Background

On 5 June 2020, The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Exchange”) published two listing decisions¹ (collectively, the “Listing Decisions”) to provide guidance on the reasons that the Exchange rejected certain listing applications. In 2019, the Exchange rejected 18 listing applications (comprising 6% of the total listing applications in 2019) and returned 4 listing applications (as compared to nil for 2018). It was acknowledged that the percentage of listing applications rejected remains stable.

In this newsletter, we will provide (1) a summary on the reasons for rejection and return of listing applications; and (2) an outline of certain requirements on financial information to be submitted together with the listing application so as to constitute a substantially complete listing application.

Rejected Listing Applications

Rejected listing applicants failed to meet the requirements of the Exchange in the vetting process in terms of suitability and eligibility. In particular, a higher level of scrutiny is placed on the applicant’s commercial rationale in order to evaluate whether the applicant has a genuine need for funding. Where the Exchange has reason to believe that the applicant is listing for a purpose other than the development of its underlying business or assets, or that the company’s scale no longer justifies the costs or purposes associated with a public listing, it may lead to rejection of its listing application.

Please refer to the table below for a summary of the Exchange’s reasons of rejection of listing applications:

Returned Listing Applications

Furthermore, in the event where a listing applicant submits a listing application which the Exchange decides is not substantially complete, the Exchange will suspend the vetting process and return all submitted documents to the sponsor. Insufficient financial information included in accountants’ reports and/or profit forecast memorandum submitted for a listing application would likely lead to the return of the listing application.

Applicable Rules and Guidance

An applicant is required to submit a listing application form, an application proof and all other relevant documents, and the information therein must be substantially complete, except in relation to information that by its nature can only be finalised and incorporated at a later date². Additionally, the accountants’ report submitted together with the listing application must include consolidated results for each of the three financial years (two financial years for GEM applicants) immediately preceding the issue of the listing document³, and such latest financial period reported on by the reporting accountants must not have ended more than six months before the date of issue of the listing document⁴.

HKEX Guidance Letter HKEX-GL25-11 provides that the Exchange may grant waivers from strict compliance with the aforementioned rules provided that the applicant will list on the Main Board within three months (or will list on GEM within two months) after the latest financial year end. HKEX Guidance Letter HKEX-GL56-13 provides the conditions and examples of when the Exchange will accept an application proof with an accountants’ report covering a period shorter than as required under the Main Board Listing Rules or GEM Listing Rules.

In determining whether the financial information included in an application proof is substantially complete, the Exchange would take into account the applicant’s proposed listing date to determine the relevant track record period (“TRP”) for which the accountants’ report should be included in the application proof of the prospectus.

Financial Information Requirements

The Exchange highlighted the following examples:

(1) if a Main Board applicant’s most recent financial year ends on 31 December 2019 and its proposed listing date is on or after 1 April 2020, the accountants’ report to be included in the final prospectus should at least cover the three financial years ended 31 December 2019⁵.

For the purposes of the application proof, under HKEX Guidance Letter HKEX-GL56-13:

(a) if the applicant files its application before the most recent financial year end (i.e. end of December 2019), the application will be returned for not being substantially complete as the Exchange has insufficient basis / information to assess the listing application as the applicant had yet to have completed the last full financial year of its TRP (i.e. the year ended 31 December 2019); but

(b) if the applicant files its application between 1 January 2020 and 29 February 2020, the applicant can include an accountants’ report with a shorter period (i.e. the two financial years ended 31 December 2018 and nine months ended 30 September 2019) in the application proof. However, the applicant must submit a complete accountants’ report for the three financial years ended 31 December 2019 at a later stage for the Exchange’s vetting.

(2) if a Main Board applicant in the above example (i.e. with its most recent financial year which ends on 31 December 2019) intends to list on or before 31 March 2020 instead and the applicant is eligible to apply for a waiver from Rule 4.04(1) of the Main Board Listing Rules, the accountant’s report to be included in the application proof should at least cover the three financial years ended 31 December 2018 and six months ended 30 June 2019.

Profit Forecast Memorandum

Pursuant to Rule 9.11(10)(b) of the Main Board Listing Rules (or Rule 12.22(14b) of the GEM Listing Rules), where the application proof does not contain a profit forecast, a final or advanced draft of the profit forecast memorandum covering the period up to the forthcoming financial year end date after the date of listing (taking the proposed date of listing as indicated by the applicant) must be submitted together with the listing application.

Examples of Listing Applications Returned by The Exchange

Conclusion

The Exchange will reject listing applications on the basis of suitability and eligibility. Where the applicant could not demonstrate sufficient commercial rationale for listing and failed to justify genuine funding needs, or show sufficient support for valuation, or its director(s), substantial shareholder(s) or controlling shareholder(s) appeared to be unsuitable, it may lead to the Exchange rejecting its listing application on grounds of suitability. On the other hand, if the applicant failed to meet the minimum profit requirement (after excluding non-ordinary course income), it may lead to the Exchange rejecting its listing application on grounds of eligibility.

The Exchange will return cases that are not substantially complete. Applications that were submitted with (1) material information omitted in the application proof; or (2) contained insufficient financial information for the respective track record period required under the relevant Listing Rules will be returned.

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.

¹ HKEX-LD126-2020 and HKEX-LD127-2020
² Rule 9.03(3) of the Main Board Listing Rules (or Rule 12.09(1) of the GEM Listing Rules) and Rule 9.10A(1) of the Main Board Listing Rules (or Rule 12.22 and 12.23 of the GEM Listing Rules)
³ Rule 4.04(1) of the Main Board Listing Rules (or Rule 7.03(1) and 11.10 of the GEM Listing Rules), Paragraph 27 of Part I and Paragraph 31 of Part II of the Third Schedule to the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
⁴ Rule 8.06 of the Main Board Listing Rules (or Rule 11.11 of the GEM Listing Rules)
⁵ Rule 4.04(1) of the Main Board Listing Rules (or Rule 7.03(1) and 11.10 of the GEM Listing Rules)

Stevenson, Wong & Co. are proud to be one of the participating law firms in the STEP Work Experience Programme 2020 aimed at giving law students a glimpse of what private client practice is about.

From the left: Partner Ms. Sherlynn Chan, Partner Ms. Catherine Por, Intern Mr. Rodney Fung, Intern Ms. Janis Ling, Intern Ms. Scarlett Ng, Paralegal Ms. Priscilla Teh and Associate Ms. Claire Sit

Scarlett Ng, a 3rd year student at the University of Hong Kong and Janis Ling, a 2nd year student at Chinese University of Hong Kong completed their two-week programme last Friday. They prepared a group presentation on ‘same sex spouses and civil partners’ covering the legal framework in Hong Kong and various overseas jurisdictions. They also gave individual presentations on a private client law topic of their choice, e.g. family law, charities and mental health/capacity law.

“This is an immersive experience into SW private client practice. Not only did I discover the broad range of matters related to private client law, but also the required skill set for working in this area. The interactions with members of the firm were particularly valuable experience.” – Scarlett

“I have gained more understanding on how private client work is like in reality…In short, I am very thankful to work in this firm because you really show care and support…A lot of contents and effort have been put in our programme.” – Janis

Rodney Fung, a 3rd year student at the University of Birmingham, who has just completed his internship at our firm also shared: “…The internship programme is meticulously well thought out and I have learnt a lot about private client practice from conversations with practitioners and trainees as well as doing a group project on same sex marriage and producing a case note. I have also found the court visits to be especially fruitful.”

We look forward to welcoming two more batches of interns this summer for our firm’s summer internship programme!

For more information about STEP Work Experience programme, please contact Ms. Sherlynn Chan.

For more information about our internship programme, please contact Ms. Catherine Por, Ms. Lai Lam, Ms. Sherlynn Chan, Mr. Rodney Teoh and Ms. Milly Hung.

Our partner, Catherine Por, has been named one of the leading female lawyers in Hong Kong in Benchmark Asia Pacific’s Top 100 Women in Litigation 2020.

The 1st edition of Top 100 Women in Litigation aims to pay tribute to leading female litigators across Asia- Pacific who have earned their place by participating in the most notable litigation matters in recent years.

The extensive research process involves months of investigation into litigators’ professional activities as well as client feedback surveys and one-on-one interviews which has culminated in the selection of the most distinguished women in the world of litigation.

Catherine heads the Private Client Practice in the firm. She specializes in all aspects of family law disputes, and has extensive experience in complex financial claims, intervener proceedings, financial claims under Part IIA of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Chapter 192), Child Abduction cases, relocation of children cases, claims under the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (Chapter 13), custody cases, pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements, contentious and non-contentious trust cases, contentious estate matters; cross border issues and enforcement proceedings. She has on a number of occasions provided expert legal opinions on Hong Kong Family Law.

Catherine is also an Accredited General and Family Mediator, Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and is a Notary Public and Civil Celebrant of Marriages.

About Benchmark Litigation

Benchmark litigation positions itself as the definitive guide to the world’s leading litigation firms and lawyers and is currently the only publication on the market that focuses exclusively on litigation work.

For more information, please contact Ms. Catherine Por.

(中文) 随着大湾区的发展，粤港澳的往来日益频繁。粤港澳大湾区作为国家开放程度最高及经济活力最强的区域之一，市场及消费潜力不可限量，愈来愈多的港澳人士亦在大湾区生活。而大湾区城市更是港澳人士退休养老的宜居地之一。港澳人士于内地的医疗需求因此渐受关注。

根据国务院于2019年2月18日实施的《粤港澳大湾区发展规划纲要》，国家进一步支持港澳医疗卫生服务提供主体在珠三角九市以独资、合资或合作等方式设置医疗机构，鼓励港澳医务人员到珠三角九市开展学术交流及私人医师执业，发展区域医疗联合体和区域性医疗中心，以提供国际化高品质的医疗服务。

港澳服务提供者在大湾区设立医疗机构将会迎来巨大商机。据报道，目前已有超过27家港资医疗机构在大湾区开业，其中8家在深圳，以专科门诊为主。而横琴首家获批由澳门执业医生开设的诊所亦于2019年11月底正式营业。

港澳服务提供者在国内，特别是大湾区开设医疗机构比外国投资者拥有更多政策优势。本文将深入解读港澳服务提供者在大湾区开设医疗机构的政策和操作，以供有兴趣的人士参考。

港澳服务提供者可在内地设立独资医院及其他类型独资医疗机构

与外国投资者相比，港澳服务提供者在中国内地投资设立医疗机构（包括医院及其他类型的医疗机构）享有更优惠的政策。

尽管2019年版的《外商投资准入特别管理措施负面清单》仍然不允许外国投资者设立独资医疗机构（即只限中外合资、合作形式，外资股权或权益占比不超过70%），然而最早在2009年内地就已经允许香港、澳门服务提供者在广东省以独资形式设立门诊部（见《中外合资、合作医疗机构管理暂行办法的补充规定二》（卫生部、商务部令第61号））。直到2013年，国家卫生部及商务部发布《关于香港和澳门服务提供者在内地设立医疗机构有关问题的通知》（卫医政发[2012]72号），全面放开及允许香港和澳门服务提供者在内地以独资形式设置医疗机构。

依据上述政策，第一家港商独资的医院于2013年在深圳成立。

港澳医生可凭《内地医师资格证书》在内地行医

根据2009年4月15日实施的《香港和澳门特别行政区医师获得内地医师资格认定管理办法》（下称“《内地医师资格认定办法》”），香港及澳门永久性居民（下称“港澳永久居民”）更可以申请内地医师资格认证并在内地行医及设立私人诊所（设立诊所的条件见下文）。
根据1999年5月1日起实施的《执业医师法》，国内实行医师资格准入及医师执业许可制度。港澳永久居民获得内地医师资格，主要有以下第一及第二两种方式；此外，港澳永久居民还可以按照下述第三种方式申请在境内短期执业。具体如下：

1. 通过内地医师资格认定

根据《内地医师资格认定办法》，同时具备下列条件的港澳永久居民可向省级卫生健康管理部门申请内地医师资格认定（限临床、口腔及中医类别）：

• 2007年12月31日前已取得香港或澳门合法行医资格满5年；
• 具有香港或澳门专科医师资格证书；
• 在香港或澳门医疗机构中执业；及
• 符合《执业医师法》及其有关规定。

2. 通过境内医师资格考试

根据《执业医师法》，内地实行医师资格考试及医师执业注册制度。符合报考条件的港澳永久居民通过内地医师资格考试的，可以申请内地医师资格。

3. 申请短期执业

根据自2009年3月1日起施行的《香港、澳门特别行政区医师在内地短期行医管理规定》以及自2011年1月1日起施行《关于印发《香港和澳门特别行政区医疗专业技术人员在内地短期执业管理暂行规定》的通知》，港澳法定注册医疗卫生专业人员（包括医生、中医、牙医、药剂师、护士、助产士、医务化验师、职业治疗师、视光师、放射技师、物理治疗师、脊医）可在内地申请短期执业，有效期不超过3年。期满需要延期的，可以重新办理手续。需要注意的是，港澳医疗专业技术人员在内地短期执业，应由内地具有《医疗机构执业许可证》的医疗机构作为聘用单位。

大湾区城市的指定港资医疗机构将可使用已在香港注册的药物和仪器

大湾区地方政府非常欢迎香港的医疗机构到广东省办医院或者医疗机构，但其中两地的药物以及医疗器械的认证问题是阻碍香港医疗机构北上的一个很大的原因。这方面的政策近期已有突破。在2019年11月公布的惠港16项措施中，特别规定容许在大湾区内地城市的指定港资医疗机构里，使用已在香港注册的药物和常用的医疗仪器。

目前深圳已率先宣布将积极落实相关措施，未来在大湾区指定的一些医疗机构都有可能开放相关限制。

医疗机构的种类及法律实体选择

根据自2017年4月1日起实施的《医疗机构管理条例实施细则》（下称“《实施细则》”），内地医疗机构分为十三个类别，主要包括医院、妇幼保健院、门诊部及诊所等。 以下我们简单介绍港澳服务提供者于内地设立的常见医疗机构类别：医院、门诊部及诊所。

1. 医院

根据卫生部于1994年颁布的《医疗机构基本标准（试行）》的规定，凡以“医院”命名的医疗机构，住院床位总数应在20张以上。医院按规模划分为一级到三级。医院等级的划分有多项标准，而其中重要的一项为病床数。一级医院的病床数在20-99张，二级医院的病床数在100-499张，而三级医院的病床数为500张以上。

根据相关规定，港澳服务提供者于内地设立的医院必须具有法人资格，即医院在法律上应当以公司形式运营。

2. 门诊部和诊所

根据《医疗机构基本标准（试行）》及卫生部于2010年颁布的《诊所基本标准》，门诊部和诊所都是为患者提供门诊诊断和治疗的医疗机构，不设住院病床。门诊部的设置标准包括科室、医护人员人数、面积等。例如，综合门诊部至少应设有5个临床科室，至少应有5名医师和5名护士，房屋建筑面积不少于400平方米。而诊所至少应设有诊室、处置室、治疗室，至少有1名医师和1名护士，房屋建筑面积不少于40平方米。

国内法律对除医院外的医疗机构的组织形式并没有其他特别规定或限制，营办方可选择以公司、合伙企业、个人独资企业或个体工商户等形式经营其他医疗机构。一般而言，门诊部多以公司形式运营，而私人诊所倾向于以个体工商户的形式经营。

港澳服务提供者应当满足的要求和条件

根据《内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》及《内地与澳门关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》（以下合称为“CEPA”）的规定，拟于境内设立医疗机构的港澳服务提供者可为港澳永久居民或者为根据香港或澳门法律设立的任何法律实体（包括公司、基金、合伙企业、合资企业、独资企业或者协会）。如为法律实体，需同时满足以下两个条件并取得符合服务提供者定义的相关证明：

1) 根据香港或澳门有关条例注册或登记设立，并取得有效商业登记证。法例如有规定，应取得提供该服务的牌照或许可。
2) 于香港或澳门从事实质性商业经营。具体包括：在香港或澳门提供服务的性质和范围应包含其拟在内地提供服务的性质和范围；在香港或澳门从事实质性商业经营3年及以上；营业期间依法缴纳利得税或其他税费；有相应的业务场所及雇佣员工50%以上不受居留限制。

港澳服务提供者投资设立医院的要求和条件

根据《香港和澳门服务提供者在内地设立独资医院管理暂行办法》（于2011年1月1日实施），香港和澳门服务提供者在内地设置独资医院的，拟设立的独资医院应当符合以下条件：

1)申请设立港澳独资医院的香港和澳门服务提供者应当是能够独立承担民事责任的法人，具有直接或间接从事医疗卫生投资与管理的经验；
2)拟设立的港澳独资医院必须是独立的法人；
3)三级医院投资总额不低于人民币5,000万元，二级医院投资总额不低于人民币2,000万元；
4)符合二级以上医院基本标准；
5)在老、少、边、穷地区设置的港澳独资医院，投资总额要求可以适当降低； 及
6)其他应当满足的条件。

此外，实践中不同城市的卫生健康部门对于设立医院的具体要求可能会存在一定差异。

港澳医生开设私人诊所的要求和条件

港澳医生在内地开办私人诊所没有设定投资门槛。根据《医疗机构管理条例实施细则》及CEPA的补充协议四，在城市设置诊所的个人，必须同时具备下列条件：

1)取得内地《医师资格证书》；
2)具有香港或澳门合法行医权；
3)在香港、澳门执照行医或在两地连续行医时间合计满5年；或者在内地从事同一专业临床工作连续5年以上；及
4)省、自治区、直辖市卫生健康管理部门规定的其他条件。

另外，诊所必须为该港澳医生独资经营，一名香港或澳门服务提供者在内地只能开设一家个体诊所，并担任该个体诊所的负责人。而且，香港、澳门服务提供者开办个体诊所，申请的诊疗科目应与其本人在内地和港澳的执业范围相符合。私人诊所成功登记后，港澳医生在开业经营前还应申请《医师执业证书》。

本文由本所企业融资部主管劳恒晃律师、注册外地律师蒋平律师、何丹丹律师及商业法及企业融资部高级经理黄虹共同合著。如有任何查询，请联络本所合伙人、企业融资主管劳恒晃律师。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所企业融资部主管劳恒晃律师、刘砚枫律师或曾浩贤律师。

免责声明
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) 于香港联合交易所（「联交所」）上市的企业（「上市公司」）须遵守香港不同的法律及法规，包括但不限于，联交所《证券上市规则》、《主板上市规则》及《创业板上市规则》（统称「上市规则」）、《公司条例》、《公司(清盘及杂项条文)条例》、《证券及期货条例》及《公司收购及合并守则》（「收购守则」）。随着法律及法规的收紧，上市公司须通过专业的团队保持合规，让上市公司能够集中精力在业务发展。

根据上市规则，上市公司须委任两名授权代表，作为上市公司与联交所沟通的主要渠道。一般而言，授权代表必须由上市公司的2名董事或1名董事及1名公司秘书担任。授权代表须履行的下列责任：

• 随时（尤指早上开市前）作为联交所与上市公司之间的主要沟通渠道，并以书面通知联交所与其本人联络的方法，包括住宅、办公室、手机及其他电话号码、电邮地址及联络地址（如授权代表不在上市公司的注册办事处工作）、图文传真号码（如有）及联交所不时指定的其他联络资料；

• 确保若其本人不在香港时，有经委任并为联交所知悉的合适替任人负责与联交所联络，并以书面通知联交所与该替任人联络的方法，包括该人的住宅及办公室电话号码及（如有）图文传真号码；

• 授权代表必须预先通知联交所有关其拟终止授权代表任务的事项及有关原因，方可终止其授权代表的任务；及

• 除特殊情况外，上市公司于另行委任新替任的授权代表之前，不应终止其原授权代表的任务。如上市公司终止其授权代表的任务，上市公司及原授权代表均应立即通知联交所有关终止委任的事宜，并分别说明终止的原因；同时，上市公司及新获委任的授权代表亦须立即通知联交所有关新委任的事宜。

为了确保上市公司的合规性，史蒂文生黄律师事务所（「本所」）可以提供以下服务：

服务1. 公司秘书服务

鉴于公司秘书职责的重要性，上市公司的公司秘书必须为联交所认为在学术或专业资格或有关经验方面足以履行公司秘书职责的人士。联交所接纳香港执业律师（「香港律师」）作为上市公司的公司秘书及授权代表

香港律师作为其中一位获联交所认可的授权代表，能够不时为上市公司就合规性及其他法律问题提供专业意见。

公司秘书服务的工作范围包括：

1. 具名公司秘书及周年合规与申报服务

a. 安排本所之香港律师出任具名公司秘书及授权人士；
b. 提供主要营业地址；
c. 协助刊发年度及中期业绩，及(如适用)季度业绩，包括草拟提醒董事禁止买卖公司证券的有关时段通知书，及审核委员会、薪酬委员会、提名委员会、企业管治委员会及董事会的会议通告和议程等；
d. 协助刊发企业管治报告；及
e. 就召开股东周年大会草拟召开股东周年大会通告、代表委任表格、出席回条(如有需要)、大会主席讲辞及大会投票结果公告等 就获取购回股份及配发新股的授权草拟致股东通函及相关文件。

2. 其他公司秘书服务

a. 董事、监事、行政总裁、授权代表、保荐人、合规顾问、公司秘书、核数师、财政年度结算日期、股票过户登记处、注册地址及营业地址的变更；
b. 企业管治咨询及相关秘书服务：
(i) 上市公司董事进行证券交易的守则及有关雇员的相关书面指引
(ii) 成立董事会辖下委员会，包括审核委员会、薪酬委员会、提名委员会及企业管治委员会
c. 修订上市公司的组织章程细则；
d. 协助准备及呈交披露证券权益资料的表格，以及备存及更新登记册的资料；及
e. 就须予公布的交易、关连交易、增加资本、采纳股份认购权计划、分发红利股份及/或认股权证，及以股代息安排草拟致股东通函、公告、决议案及召开股东大会通告等有关文件。

服务2. 常年法律顾问服务

凭借本所的专业知识及实务经验，帮助上市公司处理法律事务，并就不同法律范畴及各项商业安排提供法律支援。

常年法律顾问服务的工作范围包括：

1. 为上市公司解答有关香港法律、上市规则及守则的咨询；
2. 为上市公司提交本所的合同及法律文书提出意见及修改；
3. 为上市公司解决争议，对相关事项出具一般性法律论证意见（涉及诉讼仲裁的可额外报价）；
4. 对上市公司的年度报告、中期报告、年度业绩公告、中期业绩公告以及其它需要发至联交所网站或呈交联交所的其他各类公告、通告、通函、报告、表格等，根据上市规则和相关守则的要求进行合规性审核并提出修改意见；
5. 对上市公司制定的章程、政策及其修订进行审核并提出与合法、合规相关的修改意见；
6. 协助上市公司与联交所进行沟通及回复联交所的询问函；
7. 每年对上市公司董事及高管进行培训；及
8. 为上市公司发送律师函。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所劳恒晃律师或曾浩贤律师。

Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific 2020, a guide to the market’s leading litigation firms and lawyers has just been released.

Stevenson, Wong & Co. is delighted to announce that we have once again been ranked in “Family and Matrimonial”, “Commercial and Transactions (Domestic firms)” and “Insolvency (Domestic firms)”. Our firm has also been recognized as a Recommended Firm for “Private Client”, “White Collar Crime” and “White Collar Crime (Domestic firms)”.

In addition, our firm’s partner, Ms. Catherine Por, has been named as a “Litigation Star” in “Dispute resolution” and “Family and Matrimonial”.

About Benchmark Litigation

Benchmark Litigation is the only publication on the market to focus exclusively on litigation work. Over the years, the Benchmark brand has grown dramatically and garnered industry-wide accolades as the definitive hub for in-depth analysis of the players shaping the dynamic practice of litigation. Research is conducted through extensive interviews with litigators, dispute resolution specialists and their clients to identify the leading litigators and firms.

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