OLN

OLN Marketing

OLN IP 的蔡柏坚律师在2021年WTR 1000中获得认可

by

恭喜OLN IP常务董事蔡柏坚律师，在2021年世界商标评论1000 – 全球领先的商标专业人士在“起诉和战略”银牌领域中获得认可。

蔡柏坚律师最近加入我们的法律和商业解决方案平台，担任OLN IP Services（OLN IP）的常务董事，是一间由高李严律师行扩展在知识产权领域服务的新公司。 OLN IP是一家顾问公司，可为知识产权公司提供量身定制, 具商业触觉的法律意见和知识产权资产组合管理。

在此再次祝贺蔡柏坚律师获得认可。

关于OLN IP

OLN IP顾问公司致力于为知识产权拥有者提供量身定制, 具商业触觉的法律意见，从协助基于技术的知识产权，商标，版权，专利和外观设计，到持续管理知识产权资产。 OLN IP由蔡柏坚律师担任常务董事以及宋静妍律师领导，两位均为知识产权领域的资深人士, 并得到了我们香港和上海办事处经验丰富的知识产权专家团队的支持，他们共同以深厚的经验和丰富的知识为客户提供适合其业务需求的细微而精确的知识产权建议。

OLN IP是香港律师事务领先的高李严律师行之子公司，我们在香港和中国大陆设有办事处，自1987年以来依赖其对专业卓越的承诺推动了增长和发展。

2021年3月

香港商标走向国际化

by

作者：蔡柏坚,顾问

香港预计在2022年底或2023年初正式接受WIPO马德里体系下的国际商标注册(International Registration / IR)。 多年来香港沿用完全地域性的商标注册制度, 即香港注册的商标只在香港地区内有效。当香港引人IR后，香港居民或在香港注册成立的公司可以指定其在香港注册的商标，在马德里网络内全球选定的多个国家或司法管辖区进行扩展注册, 免除了日后在其他国家提交申请。 海外商标拥有人亦可指定其在所属国家的商标注册扩展至在香港，以节省他们在香港独立注册的需要。

2020年6月19日，《2020年商标（修订）条例》生效，为马德里体系下商标的管理和审查铺平道路。 香港知识产权署（IPD）已修订商标法及实务，并藉此机会简化或修改某些程序、工作流程及手续要求，使商标拥有人及其商标服务供货商能更轻松及方便地提交商标注册申请。  

下面的图表说明了已经实施的或快将实施的更改。

过去现在或不久的未来好处
申请表只需提供申请人的名称和地址。除了其名称和地址, 申请人需要在申请表中注明所属的国家和州份（对于美国）。这有助于在官方记录确定商标申请人或拥有人的原居地和注册地位。
严格要求在先商标的拥有人签署的同意书正本。现在，同意书的扫描件或复印件已可满足并解决基于在先前商标的相对拒绝理由。这节省了申请人等待来自国外邮寄的同意书正本的时间以及在先商标拥有人邮寄原件的需要，特别是在新冠肺炎限制期间。
支持巴黎公约优先权要求所需经认证的优先权档（在第一个申请国签发的申请摘要）。除非注册处特别要求外，免除提交核证优先权档的需要。这为申请人节省了安排申请签发经认证优先权档的时间和费用。
商标注册处将保留申请人较早的并具有不同的地址和以前的地址注册商标，并以该商标提出相对拒绝后期提交商标申请的理由，除非申请人在登记册中所有相关商标申请地址更改。现在，当由于地址差异而被引用为相对拒绝的在先商标时，申请人不需要为自己的在先注册商标（带有不同的地址）记录地址更改。申请人或其代理人可以简单地以书面形式通知注册处，申请人与所引用商标的所有者是同一实体（以文件证明为准）。这为申请人节省了为其旧商标记录作出更改的费用。
所有反对表格和文件必须打印，签名并在商标注册处提交。现在可以通过注册处在线门户网站提交反对通知书和延期反对申请。这样可以节省反对人或其代理人在办公时间内到注册处办公室提交反对档的需要。
除非一方选择提交书面陈述, 所有在商标注册处举行的均亲自进行。聆讯可以通过纸面、口头或视频会议或其他电子方式进行。这应对了过去一年的新冠肺炎社会距离要求。
以不使用为由寻求撤销第三方注册商标的申请人通常必须通过聘请私人调查员进行市场情报来提供不使用的初步证据。在不久的将来，寻求撤销第三方注册商标的申请人在提交不使用撤销申请时, 将没有义务提供不使用的初步证据。 证明商标的实际使用是拥有人的责任，以捍卫其不使用申述。这节省了申请人进行撤销申请前, 通过聘请私人调查员的费用和时间，而该费用可能是相当昂贵的。

商标注册处仍在制定《2021年商标（修订）规则》。 我们将密切留意商标注册制度的更新，并向您提供有关信息。

2021年2月26 日

There Is A Caveat to The Will – What are the Next Steps?

by

What can be done if there are disputes over the validity of a will or the administrator of the estate? Provided that the ‘Grant of representation’ has not yet been issued by the Hong Kong Probate Registry, which would indicate that it has already validated the will, a concerned party may enter a ‘Caveat’. This will ensure that the “Caveator’, that is the person who lodges the caveat, will be informed if any application is made for the issue of a grant of representation.

While the existence of a caveat may indicate there are genuine concerns in a probate or administration process and therefore a sign of potential disputes, the effect of entering a caveat is not necessarily contentious in itself. Nevertheless, caveat proceedings do start when a caveat is lodged with the Probate Registry against an estate of a Deceased. The Probate Registry only process non-contentious applications for grant. If the application has become “contentious”, the contention must be resolved first. In theory, the entering of a caveat can be contentious, and the caveat must be dealt with first before the application can be processed further.

A caveat is a notice preventing a grant of representation being issued by the Registry without notice to the caveator. Some of the common reasons to enter a caveat are:-

•    To allow more time for the caveator to make enquiries, obtain further information or evidence to:

o    Oppose proof of a will
o    Challenge the validity of a will
o    Oppose the issue of the grant of representation to the person entitled
o    Ascertain entitlement where there is no will (the deceased died intestate)

•    To act as a preliminary step to a probate action, or to citation (for more information, see our article on citations)
•    To be a first step in an application by people who have equal entitlement to the grant of representation

Once entered, a caveat remains in force for 6 months from the date of entry and then automatically ceases to have effect, unless withdrawn or removed prior to such date. There is no limitation to the number of further caveats and extensions that can be made. 

How to Handle a Caveat?

Issuing of any grant of representation shall not be allowed if the Probate Registry has knowledge of an effective caveat. Where an effective caveat is in place, the applicant for grant of the relevant estate would be asked by the Registrar to deal with the caveat. This can sometimes come as a surprise to grant applicants as they may not have been previously aware of the caveat.

Depending on the circumstances, there are various ways of handling an estate with a caveat. In any event, given the many potential contentious issues that may arise and the sensitive nature of probate or administration in general, legal advice should be sought and the matter should always be handled with care.

A caveat can only be removed:-

•    By withdrawal of the caveat by the caveator giving notice at the Probate Registry, as long as an appearance to a warning has not been entered
•    By the non-appearance of a caveator to the warning to caveator
•    By an order of the High Court that the caveat does cease to have effect and a grant of representation be issued
•    By the expiration of 6 months form the date of entry or effective extension

It may be worrying to discover that a caveat has been lodge, but it is not unusual to find occasions where the caveat process is misused and caveats are simply lodged to stall for time, or even where parties have no grounds to contest a will or the administration of an estate. Where there is no valid reason to lodge a caveat, there could be costs consequences for the caveator. 

Whether you discovered a caveat or you are thinking of entering one, it should be reminded that caveat proceedings are by nature contentious and can well be the start of a litigation. Any step taken after the commencement of a caveat proceedings could cause legal consequences, including costs. It is therefore recommended that you seek independent legal advice before taking any step in dealing with a caveat.

If you have any questions regarding the above or would like to obtain further information on our probate and estate planning services, please feel free to contact our Probate and Estate Planning team.  

This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.

February 2021

家庭信托: 明智地使用法律费用

by

早期建议如何能大大减少未来的成本

正如中国俗话所说：家丑不可外扬，所有的家庭问题都应该在“屋内”解决是中国文化根深蒂固的思想。通常家庭和私人财富经理都不会轻易联系律师，只有当问题严重到难以处理或者成为灾难的时候，才会想到去聘请法律顾问，此时要解决如此严重的问题往往会需要一笔相当大金额的资金。本通报是为在早期阶段建立的法律备留提供实务的指标，以避免未来出现这种噩梦。

结构形成

在香港，有多样的服务和产品可以供高净值人士和家庭选择。香港仍然是超级富豪的聚集中心，他们拥有大量的私人财富，主要包括易于投资的资产，其中大部分以私人信托的形式持有，用于财富和遗产规划的主要手段。这听起来很简单，但随着高净值人群的扩大，香港的财富和遗产规划师看到第二和第三层次的富人对复杂规划的需求越来越大，特别是对于财富的代际转移，家族企业的继承问题及长期慈善目标。

客户的喜好（或在许多情况下，他们的服务提供者的喜好），以及遗产原因往往是选择结构和管辖区的主导因素。然而，设计不良的结构和不适当的管辖区选择可能导致严重的违规问题，资产的不流动，不必要的行政支出，或对商业运作的阻碍。因此，根据以下关键因素，在最适合的管辖范围内，与法律顾问密切合作来搭建一个适合的结构框架很重要:

1. 受益人的具体需求

相关问题包括:

a) 是否需要持续的支持，以及支持多长时间（例如，对未成年人和老年受益人）？在这种情况下，什么是确保部分资产保持流动性的最佳方式？
b) 是否有必要拥有独立的财富组合，如果有必要，离岸基金是否合适？
c) 是否有任何具体的管辖事项（例如，美国公民问题）需要为某些受益人提供更多保护？
d) 他们在家族企业中是否有任何作用？如果使用私人信托公司，是否可以预见身兼数职的冲突？

2. 税收效率

流行的离岸司法管辖区（如英属维尔京群岛和开曼群岛）的实体和活动不征税，这对于那些要求其资产易于转让，同时对所有权高度保密的人来说是理想的。在香港，虽然本地产权没有资本收益税，但在香港进行的贸易活动，专业或商业经营所产生或衍生的利润须缴纳利得税。因此，结构中的相关香港实体所获得的报酬或利润，即使是通过离岸工具，也可能要被征税。
税收考虑的另一个方面是个人受益人的潜在个人责任，特别是在接受分配时。

3.    合规问题

随着全球范围内反洗钱和反金融犯罪斗争的开展，从提供基本的个人资料到提供详细的有关资金和收入的来源都成为不可避免的合规要求。诸如 “实益拥有权”，”经济实质 “和 “FATCA “等术语在所有流行的财富停放管辖区经常成为头条新闻。根据不遵守报告义务的动机来选择管辖区是不现实的，因为人们最终会选择一个没有或很少有金融和专业基础设施的管辖区，即使如此，这样的管辖区最终也会发展并变得规范。
对合规要求的正确做法是请法律顾问绘制出每年完全遵守所有报告义务所需的行动和信息。从逻辑上讲，适当的规划和准备的成本将大大低于处理未能遵守某些职责的后果的成本。  

关键的文件

多年来，在香港，信托一直是资产保护和继承计划的默认设置。尽管了解这些好处，家庭一般不愿意放弃对资产的控制权，往往会寻求保留某些权力。然而，最近的法院案件（例如JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017] EWHC 2426 (Ch)）证明，由委托人控制的信托很容易受到攻击，法院已经开发了一些方法，使第三方（通常是债权人或离婚的配偶）能够对信托资产执行命令。

与此相反，许多司法管辖区引入了具体条款，旨在使信托人（委托人）能够保留广泛的权力。香港的信托不会仅仅因为委托人为自己保留了投资或资产管理的权力而无效。然而，香港的法定保护并不包括保留撤销权或任命和罢免受托人或受益人的权力，而这些权力在包括新加坡在内的离岸制度中都有。

因此，重要的是要明白，所有的文件必须始终根据具体事实来起草。然而，作为一项一般原则，关键是只保留有关委托人所需的权力。例如，将企业纳入信托的委托人可能希望保留否决企业的拟议出售或其他处置的权力。但是，请注意，如果这与其他广泛的权力相结合，如更换受托人的权力，决定谁是受益阶层成员的权利，以及例如对信托资产的任何处置的否决权，那么法院可能会说，委托人有办法控制信托资产的处置，并且在实践中，确保他们有受托人会服从他们的意愿。另一条一般规则是，保留对行动的否决权可能比积极的权力更安全。仅仅能够阻止行动的发生，委托人被认定为保留了实际所有权的可能性要小得多，因为他们不能仅仅通过行使这些否决权来实现对财产的任何处置。

减轻诉讼风险

纠纷是不可避免的，而且往往会使受托人处于冲突的地位。典型的争议情况包括受益人的配偶在离婚时要求披露信托的细节，受益人无法就分配问题达成共识，或者受托人和受益人之间在处理某些资产方面存在分歧。
将问题提交给法院可能听起来令人生畏，但大多数法院都有法定的监督管辖权，可以下达处理信托资产的命令。香港《受讬人条例》第56条允许受托人向法院提出申请，要求获得必要的权力来管理或管理归属于受托人的财产。与境外法院可能行使的更广泛的自由裁量权相比，这是一个相对狭窄的管辖权。作者为一个位于香港的开曼信托的受托人代理，根据信托法第48条寻求开曼法院的命令，以批准受益人无法同意的分配建议。因此，在纠纷的早期阶段，向对信托有管辖权的法院寻求指示，以减少全面诉讼的风险，是一种良好的做法。

总结

由于围绕着私人财富管理问题的多样性和复杂性，正如上述强调的问题和情况，财富管理人应该在规划，起草的早期阶段，以及在任何潜在纠纷的发现前因第一时间与法律顾问紧密合作。

February 2021

Shareholders’ Agreement 101 – Do I Need One?

by

Why do you need a shareholders’ agreement?

When friends or family members come together to form a company, more often than not, they will not consider the need for a shareholders’ agreement as they tend to rely on mutual trust, respect and confidence. Of course, this generally works perfectly when the business is doing well and profitable, and while the shareholders are receiving their expected return on investment. But what if things turn sour? Whether the business is not doing well or trust and confidence morph into distrust and suspicion, what can shareholders do? In circumstances like these, the shareholders’ agreement comes into play. A well drafted shareholders’ agreement should be able to offer a solution to the parties in most cases. As with any other agreement such as those for sale and purchase, and loan transactions, the importance of a shareholders’ agreement is to safeguard interests of the shareholders and if disputes arise between the parties, there is an agreement they can fall back on setting out clearly what the parties can or cannot do, and shall or shall not do.

What is a shareholders’ agreement?

Shareholders’ agreement is an essential agreement between the shareholders of a company and the company itself. It can be between the company and all or just some of the shareholders; for instance, a company with different classes of shares and holders of different classes of shares might prefer to separately enter into a shareholders’ agreement with the company instead of with holders of all classes of shares. A shareholders’ agreement is used to govern the company’s management and operation and sets out all the rights and obligations between the shareholders and the company. A shareholders’ agreement is particularly important for third party investors investing in an existing company or business or when unrelated parties come together to form a new company.

What terms are to be included in a shareholders’ agreement differ according to the parties’ needs and bargaining power and/or the particular type of business. Still, a typical shareholders’ agreement normally consists of the following terms:

  • the type of business the company will run
  • the management of the company, i.e., the composition of the board of directors and any committees
  • the right of shareholders to nominate directors
  • frequency, procedures for convening and holding board meetings and shareholders’ meetings
  • matters which require simple majority, super majority or unanimous votes
  • specific obligations of shareholders
  • dividend policy
  • issue of new shares and admission of new shareholders
  • transfer of shares
  • anti-dilution mechanism
  • deadlock
  • minority shareholder protection
  • further financing needs of the company
  • non-competition undertaking by shareholders
  • term and termination of the shareholders’ agreement
  • dispute resolutions

If investments are to be made in stages, the shareholders’ agreement would normally include the timetable for capital contribution, share subscription by the shareholders, shareholding structure and other typical clauses in a share subscription agreement.

Minority protection

Where a company has only two shareholders, one of them holds 51% (majority shareholder) and the other one holds 49% (minority shareholder) of the issued shares, the minority shareholder typically has no control over how the company will be managed and operated as the minority shareholder will be out-voted by the majority shareholder at general meetings, assuming all decisions only require a simple majority vote, i.e., >50%, of the shareholders to pass. However, according to the Companies Ordinance (Cap.622, Laws of Hong Kong), certain decisions of a company are required to be passed by special resolutions, i.e., passed by at least 75% of the voting shares. These decisions include the alteration of the articles of association, change of the company’s name, reduction in the share capital of the company, etc., meaning that the majority shareholder in the above case cannot simply pass a resolution by itself to alter the articles of association of the company. In addition to those decisions specified in the Companies Ordinance that must be approved by special resolutions, to protect their interests, the minority shareholder will negotiate with the majority shareholder for other matters to be passed by special resolutions which are not otherwise required so by law. Common examples include capital expenditure above a certain amount, disposal of material assets, change in the company’s principal business, further financing through equity or borrowings or change in dividend policy, etc. 

Often when an investor invests in a business as a minority shareholder, the investor is in fact investing in the experience, expertise and knowledge in the industry and business operation of the company’s management team who are normally the majority or founding shareholders of the company. In case the majority shareholders decide to divest and sell their shares, the investor could also consider selling their shares as there may be uncertainty as to the management, operation and profitability of the business once the company changes hands. Hence, the investor will almost inevitably request a “tag-along right” to be incorporated in the shareholders’ agreement, giving the investor the right but not the obligation to co-sell its shares on the same terms to the prospective buyer of the majority stake. 

A minority investor would normally request a non-competition undertaking from the company and the majority shareholders to oblige them not to engage in any business operations or investment in other businesses that are similar to or in direct competition with that of the company. This is to avoid any negative impact on the profitability of the company. 

Majority protection

Not only do minority shareholders need a shareholders’ agreement to protect their interests, majority shareholders also have certain interests that require safeguarding. A potential nightmare for a majority shareholder could be when they have found a prospective buyer willing to buy-out 100% of the company but the minority shareholder refuses to sell their shares. What happens next is the entire deal falls through. To avoid this, the shareholders’ agreement should include a clause whereby if the majority shareholder decides to sell all of their shares in the company to a third-party buyer, they will have the right (but not the obligation) to request the minority shareholder(s) to also sell their shares in the company on the same terms. Once requested by the majority shareholder, the minority shareholder(s) will be obligated to sell their shares. Contrary to the tag-along right afforded to minority shareholders, such a right is known as the “drag-along right” of the majority shareholder.

In addition, a majority shareholder would not want any information relating to the business operations, prospects, customers, suppliers, financial information or trade secrets being disclosed to any third party, especially competitors, or shares in the company sold to competitors. Therefore, specific clauses that deal with the use and disclosure of confidential information and on the restrictions on the transfer of shares will need to be incorporated in the shareholders’ agreement to address the majority shareholder’s concerns.

Equal shareholdings

Suppose every shareholder in a company holds the same percentage of shares, for example, there are five shareholders each holding 20%. In this case, where there is no majority shareholder, would any of the majority or minority protection provisions mentioned above still apply? If two or more shareholders join hands and outnumber the rest in terms of shareholdings, arguably there will be a (collective) majority camp against the minority shareholders. What if none of the shareholders can agree on an issue? Circumstances like this is commonly known as a “deadlock” situation, where things come to a standstill and cannot move forward. If a deadlock situation continues, it could seriously affect the continued operation of the business. A well-drafted shareholders’ agreement should have specific provisions incorporated to cater for deadlocks and provide mechanisms to resolve issues. 

Shareholders’ agreement vs Articles of Association

Whether the terms of a shareholders’ agreement will be reflected in the company’s articles of association very much depends on the parties’ wishes. In Hong Kong, the articles of association of a company are public documents and can be searched and obtained for a fee by anyone. If the articles of association of a company is amended to incorporate and reflect terms of the shareholders’ agreement, all such terms incorporated in the articles of association will also become public information. Hence, whether the terms of the shareholders’ agreement will be incorporated in the articles of association and how much of it should be incorporated becomes another area of negotiation between the shareholders and the company. Suppose certain terms of the shareholders’ agreement differ from the articles of association, such as the quorum for a board meeting, and the parties decide not to amend the articles of association to reflect the same, should the shareholders comply with the articles of association or the shareholders’ agreement? To avoid this embarrassing situation, it is always good practice to include a clause in the shareholders’ agreement to the effect that if there is any contradiction or discrepancy between the shareholders’ agreement and the articles of association, the terms of the shareholders’ agreement will prevail.

If you wish to find out more about whether you need a shareholders’ agreement for your company, how to protect your interests, and what terms should be included in your shareholders’ agreement, please feel free to speak to members of our corporate and commercial team.

January 2021

Simon Wong
+852 2186 4848 / +852 9460 9816
simon.wong@oln-law.com
Partner, Corporate & Commercial
Oldham, Li & Nie

Problems for Your Family by Not Leaving a Will

by

When someone passes away without having put into place a valid will, the ‘Law of intestacy’ governs the administration and distribution of their estate. In Hong Kong, the two key pieces of this legislation are the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance (Cap. 73) (the “IEO”) and the Non-contentious Probate Rules (Cap. 10A) (the “Rules”).

Before dealing with the deceased’s estate, a Grant of Letters of Administration must be obtained from the Probate Registry. Individuals who are allowed to apply for a Grant of Letters of Administration of the deceased’s estate are those set out in rule 21 of the Rules, in the following order of priority:

1.    A surviving spouse
2.    Children
3.    Parents
4.    Siblings
5.    Grandparents
6.    Uncles and aunts.

Those who are successful in obtaining a Grant of Letters of Administration are the administrators and are empowered to deal with the estate in accordance with the IEO.

After obtaining the Grant of Letters of Administration and having arranged for the funeral of the deceased, the administrator should first collate all the assets of the deceased and settle any debts and expenses. After that, the administrator should distribute the estate to the beneficiaries in accordance with section 4 of the IEO, with the table below illustrating some examples of entitlement under section 4 of the IEO.

Order of Entitlement When There is No Will

 Surviving RelativesStatus of Other RelativesEntitlement Arrangement
1.SpouseNo issue* of the deceased, parent, full sibling or issue* of full sibling All to the surviving spouse
2.Spouse and issue* of the deceasedOther relatives immaterialThe surviving spouse takes the personal chattels, HK$500,000 and half of the residuary estate. The other half is held on statutory trust** for the surviving issue*.
3.Spouse and one or more of the following relatives, namely:
parent or
full sibling or
issue* of full sibling 		 The surviving spouse takes the personal chattels, HK$1,000,000 and half of the residuary estate. The other half is held for the surviving parent(s) or on statutory trusts for the surviving full sibling(s).
4.Issue* of the deceasedNo spouseAll to the surviving issue* on statutory trust. 
5.Parent(s)No spouse, no issue* of the deceasedAll to parent(s)
6.Full siblingsNo spouse, no issue*, no parentAll to full siblings on statutory trusts**
7.Half siblingsNo spouse, no issue*, no parent, no full siblingsAll to half siblings on statutory trusts**
8.Grandparent(s)None of the aboveAll to grandparent(s)
9.Full uncles and auntsNone of the aboveAll to full uncles and aunts on statutory trusts.
10.Half uncles and auntsNone of the aboveAll to half uncles and aunts on statutory trusts.
11.None of the above relatives All to the Hong Kong Government as unowned property.
    
*Issue in succession law means the descendant of a person, such as children and grandchildren.
**For details on statutory trusts, please refer to the IEO

Despite the prescribed entitlement under the IEO, beneficiaries of an estate may sometimes redistribute their entitlement through a Deed of Family Arrangement executed by all beneficiaries and setting out the agreed redistribution of the deceased’s estate. Do note though that the redistribution through a Deed of Family Arrangement may attract stamp duty. 

While the law prescribes a specific priority for the distribution of an intestate’s estate and may leave certain wiggle room for beneficiaries to alter their entitlement, it would certainly be useful to make a valid will to ensure your estate will be inherited exactly as planned. 

If you have any questions or would like to obtain further information on our probate and estate planning services, please contact one of the members of our Probate and Estate Planning team, who are listed here: https://oln-law.com/probate-estate-planning.  

This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.

January 2021