OLN

OLN Marketing

Oldham, Li & Nie Recognised Once Again as an “Employer of Choice” by Asian Legal Business (ALB)

by

Oldham, Li & Nie has been recognised as an “Employer of Choice” for the 6th time. The award, based on a staff survey conducted by Asian Legal Business (ALB), recognises our commitment to creating a positive and supportive workplace culture that values our employees.

The survey measured various aspects of law firms’ workplace culture, including job satisfaction, work-life balance, opportunities for professional development, and overall job performance. Our employees’ high satisfaction with the firm’s culture and leadership is evident in the survey results, and we are honored to receive this award once again.

This recognition is a significant achievement for Oldham, Li & Nie, reflecting that our investment into human capital pays off. Our commitment to our employees has also been recognised in other ways, including our high employee retention.

The Employer of Choice list is featured in April 2023 issue of ALB. Click here to read the publication.

ALB Employer of Choice 2023

理解仲裁庭管辖权和申索的可受理性之间区别： 当白天变成黑夜

by

(这篇文章发表在 2023 年四月香港律师会会刊 )

引言

多重仲裁协议，即普遍要求合约双方在进行仲裁前进行善意谈判或调解，并不罕见。尽管当事人可能合理地期望仲裁只应于仲裁前要求获遵守后进行，现实或会让人意外。

在 C v D [2021] 3 HKLRD 1 (HKCFI);[2022] 3 HKLRD 116 (HKCA) 中，香港法院考虑了若当事人不遵守仲裁前要求而进行仲裁，是否构成对仲裁庭理解仲裁庭管辖权的挑战。香港原讼法庭和上诉法庭基于仲裁庭的管辖权与申索的可受理性两项概念之间的区别，裁定除非当事人另有明确说明，否则不遵守仲裁前要求属「申索可受理性的问题，而非仲裁庭管辖权的问题」。由于此项挑战被裁定在本质上不涉及仲裁庭的管辖权，法庭不能审查裁决的正确性。因此，正如 C v D 案一样，不论仲前要求是否获遵守，仲裁庭仍有管辖权而仲裁实际上可以进行。这显然违背当事人的合理期望。本文将批判地审视仲裁庭管辖权与申索可受理性之间的区别，以及 C v D 案的理据。就本文而言，我们假定「除非 X，否则不得提起仲裁」和「在 X 的情况下，双方可进行仲裁」并 无 区 别（Republic of Sierra Leone v SL Mining Ltd [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm)）。本文将论证最终的问题是挑战是否涉及仲裁庭的管辖权。我等谨提出挑战如关乎仲裁前要求未获当事人遵守，则应被定性为涉及仲裁庭的管辖权。

C v D

在 C v D 案中，C 对 D 提起诉讼以撤销 D 在未遵守仲裁条款内的仲裁前要求的情况下获得的部分裁决。该仲裁条款要求双方须先尝试进行为期 60 工作天的真诚谈判，然后方可将任何未解决的争议提交在香港进行的仲裁。

香港原讼法庭裁定而香港上诉法庭随后确认，C 的挑战涉及的是申索的可受理性而不是仲裁庭的管辖权，因此法庭不会审查有关裁决的正确性。法庭的理由如下：

  1. 仲裁庭的管辖权与申索的可受理性之间存在区别。
  2. 正如新加坡上诉法庭在 BBA v BAZ [2020] SGCA 53（关于时效的挑战）和 BTN v BTP [2020] SGCA105（关于已判事项的挑战）中解释，区别仲裁庭管辖权与申索可受理性的测试实质上是「仲裁庭相对申索」的测试，即该挑战是否针对仲裁庭（由于仲裁协议出现缺失或遗漏，该申索不应进行仲裁），还是针对申索本身（由于该申索自身存在缺陷，故根本不应提出）。在这两宗案件中，新加坡上诉法庭裁定，基于时效和已判事项的挑战仅针对申索本身，性质上不涉及管辖权。
  3. 管辖权和申索可受理性之间的区别可能模糊不清，有时难以知道两者甚么时候开始及终结，就像白天过渡至黑夜时，总有暮色时分（Robert Merkin and Louis Flannery, Merkin and Flannery on the Arbitration Act 1996 (6th edn, Rotledge 2019), [30.3]）。
  4. 仲裁协议没有表明当事人意图把遵守仲裁前要求视为管辖权的问题，而且当事人似乎不太可能意图在仲裁庭进行全面聆讯和作出决定后，以诉讼方式重启案件。

仲裁庭管辖权和申索的可受理性：存在区别还是二元对立？

作为一项初步观察，当考虑挑战是否涉及仲裁庭管辖权时，香港原讼法庭和上诉法庭均裁定不遵守仲裁前要求涉及「申索的可受理性，而非仲裁庭管辖权」。我等的愚见为这种表述不太合适，因为它隐含了申索的可受理性与仲裁庭管辖权属二元对立的意思。

尽管申索的可受理性和仲裁庭管辖权之间可能存在区别，但这两个概念不一定互相排斥，单一事件有可能同时引起对申索的可受理性和仲裁庭管辖权的挑战。这点可以参考英国上议院在 Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40, [17] 中给出的一个例子：如果同一份文件包含主协议和仲裁协议，而其中一方当事人声称他从未同意该文件的任何内容，其签名亦是伪冒的，则会同时构成对主协议及仲裁协议有效性的质疑。

因此，我等谨认为，在考虑挑战是否涉及仲裁庭的管辖权时，提及申索可受理性此概念的作用不大。最终问题应是挑战是否涉及仲裁庭的管辖权（即针对仲裁庭）。

涉及仲裁前要求的挑战本质上针对仲裁庭的管辖权

分析的出发点是不同案例曾各自归类仲裁前要求为涉及仲裁庭的管辖权、申索的可受理性或程序的问题（Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021), 988-989, 997-999）。公道来说，不同法律体系之间没有统一的做法。

鉴于意见不一，有人认为在诠释仲裁前要求时，当事人的意图应获考虑，正如香港原讼法庭和上诉法庭声称在 C v D 案中所做的一样。遗憾地，相对于审查挑战背后的基本事实以确定当事人的真实意图，香港法庭实际只是宣布有关仲裁的司法政策（例如速度、终局性等），以及相应于当事人意图的法律推定——即法庭推定当事人有意将仲裁前要求归于申索的可受理性，故须由仲裁庭专门处理。这种司法政策和法律推定的应用显然是循环的：当事人挑战仲裁庭管辖权机制完全在仲裁制度之内，不能说成当事人同意仲裁，即代表当事人为了速度和终局性，意图将本来应获适当归类为涉及仲裁庭管辖权的挑战视为不牵涉仲裁庭管辖权。香港法庭的做法只是重复了须适当归类仲裁前要求的问题。

本文须指出，时效的问题（如 BBA v BAZ）和已判事项的问题（如 BTN v BTP）属申索的可受理性的经典例子。这些问题质疑「申索」本身（针对一个特定的申索而不是其他潜在的申索），亦没有以任何形式针对仲裁庭。换句话说，撇开挑战不谈，仲裁庭拥有一般管辖权就任何其他不受时效或已判事项限制的申索作出裁决。

然而，因不遵守仲裁前要求而衍生的挑战的性质截然不同。仲裁前要求未获遵守的挑战不会以时效问题或已判事项问题的方式攻击「该申索」本身——事实上，仲裁前要求未获遵守的挑战并不会攻击某特定「申索」，而是广乏针对仲裁协议涵盖的所有申索，因此除了该些受仲裁前要求约束的申索之外，仲裁庭根本没有其他事项可作出任何裁决。我等谨认为，这显示仲裁庭实际上没有任何一般管辖权。为了进一步阐释 Merkin and Flannery 第 30.3 段中白天与黑夜的比喻，白天不会因移除了一束光线而变成黑夜，但如果根本没有光线，那就肯定是黑夜了。无论如何，诠释仲裁前要求为涉及仲裁庭管辖权的问题也符合当事人的意图，因为此项诠释为当事人的意图提供了双重保障（即在仲裁庭层面及在法院层面），确保除非当事人遵守仲裁前要求，否则不得进行任何仲裁。

真正的担忧

法庭真正的担忧似乎是，当是否进行仲裁是取决于某些仲裁前步骤时，如果一方当事人不采取该些步骤，另一方就可撤回对仲裁的承诺（Alexander Jolles, “Consequences of Multi-tier Arbitration Clauses: Issues of Enforcement” (2006) 72 Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management 329, 335）。这种担忧是误解。

即使仲裁前要求未获遵守，它不会自动容许无错失的一方退出仲裁协议（Hugh Beale, Chitty on Contracts (1st supp, 34th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2022), [4-197] – [4-203] )。未遵守仲裁前要求的一方仍可能稍后遵守仲裁前要求以展开仲裁。由于仲裁协议仍然有效、可实行或可履行，《仲裁条例》（第 609 章）第 20 条适用于阻止在仲裁前要求获遵守之前提起的诉讼。

当然，如果违约一方明确表明不会履行仲裁前要求，则多重仲裁协议可能因预期违约而被废除。在这种情况下，无错失一方有权决定是否接受悔约，或仍然选择仲裁。若无错失一方接受悔约，当事人的争议应通过法庭诉讼解决，而违约一方必须承担悔约的后果。

有意见认为「这不符合当事人的意图 」（Jolles, “Consequences of Multitier Arbitration Clauses”, 335）， 但 须谨记法律上预设的争议解决机制是法庭诉讼。作为法庭诉讼以外的例外情况，双方当事人可以在同意的范围内进行仲裁。然而，若出于任何原因仲裁不能在双方最初设定的范围内进行，无可避免地双方须按照法律的施行回到法庭诉讼，而在此方面双方的意图是不相干。

正确的方法

仲裁是经当事人同意的争议解决程序。仲裁协议可反映当事人同意进行仲裁。我等恭敬的陈词认为，决定一项挑战是否涉及仲裁庭管辖权的正确方法为考虑 (a) 该挑战是否攻击构成仲裁庭管辖权基础的仲裁协议，以及 (b) （除了受挑战的申索外）是否存在其他仲裁庭可以作出裁决的申索。

应用这个方法，C v D 案中的挑战显然涉及仲裁庭的管辖权：该挑战攻击仲裁协议，因为仲裁协议中的仲裁前要求据称未获遵守；除了那些受到质疑的申索之外，并无其他仲裁庭可作裁决的申索。

总结

鉴于仲裁作为一个受欢迎的争议解决机制的重要性，而多重仲裁协议亦很普遍，无庸置疑，不遵守仲裁前要求的挑战是否涉及仲裁庭的管辖权并须受到法庭审查是一个具有广乏重要性的问题。C v D 案目前被上诉至香港终审法院。我等谨希望香港终审法院会为仲裁当事人就仲裁前要求的正确诠释提供最终指引。

ChatGPT and What It Means for You

by

In what seems to have occurred overnight, ChatGPT has become one of the hottest topics of discussions around the world. In its own words, ChatGPT is “an AI-powered chatbot developed by OpenAI, based on the GPT (Generative Pretrained Transformer) language model. It uses deep learning techniques to generate human-like responses to text inputs in a conversational manner.” Open AI was co-founded in 2015 by Elon Musk and Sam Altman and is backed by investors such as Microsoft.

Interest in ChatGPT and its ability to produce human-like responses is what makes ChatGPT so interesting and impressive, not to mention the vast knowledge available to ChatGPT providing users with informed and detailed responses. A quick review of viral stories, you will soon see that many individuals are using ChatGPT to assist in writing messages, writing code, writing academic papers, translating text or speech, researching information and even assisting individuals with day-to-day tasks such as scheduling appointments/meetings, creating a nutrition plan and finding recipes, travel itineraries and even creating content for social media.

Whilst ChatGPT is not currently accessible in Hong Kong, but easily overcome, it is still an important topic to discuss. Thus, whilst ChatGPT is still in its infancy, there is much to be learned as this technology continues to develop. We at OLN believe it is important that both our team and our trusted clients are aware of this developing technology as it becomes an increasingly and widely used AI tool both outside and within the workplace.

1. Will ChatGPT result in redundancy?

One of the most important questions asked is whether the introduction and use of ChatGPT will result in redundancy, with human-held jobs being replaced by ChatGPT. There is no doubt that ChatGPT will replace certain components of human-held jobs, however, what is more likely to occur is that ChatGPT will enhance a lawyer’s skillset and allow him/her to thrive by working alongside ChatGPT. The poignant question to ask is not whether ChatGPT will replace humans and result in redundancy, but rather how can humans use ChatGPT to his/her advantage in the workplace? One of the key advantages of ChatGPT is that it will result in time-saving which in the workforce results in costs-savings. When using ChatGPT, a key takeaway is that the user understands the importance of the question prompt. Asking the correct question will get you the response you want and need and failure to ask the correct question with the key prompts could take ChatGPT down another path.

A quick question directed to ChatGPT about whether redundancy is a risk, ChatGPT will acknowledge its limitations. Whilst efficiency and speed may be gained, human touch and the need for soft skills cannot be replicated by an AI bot. To quote ChatGPT, “this therefore brings forth unprecedented opportunities for lawyers to optimize their skills and service offerings to clients.” Perhaps then, this is an opportune time for lawyers to nurture and embrace the need for soft skills in the workplace and with clients. This can easily be accomplished through regular check-ins, face-to-face meetings and human-to-human telephone calls.

2. What risks should we be aware of?

ChatGPT is an emerging technology and essentially is still in its infancy. Reports in the media state that even Elon Musk, one of the co-founders of OpenAI is saying we must slow down the process as it is still developing and there is much to be learned about this technology. Some countries are even banning ChatGPT so does that mean other countries will follow suit?

One of the key reasons why there is such hesitation with ChatGPT is the issues surrounding privacy. In order for ChatGPT to work properly, users are required to place question prompts into the AI bot. A well-crafted query will result in a more enhanced and detailed response by the ChatGPT. However, many human users may also add in detailed queries which could essentially invade privacy and result in private data being collected, used and accessed by ChatGPT. We have already seen privacy issues come forth with other apps and software such as Tik Tok and the cloud. It is almost guaranteed the same privacy queries and concerns will arise with the growing use of ChatGPT. At OLN, we are committed to privacy and ensuring the privacy of our clients and have created parameters for our staff and colleagues when using ChatGPT such that client information and details are never input into the AI bot.

In addition to privacy concerns, there is also the question of adaptability. At this time, the most recent and up-to-date ChatGPT is ChatGPT 4.0 and can now connect to the worldwide web and therefore has full access to up-to-date information that is currently on the internet. However ChatGPT 4.0 is a paid service, and not generally used yet by the public. ChatGPT version 3.5 is the most widely used version and is not connected to the worldwide web and is only trained with data up to the year 2021. OpenAI claims that the newest version of ChatGPT has “more advanced reasoning skills” but it is still not fully reliable and may “hallucinate” by inventing facts or making reasoning errors. Again, ChatGPT’s experience and adaptability is limited to the internet and cannot be replicated by human experiences. As humans, our brains have the ability to adapt to experiences and senses around us, which AI bots cannot. Thus, this again emphasizes the limitations of ChatGPT as it is not a human brain and cannot adapt as easily as a human.

Finally, whilst ChatGPT’s response to queries may be fast and detailed due to its vast access to knowledge, is it reliable? The responses provided by the AI bot must be verified and checked by readers. It may be tempting for users to trust the information without question, but to do so could be catastrophic if the information is improperly used. This is when human knowledge and expertise will come into play to ensure that the information is certainly not trusted simply because it was provided by ChatGPT. Similar to any information on the web, everything must be checked and verified with the critical thinking of the human mind.

So, what does ChatGPT mean for OLN and our clients? First and foremost, OLN will stay up-to-date on the ever-evolving world of ChatGPT. We are also committed to having continuous discussions about the evolution of ChatGPT. At this time, ChatGPT is simply an evolving technology that we are keeping a close eye on, but have not implemented using at OLN as our services to clients cannot be replicated by AI technology and only through the work and experience offered by our lawyers and support staff. This is not to say that ChatGPT may become an integral part of any law practice, however, at this time the use of ChatGPT is premature at OLN.

Your Call To Action: Now that you have an overview of ChatGPT and some of the key points and risks to consider with this AI technology, it is time for you to take action in your own business and practice. Do not let this pass you by as this is now an opportunity to head up a roundtable discussion with your staff and colleagues on technology that will soon become an integral part of your business. It is important to remain up-to-date on this evolving technology and you now need to consider challenging your staff and colleagues about ChatGPT. Ask your staff why they should not be concerned about being made redundant and seek information from staff on how they will continue to play an invaluable role in your business despite ChatGPT. Most importantly, consider how ChatGPT can be implemented into your business to save time and costs, thus enhancing your overall business and business practice. If you wish to discuss this further with us at OLN, as have several of our other clients, we are happy to discuss this with you as an objective sounding board.

Share purchase vs Asset purchase – What are the differences?

by

Introduction

When people contemplate buying a business, the first thing that comes to mind is generally whether to buy the shares of the target company or simply to buy the assets of it. This article aims to highlight the differences between a share purchase and an asset purchase and some points to consider before deciding which route to go for.

A share purchase involves the transfer of the ownership of the shares of a company from the seller to the buyer. As a result, the buyer acquires control over the company and all its assets, liabilities, and obligations. In Hong Kong, the transfer of shares is typically subject to stamp duty, which is payable by both the buyer and the seller. On the other hand, an asset purchase involves the transfer of specific assets and liabilities of a company from the seller to the buyer. The buyer can cherry-pick which assets and liabilities to acquire, and the seller retains the ownership of the remaining assets and liabilities. The actual transfer of assets may be subject to various taxes and duties, depending on the nature of the assets.

Below are some key points that a buyer should take note of before deciding whether a share purchase or an asset purchase best suits his needs. In the following paragraphs, we have assumed the purchase of the entire issued shares or assets of a non-listed Hong Kong company.

Assets and Liabilities

In a share purchase, a buyer buys the shares of the target company while the company remains the owner of its assets. In other words, the target company’s assets and liabilities do not change hand. Hence, if the buyer wishes to buy the entire issued shares of the target company, he should hive off any unwanted liabilities (e.g., loans, accounts payable, etc.) before closing a deal. This is usually done by way of requesting the seller to settle all unwanted liabilities or have them assigned to the sellers before closing, generally by inserting a condition precedent to completion in a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”). This ensures that the target company will not continue to hold those unwanted liabilities after the buyer takes over it. Nonetheless, the buyer may still be faced with undisclosed liabilities.

In a business purchase, a buyer is free to choose what assets he wants in order to suit his own business needs. By choosing to buy assets of the target company, the buyer typically does not want to assume the existing liabilities of the target company, and all liabilities remain with the target company. However, a buyer should be aware of the provisions of Transfer of Business (Protection of Creditors) Ordinance (Cap. 49 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (the “TOBO”). Pursuant to the TOBO, the transferee may be held liable for all debts, obligations and liabilities of the transferor arising out of the carrying on of the business notwithstanding that the buyer only takes over the assets but not the liabilities of the target company, unless certain requirements are satisfied (as discussed below)[1].

The seller in an asset purchase is the proprietor of the asset in question, which normally is the operating vehicle of the business. Unless the buyer only purchases part of a business and has no knowledge that the assets he purchased form part of the business[2], the parties should ensure notice is given to the creditors of the seller by publishing a notice of transfer (the “notice”) according to the TOBO. In relation to the notice requirements, a buyer should take note of the followings: –

  • First, the notice must be given not more than 4 months, and not less than 1 month, beforethe date of transfer[3];
  • Second, the notice must be complete at the date of transfer. A notice becomes complete 1 month after its last publication, if no proceedings having been instituted by a creditor of the business[4]; and
  • Third, the notice must include contents prescribed under section 5 of TOBO and published in the Gazette, in 2 Chinese-language newspapers and 1 English-language newspaper as approved by the Chief Secretary for Administration from time to time[5].

If any creditor of the seller objects to the proposed sale of the assets or business, they may apply to court during the period referred above for an order to prevent or delay the transfer of the assets/business.

Third Party’s Consent

Unless an agreement previously entered into by the target company contains a ‘change of control’ provision that requires the other contracting party’s prior consent before any proposed change in control of the target company, third party’s consent is usually not required in a share purchase. For example, an exclusive supply agreement may provide that if the ownership of the supplier changes hands, the agreement shall come to an end. The buyer intending to acquire the exclusive supply, which may form a major part of valuation of the target company, should obtain from the manufacturer a waiver of its right to terminate the agreement. The waiver should also form part of the condition precedent to completion in the SPA to safeguard the interests of buyers.

On the contrary, a business purchase is less neat and tidy. All kinds of contracts forming part of the business the intended buyer is interested in shall be transferred, assigned and novated to the buyer by the seller.

Employment Matters

Typically, in an asset purchase transaction, the buyer will continue to employ the existing employees of the target company. This is done by way of transferring those employees to the buyer’s employment. However, the buyer should take note of two things, first, there is no automatic transfer of employment under Hong Kong laws, those employees must consent to the transfer. Second, the continuity of the period of employment of those employees whom the buyer chooses to offer to re-employ may be preserved according to the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57 of the Laws of Hong Kong), and this effectively means that the buyer will take up all the payment liabilities arising out of a continuous contract (e.g., severance payment or long service payment) for the period of employment under the seller’s company. However, if a buyer considers not to employ the existing employees of the seller, i.e., the target company, the buyer should ensure that the seller has settled all payment liabilities arising out of the employment of such existing employees, such as making this a condition precedent to completion of the purchase, to avoid any potential hassle or dispute with the seller’s existing employees after the transaction completed. In a share purchase transaction, employees of the target company remain to be employed by the target company and there is no issue of re-hiring of employees. However, if the buyer does not wish to retain certain employees after closing, the buyer should negotiate with the seller in advance and ensure all the employment matters with existing employees have been taken care of before completion.

Tax Implications

The seller in a share purchase is an existing shareholder of the target company. To effect a share transfer, the buyer and the seller shall execute a set of transfer documents (which include instrument of transfer and contract notes). The parties shall submit the original documents to Stamp Office of the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department for stamp duty adjudication. Before the target company can enter the name of the new shareholders onto its register, the parties shall pay the stamp duty as adjudicated and deliver the stamped transfer documents to the target company. The stamp duty payable is 0.26% of the consideration as stated on the contract notes or the net asset value of the company, whichever is the higher. The buyer in a share purchase transaction may be able to utilize the target company’s tax losses and other tax attributes in the continuing operation of the target company.

Transfer of assets may, on the other hand, subject to various taxes and duties, depending on the nature of the assets purchased.

Conclusion

There is no hard and fast rule on which type of purchase is better, it all depends on the buyer’s preference and business needs. As each deal differs from another, professional advice should be sought at the early stage, and due diligence should be performed to identify risks in the deal. If you have any enquiries about the subject matter of this article, please contact our Mr. Simon Wong for further discussion.

Disclaimer: This article is for general reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as legal advice. Oldham, Li & Nie and the author shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the content of this article.

[1] Sections 3 and 4 of Cap. 49

[2] Section 3(2) of Cap. 49

[3] Section 4(1) of Cap. 49

[4] Section 4(4) of Cap. 49

[5] Section 5(3), Cap. 49

Oldham, Li & Nie Advises on an Award-Winning Deal

by

Oldham, Li & Nie has advised on the deal ESR purchase of logistics assets from DLJ which has been recognised by the China Business Law Journal (CBLJ) as one of the “Deals of the Year 2022” in the category “Cross-border deals”.

The deal relates to the purchase by ESR, the largest real estate manager in the Asia-Pacific, of an 11-asset portfolio from US-based DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners for RMB4.4 billion (USD656 million).

The portfolio, consisting of logistics and industrial assets spanning 550,000 square metres of gross floor area cross the Yangtze River Delta ‒ including Shanghai, Kunshan, Suzhou, Taicang and Hangzhou ‒ is the largest of its kind sold in the “greater Shanghai” area.

Oldham Li & Nie acted as Hong Kong legal counsel to ESR, the deal was led by our Consultant Cermain Cheung and Associate Phyllis Wong.

Learn more about the winning deals – https://law.asia/deals-china-2022/

About China Business Law Journal

China Business Law Journal is a fully bilingual (simplified Chinese and English) monthly magazine for China-focused business and legal practitioners. CBLJ selects the deals of the years that stand out for their “overall significance, complexity, innovative nature and deal size”.

Oldham, Li & Nie Has Once Again Been Recognised as a Caring Company

by

We are pleased to be once again recognised by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) as a Caring Company. The award is a recognition of OLN’s commitment in Caring for the Community, Caring for its Employees and Caring for the Environment.

Caring Company Oldham, Li & Nie

Some of our initiatives in 2022:

  • During the most challenging months of Covid-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, we launched our 3rd “Free Will Campaign”, we drafted a free Will to everybody who donate a small amount of money to our partner charity – Helping Hand, an NGO dedicated to serving the elderly in Hong Kong. 100% of funds went towards providing food and other essentials to help the elderly affected by the Covid-19 crisis.
  • In October, we held a “Dress Pink Day” to show our support to our colleagues, friends, mothers, wives, sisters and daughters who have battled breast cancer. The staff and the firm made donations to the Hong Kong Cancer Fund, their donations went to preventing and curing breast cancer through research, patient support, education and advocacy.
  • As part of our GO GREEN effort, we digitalized our engagement letters, switched to “e-sign” procedures and “think before you print” mentality.
About the Caring Company Scheme

The Caring Company Scheme was launched by The Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) in 2002 with the purpose to foster strategic partnerships among business and social services partners and inspire corporate social responsibility through caring for the community, employees and the environment.