We are delighted to announce that our SW Private Client Practice has once again been recognised by The Legal 500 Asia Pacific Guide- Private Client (Tax, Trusts, Wealth Management and Contentious Probate) for the 2^nd consecutive year. The Legal 500’s research team surveyed and interviewed more than 300,000 corporate counsels globally in the past year. Firms listed in the guide are highly regarded and recommended by counsels and clients.

The Legal 500 recognises that our SW Private Client Practice, “covers a broad cross-section of matters, with work ranging from family wealth and succession planning to assistance with the preparation of Enduring Powers of Attorney and managing the assets of the mentally incapacitated. Catherine Por,  who heads up the family law department, has wide-ranging contentious and non-contentious expertise, including ancillary relief and fiercely-contested matters involving custody and maintenance arrangements for children. Wendy Lam and Janice Chin are also recommended.”

Please contact our Partners and Heads of SW Private Client, Ms. Catherine Por and Ms. Wendy Lam, or visit The Legal 500 Asia Pacific Guide for any inquiries

Introduction

On 12 January 2022, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (the “HKMA”) issued a discussion paper on crypto-assets and stablecoins (the “Discussion Paper”), inviting industry and public views on the applicable regulatory approach. Against the backdrop of increasing global adoption of crypto-assets and enhanced use of technology in financial systems, the HKMA has visited the regulatory regimes of Hong Kong as well as other major countries and the recommendations from the global regulators on this nascent field. The two keys of the Discussion Paper are the regulatory frameworks regarding (i) the Authorized Institutions (“AIs”) and (ii) payment-related stablecoins.

Crypto-assets and Stablecoins

In the Discussion Paper, the definition and nature of crypto-asset and stablecoins are broadly set out as follows:

Current Regulatory Regime in Hong Kong

A. Proposed licensing regime for virtual asset service providers (“VASP regime”)

In November 2019, the Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”) issued a position paper to set out a licensing framework for platforms which offer trading of securities-type VAs or tokens (“voluntary opt-in regime”).  In particular, the voluntary opt-in regime is applicable to only platforms that offer trading services of at least one virtual asset (“VA”) with securities features involved.  Platforms solely trading non-securities VAs are not covered.

In May 2021, Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (“FSTB”) has completed the public consultation on introducing the VASP licence regime targeting at business operating a virtual asset (“VA”) exchange. At the initial stage, the licence regime will not apply to other types of VASPs such as crypto wallet providers or custodians. For further details, please refer to our news update “FSTB Consultation Conclusions on Legislative Proposals to Enhance Anti-Money Launder and Counter-Terrorist Financing Regulation in Hong Kong on Virtual Asset Services Providers” published on 9 July 2021.

B. Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Ordinance (“PSSVFO”)

Under the PSSVFO, the HKMA licenses and supervises Stored Value Facilities (“SVFs”), such as e-wallets and prepaid cards. The arrangements of crypto-assets, especially those used for payment purposes, are in some aspects similar to an SVF. Yet, whether a crypto-asset business amounts to an SVF is determined case by case. If a crypto-asset falls within the definition of SVF, it will be subject to a mandatory licensing regime administered by the HKMA. However, the definition of SVF of the PSSVFO may not cover certain types of stablecoins and/or their activities as may be seen in the market. Therefore, the HKMA is considering expanding the scope of the PSSVFO to cover such payment-related stablecoins.

C. Non-backed crypto-assets such as security crypto-assets

In November 2018, the SFC issued a circular to all intermediaries regarding regulatory requirements and expected standards and practices concerning the distribution of VA funds. For VA funds not authorised by the SFC, intermediaries should only target clients who are professional investors (as defined under the Securities and Futures Ordinance). The AIs intending to provide investment services related to VA must notify the HKMA and the SFC in advance.

Payment-related Stablecoins

Some stablecoins may become a commonly accepted means to make payment which may fall outside existing regulatory frameworks, posing risks to the market and community. One of the key risks is the money laundering/terrorist financing (ML/TF) risk as stablecoins may be held and changed hands anonymously and easily (even across the globe and borders) through the internet or other means.

Key Discussion Questions

A list of eight questions set out by the HKMA for industry and public feedback, together with its corresponding views, are extracted as follows:

Analysis and Takeaways

The fast-growing use of crypto-assets may pose risks to the financial system. Developing regulatory perimeters to appropriately govern crypto-assets could address the various risks posed to users and the financial system while embracing the potential benefit of innovations in the market. The Discussion Paper is a timely step taken by the HKMA to update its regulatory tools and shows the initiative and determination of the regulators in Hong Kong to ensure monetary and financial stability amidst technological advancement. We welcome more discussions and sparkles on this topic.

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.

We are pleased to announce that our Partner and Head of Corporate Finance, Mr. Hank Lo, has been named one of the “Dealmakers of Asia 2021, Hong Kong” by Asian Legal Business (ALB). In addition, our firm has also been recognized in the “ALB Asia M&A Rankings 2021”.

About Mr. Hank Lo

Mr. Lo heads the Corporate Finance Practice in the firm. He specializes in capital markets, corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions and representative matters. Hank has significant experience advising issuers, sponsors and underwriters on initial public offerings on both the main and GEM boards of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited; advising publicly listed companies on a broad range of corporate finance transactions; advising private equity funds, venture capital funds and Hong Kong listed companies on their investments in and exits from companies with an emphasis on China; and providing advice to companies in Greater China on representative matters including property transactions, foreign investment and initial public offerings.

About Our Corporate Finance Group

Our highly experienced corporate finance group has an excellent track record of handling complex transactions of every size. Our clients include public and private corporations, investment banks, financial institutions, direct investment funds and international bodies. Through our network of Interlaw associated offices, we provide clients with access to substantial resources in Europe, the Americas and Asia. Drawing on this network, we can provide a seamless, integrated service that draws together different areas of expertise across countries and continents.

For any enquiries, please contact our Partner Mr. Hank Lo or click here to see the Dealmakers ranking and here to see the M&A rankings.

Introduction

On 17 December 2021, The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Exchange”) published its consultation conclusions (the “Consultation Conclusions”) to create a new listing regime for special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) in Hong Kong.  The Exchange also published a guidance letter on SPACs (the “Guidance Letter”).  In addition, the Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”) published a Practice Note 23 to provide guidance on waivers of the mandatory general offer obligation under Rule 26.1 of the Takeovers Code for De-SPAC Transactions.

Majority of the responses from the public has generally supported the Exchange’s proposals outlined in its consultation paper on SPAC dated 17 September 2021 (the “Consultation Paper”).  This article follows up with our news update in September 2021 on the Exchange’s Consultation Paper.  The capitalised terms used herein shall have the same meanings as defined in the Consultation Conclusions and Consultation Paper.

The Exchange shall broadly implement its proposals on SPAC set out in the Consultation Paper, with some amendments to reflect the public’s responses. The amended Listing Rules as set out in the Consultation Conclusions and the Guidance Letter came into effect on 1 January 2022.

Key features of SPACs

The table below lays out the key differences between the original proposals and the final SPAC framework to be implemented:

Analysis and Takeaways

We can see that the Hong Kong regulators have kept in mind its commitment to investor protection in the Consultation Conclusions.  The new Hong Kong SPAC listing regime seeks to strike a balance between upholding Hong Kong as a leading financial centre by allowing SPAC listings while ensuring high quality SPAC listing applicants and De-SPAC targets to enter into the Hong Kong capital markets and maintaining robust regulatory framework.   

Please contact our Partner Mr. Rodney Teoh and associate Ms. Angela Lau for any enquiries or further information.

Background

On 10 December 2021, The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Exchange”) published its consultation conclusions (the “Consultation Conclusions”) as to its review of the Corporate Governance Code (the “CG Code”) and the related Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on the Exchange (the “Listing Rules”). The Exchange has received positive feedbacks from the public on its proposals outlined in its “Consultation Paper on Review of Corporate Governance Code and Related Listing Rules” (the “Consultation Paper”) on 16 April 2021.

The requirements under the new CG Code will be applicable to CG reports for financial year commencing on or after 1 January 2022 with certain exceptions as explained below.  The Exchange will also publish a new set of guidance (the “CG Guidance”) to facilitate issuers’ compliance with the corporate governance requirements.  The capitalised terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Consultation Conclusions and Consultation Paper.

The new CG Code and amended Listing Rules will become effective from 1 January 2022.

Summary of the key revised Listing Rules and new CG Code

The below table sets out a comparison between the original proposals and the conclusions:

Analysis and Takeaways
The importance of good corporate governance cannot be overlooked as it is the cornerstone of any good business, long-term success and business sustainability of a corporation. The main focuses of the consultation are to promote good corporate governance standards among listed issuers in Hong Kong, to instill changes in the board’s mindset, to enhance communication between issuers and their shareholders and to encourage further environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures and standards. The consultation shows the Exchange’s commitment to continue to formulate a robust corporate governance framework in ensuring market quality, aligning the interest of all its stakeholders and adopting international best practices.

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

This article has been prepared for clients and professional associates of Stevenson, Wong & Co. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy as at the date of issue, this document is a general outline for reference only, and is not an exhaustive treatment of the areas discussed. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon as legal advice in any individual case and we bear no responsibility for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of the contents in this document.

(中文) 跨境破产法最新动态：香港法院拒绝搁置香港诉讼程序

上周五，即2021年12月17日，香港高等法院夏利士法官颁下了一项重要的跨境清盘案件判决，认可了内地破产管理人身份，但拒绝搁置香港诉讼程序。在Nuoxi Capital Limited (諾熙資本有限公司)(In Liquidation In The British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Defendant Company Limited (北大方正集團有限公司) HCA778/2021及一系列共同审理的案件 (统称「本案」) 中，夏利士法官认可了北京大学旗下子公司北大方正集团有限公司 (下称「北大方正」，其集团统称「方正集团」) 的破产管理人身份，但驳回了北大方正搁置债权人在香港发起的有关维好协议 (keepwell deeds) 争议的诉讼程序申请。

案件背景

本案各方的争议主要源于被告北大方正就其多家子公司在相关的债券及担保协议下负有的17亿美元债务做出的维好协议。该维好协议要求北大方正促成其子公司 (1) 在任何时候至少合计保持1美金的资产净值，及 (2) 有足够的现金流确保子公司可偿付相关债务。除此之外，该维好协议亦要求北大方正尽最大努力 (best efforts) 取得所有必要的监管批准，以及在子公司资金不足偿付债务的情况下向该些子公司注入充足的资金。该维好协议约定管辖法律为英国法，且由香港法院专属司法管辖。

由于方正集团日益恶化的财务状况，北大方正的子公司未能根据相关债券及担保协议偿付债务。在2020年2月19日，北京市第一中级人民法院 (下称「北京法院」) 颁下了北大方正进行破产重组 (reorganization) 的命令，并随后指令债权人提交债权申报。

该维好协议下的债权人向北大方正的破产管理提交了有关维好协议下的债券申报，但被北大方正的破产管理人拒绝。因此，该等债权人在香港法庭对北大方正提起诉讼。

北大方正的破产管理人向香港法庭寻求承认和协助在北京的重组程序，并申请搁置香港的诉讼程序，以便各方可以在正在进行的重组程序中解决相关争议。

北大方正申请搁置香港诉讼程序的理由

本案中，北大方正的破产管理人主要基于以下理由向香港法院提交搁置香港诉讼程序的申请：

1. 原告人选择在内地提交债权证明 (proof of debt)，表示服从内地法院的管辖且放弃以非内地破产程序解决相关争议的权利。
2. 香港法院做出的判决能否在内地得到承认或执行，存在着很大的不确定性，而且考虑到案件的本质，北京法院更适合处理相关争议。
3. 应基于根据修正普遍主义 (modified universalism) 的原则搁置香港诉讼程序。
4. 考虑到诉讼当事人和证人的最大利益和便利，内地法院显然更合适，诉讼应在内地进行。

法庭判决

针对北大方正提出的理由，夏利士法官做出了以下的回应及分析：

1. 在研究了英国法律的多宗判例后，夏利士法官认为，虽然原告人在内地破产重组程序中提交申索确实构成服从内地法院的管辖，但这并不会禁制原告人在香港发起诉讼程序，更不会单独构成香港法庭拒绝执行专属管辖权条款的理由。
2. 同时，就北京法院是否会执行香港判决，夏利士法官参考了北京法院出具的请求书 (letter of request) 并留意到该请求书中北京法院并没有表示不会认可及执行有效的香港法院判决。另外，考虑到内地法院及香港法院就有效推进跨境破产及重组程序所作出的合作尝试及努力，以及香港合同法与英国合同法的相似程度，很难相信北京法院会不重视香港法院根据专属管辖权条款就英国合同法的争议作出的判决。就此，夏利士法官强调，当事人在约定的管辖法院决定他们的争议，是一项重要的实质性权利。香港法院只有在有令人信服的理由的情况下才会剥夺一方当事人的这一权利。在夏利士法官看来，原告人有权在香港审理该维好协议下的争议，并且，如果成功的话，从判决中取得可以支持他们在内地破产重组程序中推进申索的利益。
   
3. 就修正普遍主义原则的问题，夏利士法官指出本案的情况并不适用。由于原告人只是为了取得香港判决以推进在内地破产重组程序中的申索，且并不准备通过内地破产重组程序以外的方式获得偿付，本案并不会违背修正普遍主义的原则 (即确保被清盘公司的所有资产在单一的分配制度下摊分给被清盘公司的债权人)。
4. 考虑本案使用英国法且涉及的法律争议可能十分广泛及复杂，夏利士法官并不认为北京法院通过接受外国法律意见的方式会比香港法院 (同样作为普通法法系的法院) 更适合处理本案的相关争议。

基于上述理由，香港法院驳回了北大方正提出的搁置香港诉讼程序的申请。

总结

本案中，虽然香港法庭认可了内地破产管理人的身份，但仍然在本案适当的情况下坚持香港法院具备管辖权。夏利士法官指出《最高人民法院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》显示香港高等法院和内地行使破产管辖权的法院在适当情况下合作协调程序，以促进破产程序的公平和有效率地进行。夏利士法官认为，内地和香港的法律制度和经济模式存在很大差异，有意识和敏锐的合作和沟通对减少误解和提供有效协助是必要的 (Conscious and sensitive cooperation and communication is necessary in order to minimise misunderstandings and facilitate effective assistance)。本案中，北大方正的破产管理人提交的证据并没有指出北京法院已向其解释了有关申请会在香港引起的问题。请求信中也没有指出香港法院将需要解决中国企业破产法和该维好协议的管辖条款之间的冲突。

夏利士法官希望通过本案判决可以协助北京法院理解，如果最高法院要求内地和香港法院之间尽可能地沟通和合作，那么破产管理人及内地律师有必要确保内地法院获得完整和平衡的信息 (complete and balanced information)。夏利士法官强调，跨境破产和协助外地法律程序不涉及法院之间的竞争，法院的目标是共同努力以在尊重彼此司法管辖的实体法和程序的同时，实施公平和高效的破产程序 (The courts aim to work together to implement fair and efficient insolvency processes whilst respecting the substantive law and procedure of each other’s jurisdiction)。夏利士法官亦希望能够通过本案协助北京法院理解，在香港法律下提出搁置程序的申请并不简单，从而进一步促进最高人民法院意见所鼓励的沟通与合作。

本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、黄晊晄律师和甘子豪律师助理共同撰写。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。