• 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

SPAC or Not To SPAC: An Alternative Route to Go Public Without an IPO (I)

Test Blog

SPAC or Not To SPAC: An Alternative Route to Go Public Without an IPO (I)

November 16, 2020 by OLN Marketing

SPACs have made a comeback in the equity capital market in recent years, particularly in 2020 where the global economy is adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. What are SPACs, what do they do and why are they becoming so popular? Part I of this article will discuss the history and characteristics of SPAC, where and how they get listed. Part II will focus more on what investors get from investing in SPACs and what SPACs do with the money raised. 

History and characteristics of SPAC

SPAC, also known as Special Purpose Acquisition Company, is a company established solely for the purpose of raising capital through IPOs. SPAC is not a newly developed vehicle or concept, it has been around for some decades and there have been ups and downs for SPACs. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of SPAC IPOs. Total funds raised jumped from approximately US$3.5 billion through 13 SPAC IPOs in 2016 to approximately US$13.6 billion through 59 SPAC IPOs in 2019 and so far in 2020, there has been 178 SPAC IPOs raising a total of approximately US$64.8 billion1. The average SPAC IPO size also increased from less than US$250 million to approximately US$370 million in 2020. The SPACs and SPAC IPOs referred to in this article generally refer to those in the US market.

The main difference between a SPAC and other companies that raise funds through IPOs is that SPACs have no commercial operations at the time of listing. There is only one purpose of the listing of a SPAC and that is to raise funding for its business combination, merger with or acquisition of other private operating companies post-IPO such that the private operating company would be able to achieve a listing status without the need to go through the traditional lengthy IPO process. The post-IPO acquisition of or business combination with the private business by a SPAC is generally known as the “de-SPAC transaction”.

SPACs have always been viewed as an alternate route for private operating companies which otherwise may not satisfy listing requirements or find the traditional IPO route too costly and time consuming to go public. SPAC acquires private companies with funds raised from its IPO to achieve this. SPACs offer investors a chance to invest in a fund which are then used to acquire one or more target businesses after the SPAC IPO. The target businesses are usually not identified prior to the IPO to avoid extensive disclosures during the listing process and generally there is a statement in the IPO prospectus specifically to inform investors that there is no identified business combination, acquisition or merger targets nor substantive discussion with any potential target has been initiated. This is why SPACs are also referred to as “blank check companies”, since investors in the IPO do not know which company will ultimately receive their money. 

Where can SPACs go for an IPO? 

The United States stock exchanges such as New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ have been the popular choice for SPAC IPOs. Certain stock exchanges in the UK (London Stock Exchange) and Europe (Euronext Paris, Euronext Amsterdam) also welcome listing by SPACs but the number of IPOs are not comparable with that in the US. In Asia, several countries accept listing of SPACs, including Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea. The number of IPOs and the capital raised in these Asian countries are not comparable with that in the United States. While the timeframe for US listed SPACs to complete the subsequent merger is 18-24 months, SPACs listed in Malaysia and South Korea are generally allowed up to 36 months after the IPO to complete the merger. 

What are the criteria for a SPAC to get listed and the structure of the listing? 

A SPAC IPO in the US will typically consist of “units” where each unit usually consists of a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to acquire a share of common stock in the SPAC. The warrant is normally exercisable after the de-SPAC transaction. The sponsor of SPAC will typically retain around 20% of the shares in the SPAC known as “founder shares” at a nominal consideration. This allows the sponsor to achieve a fairly high return regardless of the value of the SPAC. However, there is a major change in the investment structure of a recent SPAC IPO in the US, where the sponsor does not acquire any founder shares at nominal consideration but rather acquire sponsor warrants which are not exercisable until a certain period of time after completion of the de-SPAC transaction at the fair market value. This arrangement substantially reduced the dilution effect on the investors’ interests which makes the investment more attractive to investors when compared with investing in traditional SPACs2 .

There are generally a few criteria built into the structure to protect public investors including:

  1. a deadline for SPACs to conclude its first business combination or acquisition, typically within 18 to 24 months (maybe extendable);
  2. a right for investors to approve the proposed target business and/or a right for investors to have their shares redeemed by SPACs;
  3. a requirement for the IPO proceeds to be held in a segregated trust account; and 
  4. minimum deal value requirements (e.g. where the SPACs is listed on the NYSE, the fair market value of the target company(ies) must equal at least 80% of the SPACs’ assets in the trust account at the time of signing the definitive agreement of business combination/merger/acquisition.)

Disclaimer: Nothing in this article is meant to be or shall be construed as any legal advice on Hong Kong, US or the laws of any other jurisdictions referred to in this article or as any legal advice on SPACs to any person.   

1 SPAC Statistics by SPAC Insider
2 Prospectus of Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, Ltd.

Filed Under: 公司和商業法

SPAC or Not To SPAC: An Alternative Route to Go Public Without an IPO (II)

November 16, 2020 by OLN Marketing

In Part I of this article, we have examined the history of SPACs, let’s now turn to examine what investors get from investing in a SPAC, what SPACs do with the money raised and what the future looks for SPACs.

What are investors investing in and what do they get?

In a typical SPAC IPO, the SPAC is a newly incorporated company and does not have any operating history, financials nor performance record. What do investors base their investment decisions on then? In traditional IPOs, the listing vehicle will have operating history and a particular operating business, whether or not the company has been operating in profit in the past is not necessarily a key criterion depending on where the company proposes to list its shares. The company will need to disclose in the prospectus matters such as its business, financial performance, risks involved so that potential investors will be able to have an understanding of how good or bad the company has been performing and assess its future prospects before making an investment decision. 

For a SPAC, no such information is available to investors as the SPAC is only a shell company. What they have, on the other hand, is a management team and an investment team typically with experiences in specific industries or sectors which the SPAC intends to acquire potential targets with capital raised from the IPO. Further, in a SPAC prospectus, there is no information on any potential targets of business combination or acquisition because stating the potential target would mean information on the target will be required to be disclosed as in any traditional IPO of companies with operating history. Hence, what investors invest in is not any specific operating company but rather their trust and confidence in the management team and investment team of the SPAC and their experiences in finding a most suitable target for business combination, merger or acquisition and bring it public.  

In return for their investment, investors receive units of the SPACs, with each unit comprising a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase a share of common stock after completion of the de-SPAC transaction. Shareholders are generally given the right to approve or reject any proposed de-SPAC transaction. The SPAC will provide its shareholders with the opportunity to redeem their shares upon the completion of the de-SPAC transaction either (i) in a shareholder meeting called to approve the proposed de-SPAC transaction or (ii) by means of a tender offer. Whether the SPAC will seek shareholders’ approval of a proposed de-SPAC transaction or conduct a tender offer will be made by the SPAC at its sole discretion taking into account factors such as the timing of the transaction and whether the terms of the transaction would require the SPAC to seek shareholders’ approval by law or pursuant to regulatory requirements. Upon a de-SPAC transaction, shareholders can choose to maintain their investment in the newly acquired or merged company or redeem their shares.

What do SPACs do with all the moneys raised?

The capital raised by SPACs through IPOs are held in a trust. Usually, after setting aside some portions of the funds to meet the listing expenses, underwriting commission and the SPACs’ ongoing operational costs, the remaining IPO proceeds are segregated in a trust account with a third-party financial institution. The funds can only be used for the post-IPO business combination, merger with or acquisition of a target business or for the redemption of the SPAC shares upon request by the shareholders. If the business combination, acquisition cannot be achieved within the specified timeframe, i.e. 18 – 24 months after the SPAC IPO, the SPAC shall be liquidated and the funds returned to the shareholders to redeem their shares in the SPAC. 

Since SPAC shareholders have the right to request the SPAC to redeem their shares, the SPAC shall redeem the shares with the funds set aside in the trust account upon receiving such request. A huge number of shareholders requesting redemption of SPAC shares means that a large portion of the funds in the trust account will be required to be paid out as redemption money, which the trust account may end up not having sufficient funds left to consummate any de-SPAC transaction. If the SPAC fails to raise additional financing for the de-SPAC transaction, it may end up not being able to complete the business combination, acquisition within the timeframe which will then lead to the liquidation of the SPAC.

 Future of SPACs?

Not knowing how much longer the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to affect our daily lives and the economy, particularly with the second, third or fourth wave hitting different parts of the world one after another and the record breaking high of daily new cases, it is difficult to predict market reaction to traditional IPOs and investors tend to adopt more conservative approaches in making investment decisions. While there are big name IPOs which the general public has been waiting for and current economic environment is not expected to have significant negative impact on their subscriptions, other small to mid-size IPOs are nonetheless going to be the hardest hit. Instead of going through the lengthy and costly IPO process and not knowing how well-received by the public their shares will be, a business combination, merger with or an acquisition by a SPAC would seem to be the more realistic way of exit of private companies. With the ever-growing number of SPAC IPOs and the funds raised through them, we can only expect to see the continuous thrive of SPACs at least during this period of uncertainty.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this article is meant to be or shall be construed as any legal advice on Hong Kong, US or the laws of any other jurisdictions referred to in this article or as any legal advice on SPACs to any person.

December 2020

Filed Under: 公司和商業法

跨境資產追索綜合計劃

November 11, 2020 by OLN Marketing

接各方的追索和執行行動
 

離岸公司越來越多地被用作資產保護的工具,令貸方的債務追收和資產追回行動更具挑戰性。 如果發現目標資產是由離岸公司(如果借款人來自國內或香港,很可能是英屬維爾京群島公司)持有的,貸方很多時候會停止執法程序。 本文旨在為貸款人就如何計劃跨境行動以最大程度地提高回收率提供實用指導。

有抵押債務

先講述較理想的情況,即債務受抵押(例如股票)保障,貸款人應在違約時迅速採取措施,以根據抵押文件強制執行擔保利益。

大多數股票抵押是受衡平法監管,其實益權已轉讓給貸方,並且附有一套預先簽訂的文件以便貸方轉讓法定所有權。 但是,轉讓文件的簽發和提交本身並不會賦予貸方不受限制的所有權,因為一旦償還債務,在衡平法底下借款人可贖回股份的所有權。

為了消除上述衡平權益,貸方須根據抵押文件的規定,通過以下方式之一出售股份:1)在取得抵押之所有權後出售予第三方; 2)利用預先簽定的委託書出售; 或3)委任接管人出售。 看起來很簡單,在行使銷售權時,貸方有法律責任要行使合理的努力以取得在可行情況下的最佳價格。此外,法定下還禁止 “自我交易”(即貸方不能購買抵押權益)。 在這些限制底下,通常建議將出售責任委託給專業的接管人。

檢查清單

1.    抵押文件的管轄法律是什麼?
2.    是否有轉移法定所有權的機制?
3.    在抵押文件下有那些方法執行權益?
4.    行使銷售權的最佳方法是什麼?

無抵押債務

如果沒有任何抵押,則需要法院的協助,以通過借款人擁有的資產收回欠債。 如債務受香港或中國法律管轄,許多貸方都知道,第一步,應尋求法院判決以確認債務的有效性。 如借款人持有海外資產,則應進一步將判決經由資產所在地法院認定其有效性 (技術上稱為 “本土化”)。

儘管香港與英屬維爾京群島之間沒有協定互相承認彼此的判決,但最近英屬維爾京群島法院承認並執行了中國法院判決,是英屬維爾京群島法院第首次承認中國法院判決的案例。該申請源於對中國債務人的判決,債務人是英屬維爾京群島公司的唯一股東,藉該公司持有一家香港上市公司的股份。

在將國內判決本土化後,英屬維爾京群島進法院接著針對該公司的股份頒發押記令。這使貸方成為有擔保貸方。但是,由於實際上很難出售幾乎沒有賬簿和記錄的股票,於是貸方決定申請任命接管人,接管人可行使股東投票權來控制公司,以進行清算。其資產最終償還貸方。

在批准申請時,法院確認可以針對英屬維爾京群島公司的股份任命接管人,然後接管人有權先任命公司董事,再以公司之名出售資產來實現股份的價值,從而償還判決債務。 法院特別提到,在基礎資產價值未知的情況下,任命接管人而非直接命令出售股票是合適的。

英屬維爾京群島法院為協助外國貸方的實際做法絕對是佳音。

檢查清單

1.    債務的適用法律是什麼?
2.    債務是否有爭議?
3.    資產位於何處?
4.    是否有足夠的有關資產價值的信息來幫助處置資產

結論

關鍵要點: 貸方在追索行動前應尋求涵蓋香港和離岸方面的綜合建議,這將能夠有效收回資產。
 

Lorem initius…

Filed Under: 爭議解決

China Trademark Practice – A Letter of Consent

November 6, 2020 by OLN Marketing

When trademark applicants/owners receive refusal of their trademark applications due to prior similar mark(s) flagged by the examiner, how can the applicants overcome the citation(s) by way of filing an application for review of the refusal with the China Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”), in order to eventually have the applied-for mark approved for registration?  

To overcome the citation(s) in the review proceedings, apart from arguing against the similarities between the respective marks, it will be very helpful to overcome the prior similar mark(s) by way of submitting  a letter of consent (“LoC”) issued by the cited owner of the prior similar mark(s) agreeing on the use and registration of the applied-for mark in China, which is alternatively is called “co-existence agreement” in China. 

We would like to share with you our views of the functions and practice of the LoC/co-existence agreement in China.

RELEVANT LAW/RULES/GUIDELINES

The PRC Trademark Law does not have specifical content and definition about LoC or co-existence agreement.

Nevertheless, in the “Trademark Trial and Appeal Rules” issued by CNIPA, Article 8 shows the parties can reach settlement dealing with the trademark rights. This is regarded as a basis of the LoC.

  • Article 8 During the trademark review and hearing, a party shall have the right to, in accordance with the law, dispose of his own trademark right and the rights in connection with the trademark review and hearing. On the premise of considering public interests and the third-party rights, both parties concerned may reach a reconciliation agreement in written form, and the Trademark Review and Hearing Board may also hold mediations in this regard.

In addition, in the “2019 – Beijing High People’s Court Guidelines for the Trial of Trademark Right Granting and Verification Cases“ issued by the Beijing High People’s Court, the following three Articles are in relation to the nature, formalities, and legal effects of LoC:

  • 15.10 When determining whether the respective marks are similar, a LoC could be prima facie evidence to obviate the confusion of the marks.
  • 15.11 The LoC must be issued in written form by the cited owner specifying particulars of the applied-for mark and agreeing on use and registration of the applied-for mark. The LoC cannot have any condition and time limitation, otherwise, it shall not be accepted.

         The LoC shall be genuine, legal, and valid, and not harm the interests of the state, the public and the third party, otherwise the LoC shall not be accepted.

  • 15.12 If the respective marks are identical or substantially identical with each other, and their designated goods/services are identical or similar, the applied-for mark shall not be approved for registration based on the submitted LoC only.  

           If the respective marks are similar, their designated goods/services are identical or similar, and there is no evidence showing public confusion of the sources of goods/services caused by the marks’ co-existence, the respective marks shall be considered dissimilar under the LoC submitted.

OUR COMMENT

In accordance with the above-mentioned relevant Rules and Guidelines and the practice below, similar to other countries/jurisdictions like the U.S. and Hong Kong, the examiner at CNIPA, in particular the judge at the Courts tends to withdraw the citation(s) and approves the registration of the applied-for mark, if a LoC is submitted either in review proceedings or in Court proceedings. 

To illustrate the acceptance of the LoC, we set out some landmark precedents in the table below for your reference:

Table to illustrate the acceptance of the LoC

In conclusion, we have successfully overcome prior marks by way of submitting LoCs. Despite the fact that China adopts case-by-case principle and precedents are not binding in China, based on the current practices, we believe that a LoC will be very helpful to overcome the prior similar mark(s). Although the examiner/judge has her/his discretion whether to accept a LoC based on the possibilities of confusion, there is a good chance that they will withdraw the citation(s) if the LoC is submitted; unless the marks are too similar, and the goods/services are identical.

One point to note is that the LoC must be notarized, if the cited owner is a foreign company/individual, the notarized LoC must be legalized by the local Chinese Consulate. 

If you have any questions in relation to the LoC and/or protection of your trademark in China, please feel free to contact please contact evelyne.yeung@oln-law.com or angel.luo@oln-law.com,. We are happy to assist you in the matter, e.g. assessing the chance of acceptance of the LoC, approaching the cited owner for a LoC, preparing a LoC that is acceptable by CNIPA/Court, submitting the notarized and legalized LoC to CNIPA/Court, and requesting the examiner/judge in charge of the case to accept the LoC and approve your applied-mark for registration.   

Filed Under: 知識產權法

Oldham, Li & Nie Launches Document Automation Platform

October 23, 2020 by OLN Marketing

Oldham, Li & Nie Solicitors OLN, a leading Hong Kong law firm, announced today its partnership with Zegal for the launch of OLN online: www.oln-online.com , a cloud based document automation platform, powered by Zegal. The platform, which is the first to be introduced by a Hong Kong law firm, provides its clients and its lawyers with seamless solutions and instant access to a wide range of legal documents, 24/7, remotely, with online support from OLN’s professionals.

The platform offers a documentary archive and other resources for various practice areas, instantly accessible by clients to generate time-critical transactional documents with ease, when and where such need arises.

Gordon Oldham, Senior Partner of OLN said: “The legal profession has been slow to embrace technology. Our new platform and a number of other client communication technology tools and resources we are introducing acknowledge the changing landscape of what professionals and their clients want and their need to communicate and collaborate. OLN online is designed for the provision of better service to Clients and efficiency of work for OLN lawyers and support teams.”

Hung-Chou Tai, CEO of Zegal said: “We are extremely excited to be working with OLN to launch the first truly digital “Law as a Service” offering in Hong Kong. The OLN online platform will allow an unprecedented level of customer service and convenience with consistent quality. Companies in Hong Kong will now have access to their legal partners anywhere and at any time.”

Oldham, Li & Nie Solicitors was founded in 1987 with offices in Hong Kong and Shanghai with a business-centric practice in:  

•    Corporate and Commercial;
•    Dispute Resolution;
•    Tax and Business Advisory;
•    Insolvency & Restructuring;
•    Intellectual Property;
•    Insurance; 
•    Private Client Services; and
•    Family law, Trusts and Succession.

OLN has consistently been ranked as a top tier Hong Kong law firm by Chambers Asia Pacific and Legal 500 Asia Pacific. For more details, please visit https://oln-law.com.

Media Contact:
Oldham, Li & Nie Marketing Team
Ruby Ng, (852) 2868 0696 
marketing.oln@oln-law.com
 

Filed Under: 最新消息

OLN Nominated for Six Awards in the ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2020

October 20, 2020 by OLN Marketing

Oldham, Li & Nie is pleased to be shortlisted as finalist in the following six categories:

  • Managing Partner of the Year – Gordon Oldham
  • Young Lawyer of the Year – Anna Chan

Firm of the Year categories:-

  • Civil Litigation Law Firm of the Year 
  • Intellectual Property Law Firm of the Year
  • Labour and Employment Law Firm of the Year
  • Restructuring and Insolvency Law Firm of the Year

Congratulations to the teams! 

For more information, please visit the link here: https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/law-awards/alb-hong-kong-law-awards-2020?utm_source=ALB+ALL+-+Events&utm_campaign=aa8ef9ecfe-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_24_03_11_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c7f887c850-aa8ef9ecfe-55528184#edit-group-finalists

Filed Under: 最新消息

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 23
  • Page 24
  • Page 25
  • Page 26
  • Page 27
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 53
  • 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