国际招股书披露，向证监会申报之日（即2020年6月1日）前其在香港联交所主板上市交易的 120 个交易日内平均市值为 679 亿元人民币。因此中芯国际符合《相关安排》中“市值200亿元人民币以上”的市值标准。

此外，虽然科创板上市规则未要求明确要求发行人在招股书报告期内营业收入呈增长趋势，但中芯国际的财务表现依然亮眼，其净利润从2017年的约9亿元人民币增长至2019年的约12亿6千万元人民币，报告期内其历年营业收入始终保持在200亿元人民币以上。

因此，对于回归科创板的红筹企业，尽管上市规则中只对市值和行业有明确规定，并无其他财务指标要求，但从已经在科创板上市企业的申报材料看，也需要注重和提升自身的营收水平和财务表现。

3.2 科技创新标准

根据中芯国际招股书披露，作为全球领先的集成电路晶圆代工企业之一，中芯国际在IC Insights公布的2018年纯晶圆代工行业全球市场销售额排名国际第四、中国第一。其亦是中国大陆技术最先进、规模最大、配套服务最完善、跨国经营的专业晶圆代工企业。

为保持科技领域的行业竞争力，中芯国际拥有大量知识产权，包括但不限于专利、集成电路布图设计、商业秘密。根据中芯国际招股书统计，截至2019年12月31日，中芯国际及其控股子公司持有与生产经营相关的主要专利共8,122件，其中境内专利6,527 件、境外专利1,595件。

综上，作为在软件和集成电路行业内达到相当规模的创新企业，中芯国际符合《关于创新试点红筹企业在境内上市相关安排的公告》中规定的“拥有自主研发、国际领先技术，科技创新能力较强，同行业竞争中处于相对优势地位”。

拟科创板上市的红筹企业，需增强和提高“科技”和“创新”能力，拥有独立自主地研发团队和研发能力，科技水平在国内外需处于行业领先水平，并能将科技成果转化成先进生产力。

3.3 发行股本要求

中芯国际此次上市共发行168,562万股新股，并设置绿鞋机制、授予承销商海通证券初始发行规模15%的超额配售选择权，发行后总股数（包含A股发行股、H股发行股及超额配售股）约为73.89亿股，此次发行股数约占发行后总股数的22.8%。

根据《科创板上市规则》的规定，发行人境内上市发行后的股本总额不低于人民币3,000万元。但中芯国际此次上市发行每股面值为0.004美元，其股票面值与股本结构与境内上市企业存在较大差异。针对红筹企业的差异情形，《关于红筹企业申报科创板发行上市有关事项的通知》中对于红筹企业的上市条件作出了一定调整，“红筹企业在科创板申请上市情形下关于发行人发行后的股份总数不低于3000万股以及公开发行的股份达到公司股份总数的25%以上”；“公司股份总数超过4亿股的，公开发行股份的比例为10%以上”。

因此，拟科创板上市的红筹企业境内上市发行时，无需硬性调整其股本结构和股票面值以满足境内上市发行条件，从而节省了一定的上市发行成本。

3.4 投资者权益保护

《若干意见》、《科创板上市规则》等文件中对于境外上市的红筹企业在境内上市时的投资者保护水平提出了总体上不得低于境内法律、行政法规以及中国证监会规定的要求，包括但不限于参与重大决策、资产收益和剩余财产分配等方面。

鉴于中芯国际上市主体为注册于开曼群岛且已在香港联交所上市的境外公司，因此其公司组织结构以及公司治理制度中涉及资产收益、参与重大决策等股东核心权益的条款与境内上市企业存在差异。

根据中芯国际招股书披露，为满足A股发行上市的投资者保护要求以及协调境内外制度差异，中芯国际修订了其《公司章程》《内部审计章程》，并制定了《股东大会议事规则》《董事会议事规则》《投资者关系管理制度》等一系列具体治理制度，从而实现良好保护投资者在资产收益、参与重大决策等方面的权益。在资产收益方面，中芯国际明确了公司发行上市后三年的分红回报计划、对于利润分配的原则、形式等方面做出详细说明。在参与重大决策方面，虽然部分事项决策由董事会负责，如公司董事的报酬、公司财务预算方案、公司发行一般公司债券等，但根据境内法律规定需提交股东大会审议事项将由股东大会决策，其目前股东大会与董事会职权划分与境内制度的差异未对股东参与公司重大决策的权利造成损害。

此外，作为香港上市公司，中芯国际就其与A股上市公司制度设计上的其他主要差异作出一定协调，完善境内外董事任免制度衔接，如由独立非执行董事和审计委员会共同行使相当部分境内上市公司监事会职权、中小股东享有董事任免权等。针对中芯国际境内外差异事项，中芯国际也承诺发行上市后将按照两地上市规则中较为严格者执行，从而有利保障各股东的经济利益和投票权利益。

实践中，香港上市红筹企业回归科创板时可以保留其在香港上市规则下设置的公司内部组织架构，从而节省内部结构调整成本；但出于保护投资者角度，公司内部各机构需实质行使与境内上市公司设置的独立董事、监事会等职位相同的职能。

4. 优先权安排

根据中芯国际招股说明书披露，中芯国际曾分别与大唐电信科技产业控股有限公司（“大唐控股”）（及其子公司大唐香港）、国家集成电路产业投资基金股份有限公司（“大基金一期”）（及其子公司鑫芯香港）签署《股权购买协议》，约定如公司发行普通股等股份，给予大唐控股和大基金一期优先购买权，但若公司控制权发生变更则前述优先购买权即终止。鉴于开曼群岛和香港地区法律允许上市公司特定股东基于协议等安排享有特殊股东权利，而中国公司法则明确规定了同股同权的原则，因此在优先权等特殊股东权利安排方面境内外法律适用存在差异，需要协调与处理。

为了实现本次上市，中芯国际1）确认大唐控股和大基金一期的优先购买权不会导致前述公司及其各自的附属公司对中芯国际产生实质控制；2）表明即使前述公司行使优先认购也不会损害其他股东或中芯国际的合法权益，且前述公司与其他股东不存在重大诉讼、仲裁纠纷；3）明确除前述优先购买权外，中芯国际持股 5%以上的股东不存在任何其他特殊股东权利，且中芯国际未与其他股东签署对赌协议。值得注意的是，由于大唐控股与大基金一期所持有的股份为普通股而非具有优先权利的股份，因此中芯国际不适用《关于红筹企业申报科创板发行上市有关事项的通知》中关于强制终止股东享有的带有约定赎回权等优先权利的股份或可转换债券等优先权的要求。

实践中，企业在境外上市搭建红筹架构的过程中，为吸引境外投资者，通常会赋予境外投资者一定的优先权利，包括但不限于优先购买权、一票否决权等。但出于保护中小股东权益的原则以及上海证监会的监管要求，实践中拟上市企业会在上市前对原有的股东特殊权利安排（如带有约定赎回权等优先权利的股份或可转换债券）进行处理，通过与投资人签署协议在上市前终止此类优先权利、将其股份转换为普通股，从而确保上市后未来的中小股东的权益，平衡新老股东之间的权利和利益分配。

为扩宽融资渠道、解决境内外商投资限制，此前许多企业选择采取红筹架构进行境外上市，而经过科创板政策的一系列创新以及中芯国际的成功上市案例，科创板展现其对于上市企业架构的包容性，也为众多境外上市，特别是在香港上市的红筹企业提供了红筹回归的样本。在中芯国际的示范效应下，可以预期未来将会有更多的香港上市红筹企业以不同形式登陆科创板。

三、符合科创板上市规则的港股案例分析

根据国内最大投行中金公司于2020年5月24日发布的市场策略研究报告，符合科创板第一套上市财务标准，即市值大于2000亿元的香港上市红筹企业大部分属新经济股份，包括腾讯控股（HK: 00700），小米集团-W（HK: 01810），美团点评-W（HK: 03690），中国移动（HK: 00941）和中国海洋石油（HK: 00883）。另外，市值大于2000亿元并在香港第二上市的红筹企业则包括阿里巴巴（NYSE: BABA、HK: 09988）、京东（NASDAQ: JD、HK: 09618）和网易（NASDAQ: NTES；HK: 09999)。

可能符合科创板第二套上市财务标准，即市值大于200亿元的信息技术、医疗保健等具有一定创新业务的红筹企业则包括药明生物（HK: 02269）、百济神州（NASDAQ: BGNE；HK: 06160）等多家医疗保健企业，和联想集团（HK: 00992）、瑞声科技（HK: 02018）等多家信息技术企业。

以下我们以美团点评为例对采用VIE控制（即协议控制）模式，以及存在表决权差异安排（即同股不同权）的红筹企业是否符合科创板上市要求进行简要分析。

美团点评于港交所的上市主体注册于开曼群岛，美团点评2018年9月20日成功在香港联合交易所上市。集团在招股书中披露的架构如下图：

（图片来源：美团点评招股说明书）

美团点评截至2020年7月31日的市值超过港币11000亿，符合科创板市值人民币2000亿以上的标准。

与中芯国际不同的是，美团点评的红筹架构兼有股权控制和VIE控制，而且美团点评采用了表决权差异的安排。

国务院早在《若干意见》中已经明确VIE控制架构企业具备在境内上市的可能性。《相关安排》进一步明确了中国证监会受理发行申请后，将征求红筹企业境内实体实际从事业务的国务院行业主管部门和国家发展改革委、商务部对VIE架构的意见。近日第一家采用VIE控制的企业九号机器人的上市申请获通过，从实践上印证了科创板对VIE架构的包容性。对于VIE架构，监管机构比较关注发行人采用VIE控制的理由是否真实、合理。如上图所示，美团点评只有小部分业务通过VIE架构控制。根据上市时其招股书的披露，通过VIE控制的业务只涉及经营电子商务平台服务、云存储服务及其他增值电信服务的公司。其余没有外资准入限制的业务均已采用了股权控制。事实上，香港联交所要求上市公司采用VIE控制必须遵守严格限定的原则。因此，美团点评的VIE架构已经经过严谨设计，这将有助于解除监管机构对搭建VIE架构合理性的疑虑。

关于表决权差异的安排，科创板的规则与香港联交所的规则极为接近，而且科创板对表决权差异公司的市值要求低于香港联交所的要求。因此对于已在香港成功以同股不同权形式上市的美团点评来说，其现行表决权差异的设置已经比较符合科创板规则的要求。例如，在一些特殊及重大事项下，仍适用同股同权的规则，包括对公司章程作出修改、改变特别表决权股份享有的表决权数量、聘请或者解聘独立董事、聘请或者解聘为上市公司定期报告出具审计意见的会计师事务所以及公司合并、分立、解散或者变更公司形式。这些要求在美团点评现行的公司章程中已经基本得到了体现。另外，科创板也规定持有特别表决权股份的股东在上市公司中拥有权益的股份合计应当达到公司全部已发行有表决权股份10%以上。根据美团点评截至2020年7月10日的披露，公司目前已发行的A类股份（每股拥有10份投票权），占全部已发行普通股的比例约为12.5%。因此，美团点评仍有充足空间发行B类股份（每股拥有1份投票权）。

四、对有志于科创板集资的企业的建议

通过我们上述对中芯国际以及美团点评的分析，可以看到已在香港上市的企业，无论采用股权控制或是VIE控制，即使存在表决权差异的安排，都具备回归科创板的可行性。对于正在准备香港上市的企业来说，在筹备香港上市的阶段，已经可以积极关注科创板的上市要求以及监管机构的关注要点，以期可以进一步在科创板上市集资。

已在香港上市的企业如计划登陆科创板，在递交发行申请前，须先向香港联交所申请新发行的股份不需要在香港联交所上市等方面的豁免。在取得香港联交所的正式豁免函后，即可召开特别股东大会针对科创板新股发行以及其它相关事宜进行批准。

无论是已经在港上市还是准备赴港上市的红筹企业，要成功登陆科创板，都必须十分注重合规性问题。例如开曼公司层面是否已解除股权代持，控股股东是否有股权质押，境外员工激励计划是否合规等一系列问题。另外，红筹架构搭建过程的外汇和税务合规也会是监管机构的关注点。这些都要求对企业合规情况进行详细梳理、分析，需要境内外专业律师提供法律意见和解决方案。

本文由本所曾浩贤高级律师、商业法及企业融资部高级经理黄虹，及锦天城律师事务所合伙人黄晶晶律师和律师助理余心朵共同合著。如有任何疑问或需要进一步的信息，请联系本所曾浩贤高级律师。

On 6 November 2019, the Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”) issued a position paper entitled “Regulation of Virtual Asset Trading Platforms” (the “Position Paper”) along with an Appendix titled “Licensing Conditions and Terms and Conditions for Virtual Asset Trading Platform Operators” (the “Terms and Conditions”). The Position Paper introduced the SFC’s new regulatory framework of virtual asset trading platforms, emphasising on; (i) the licensing and supervisory regime in consistence with the IOSCO consultation report<[1] and (ii) a series of robust regulatory standards listed in details below. Background

The virtual asset market is continuously booming and evolving. With the booming market comes with more types of virtual asset investment products. Apart from initial coin offerings (ICOs), assets like “stablecoins”, Bitcoin futures, security token offerings (STOs), initial exchange offerings (IEOs) and other forms of derivatives have gained their entrance into the market. The new products, together with the part-taking of the largest accounting firms, renowned insurers and their brokers into virtual asset market, has attracted the close attention among global regulators.

Indeed, the SFC had released several announcements and circulars[2] on the topic to illustrate the relevant issues, followed with enhanced investor education and supervision.  The release of November 1 Statement has laid down the SFC’s regulatory stance and approach (See our  news update relating to “Further Development of Regulatory Approach towards Virtual Asset Portfolio Managers, Fund Distributors and Trading Platform Operators”).  The Position Paper now further elaborate the SFC’s new regulatory approach to virtual assets trading platforms. Essentially, the new approach allows eligible virtual asset trading platforms to be licensed by the SFC.  Licensed platforms will also be placed in the SFC Regulatory Sand Box[3] for a period of close and intensive supervision.

Licensing and Supervision Framework

In order to bring virtual asset trading platforms into the SFC’s regulatory oversight, the SFC introduced a new licensing regime covering centralised online trading platforms in Hong Kong that provide trading of at least one security token on its platform.  Such platform operators require a license for Type 1 (dealing in securities) and Type 7 (providing automated trading services, ATS) regulated activities. Subject to the Terms and Conditions and other licensing requirements, e.g. fit and proper criteria, a license may be granted to the qualified platform operators.

In terms of supervisory regime, when examining the license application of a platform operator, the SFC will consider the overall conduct of virtual assets trading business, particularly the compliance with expected regulatory standard. Once the platform operator is licensed, the SFC’s jurisdiction will take into account all relevant areas of operation, involving both security and non-security tokens trading occurring on or off its platform.

The said licensing and supervisory standards under the regulatory framework are kept consistent with international standards. They are also comparable to those which apply to licensed securities brokers and automated trading venues.

Licensing Conditions and Terms and Conditions

Once the SFC decides to grant a licence to the qualified centralised platforms operators, the following Terms and Conditions may be imposed. However, they are not exhaustive and the relevant Codes and Guidelines[4] shall also be referred to when conducting the relevant activities.

The six licensing conditions are as follows:-

1. The licensee must only provide services to professional investors[5].

2. The licensee must comply with the Terms and Conditions.

3. The licensee must obtain the SFC’s prior written approval for any plan or proposal to introduce or offer a new or incidental service, or activity, or to make a material change to an existing service or activity.

4. The licensee must obtain the SFC’s prior written approval for any plan or proposal to add any product to its trading platform.

5. The licensee must provide monthly reports to the SFC on its business activities in a format as prescribed by the SFC.[6]

6. The licensee must engage an independent professional firm acceptable to the SFC to conduct an annual review of its activities and operations and prepare a report confirming that it has complied with the licensing conditions and all relevant legal and regulatory requirements[7].

The Terms and Conditions mainly focuses on and seeks to address the key regulatory concerns related to the safe custody of assets, know-your-client requirements, anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism, market manipulation, accounting

and auditing, risk management, conflicts of interest and the acceptance of virtual assets

for trading. The table below provides a summary of the key Terms and Conditions:

Way Forward

From the encouraging attitude of the Greater Bay Area initiative regarding the financial technology industry, the development of the PBOC’s DC / EP (Digital Currency/Electronic Payment), to the recent speech of the national leader on encouraging the development and application of blockchain technology, we are seeing favourable development in this industry sector.

In this connection, the new regulatory approach put forward in the Position Paper has enabled higher regulatory certainty for virtual assets trading platform.  Such move from the SFC will allow Hong Kong to further consolidate itself as an international financial hub, as well as enhancing its positioning in the fintech sector.

This article is co-authored by Hank Lo, Partner and Head of Corporate Finance, and Partner Rodney Teoh. Please contact our Hank Lo or Rodney Teoh for any further enquiries or 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.

On 8 July 2020, our firm’s partner, Ms. Sherlynn Chan, was invited by the Zonta Club of Victoria to give a talk on “How to Embrace the Dementia Tsunami in HK- a Legal Perspective”.

From the left: Our firm’s partner, Ms. Sherlynn Chan; President of Zonta Club of Victoria, Ms. Helen Chen; Past International Director of Zonta International, Ms. Winnie Teoh and Governor of District 17- Zonta International, Ms. Teresa Lin

In light of the ageing population and increased life expectancy, there will be a surge in the number of dementia cases, leading to a huge increase in demand for elderly goods and services. During the talk, Ms. Chan explained the common causes of mental incapacity and gave an overview of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136). She then shared some case studies of elderly financial abuse and introduced some planning tools available (such as Wills and Trusts, the Enduring Power of Attorney and Advance Directives) to those who are still mentally capable in order to “prevent, protect and prepare”.

About Zonta

Zonta International is a global organization of executives and professionals working together to advance the status of women worldwide through service and advocacy. Zonta International envisions a world in which women’s rights are recognized as human rights and every woman is able to achieve her full potential. Founded in 1919, there are nearly 33,000 members from more than 1,200 Zonta Clubs across 67 countries and geographical areas.

About Ms. Sherlynn Chan

Ms. Sherlynn Chan, Partner of our firm and the Chairman and founding member of MIP Care Resources Connect Ltd., specialises in private client work including contentious probate and family matters. She served as a Deputy District Judge in the Family Court in 2014 and is currently the Chairman of the Mental Health Law Committee of the Law Society of Hong Kong and Co-Chair of the Societies of Trusts and Estate Practitioners (STEP) HK’s Mental Health, Elderly and Capacity Law Sub-Committee.

She has been appointed by the High Court as Committee of the estate of mentally incapacitated persons and manages substantial assets on behalf of vulnerable clients.

Please contact Ms. Sherlynn Chan for more information or further enquiries.

(中文) 一．前言

在美股上市的中概股“回家”最近成为市场热话。其实早在2015-2016年间，包括完美世界（002624.SZ）、三六零(601360.SH)在内的多家互联网公司也曾掀起过回归A股潮。而港股则在近两年迎来了数只大型的回归中概股。2019年11月,中国飞鹤（06186.HK）在美股退市6年后重返资本市场，在香港联合交易所（下称“联交所”）上市当天市值670亿港币，成为港股历史上IPO时市值最大的乳品企业。同月，阿里巴巴（NYSE：BABA；09988.HK)在联交所成功第二上市（Secondary Listing），为中概股回归港股翻开了新的一页。随后，京东（NASDAQ：JD；09618.HK)及网易（NASDAQ：NTES；09999.HK)也在今年6月成功第二上市。毫无疑问，因瑞幸咖啡财务造假事件而引爆的中概股信心危机以及美国监管政策的收紧将促使更多中概股踏上回归之路。

目前，中概股回归A股市场须经历私有化、拆除VIE架构等一系列复杂的流程。相比之下，重返港股市场则简单得多。2018年联交所启动了25年以来的最大机制改革，通过三大举措吸引新经济公司和创新公司来港上市，包括：(1) 允许尚未盈利的生物科技公司在港上市；(2)开放了同股不同权的限制；以及(3)接纳业务重心在大中华地区的企业申请在港第二上市。联交所的这一系列改革，不仅为港股市场增添了活力，更为众多中概股的回归创造了便利的条件。

以下，我们将从美国与香港上市规则的角度介绍中概股回归港股可以选择的三大路径，以及每种路径的流程和要点。

二．路径一：美股退市后于港股上市

中概股先于美股私有化退市，再通过IPO途径在港股重新上市是其中一种主流选择。今年7月6日，于纳斯达克上市的新浪（NASDAQ：SINA）公告，其股份获董事长旗下的公司发出私有化邀约，成功后将从美股退市。而过去曾于美股私有化后再在港股上市的公司则包括同程艺龙（00780.HK）、中国飞鹤（06186.HK）等知名股份。

企业于美股退市后再于港股IPO，将涉及三个主要操作步骤：

第一步，美股市场完成私有化并退市；

第二步，港股上市前重组（例如拆除部分VIE架构）;

第三步，港股IPO。

第一步：美股私有化及退市的示例性流程

美股私有化的方式有多种，包括(1)一步式合并，(2)两步式合并，(3)反向股票分拆等。以下我们将分别介绍该三种方式的流程及要点。

（1） 一步式合并 (“One-step” Merger)

一步式合并的私有化示例流程如下：

如果交易结构为一步式合并，公司必须通过投票代理声明书寻求其股东的批准，投票代理声明书必须符合美国证券交易法案条例14A和附表14A的要求，并且还必须在美国证券交易委员会（下称“SEC”）备案。

（2） 两步式合并 (“Two-step” Merger)

两步式合并的私有化示例流程如下：

(3) 反向股票分拆（Reverse Split）

公司也可以采取缩股分拆的方式来将纪录股东数目降低至SEC要求的标准之下，从而停止其向SEC备案的要求。在缩股中，公司发行一股新股来交换一定数目的旧股，就不足一股的零星股份向非关联方持有人进行现金补偿，从而使这些零星股持有人将不再持有公司的任何股份。

第二步，港股上市前重组

企业私有化后，通常需要根据各种商业因素以及IPO目的地的监管要求对拟上市集团进行架构重组。在港股重新IPO所需要进行的架构重组相对简单，例如不需要进行拆除红筹架构的动作。然而值得注意的是，联交所对上市公司采用VIE架构有着比美国市场更严格的要求。根据联交所的指引信HKEX-GL77-14中的指引，拟上市申请人采用VIE架构必须遵循严格限定（Narrowly-tailored）原则。根据此原则，除非监管部门没有规定操作指引或政策不允许，VIE架构必须在外资持股比例限制范围内采用。如果相关业务不存在外资持股比例限制，则上市申请人不得采用VIE架构来经营没有外资持股比例限制的业务。

因此，从美股私有化后的集团除了从商业角度进行重组外，也可能需要将部分不受外资股权限制的业务由VIE控制更改为以股权控制，或将存在外资持股比例限制的业务在政策允许的范围内采用股权与VIE混合控制模式。

第三步，港股IPO

重组完成后或在重组过程中，企业已可开始启动港股的IPO流程。我们在此列出港股IPO的财务要求、流程及通常所需时间：

港股IPO示例流程：

三．路径二：保留美股上市地位，申请于港股双重主要上市

中概股回归港股的另一项选择是在港作双重主要上市(Dual Primary Listing)。双重主要上市是指同一家公司在两个证券交易所同时挂牌，且同时满足两地对上市公司的各项监管要求，目前在A股、港股同时挂牌的众多“A+H”公司就是典型的双重主要上市案例。2018年8月，百济神州（NASDAQ：BGNE；06160.HK）在港股成功发行新股并挂牌，实现在港股、美股双重主要上市。

美国上市公司在港申请双重主要上市（或第二上市）只需要董事会批准即可，并在挂牌后作披露。若同时发行新股融资，则需要向SEC报备招股书。公司在第二市场成功挂牌后发布新闻稿。

另外，联交所允许双重主要上市的公司在符合一定条件的前提下可以通过保密递表的方式申请港股上市,而无须公开披露招股书的申请版本。以百济神州（NASDAQ：BGNE；06160.HK）为例，公司最早于2017年7月20日才宣布公司已出席港交所聆讯。接着，于7月27日宣布进行招股，8月8日已成功完成IPO。

双重主要上市的优点是不需要为私有化准备大笔资金，而同时可以在两个市场进行融资。但是，双重主要上市也需要满足两个市场的监管要求，对企业来说无疑加大了合规成本。

值得留意的是，联交所并没有对双重主要上市的申请人施加任何额外的财务要求。企业只需要符合港股IPO的财务要求即可（财务要求见路径一）。

四．路径三：保留美股上市地位，申请于港股第二上市

中概股可选择的第三种回归方式是在港第二上市（Secondary Listing）。对联交所而言，第二上市意味着上市公司是以原上市市场为主要的股票交易场所并且仍主要接受原上市市场的监管，因此被允许在港股作第二上市的公司可自动豁免遵守联交所部分上市规则。

在2018年前，并没有中概股在港股作第二上市，这是因为联交所和香港证监会曾一度认为业务重心在大中华区的企业不适合在港第二上市。然而，在2018年4月联交所对上市规则进行革新后，主板上市规则中加入了第19C章 – 合资格发行人第二上市。2019年11月,阿里巴巴（NYSE：BABA；09988.HK)在联交所成功第二上市，为中概股回归港股翻开了新的一页。

新制度下，纽约证券交易所、纳斯达克或伦敦证券交易所主市场（并属于英国金融市场行为监管局“高级上市”分类）被视为“合资格交易所”。符合以下条件的，在合资格交易所作主要上市的企业允许在港作第二上市：

(1) 企业必须是创新产业公司；

(2) 在至少最近两个完整会计年度于合资格交易所上市的合规纪录良好；

(3) （对中概股而言）申请人于香港第二上市时的总市值不少于400亿港币，或上市时的总市值不少于100亿港币并且最近一个经审计会计年度的收益不少于 10 亿港币。

另外，如果有关中概股是于2017年12月15日或之前在合资格交易所作主要上市，则属于“获豁免的大中华发行人”，可以额外享受：

(1) 不必修改公司章程等组织章程文件（但仍须符合主要股东保障水平）；

(2) 可以保留企业而有的同股不同权架构，而不需要因应联交所对同股不同权公司的要求进行变更；

(3) 可以保留现有的VIE架构（即不需要对企业现有的VIE架构作上文路径二中所述的更改）。但须符合联交所VIE指引中的披露规定，并须向联交所提供中国法律意见，说明其可变利益实体结构符合中国法律、规则及法规；

(4) 《收购守则》可以不适用于这些公司（但如日后其股份的主要成交地转移到香港市场，令该公司被视作在香港双重主要上市，《收购守则》即告适用）。

显然，相较于双重主要上市，第二上市能大大减低企业在港股市场的合规成本。而且对于获豁免的大中华发行人来说，更加免除了因港美的监管规定不同而需要对企业现行架构实施各种变更的麻烦和成本。因此，第二上市对大型创新公司极具吸引力。

五．结语

正如香港交易所（00388.HK）行政总裁李小加在接受新华社访问时指出，香港市场面向全球投资者开放。过去很多企业选择赴美上市是因为香港的机制还未准备好。但今天的香港已经对上市制度进行了改革，拿掉了好企业上市的障碍和壁垒。中概股“回家”无疑将是大势所趋。

本文作者
本文由本所曾浩贤高级律师、商业法及企业融资部高级经理黄虹及美國欧洛律师事务所 (Ortoli | Rosenstadt LLP)- 亚洲业务部联合主席，叶梦艺律师共同合著。如有任何疑问或需要进一步的信息，请联系本所曾浩贤高级律师。
本新闻简讯仅供参考之用。其内容不构成亦不应被视为法律意见。史蒂文生黄律师事务所对于任何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。