本次发行的配售代理包括众和证券有限公司、海通国际证券有限公司、兴证国际证券有限公司、山证国际证券有限公司、圆通环球证券有限公司、丹山资本有限公司、国泰君安证券（香港）有限公司、申万宏源证券（香港）有限公司、英皇证券有限公司、兴业银行股份有限公司香港分行、华泰金融控股(香港)有限公司、泰達證券國際有限公司、建银国际金融有限公司、东海国际证券(香港)有限公司、工银国际证券有限公司、天风国际证券与期货有限公司、星河证券有限公司、信仁证券（香港）有限公司及淞港国际证券集团有限公司。

泰安金控是旨在为泰安市提供全面金融服务的核心运营实体，落实泰安市政府关于丰富和发展泰安市金融市场和实体经济的蓝图。该集团的主要业务包括四个主要领域：融资租赁、担保服务、民间资本业务、供应链金融业务。

我们的团队包括合伙人劳恒晃律师、曾浩贤律师和郑钰茵律师，以及高级律师黄汉雄和实习律师曾子芹。

如需了解更多信息或有任何疑问，请联系合伙人劳恒晃律师、曾浩贤律师和郑钰茵律师。

But as Warren Buffett famously said, “only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked”. In the economic downturn of the last few years, cashflow dwindled and the overleveraged were weeded out. Bond defaults became rampant, and so were recovery actions by gutted bondholders.

 Recovery of bond debt was once thought straightforward. A more conservative claimant would choose to commence a civil action against the issuer company to obtain a summary judgment first. Others would either seek to petition for winding-up directly, or join in as supporting creditors.

The case below reveals how a recalcitrant issuer could complicate and drag the proceedings on for months on end.

Winding-up at First Instance

On 8 June 2023, a winding-up petition was presented by a CIES bondholder against China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd (“Company”) based on a summary judgment. After coming to terms with the Company, the original petitioner dropped out.

Several other CIES bondholders immediately applied to substitute as the petitioner. Stevenson, Wong & Co. represents one of the bondholders who have, up to the date of this article, tirelessly pursued their claims against the Company.

Rather than putting forward a scheme of arrangement / proposal for debt-restructuring (as is fashionable), the Company vigorously disputed all claims of bond default (currently 10+ and counting) in the winding-up proceedings.

The Company’s approach resulted in the Court exercising case management power to hear the (substituted) petition and the substitution applications at once. At the hearing on 3 June 2024, Hon Linda Chan J adjourned the petition together with the claims of 3 supporting creditors for substantive arguments. The substantive hearing took place before Recorder Suen SC on 19 September 2024.

Our client’s case is that he subscribed to a CIES bond through an intermediary. He adduced evidence of full payment of the subscription price to the intermediary, the bond certificate signed and sealed by the Company, and letters from the Company to the Immigration Department year after year confirming our client’s status as a bondholder.

The Company argued that it had only received partial payment of the subscription price from the intermediary, and that the bond was cancelled by some private agreements between the Company and the intermediary.

The Court criticized the Company for how its defence evolved over time (i.e. that our client agreed to extend the maturity, that the Company had received no payment of the subscription price at all, and then finally that it and the intermediary had agreed to cancel the bond). The absence of the intermediary from the proceedings did not lend credibility to the Company’s. As a result, the learned Recorder found no bona fide dispute as to the debt on substantial grounds on 10 October 2024.

The Company bargained for time to pay the debt before a winding-up order is pronounced, and the Learned Recorder allowed as such on 18 October 2024.

At this point, the creditors may think they were at the finishing line, but they would be sorely mistaken.

The Witching Hour

One has to admire the Company’s tenacity and ingenuity. In the next few months, the Company

• • • sought an extension of time to pay; and yet argued that it ought not to pay.

• • • applied for an expedited appeal on the ground that it expected to raise sufficient fund to avoid a winding-up; and then (at the polar opposite) applied for an expedited appeal on the ground that it could not raise sufficient fund to avoid a winding-up.

• • • announced a placement of shares, and procured its Financial Adviser to affirm the market’s interest; and then ironically extended the “long-stop” date of the placement when none is shown.

• • • adduced support letters from “bondholders” that further fundraising was preferred to immediate winding-up, but opted not to produce the register of bondholders or the relevant bond documents.

All these were to seek adjournments of the winding-up petition.

Fortuitously for the Company, the Court of Appeal finally ordered an expedited appeal, and while Hon. Anthony Chan J. criticized the Company’s ploy at the hearing of the Companies Court on 2 December 2024, he reluctantly adjourned the hearing of the winding-up petition until after the disposal of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s decision and beyond

The appeal was heard on 20 February 2025 before Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA, and Barma JA, and judgment was handed down on 11 March 2025.

The appeal was largely an appeal on facts. The Court of Appeal found that the Company was rehashing its arguments at the Court below, and found no palpable errors in the learned Recorder’s assessment of evidence.

At the hearing before the Companies Court on 17 March 2025, DHCJ Gary Lam made a usual winding-up order against the Company despite the Company’s submission that it was carrying out yet another round of fundraising activities. It remains to be seen what tactics will be deployed to keep the bondholders at bay even in the Company’s winding-up.

Implication to bondholders

In a typical winding-up proceedings where the original petitioner drops out, it is understandable that a supporting creditor may want to defer to other creditors to apply for substitution in order to save legal costs.

As demonstrated in the present case, however, where there is sufficient commonality among the claims (all being bond defaults), the Court may exercise its case management power to hear the petition and multiple substitution applications together. This helps to exert maximum pressure, which is particularly important in a case against a recalcitrant debtor.

Our Partner Mr. Dominic Lau, solicitor advocate, appeared in the Court of First Instance on behalf of one of the bondholders / supporting creditors as sole advocate. On appeal, Counsel Mr Jeff Yau appeared on our instruction. The team was also assisted by associate Mr. Harold Chiu and trainee solicitors Ms. Kayla Yu and Ms. Selina Tsang.

Please contact our Partner Dominic Lau 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.

此次全国涉外仲裁人才培训班（香港）由司法部与香港特别行政区律政司成立的香港国际法律人才培训学院联合举办，同时得到了中国政法大学和中国法律服务（香港）有限公司的大力支持。该培训班为期两周，吸引了众多专业人士参与，其中包括国资委推荐的内地企业法律顾问，以及各地司法局和律师协会推荐的资深法律从业者，学员总数超过 80 名。培训班特别邀请了香港国际法律人才培训专家委员会成员以及本港资深法律界人士代表授课，旨在推动两地仲裁规则相互借鉴，促进人才协同发展。

徐凯怡律师以“参与国际仲裁：机遇与挑战　(Engaging in International Arbitration: Opportunities and Challenges)”为主题展开授课，深度剖析了多个关键要点，包括中国法律从业者在国际争议市场中面临的机遇、香港国际仲裁中心 2024 年规则下的标准国际仲裁流程、国际仲裁过程中的文化与程序差异，以及国际仲裁中的不同角色等。课堂上，徐律师通过互动练习，增强了学员对课程内容的认识与理解，提升了他们在国际仲裁领域的实践能力。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师。

• Top Talent Pass Scheme;
• General Employment Policy;
• Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals;
• Quality Migrant Admission Scheme;
• Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates;
• Admission Scheme for the Second Generation of Chinese Hong Kong Permanent Residents;
• New Capital Investment Entrant Scheme;
• Capital Investment Entrant Scheme;
• Technology Talent Admission Scheme; and
• Vocational Professionals Admission Scheme.

Principal applicants and/or their dependants under the specified schemes are required to pay a non-refundable application fee of HKD600 for each application of entry, change of conditions of stay or extension of stay. In addition, the visa and entry permit issuance fees for approved applications are increased from the original flat rate of HKD230 to HKD600 for visas with a validity period of 180 days or less, and to HKD1,300 for visas with a validity period of 181 days or more. The changes reflect the “user pays” principle adopted by the Government.

The Hong Kong Immigration Department has accordingly implemented the new fees structure on 26 February 2025. Our Immigration Practice Team helps applicants pursue their applications in the respective schemes.

Please contact our Partner Willy Cheng 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.

A-List榜单旨在表彰在各自领域和法律界做出重大贡献的法律专业人士。经过数月的广泛市场调研，《商法》评选出法律行业“未来领军者”。这群菁英律师创新重新定义优秀，重塑价值标准，为法律服务行业注入全新动能。

本所借此机会感谢CBLJ的认可，并向我们的客户表达诚挚的感谢，感谢他们的持续信任和支持。

如阁下有查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人曾浩贤律师，或按此查看《商法》之官网报道。

香港特别行政区原讼法庭最近在TE v LSY [2024] HKCFI 3652一案中作出判决，阐明根据《掳拐和管养儿童条例》（第512章）(“该条例”) 和1980年海牙《国际掳拐儿童民事方面公约》（“《公约》” ）掳拐和管养儿童的复杂性。该判决于 2024 年 12 月 23 日作出，探讨了在儿童被诱拐及/或扣留后，以父母对子女迁移的同意作为反对送回儿童的理由的问题。

史蒂文生黄律师事务所的合伙人罗启峰律师在该诉讼中代表作为父亲的原告（“父亲”）。

案件摘要

该案涉及一名婚生儿童GT （“该儿童” ）。作为母亲的被告（“母亲” ）于 2024 年夏天带著该儿童从意大利搬迁至香港。无可争议的是，意大利是该儿童的惯常住所，而作为父亲的原告和作为母亲的被告双方在意大利均拥有该儿童的监护权。 唯一的争论点是双方是否同意和/或默许该儿童迁移到香港。

母亲辩称，双方在2024年6月的一次谈话中达成协议，同意她与该儿童永久迁移到香港。父亲辩称，他只同意母亲带该儿童进行暑期旅行，因此母亲拒绝将孩子带回意大利的行为是不当地将该儿童扣留在香港。

法律原则

香港法院对掳拐儿童案件的司法管辖权主要受该条例和《公约》规管。该案之主要争论点是，父亲是否同意该儿童的迁移，或在母亲在迁移孩子后是否默许了该行为。

对子女迁移的同意必须根据相对可能性的衡量原则，以明确和有说服力的证据来确立：EW v LP [2013] HKCFI 1405; HCMP1605/2011 第37段。证明同意的举证责任在于主张同意存在的一方。法院的审理重点將置于案件的特定事实，而不同案件的事实和情况也各不相同。儘管受众多事实影响，决定原则仍然是直接的：另一方父母是否清楚明确地同意迁移：Re P-J  (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 588 第48段。

关键问题

1. 同意与默认：该案的核心在于双方对 2024年6月2日对话内容的诠释存在衝突。母亲声称父亲同意该儿童的永久迁移；相反，父亲则主张他的同意仅限于暑期的临时探访。法院需要通过该关键讨论的证据来判断父亲的迁移同意是否存在。
2. 行为证据：母亲以双方其后的行为为依据，如她就双方谈话作出的记录笔记和购买前往香港的单程机票，来证明父亲同意该儿童的永久迁移。而法院亦仔细审查双方信息沟通的语气和情感反应以确定双方是否同意。

法院裁决

法院最终裁定父亲胜诉，认为证据不足以证明父亲同意该儿童的永久迁移，而同意必须是明确无误的。该判决详细列出了以下理由：

• 证据不足：法院认为，母亲所依据的证据不够明确或有力，不足以证明父亲表示同意。有些证据，如购买单程机票和父亲协助母亲收拾物品，对任何一方所主张的情况而言都是合适的解释。有些证据，如母亲自己记录的 2024 年 6 月 2 日的谈话内容以及她朋友的证词，都是自圆其说，不宜给予过份考虑。因此，法院认为母亲无法证明父亲以明示或行为方式表示同意。
• 拒绝默认主张：基于同样的证据，母亲提出父亲后来默许该儿童定居香港的另一主张也不成立。法院强调了双方之间的一些信息往来，其中显示父亲反对该儿童在香港逗留和学习。

结论

该案例说明《公约》在香港法院的适用情况，以及在有关迁移和掳拐儿童的争议中有取得明确无误的同意的重要性。随著跨境和国际婚姻和家庭安排变得越来越普遍，法律界必须对掳拐儿童案件中父母同意的影响保持警惕。此判决也提醒人们注意规范此类事宜的法律原则，《公约》背后的法律原则，特别是在掳拐案件中需要有全面的证据来证明同意或默许的主张。

如有任何疑问或需要进一步的信息，请联系本所合伙人林颖诗律师或罗启峰律师。

 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。