大部分回应人士支持 2024 年 6 月刊发有关《企业管治守则》的谘询文件所载的建议（“谘询文件”），[1]但在委任首席独立非执行董事及独立非执行董事任期上限方面存在较明显的分歧。

经研究回应意见后，联交所已确定建议修订的实施日期为 2025 年 7 月 1 日，并就「超额任职」及独立非执行董事任期上限的规则作出过渡安排。联交所将于 2025 年上半年提供最新指引，以协助上市公司遵守最新规定。

A.  企业管治守则及相关上市规则的主要变更

下表列示了《企业管治守则》及相关《上市规则》的主要修订内容，涵盖以下五个方面： (i) 董事会效能；(ii) 独立非执行董事的独立性；(iii) 董事会及全体员工的多元化；(iv) 风险管理及内部监控；及 (v) 股息。

B.   分析与重点

联交所根据多个业界持份者及专业团体的建议及意见，致力完善谘询文件。此举反映了联交所在多个重要范畴加强上市公司企业管治的稳健。有关董事会效能、独立非执行董事的独立性、董事会及员工多元化、风险管理及内部监控，以及股息的规则、条文及规定的修订建议，展现了联交所致力于建立系统化及稳健的监管框架。正如谘询总结所反映，上市公司应遵守最新的指引及其时间表，以确保有效合规。

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。

[1] 请参阅我们有关联交所2024 年 6 月刊发有关《企业管治守则》的谘询文件的新闻快讯。

1. 虚拟资产交易平台的发牌及监管程序

为确保申请者已遵守相关的监管标准，证监会在进行现场视察后，被当作获发牌的虚拟资产交易平台申请者（“被当作获发牌的申请者”）仍需满足证监会进一步的监管改进要求。该等申请者须根据证监会在视察期间所提出的意见，提交一份详细列明纠正措施的计划书。证监会与被当作获发牌的虚拟资产交易平台申请者对该计划达成共识后，将向其颁发有条件牌照。为满足相关的发牌要求，虚拟资产交易平台必须执行所列明的纠正措施，并由独立第三方进行穿透测试和漏洞评估。虚拟资产交易平台在受限制的业务范围内营运之前，必须取得满意的结果。

• 漏洞评估

独立第三方评估人员负责通过对保管系统採取二进制分析，检测虚拟资产交易平台系统内任何易受攻击的风险。评估主要关注已识别的外部及内部易受攻击的潜在威胁，并根据其各自的风险水平进行等级分类。

• 穿透测试

为加强网络安全韧性及识别平台的潜在安全漏洞，独立第三方评估人员应对多个系统（包括网络装置、服务、数据库及电子钱包基础设施）进行安全强化评估及穿透测试。在证监会通知虚拟资产交易平台已顺利完成规定的评估和测试后， 虚拟资产交易平台将被允许在受限制的业务范围内营运，此举为证监会发牌条件之一。虚拟资产交易平台可进一步聘请外部评估专家 (“外部评估专家”) 进行第二阶段评估。

2. 经优化的第二阶段评估

 第二阶段评估是透过三方协议进行，参与方包括证监会、虚拟资产交易平台及外部评估专家。此评估重点关注虚拟资产交易平台在根据证监会提供的视察意见完成整改计划后，是否适当地建立和实施了经修订的政策及程序。倘若政策及程序有任何重大修改，虚拟资产交易平台应尽快告知证监会及外部评估专家。在第二阶段评估期间发现的任何违规行为，虚拟资产交易平台亦应迅速通知证监会，以便作进一步调查。

整个过程以直接鉴证的方式进行，并要求执业会计师核证，以确保符合证监会制定的相关监管标准。此外，外部评估专家必须确认政策及程序的设计和执行是否足以遵守《适用于虚拟资产交易平台营运者的指引》和《打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集指引（适用于持牌法团和获证监会发牌的虚拟资产服务提供者）》。一旦成功完成第二阶段评估，证监会将相应地解除目前有关限制虚拟资产交易平台业务范围的发牌条件。

3. 结语

如通函所述，证监会一直致力发展及完善监管制度，以订立虚拟资产交易平台的发牌规定。全面的监管架构涉及外部各方，如独立第三方评估专家及执业会计师，旨在保障投资者的权益及减低发生欺诈活动的风险。此举显示证监会致力于营造健康的交易环境，同时加强其监管和执法角色，以具透明及问责的方式监督虚拟资产交易平台。

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。

[1]请参阅我们有关证监会虚拟资产交易平台发牌制度的最新消息的新闻快讯。

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。

本次发行的配售代理包括仁和资本有限公司、信银(香港)资本有限公司、东海国际证券（香港）有限公司、佳涌证券有限公司、瑞丰国际证券有限公司、工银国际证券有限公司、普伦国际证券有限公司、申万宏源证券（香港）有限公司、东吴证券国际经纪有限公司、泰达证券国际有限公司和中泰国际证券有限公司。

潍坊国控主要负责基础设施建设，推动潍坊市的战略经济和社会发展。该集团的主要业务包括三个主要领域：基础设施建设、道路维护和商品贸易。

我们的团队包括合伙人劳恒晃律师、郑钰茵律师或曾浩贤律师，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，请联系劳恒晃律师、郑钰茵律师或曾浩贤律师。

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。