• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
location icon香港中環雪厰街二號聖佐治大廈五樓503室phone-icon +852 2868 0696 linkedintwitterfacebook
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 繁
    • ENG
    • 简
    • FR
    • 日本語
Oldham, Li & Nie
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 關於
        • 獎項與排名
        • 企業社會責任
  • 專業服務
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 破產法
        • 爭議解決
        • 投資基金
        • 公證服務
        • 長者法律服務
        • 家事法
        • 保險
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 人身傷害法
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 知識產權法
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 日本事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 法國事務
        • 合規、調查和執法
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 家事法
        • 知識產權法
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 保險
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 破產法
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 爭議解決
        • 人身傷害法
        • 日本事務
        • 投資基金
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 公證服務
        • 法國事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 長者法律服務
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 合規、調查和執法
  • 律師團隊
  • 最新消息
  • 辦事處

Suite 503, St. George's Building,
2 Ice House Street, Central, Hong Kong

Tel. +852 2868 0696 | Send Email
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN Blue

OLN

  • Block Content Examples
  • Client Information & Registration
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy (EU)
  • Globalaw
  • OLN Podcasts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Review
  • Test Blog
  • 加入我們
  • 專業服務
  • 律師團隊
  • 我們的歷史
    • 獎項與排名
    • 高李嚴律師行的企業社會責任
  • 所獲獎項
  • 標準服務條款
  • 聯繫我們
  • 評價
  • 評語
  • 辦事處
  • 關於我們
  • 高李嚴律師行
  • 高李嚴律師行和社區
  • 關於
        • 獎項與排名
        • 企業社會責任
  • 專業服務
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 破產法
        • 爭議解決
        • 投資基金
        • 公證服務
        • 長者法律服務
        • 家事法
        • 保險
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 人身傷害法
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 知識產權法
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 日本事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 法國事務
        • 合規、調查和執法
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 家事法
        • 知識產權法
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 保險
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 破產法
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 爭議解決
        • 人身傷害法
        • 日本事務
        • 投資基金
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 公證服務
        • 法國事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 長者法律服務
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 合規、調查和執法
  • 律師團隊
  • 最新消息
  • 辦事處
Arbitration Lawyer Hong Kong

理解仲裁庭管轄權和申索的可受理性之間區別: 當白天變成黑夜

OLN Marketing

理解仲裁庭管轄權和申索的可受理性之間區別: 當白天變成黑夜

April 20, 2023 by OLN Marketing

(這篇文章發表在 2023年四月香港律師會會刊 )

引言

多重仲裁協議,即普遍要求合約雙方在進行仲裁前進行善意談判或調解,並不罕見。儘管當事人可能合理地期望仲裁只應於仲裁前要求獲遵守後進行,現實或會讓人意外。

在 C v D [2021] 3 HKLRD 1 (HKCFI);[2022] 3 HKLRD 116 (HKCA) 中,香港法院考慮了若當事人不遵守仲裁前要求而進行仲裁,是否構成對仲裁庭理解仲裁庭管轄權的挑戰。香港原訟法庭和上訴法庭基於仲裁庭的管轄權與申索的可受理性兩項概念之間的區別,裁定除非當事人另有明確說明,否則不遵守仲裁前要求屬「申索可受理性的問題,而非仲裁庭管轄權的問題」。由於此項挑戰被裁定在本質上不涉及仲裁庭的管轄權,法庭不能審查裁決的正確性。因此,正如 C v D 案一樣,不論仲前要求是否獲遵守,仲裁庭仍有管轄權而仲裁實際上可以進行。這顯然違背當事人的合理期望。本文將批判地審視仲裁庭管轄權與申索可受理性之間的區別,以及 C v D 案的理據。就本文而言,我們假定「除非 X,否則不得提起仲裁」和「在 X 的情況下,雙方可進行仲裁」並 無 區 別(Republic of Sierra Leone v SL Mining Ltd [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm))。本文將論證最終的問題是挑戰是否涉及仲裁庭的管轄權。我等謹提出挑戰如關乎仲裁前要求未獲當事人遵守,則應被定性為涉及仲裁庭的管轄權。

C v D

在 C v D 案中,C 對 D 提起訴訟以撤銷 D 在未遵守仲裁條款內的仲裁前要求的情況下獲得的部分裁決。該仲裁條款要求雙方須先嘗試進行為期 60 工作天的真誠談判,然後方可將任何未解決的爭議提交在香港進行的仲裁。

香港原訟法庭裁定而香港上訴法庭隨後確認,C 的挑戰涉及的是申索的可受理性而不是仲裁庭的管轄權,因此法庭不會審查有關裁決的正確性。法庭的理由如下:

  1. 仲裁庭的管轄權與申索的可受理性之間存在區別。
  2. 正如新加坡上訴法庭在 BBA v BAZ [2020] SGCA 53(關於時效的挑戰)和 BTN v BTP [2020] SGCA105(關於已判事項的挑戰)中解釋,區別仲裁庭管轄權與申索可
    受理性的測試實質上是「仲裁庭相對申索」的測試,即該挑戰是否針對仲裁庭(由於仲裁協議出現缺失或遺漏,該申索不應進行仲裁),還是針對申索本身(由於該申索自身存在缺陷,故根本不應提出)。在這兩宗案件中,新加坡上訴法庭裁定,基於時效和已判事項的挑戰僅針對申索本身,性質上不涉及管轄權。
  3. 管轄權和申索可受理性之間的區別可能模糊不清,有時難以知道兩者甚麼時候開始及終結,就像白天過渡至黑夜時,總有暮色時分(Robert Merkin and Louis Flannery, Merkin and Flannery on the Arbitration Act 1996 (6th edn, Rotledge 2019), [30.3])。
  4. 仲裁協議沒有表明當事人意圖把遵守仲裁前要求視為管轄權的問題,而且當事人似乎不太可能意圖在仲裁庭進行全面聆訊和作出決定後,以訴訟方式重啟案件。

仲裁庭管轄權和申索的可受理性:存在區別還是二元對立?

作為一項初步觀察,當考慮挑戰是否涉及仲裁庭管轄權時,香港原訟法庭和上訴法庭均裁定不遵守仲裁前要求涉及「申索的可受理性,而非仲裁庭管轄權」。我等的愚見為這種表述不太合適,因為它隱含了申索的可受理性與仲裁庭管轄權屬二元對立的意思。

儘管申索的可受理性和仲裁庭管轄權之間可能存在區別,但這兩個概念不一定互相排斥,單一事件有可能同時引起對申索的可受理性和仲裁庭管轄權的挑戰。這點可以參考英國上議院在 Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40, [17] 中給出的一個例子:如果同一份文件包含主協議和仲裁協議,而其中一方當事人聲稱他從未同意該文件的任何內容,其簽名亦是偽冒的,則會同時構成對主協議及仲裁協議有效性的質疑。

因此,我等謹認為,在考慮挑戰是否涉及仲裁庭的管轄權時,提及申索可受理性此概念的作用不大。最終問題應是挑戰是否涉及仲裁庭的管轄權(即針對仲裁庭)。

涉及仲裁前要求的挑戰本質上針對仲裁庭的管轄權

分析的出發點是不同案例曾各自歸類仲裁前要求為涉及仲裁庭的管轄權、申索的可受理性或程序的問題(Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021), 988-989, 997-999)。公道來說,不同法律體系之間沒有統一的做法。

鑒於意見不一,有人認為在詮釋仲裁前要求時,當事人的意圖應獲考慮,正如香港原訟法庭和上訴法庭聲稱在 C v D 案中所做的一樣。遺憾地,相對於審查挑戰背後的基本事實以確定當事人的真實意圖,香港法庭實際只是宣布有關仲裁的司法政策(例如速度、終局性等),以及相應於當事人意圖的法律推定——即法庭推定當事人有意將仲裁前要求歸於申索的可受理性,故須由仲裁庭專門處理。這種司法政策和法律推定的應用顯然是循環的:當事人挑戰仲裁庭管轄權機制完全在仲裁制度之內,不能說成當事人同意仲裁,即代表當事人為了速度和終局性,意圖將本來應獲適當歸類為涉及仲裁庭管轄權的挑戰視為不牽涉仲裁庭管轄權。香港法庭的做法只是重覆了須適當歸類仲裁前要求的問題。

本文須指出,時效的問題(如 BBA v BAZ)和已判事項的問題(如 BTN v BTP)屬申索的可受理性的經典例子。這些問題質疑「申索」本身(針對一個特定的申索而不是其他潛在的申索),亦沒有以任何形式針對仲裁庭。換句話說,撇開挑戰不談,仲裁庭擁有一般管轄權就任何其他不受時效或已判事項限制的申索作出裁決。

然而,因不遵守仲裁前要求而衍生的挑戰的性質截然不同。仲裁前要求未獲遵守的挑戰不會以時效問題或已判事項問題的方式攻擊「該申索」本身——事實上,仲裁前要求未獲遵守的挑戰並不會攻擊某特定「申索」,而是廣乏針對仲裁協議涵蓋的所有申索,因此除了該些受仲裁前要求約束的申索之外,仲裁庭根本沒有其他事項可作出任何裁決。我等謹認為,這顯示仲裁庭實際上沒有任何一般管轄權。為了進一步闡釋 Merkin and Flannery 第 30.3 段中白天與黑夜的比喻,白天不會因移除了一束光線而變成黑夜,但如果根本沒有光線,那就肯定是黑夜了。無論如何,詮釋仲裁前要求為涉及仲裁庭管轄權的問題也符合當事人的意圖,因為此項詮釋為當事人的意圖提供了雙重保障(即在仲裁庭層面及在法院層面),確保除非當事人遵守仲裁前要求,否則不得進行任何仲裁。

真正的擔憂

法庭真正的擔憂似乎是,當是否進行仲裁是取決於某些仲裁前步驟時,如果一方當事人不採取該些步驟,另一方就可撤回對仲裁的承諾(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)。這種擔憂是誤解。

即使仲裁前要求未獲遵守,它不會自動容許無錯失的一方退出仲裁協議(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後遵守仲裁前要求以展開仲裁。由於仲裁協議仍然有效、可實行或可履行,《仲裁條例》(第 609 章)第 20 條適用於阻止在仲裁前要求獲遵守之前提起的訴訟。

當然,如果違約一方明確表明不會履行仲裁前要求,則多重仲裁協議可能因預期違約而被廢除。在這種情況下,無錯失一方有權決定是否接受悔約,或仍然選擇仲裁。若無錯失一方接受悔約,當事人的爭議應通過法庭訴訟解決,而違約一方必須承擔悔約的後果。

有意見認為「這不符合當事人的意圖 」(Jolles, “Consequences of Multitier Arbitration Clauses”, 335), 但 須謹記法律上預設的爭議解決機制是法庭訴訟。作為法庭訴訟以外的例外情況,雙方當事人可以在同意的範圍內進行仲裁。然而,若出於任何原因仲裁不能在雙方最初設定的範圍內進行,無可避免地雙方須按照法律的施行回到法庭訴訟,而在此方面雙方的意圖是不相干。

正確的方法

仲裁是經當事人同意的爭議解決程序。仲裁協議可反映當事人同意進行仲裁。我等恭敬的陳詞認為,決定一項挑戰是否涉及仲裁庭管轄權的正確方法為考慮 (a) 該挑戰是否攻擊構成仲裁庭管轄權基礎的仲裁協議,以及 (b) (除了受挑戰的申索外)是否存在其他仲裁庭可以作出裁決的申索。

應用這個方法,C v D 案中的挑戰顯然涉及仲裁庭的管轄權:該挑戰攻擊仲裁協議,因為仲裁協議中的仲裁前要求據稱未獲遵守;除了那些受到質疑的申索之外,並無其他仲裁庭可作裁決的申索。

總結

鑒於仲裁作為一個受歡迎的爭議解決機制的重要性,而多重仲裁協議亦很普遍,無庸置疑,不遵守仲裁前要求的挑戰是否涉及仲裁庭的管轄權並須受到法庭審查是一個具有廣乏重要性的問題。C v D 案目前被上訴至香港終審法院。我等謹希望香港終審法院會為仲裁當事人就仲裁前要求的正確詮釋提供最終指引。

Filed Under: Oln, 爭議解決, 最新消息 Tagged With: Arbitration

ChatGPT and What It Means for You

April 12, 2023 by OLN Marketing

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.

Filed Under: 最新消息 Tagged With: ChatGPT, ai, technology, data privacy

Share purchase vs Asset purchase – What are the differences?

April 11, 2023 by OLN Marketing

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

Filed Under: 公司和商業法, 最新消息 Tagged With: Corporate law

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

March 8, 2023 by OLN Marketing

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”.

Filed Under: Oln, 中國事務, 公司和商業法, 最新消息 Tagged With: Corporate law, Cross Border, Business Law, Deal of the Year, CBLJ, China Business

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

March 1, 2023 by OLN Marketing

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.

Filed Under: 最新消息

OLN Has Once Again Been Recognised by The Legal 500 Asia Pacific

January 27, 2023 by OLN Marketing

We are pleased to share that Oldham, Li & Nie has been recommended again by The Legal 500 in its 2023 Asia Pacific edition for our Commercial, Corporate and M&A practice. The Legal 500 stated “Under the leadership of Tracy Yip acts on corporate matters across Asia, including restructurings, acquisitions and disposals, corporate governance issues, joint ventures and commercial agreements. Yip heads up the firm’s M&A practice, while founder and senior partner Gordon Oldham has a particular focus on the drafting of commercial contracts and restructurings. Simon Wong is another name to note with experience across M&A and capital markets deals.”

OLN has also been named for the first time as the Firm to Watch for our Restructuring and Insolvency practice – “Oldham, Li & Nie, led by Richard Healy, carries a strong breadth of restructuring & insolvency matters and has garnered specific expertise in audit negligence as well as large scale winding up proceedings.”

OLN IP Services, our Intellectual Property consultancy, has also been recognised by the directory this year.

Legal 500 Asia Pacific Leading Firm 2023 Oldham, Li & Nie
Legal 500 Firms to Watch Oldham, Li & Nie
About The Legal 500 Asia Pacific

Published annually, The Legal 500 Asia Pacific Guide provides unbiased commentary and insight into the legal marketplaces of 25 Asia Pacific jurisdictions.

The rankings reflect the results of detailed analysis of law firm submissions and thousands of interviews conducted by The Legal 500 team of experienced researchers.

The directory also lists Firms to Watch to highlight those likely to make their mark on the rankings in the years to come. 

Filed Under: Oln, 最新消息

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 7
  • Page 8
  • Page 9
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 51
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

This website uses cookies to optimise your experience and to collect information to customise content. By closing this banner, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies. Please read the cookies section of our Privacy Policy to learn more. Learn more

Footer

OLN logo

香港中環雪厰街二號聖佐治大廈
五樓503室

電話 +852 2868 0696 | 電郵我們
關於 律師團隊 辦事處 OLN IP Services 私隱政策
專業服務 最新消息 加入我們 OLN Online
關於 專業服務 律師團隊 最新消息 辦事處
加入我們 OLN IP Services OLN Online 私隱政策
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN logo

© 2025 Oldham, Li & Nie. All Rights Reserved.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
聯絡我們

請在此處分享您的訊息的詳細資訊。我們將盡快與您聯繫。

    x