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.

本所共有五项专业领域荣登榜单:

• 商业和交易
• 家事和婚姻
• 破产
• 白领犯罪
• 私人客户

此外﹐本所高级法律顾问傅景元律师在“家庭与婚姻”领域被评为“诉讼之星”。

关于《Benchmark Litigation》

《Benchmark Litigation》通过深入的市场分析、客户反馈以及同行评审，评选出领先的律所和律师。这一荣誉体现了我们团队的专业能力和在市场上的优异表现。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所郑炎潘律师、徐凯怡律师、许懿律师或刘俊明律师。

请按此查看完整榜单 (只提供英文版本)。

Interlaw会定期组织会议，以推动专业发展并强化与其他律师事务所的关系。今年年会的主题是“海洋变革：可持续未来的应对策略 (Sea Change: Strategies for a Sustainable Future)”。在会议期间，郑律师和林律师参与了一系列精心策划的会议，讨论了环境问题、地缘政治的不确定性以及受生成性人工智能影响的快速变化的全球格局所带来的前所未有的挑战。

本所合伙人郑炎潘律师为税务与高净值论坛担任发言嘉宾 (左四)

本所合伙人林丽嫦律师及前Interlaw多元化、包容性和社区亲和力小组的亚太区副主席

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人郑炎潘律师或林丽嫦律师。

此次大会汇聚了众多业界专家，嘉宾包括香港高等法院特委法官及全国人大常委会香港特别行政区基本法委员会委员王鸣峰资深大律师、上海国际仲裁中心副主任马屹﹑以及上海国际仲裁中心秘书长王唯骏等。会上，徐律师与上海市律师协会副会长黄宁宁﹑香港中文大学法学院讲席教授，商学院名誉兼任教授黄辉及其他来自日本、越南等地的嘉宾，共同探讨了国际仲裁中仲裁员利益冲突及披露制度的演进趋势。 

本所合伙人徐凯怡律师

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。