发行人是仁寿县国有资产监督管理局的直接全资公司。其为仁寿县重要的国有资产投资经营主体，是仁寿县电子产品、电线光缆生产销售、自有土地出让、水务、代建服务费及工程产品的主要经营主体。

本所团队由合伙人张源辉律师领导，团队成员包括刘咏琳律师、葛俊廷律师助理（待认许为事务律师）、梁子晴见习律师及李嘉智律师助理。

如阁下有任何查询，请联系我们的合伙人张源辉律师。

Ming Shing主要通过其间接全资拥有的香港营运子公司经营。其主要从事泥水工程，例如抹灰工程、铺瓦工程、砌砖工程、地板找平工程及云石工程。

本所合伙人劳恒晃律师、合伙人曾浩贤律师及陈航律师担任联席包销商在纳斯达克上市的香港法律顾问并提供全面的香港法律服务。

如阁下有任何关于此交易的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。

本奖项旨在表彰内地﹑香港﹑澳门和台湾法律领域的40位40岁或以下之青年才俊。获奖者凭借向客户、合作伙伴和同事展示超卓的业务表现和杰出的职业道德，以及非凡的成长潜力和对引领大中华区法律行业发展的热情荣登本次榜单。

曾浩贤律师 | 合伙人

主要执业领域：

中国事务，企业及商业法、公司服务，企业融资

曾律师在公司及商业事务方面拥有广泛经验，包括上市前重组及投资、香港及美国首次公开招股、收购及合并、贷款及融资交易、以及上市公司及私人企业的企业管治以及一般合规事宜。

曾律师有强烈的社会责任感。他连续8年获香港律师会颁授杰出社会服务及公益律师奖金奖、及连续3年获专业义工服务评审计划杰出领袖奖；及2021年起担任大舜基金智囊团成员。

曾律师荣获国际权威法律评级机构《国际金融法律评论1000》(IFLR1000) 亚太榜单2023中荣登「香港资本市场 – 股权」的新星合伙人，《国际金融法律评论1000》(IFLR1000) 亚太榜单2024中荣登「香港资本市场 – 股权」的新星合伙人及国际权威法律评级机构《法律500强》(The Legal 500) 2024中荣登「资本市场（股权）」的推荐律师。

曾律师是易纬集团控股有限公司 (股份代号：3893）的非执行董事、亦是迈博药业有限公司-B（股份代号：2181）、宋都服务集团有限公司（股份代号：9608）及1957 & Co. (Hospitality) Limited（股份代号：8495）的公司秘书。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人曾浩贤律师。

劳恒晃律师表示：「随着中东与中国（包括香港）之间的投资日趋活跃，我们在连接两地的资本和机会方面的角色尤为重要。这次合作将有助我们扩大全球布局，并为亚洲客户提供通往中东其中一个最国际化、最多元化和流动性最强的资本市场之途径。」

若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所劳恒晃律师或刘砚枫律师。

优化后的上市申请时间框架 

优化后的时间框架为申请人提供了更明确的审核时间表。对于完全符合所有适用要求的申请，证监会与联交所将在最多两轮意见反馈后，于40个营业日内完成监管评估。申请人预计可于60个营业日内回应所有意见，以在申请有效期（六个月）内完成整个申请流程。

以下为联合声明中有关优化审批流程时间表的示例说明：

1. 每轮意见所需的营业日数可能会有微调，但整体而言，两家监管机构各自所需的时长料不多于40个营业日。
2. 指确认收到A1表格。
3. 若证监会拟提出的监管关注事项与联交所意见函内所载相同，其会透过联交所发出函件通知申请人（透过其保荐人），并计作证监会的一轮意见。
4. 于确认没有重大监管关注事项后，联交所会发出聆讯文件函，列出申请人及其保荐人必须处理或解决的事宜，以落实上市文件的信息披露。待申请人及其保荐人准备好可供上市委员会聆讯的上市文件，并已向其他当局或监管机构取得所有必要的批准（如适用），其申请便可交予上市委员会进行聆讯。

针对A股上市公司的快速审批时间框架

已经在中国内地(A股)上市的公司，如市值达到100亿港元或以上，且过去两个完整财政年度在所有重大方面遵守与A股相关的法律法规，则可适用快速审批流程。在此情况下，审核流程将仅需一轮意见反馈，监管机构将在30个营业日内完成审查。

需较长时间审核的申请

对于存在重大监管问题或回复不完整的申请，其审核流程可能需要更长时间。在这种情况下，监管机构将与申请人及其顾问团队进行紧密的沟通，并提供进一步指导以解决相关问题。如果在两轮意见反馈后问题仍未解决，可能会发出正式的补充资料要求函，从而延长审核时间。

增强香港资本市场竞争力

证监会与联交所均对优化后的上市申请时间框架充满信心，认为其将通过为申请人提供更高的可预测性，改善整体上市体验。新流程有助于香港保持作为企业首选上市目的地的竞争力。两大监管机构的领导层重申，他们将与申请人及其顾问团队密切合作，以确保上市过程高效并符合高标准要求。

如有任何查询或欲了解更多详情，请联系本所合伙人张源辉律师。

本新闻简讯更新仅供参考。其内容不构成亦不应视为法律咨询意见。史蒂文生黄律师事务所不会就任何因倚赖本处所载资料而作出的决定丶采取的行动或不采取的行动所引致的或与之有关的任何特别丶间接或相应而生的损失或损害向阁下承担法律责任。

Panellists and Discussion Highlights

The session featured panellists from firms across Asia and North America, including Elizabeth Chan of Stevenson, Wong & Co., Grant Kim of LimNexus LLP, Sunyoung Kim of Baker McKenzie, David McArthur of Yulchon, and Lexi Takamatsu of Mori Hamada & Matsumoto.

They engaged the audience on some of the most pressing issues involving AI-assisted work product in arbitration, examining AI’s potential to assist in the arbitration process while highlighting the essential safeguards needed to maintain fairness, transparency, and procedural integrity. The panel also discussed the practical application of the SVAMC Guidelines on Using AI in Arbitration (SVAMC Guidelines), which are the only comprehensive set of guidelines on using AI in arbitration generally as at the time of this article.

AI Assistance in Drafting Arbitral Awards

Opening with a discussion on AI’s role in assisting with arbitral awards, the panel emphasised that while AI can enhance efficiency, human tribunal members should not delegate decision-making authority to AI tools. Under the SVAMC Guidelines, arbitrators should ensure that AI complements rather than replaces their independent judgement.

The panellists debated the merits of transparency, noting that although the guidelines do not mandate a universal duty to disclose AI use to participants in an arbitration proceeding, arbitrators might consider proactive disclosure in certain cases to maintain trust in the arbitration process.

A parallel was drawn between controversial issues surrounding human tribunal secretaries’ assistance in drafting awards and similar concerns raised by generative AI tools. For example, panellists explored whether it could constitute improper delegation if an arbitrator used an AI tool to identify the top three pieces of evidence from a hearing transcript on a particular issue, even while maintaining overall authorship of the award.

AI Assistance in Expert Work Product

The panel then addressed the use of AI in preparing expert reports. Discussion centred on the role of cross-examination as an additional safeguard, with panellists noting that if an expert disclosed AI assistance in their report, it could prompt tactical questioning about the AI’s specific use and the extent of human verification of the work product.

AI in Document Production

The conversation moved to AI’s application in document production, with panellists noting that several existing tools, such as Relativity and Sightline, are widely used in e-discovery, and newer tools like Lawdify or Co-Counsel are being developed specifically for legal use.

The panel explored potential challenges if a party questions the completeness or sufficiency of a document production where AI tools were used.

While complete accuracy in document production is rarely achievable, panellists noted the risk of guerrilla tactics, where parties might make tactical challenges based on allegations of algorithmic bias and other issues.

The panel emphasised the need for arbitrators to have the technical competence to manage these situations effectively, ensuring both efficiency and the legitimacy of the process.

Confidentiality and Data Security

Confidentiality and data security emerged as central concerns, especially given AI’s potential use to handle vast amounts of sensitive information in arbitration. The SVAMC Guidelines underscore that all participants must ensure AI tools meet appropriate confidentiality requirements, favouring privacy-appropriate solutions whenever possible.

The panellists discussed practical actions to secure confidential information, including anonymising data, using AI tools with robust security protocols, and avoiding tools that cannot guarantee confidentiality.

This approach aligns with the SVAMC Guidelines’ broader emphasis on data protection, offering parties a framework for addressing security concerns in the event of a data breach. Where confidentiality lapses occur, steps such as audits or remedial assessments of AI tools may be warranted.

Conclusion

In closing, the panel reinforced the SVAMC Guidelines as a progressive framework for addressing the complex and evolving risks associated with AI in arbitration. These Guidelines represent a vital resource for the arbitration community, enabling practitioners to harness AI’s benefits responsibly while preserving core principles of fairness and procedural integrity.

Stevenson, Wong & Co. was delighted to be part of the 2024 Seoul ADR Festival, especially given the close trading ties between Korea and Hong Kong.

If you have any questions about this event or our firm’s arbitration practice, please contact Partner Heidi Chui.