史蒂文生黄律師事務所欣然宣布﹐本所私人客户团队及合伙人傅景元律师和林颖诗律师凭借其杰出之表现和良好的客户口碑﹐荣获不同法律名录授予以下奖项:

• 2021年度ACQ5全球重大影响大奖 (Gamechangers (ACQ5) Global Awards) – 年度最佳香港家庭律师事务所
• 2021 年度全球法律专家大奖(Global Law Experts Annual Awards) – 香港年度家庭律师事务所
• 2021年度律师网络大奖(Lawyer Network Annual Awards) – 香港年度家庭律师事务所
• 2021 年度亚洲法律 100 强 (Legal 100 Asia) – 年度最佳家庭律师事务所 – 香港
• 2021 年度 AI 全球卓越奖 – 最具影响力的家庭法女律师 (香港) | 傅景元律师
• Doyles Guide 2021 年度推荐 – 领先香港遗产、遗嘱认证和继承诉讼律师 | 林颖诗律师
• 《律师月刊》2021 – 年度最佳女律师大奖 | 林颖诗律师

关于史蒂文生黄私人客户

本所屡获殊荣的私人客户团队在婚姻及家事法方面于香港一直领先同侪及享负盛名，我们专门处理以下领域:

• 家事法

我们精通各类涉及诉讼或非诉讼的家事案件，包括准备婚前及婚后协议、子女管养权及赡养费、夫妻离婚时与第三方的财务纠纷，跨境司法管辖权及因不便于审理的理由而法院行使酌情权搁置诉讼的争议个案，和子女拐带纠纷等。此外，现时及过去主理家事的法官当中有三位是我们的前合伙人，其中一位更是高等法院法官。

• 遗嘱，遗产承办，家族财富传承及规划，信托咨询和财富计划

我们的专业家族财富传承及规划业务团队拥有专业知识和丰富经验，为不同背景的私人客户包括企业家、行政人员、外籍人士、高净值人士在财富继承、资产保存，信托和遗产传承规划上，提供实用建议及解决方案，我们亦协助办理于香港及不同司法管辖区的遗产继承和管理书申请。

• MIPs产业受托监管人工作

为应对香港人口老化，导致失智者及有特别需要人士的增加，我们累积了专业及深入的经验为客户准备复杂的持久授权书，及处理监管人托管无精神行为能力人士之产业的案件，我们协助申请人或家属，向法庭申请成为受托监管人并向他们提供有关《精神健康条例》的法律意见。

我们的团队亦有认可综合及家事调解员的资历，经常主持各类型的家事调解，成效显着。我们亦提倡在讼诉以外，尝试不同替代性的方法以解决纠纷，以省时及灵活的方式协助双方解决纠纷，达致双嬴。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所傅景元律师或林颖诗律师。

本所很荣幸获得《亚洲法律杂志》(Asian Legal Business) 2021年度香港法律大奖之十一项奖项提名：

入围名单包括:
1. 年度民事诉讼律师事务所
2. 年度刑事诉讼律师事务所
3. 年度争议解决 (精品律师事务所)
4. 年度家庭事务律师事务所
5. 年度房地产律师事务所
6. 年度监管与调查律师事务所
7. 年度交易精品律师事务所
8. 年度香港律师事务所
9. 年度交易律师- 劳恒晃律师
10. 年度管理合伙人- 劳恒晃律师
11. 年度女律师（律师事务所）-徐凯怡律师

香港法律大奖为《亚洲法律杂志》所颁发之最为盛大及历史悠久的奖项。该奖项旨在表彰法律界精英于过去一年的杰出表现及交易项目。结果将于2021年9月10日的線上颁奖典礼上宣布。

请按此查看香港法律大奖的所有提名。(只提供英文版本)

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。

背景

在2020年8月7日，香港联合交易所有限公司（联交所）就修订联交所《香港联合交易所有限公司证券上市规则》（《上市规则》）中有关纪律处分权力及制裁条文发表咨询文件。在2021年5月20日，联交所发表对有关咨询的总结（咨询总结）。本次修订《上市规则》的目标是为了增加联交所紀律制裁的选择，并且将紀律制裁涵盖更多故意从事违反上市规则活动的人士，例如上市发行人高級管理阶层。经修订的《上市规则》从2021年7月3日开始实施。以下将列出一些对《上市规则》的主要修订。

相关人士及高级管理阶层的定义

联交所新增四个类别的人士到《上市规则》2A.09和创业板《上市规则》3.10相关人士的定义（相关人士）。联交所也明确定义了「高级管理阶层」。

修订《上市规则》有关作出损害投资者权益声明的部分

在未作出修订前，联交所已经能够在其认为相关董事在该相关上市发行人继续留任将会损害投资者的权益时发出损害投资者权益声明（声明）。但是联交所只能够在董事「故意或持续不履行」其根据《上市规则》应尽的责任才能发出有关声明。

本次修订降低了发出声明的门槛。现在只要联交所认为相关人士继续留任可能会损害投资者权益，便能作出损害投资者权益声明，不需要达到董事「故意或持续未能履行职责」的门槛。该修订赋予联交所更大的灵活性处分及制裁行为失当的相关人士。

本次修订也增加了声明的适用范围。在修订前，只有上市公司董事才能被声明处分。在新修订下，声明的涵盖范围从上市公司董事延申至公司的高级管理阶层以至子公司的董事和高级管理阶层。联交所也被赋予权力向任何相关人士发出可作出损害投资者权益声明，无论有关人士于联交所作出声明时是否仍然在任。

加强声明的跟进行动

在修订后，当个案涉及更严重行为时，联交所可在针对个人发出损害投资者权益声明时，同步指令采取若干跟进行动。 为了增加损害投资者权益声明的有效性，联交所可以在被发出损害投资者权益声明的人士仍留任为该指明上市发行人的董事或高级管理层成员的情况下，禁止该上市发行人使用市场设施。若上市发行人的内控被发现存在重大问题，联交所可以一直实施制裁，直至独立专业顾问完成内控审查，并且上市发行人实施了充分有效的内控措施以促使遵守《上市规则》。在跟进行动里面原来董事「故意或持续未能履行职责」的门槛也同样被移除。

在此之上，修订订明除非被发出损害投资者权益声明的人士不再留任该上市发行人的董事或高级管理阶层职位，否则所有所述的上市发行人的公告和公司通讯中均必须提及损害投资者权益声明一事。

延申上市文件和年度报表的披露要求

董事和高级管理阶层的纪律制裁披露要求延申至上市文件和年度报表。披露内容包括法定机构和监管结构对该人士（现行/建议）纪律制裁的详细资料。新的披露范围能够增加市场透明度和让资料公众更容易取得资料。

引入董事不适合性声明

董事不适合性声明只会在恶劣或极其严重的个案中发出。当一名董事严重违反或重复不履行其根据《上市规则》应尽的责任，联交所有权力公开声明指出该名董事不适合担任所述上市发行人或其任何附属公司的董事或高级管理阶层成员的意见。先前提及的跟进行动、披露和出版规定同样的适用于董事不适合性声明。

间接责任

修订容许联交所对「因其作為或不作為导致违反，又或在知情的情況下参与违反《上市规则》」的个人施加间接责任。尤其被视为公司高级管理阶层的公司秘书和上市发行人的专业顾问都有间接责任。

但是，联交所也对两个事项作出澄清。第一，律师和会计师的间接责任只会在于专业监管机构和联交所共同同意的情况实施。第二，联交所在断定个人间接责任时将考虑该个人是不是故意或魯莽地促使或参与违反《上市规则》的规定。联交所也会考虑该个人有没有对联交所做出口头或书面承诺遵守《上市规则》的规定。

有责任提供全面，合理及最新咨询

该修订要求若任何人就某事项向联交所提供资料，则不论主动提供或回应查询，所提供的资料应尽可能是完整、准确及最新的。

轻微修订

联交所提出其他轻微《上市规则》修订：
1. 扩大对专业顾问的禁令范围，可以禁止其代表任何一方或特定的某一方。
2. 厘清专业顾问的地位。专业顾问的责任包括在按指示就《上市规则》事宜行事并提供意见时，需要尽一切合理努力确保其客户明白《上市规则》的范畴和在《上市规则》下的责任，并向其提供此方面的意见。专业顾问也不能在知情的情况下向联交所提供任何在要项上属虚假或具误导性的资料。
3. 划一以营业日为基准计算提交覆核申请以及就决定要求提供或提供书面理由的期限。
4. 覆核申请须一概送达上市委员会的秘书或上市覆核委员会的秘书。
5. 划一由发出决定或书面理由当日起计算开始结算提交覆核申请的期限。
6. 划一由发出决定当日起计算要求提供书面理由的期限。
7. 划一由接获要求当日起计算提供书面理由的期限。

如有任何疑问或获取更多信息，请联系我们的合伙人张源辉律师。

本新闻简讯仅供参考之用。本新闻简讯之内容不构成亦不应被视为法律意见。对于任何因根据或倚赖本文件所载资料所作决定，行动或不行动而引致的损失或损害，史蒂文生黄律师事务所概不负责。

近年来，随着网络技术的进一步普及和使用，网络骗案也在不断增加，甚至逐步形成产业化的趋势。许多犯罪分子利用跨区域的网络技术，对境内外的受害人实施诈骗，并要求受害人将款项转至香港的银行账户。如此，一旦骗案曝光，受害人除了向香港执法机构求助冻结相关银行账户外，亦需要循民事程序向香港法院申请披露相关银行账户的资料，以追讨被骗取的资产，保障自身的权益。

然而，在寻求披露银行账户资料的过程中，一个无法避免的环节便是银行的收费。通常情况下，受害人需要向银行支付与披露申请相关的手续费用，而银行会按照各自的内部指引进行收费。当中，不排除有些银行会收取较高额的费用，而且不同的银行的收费可能会有较大的差异。

近日，香港法庭在Hwang Joon Sang & Ors v G.E.I & Ors [2021] HKCFI 544一案中，就银行的收费进行了讨论。在该案中，涉案银行要求收取的费用包括 (1) 每个账户港币3,000元的处理费用，及 (2) 以每页港币200元收取提供文件的额外费用。原告人律师就此提出了反对，认为每页收取港币200元的费用完全过高，与另外一单于2021年4月涉及相同银行的披露申请的协定费用 (每页港币25元) 相差甚远。

针对银行的收费，高等法院原讼法庭高浩文法官认为目前的情况与法庭的基本目标 (即高等法院规则 (第4A章) 第1A号命令第1条规则的基本目标) 包括提高法庭程序的成本效益的目标相违背。高法官特别指出，银行需要自己考虑是否减少使用纸张，并通过使用电子数据库的形式提供披露资料会更加节约及环保 (more economical and environmentally friendly)。高法官进一步指出，银行亦需要考虑避免耗费不必要的时间及行政资源 (expenditure of time and administrative resources)，或至少应该最小化该等支出。

同时，高法官亦提出，「法庭认为，银行遵从披露命令并非为了牟利，银行遵从披露命令收费而采用的基数不应大过实际而且合理的费用基数。事实上，命令申请人按弥偿基准支付披露文件的费用，完全是为了确保银行收取的金额完全足够补偿 (但不能多于) 为遵从命令而引致的成本。」(“I do not think it is part of the profit making of a bank to charge for compliance with orders for disclosure on a basis greater than the actual reasonable costs of compliance. Indeed, the whole point of ordering the costs of providing disclosure to be paid on an indemnity basis, against the applicant’s undertaking to do so, is to ensure full (but no more than full) compensation for the costs of complying with the order.”)

由于在本案中银行并未就收取的费用作出解释，高法官暂时无法确定涉案银行本次提出的收费是否是合理的。虽然如此，高法官表示，「将来如果没有一套合理的方法可用，法庭可能在一些情况下会被迫考虑透过讼费评定或其他方法，找出按银行弥偿基准遵从命令而引致的成本。」(“[F]ailing a justified approach in future, it may be that the court will on some occasion be forced to consider identifying the reasonable indemnity costs for compliance with an order in any particular case, through a process of taxation or otherwise. ”)

本案中，虽然法庭并未就银行遵从披露命令而收取费用进行严格的规定及上限，但法庭明确表达了对于该等收费的态度。正如高法官所言，申请人支付银行遵从披露命令的费用是为了补偿银行的成本，而非让银行牟利。银行可能需要重新审视内部的收费指引，并且准备就其在披露申请案件中的收费向法庭提供合理理由 (如所有银行客户皆适用的收费标准、涉及的人工成本等)，以符合法庭提高法庭程序的成本效益的目标。

本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、黎嘉钿高级律师和黄晊晄律师撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com)。

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。

(English) In the past two decades, the Hong Kong court has gradually increased its scrutiny on the appointment of provisional liquidators for the purpose of corporate rescue and as a means to resist winding-up petitions.

In the 2003 Court of First Instance decision of Re Seapower[1], the court granted the provisional liquidators powers to facilitate a restructuring as a part of a scheme of arrangement and dismissed the winding-up petition subject to conditions.

Then in 2006, the Court of Appeal commented in Re Legend[2] that, “……the power of the court……is to appoint a liquidator or liquidators for the purposes of the winding-up, not for the purposes of avoiding the winding-up…… Restructuring is an alternative to a winding-up”.

Re Legend and subsequent cases adopting it[3] clarified that section 193 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance does not allow provisional liquidators to be appointed solely for the purpose of corporate restructuring or rescue. Rather, provisional liquidators may be allowed additional powers to restructure the subject companies if they are insolvent and their assets are in jeopardy, but the purpose of the appointment should not depart from the objective of winding-up.

An arrangement was eventually developed in response to the above clarification. Considered in detail in Re Z-Obee Holdings Limited[4], this arrangement was coined the Z-Obee technique:

In gist, a foreign company facing a winding-up petition in Hong Kong would procure the appointment of soft-touch provisional liquidators in its place of incorporation (commonly the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands) to facilitate a restructuring, whereupon it would
(1)  seek the Hong Kong court’s recognition of the appointment; and/or
(2)  request the Hong Kong court to provide assistance to the provisional liquidators with the force of a letter of request issued by a court of its place of incorporation.

Cases leading up to Re China Bozza

In Re Lamtex[5] and Re Ping An[6], the Hong Kong court was asked to recognize foreign appointments of soft-touch provisional liquidators and provide assistance to them.

In Re Lamtex, the court refused to recognize an appointment as there was insufficient evidence of a credible restructuring plan. The subject company was wound up.

In Re Ping An, the court granted an order of recognition and assistance upon being satisfied that there was tangible prospect of restructuring. The winding-up petition was adjourned for two months. The court commented that, “the power of assistance which the court normally grants foreign soft-touch provisional liquidators is simply a consequence of recognition”[7].

One can sense a heightening caution where the Z-Obee technique was used, as the court observed in these decisions that the subject companies “were to engineer a de facto moratorium”, that it was “a questionable use of soft-touch provisional liquidation”[8], and that it had “the intention of frustrating a winding up petition issued in the company’s centre of main interest (COMI)”.

The court further commented that insolvency processes in a company’s COMI could be more efficient and effective than that in its place of incorporation where it has no connection with[9], and a more stringent approach may be adopted in similar applications for recognition and assistance in the future.[10]

The Re China Bozza decision

In the recent decision of Re China Bozza[11], the court recognized the appointment of offshore provisional liquidators “as a matter of private international law”, but in respect of the liquidators’ request for assistance, the court merely gave a general direction of “liberty to apply””: The court would not provide assistance as a matter of course. A separate application should be made with justifications.[12]

Further, the court’s recognition of an appointment of offshore provisional liquidators does not automatically entail the adjournment of the winding up petition[13].

The court will adjourn the petition only upon being satisfied that the prospect of a successful restructuring during the adjournment is justifiably strong,

“If the reality is, for example, that a company is (a) hopelessly insolvent, (b) there is no prospect of realising value from sale of its indirectly owned assets in the Mainland as they will be seized by Mainland creditors and (c) the only hope of achieving other than a de minimis return to off-shore creditors is the sale of the company to an investor, who may wish to acquire it to use as a listed vehicle for a different type of business; this should be explained and justified.  Simply referring to a possible “debt restructuring” and treating the expression as a kind of magical incantation, the recitation of which will conjure up an adjournment of the petition is as inadequate as it is facile.”[14]

The court also highlighted that, to restructure a company’s debt,

(1)  the appointment of a soft-touch provisional liquidator was not necessarily required;
(2)  insolvency practitioners can be engaged to advise the company on restructuring and persuade the petitioning and supporting creditors and the court to adjourn the winding up petition.[15]

Creditors’ Interest is Paramount

In Re China Bozza, the court emphasized that once a company became insolvent, it had a paramount duty to consider the creditors’ interests, and the company’s directors fiduciary duties would be owed to the general body of creditors instead.[16]

Soft-touch provisional liquidators may be appointed with an intention to salvage the current shareholders’ investments in the company, often by procuring “white knight” to acquire the company’s assets[17]. In so doing, if the provisional liquidators do not appear to prioritise creditors’ interests, this may contribute to the Court’s refusal to provide assistance.[18]

The court was wary that no proper regard had been given to creditors’ interest in some recent cases. Typically, the companies would have issued low interest corporate bonds to Mainland residents. These bonds may be unattractive in terms of return, but the subscribers’ real objective would be to circumvent PRC’s exchange restrictions[19] or to apply for residency status in Hong Kong. The subscribers may not fully understood their rights and may have limited means to seek recovery.[20] In these circumstances, a soft-touch restructuring may not provide sufficient protection to the subscribers.

As such, the court will closely supervise whether the Z-Obee technique is used with sufficient regard to creditors’ interests.

Conclusion

Companies and those advising them should take heed of the court’s clear preference for the commercial approach of negotiation to the Z-Obee technique.

Procedurally, it is important to note that the court’s recognition of an appointment of offshore provisional liquidators does not automatically entail an adjournment of a winding-up petition. Instead, a strong prospect of success of restructuring needs to be demonstrated to the court to persuade it to adjourn a winding-up petition.

Please contact our Partners Mr. Osbert Hui or Mr. Dominic Lau for any enquiries or further 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 arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.

References:
Re China Bozza Development Holdings Limited (HCMP 172/2021, Hearing Date: 15 April 2021; Date of Decision: 11 May 2021)
Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd (HCCW 187/2020, Hearing Date: 29 April 2021; Date of Decision: 29 April 2021)
Re China Solar Energy Holdings Ltd  (HCCW 108/2015, Hearing Date: 18 August 2017; Date of Handing Down of Decision: 20 March 2018)
Re Lamtex Holdings Limited (HCCW 263/2020, Hearing Date: 28 January 2021; Date of Decision: 11 March 2021)
Re Legend International Resorts Ltd (CACV 207/2005, Hearing Date: 7-9 February 2006; Date of Handing Down Judgement: 1 March 2006)
Re Ping An Securities Group (Holdings) Limited (HCCW 217/2020 & HCMP 1810/2020, Hearing Date: 5 March 2021; Date of Decision: 12 March 2021)
Re Plus Holdings Ltd (HCCW 612/2006, Hearing Date: 17 May 2007; Date of Decision 17 May 2007)
Re Seapower Resources International Ltd (HCMP 2977/2003, Hearing Date: 14 November 2003; Date of Judgment: 14 November 2003)
Re Z-Obee Holdings Limited (HCMP 1563/2017, Date of Hearing: 31 October 2017; Date of Decision: 31 October 2017)

史蒂文生黄律师事务所欣然宣布，本所合伙人罗启峰律师 (TEP) 在国际信托及资产规划学会 (STEP) 国际信托管理文凭试中，以全球最优秀的成绩荣获STEP 卓越大奖。

STEP 卓越大奖奖旨在表彰在全球STEP资格认证中的获得最高成就之人仕与其卓越的成就。该奖项与 STEP 的核心价值一致，旨在提高水平和专业卓越。

据STEP 表示，本次获奖者 “代表了最优秀和最聪明的专业人士，他們的名字在未来将备受关注。”

关于 STEP 资格认证

STEP 资格认证被公认为私人客户和财富规划行业的指标，专业人士如会计师、律师、受托人和银行家等均通过STEP 资格认证证明其专业知识和专长。

如阁下欲了解更多详情，请按此查看完整榜单 (只提供英文版)或联络本所罗启峰律师。