Making Sense of Company Registration Requirements in Hong Kong

Starting a business in Hong Kong can be daunting, especially when it comes to understanding the company’s registration requirements. Many entrepreneurs struggle with navigating the complex process of registering their businesses and complying with all legal regulations in order to operate smoothly. 

Fortunately, there are several resources available that provide clear guidance on how to register a business in Hong Kong – from choosing a company name, selecting the right structure for your business, filing any necessary documents and more.

Is Registering A Company In Hong Kong Difficult?

With the right knowledge and resources, it is possible to successfully and easily establish a business in Hong Kong

The company registration process is easier than it may seem. In fact, the process can usually be completed in a matter of days. 

Before starting the registration process, it’s important to understand the different types of companies available and their specific registration requirements.  

Depending on the type of business activity that will be conducted, additional documents such as a Memorandum and Articles of Association may be required.

The Companies Registry offers a range of services, including the registration of companies and their subsequent management. It also provides guidance for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 

The registry also has a dedicated team to answer any questions about company formation and provide advice on corporate governance matters.

In addition to registering with the Companies Registry, businesses operating in Hong Kong must also register with the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). 

Companies must provide detailed financial statements, as well as proof of their annual income and expenditure. 

Businesses may also be required to obtain a business license from the relevant government department or statutory body. 

Main Types Of Company Structures In Hong Kong

When registering a business in Hong Kong, it is important to consider the different types of company structures available.  

The most common type of company structure used by local businesses is the limited liability company (LLC). 

This type of entity allows the owners to limit their personal financial risk, as they are not liable for any debts or obligations incurred by the company. 

Other types of company structures include the unlimited liability company, private limited companies and public limited companies.

The Costs Involved In Registering A Company In Hong Kong

The costs involved with registering a business in Hong Kong depend on the type of structure that is chosen. Generally speaking, setting up an LLC will cost less than an unlimited liability company. 

The other costs involved include the registration fee, which is based on the company’s authorized share capital, and the stamp duty fee, which is a flat rate of 0.1% for companies with an issued share capital of up to $50,000.

Professional fees such as legal and accounting services should also be taken into consideration when registering a business in Hong Kong. 

Requirements For Incorporation & Compliance

Incorporation in Hong Kong is a straightforward process, however it does come with certain steps and requirements that must be met. 

Companies are required to consider the various registration and compliance issues associated with setting up a business in such an important financial hub. 

Registration Requirements: 

Companies will need to register their business with the Companies Registry in Hong Kong, providing various documentation proving the legality of their business. 

This includes proof of identity for anyone involved in the company, such as directors, shareholders and secretaries. 

Companies must also provide a proposed company name that has not already been used by any other business and submit an application form with all relevant details to be registered. 

Compliance Requirements: 

Companies must also comply with various legal requirements and regulations, such as the Companies Ordinance

They will need to have a registered office in Hong Kong, as well as a company secretary who is a resident of the city. 

The company will also need to appoint at least one director and one shareholder, both of whom must be over 18 years of age and must not have been disqualified from being director or shareholder. 

Companies must also file an annual return with the Companies Registry each year, which includes details on the directors, shareholders and company secretary as well as other financial information. 

Additional Considerations: 

In addition to these requirements, companies may wish to consider a number of other factors that may affect their business. 

These could include things such as the type of ownership structure, any tax implications and how to protect against risks associated with setting up in Hong Kong. 

Key Considerations For Long-Term Success

Starting a business in Hong Kong may seem as an overwhelming task, especially when it comes to company registration requirements, but with the right knowledge and guidance, entrepreneurs can successfully navigate the process and establish their business for long-term success. 

By understanding these points ahead of time, you can ensure a smooth transition into launching your new venture.

Determine The Type Of Business Entity

The most common business entities established in Hong Kong are limited companies, private companies, and partnerships. 

Each type has its own advantages and disadvantages, so make sure to research the different types carefully before deciding which is best suited for your business’ needs.

Secure A Hong Kong Business Registration Number

All businesses in Hong Kong must apply for a business registration number (BRN) from the Companies Registry. 

The BRN is used to identify the company and its business activities.

Determine Your Company’s Capital Structure

After registering your company, you need to decide on its capital structure – that is, the amount and composition of share capital. 

The Companies Registry also requires that all companies have a minimum paid-up capital of at least HKD $10,000 to begin operations.

Appoint Directors

Companies registered in Hong Kong must appoint at least one director who is either a permanent resident or citizen of the city. 

It is important to note that public companies must have at least three directors.

Open A Bank Account

After your company is registered, you will need to open a bank account in the name of your business and deposit the minimum paid-up capital. This helps prove the existence and financial health of your company. 

Obtain Licenses And Permits

Depending on the type of business you operate, you may need to obtain licenses or permits from the relevant government departments. 

Make sure to research all applicable laws and regulations beforehand.

Maintain Compliance

Companies registered in Hong Kong are subject to periodic reporting requirements and must ensure that their records remain up-to-date. 

Companies must also keep proper records of their financial accounts and file an Annual Return with the Companies Registry. Failing to do so can result in hefty penalties.

Final Word

With the right knowledge and resources, it is possible to successfully and easily establish a business in Hong Kong. 

Whether you are looking for a company registration or simply want to open an account with one of the local banks, understanding all the requirements can help make sure that everything goes smoothly.

Linklaters Advises on LimaCorporate’s Refinancing Transactions

Linklaters has advised the banks on LimaCorporate’s (“Lima”) issuance of €295m senior secured floating rate notes due 2028 and its entry into a new super senior revolving credit facility. The proceeds from the note offering and drawings under its new revolving credit facility will be used to repay outstanding debt.

Lima (EQT) is a global orthopaedic company headquartered in Italy, providing a broad range of innovative and technology-driven joint replacement solutions used by surgeons to restore motion for patients.

The cross-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary Linklaters team was led by high yield partner Giacomo Reali and leveraged finance partner Pathik Gandhi, with Milan counsel Diego Esposito. The team also included senior U.S. associate Matthew Baumann, managing associates Marta Fusco and Brad Pawlak, and associates Monish Kulkarni, Dami Banire and Luke Dee.

The team was supported by partners Ugo Orsini and Robert Egori and associate Sara Giugiario from Milan, partners Przemyslaw Lipin and Burkhard Rinne, counsel Tobias Klupsch and associate Lasse Petersen from Frankfurt, partner Jorge Alegre, counsel Begoña Martinez and managing associate Alvaro Albors from Madrid, partners Alexander Harmse and Mees Roelofs, counsel Hugo van der Molen and associate Matijs Nijkamp from Amsterdam, partner Kathryn Merryfield, managing associate Elisabeth Maze and associate Emma Vernhes from Paris and partner Philip W. Lee and senior US associate Andres Loera from New York.

The team was also supported by the firm’s New York and Milan tax teams.

This transaction is testament to Linklaters’ market-leading and integrated leveraged finance capabilities across Europe and the US. It also reflects the team’s ability to work seamlessly to deliver effective solutions to clients on complex cross-border transactions.

The Squire Patton Boggs: Public & Infrastructure Finance Practice Ranked in Top 10 Bond Counsels in US

The Squire Patton Boggs Public & Infrastructure Finance Practice Group has been ranked as one of the Top 10 Bond Counsel firms (by dollar volume) in the US in 2022, with 107 publicly-offered deals totalling $8.647 billion.

The strong performance of the practice group was recognized in Refinitiv’s annual United States Municipal Review for 2022, and highlighted in The Bond Buyer, the leading daily news source for the public finance industry.

Among the significant and diverse transactions the firm’s Public & Infrastructure Finance team advised on in 2022 were:

  • serving as bond counsel for the bond and commercial financing for the construction of a new $4.2 billion Terminal 6 at John F. Kennedy International Airport;
  • representing the US Virgin Islands in the successful closing of its historic $955.5 million Matching Fund Special Purpose Securitization Corporation bond offering; and
  • serving as bond counsel for the “sustainability-linked” bond financing to fund NewLife Forest Restoration, a leading sustainable forest products business in the Southwest US, to scale forest restoration activities and reduce the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires.

In addition to the ranking among Top 10 national Bond Counsel overall, the firm was also ranked highly in several sub-categories, including:

  • 8th for Negotiated Sales
  • 14th nationally for Underwriter Counsel
  • 12th nationally Special Tax Counsel (AT55)
  • 6th nationally as Bond Counsel on privately placed issues
  • 4th nationally for Underwriter Counsel on Green Bonds; and
  • 9th nationally for Disclosure Counsel on Green Bonds

“In an important, competitive market for the financing of public and infrastructure projects, our talented team continues to deliver successful outcomes for our clients across the country,” said Bob Labes, leader of the Public & Infrastructure Finance Practice Group. “Demand for our services continues to grow at a critical time of investment in the nation’s infrastructure.”

Squire Patton Boggs has been nationally ranked as one of the top bond counsel firms for over a century, having served as bond counsel to more than 500 counties, cities, towns, school districts, service authorities, sanitary districts, states, state agencies, and other issuing entities in the United States. The firm has nearly 50 dedicated public infrastructure and finance lawyers located in eleven offices across the United States.

Hogan Lovells Hires King & Spalding Partner Trio with an Eye on Arbitration Growth

Hogan Lovells hires King & Spalding partner trio with an eye on arbitration growth.

Dubai, London, 2 February 2022 – Global law firm Hogan Lovells is further boosting its top arbitration practice with the hire of a trio of arbitration partners from King & Spalding in London and Dubai.

Emerson Holmes, who recently joined the firm’s London office, is a market-leading international arbitration practitioner who has been involved in some of the largest infrastructure projects in Asia, Australia and the Middle East over recent years. Emerson’s practice is focused on representing owners, contractors and consultants in disputes arising out of the design and construction of LNG facilities, petrochemical plants, mine, off-shore platforms, and other types of infrastructure projects. Although focused on international arbitration, Emerson also has significant experience of advising clients in adjudications and in proceedings in the English courts where, more recently, he led the successful team in the landmark case  in which he obtained an injunction on behalf of his client that prevented an expert consultant from acting adverse to the client in an on-going arbitration.

Patrick McPherson, joining in Dubai, focuses on disputes relating to construction, energy and infrastructure projects across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. He acts in complex and substantial claims for employers and developers, contractors, and engineering and design consultants. He is admitted to the High Court of New Zealand, and previously was in-house counsel for one of the Middle East’s largest construction companies.

Randall Walker, also based in Dubai, focuses on disputes arising in the energy and infrastructure sectors, and represents clients across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, as well as in Europe. He advises energy producers, power and mining interests, and construction and engineering clients on disputes throughout the lifecycle of a project. His experience includes oil and gas projects, petrochemical plants, and power and water projects. He also acts on large-scale infrastructure projects such as railways and roads.

This news about the trio closely follows the hires of environmental litigators Megan Nishikawa and Amber Trincado, who also joined Hogan Lovells from King & Spalding in September 2022 as litigation partners in the firm’s San Francisco office. Nishikawa and Trincado represent clients in high-stakes litigation in industry sectors including energy and pharmaceuticals.

Oliver Armas, global Practice Area leader of the firm’s International Arbitration practice, commented: “We are delighted that our arbitration practice continues to grow tremendously – particularly in strategic markets such as London and Dubai. With their extensive experience in infrastructure, construction and energy projects, and their well-deserved reputation as leading advocates, Emerson, Patrick, and Randall together are a  great complement to our global arbitration practice, which represents clients in their most challenging matters.”

Emerson Holmes commented: “I have fond memories of my time with Lovells as an associate in Hong Kong earlier in my career and I am excited to have re-joined the firm. Hogan Lovells has an unparalleled global Construction and Engineering brand and there is a unique and intriguing opportunity to collaborate even more across the globe to better serve the firm’s impressive client base. I am also excited to join a team that I know has a strong culture of working together collegially to service the best interests of clients.”

Randall Walker said: “We are thrilled to be joining the firm shortly after Emerson joined in London, and look forward to working again with Emerson, as well as and the broader Hogan Lovells team.”

Patrick McPherson added: “Construction and engineering has a hugely exciting future throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and with the support of Hogan Lovells’ global team we believe this move will be enormously beneficial for clients seeking both in-depth industry knowledge and robust global capabilities.”

Alexander Dolgorukow, who was previously with the firm as a senior associate until 2018, also re-joined the firm as a counsel in the Munich international arbitration practice recently.

The firm’s arbitration practice has also been growing organically, with the recent promotions of Melissa Ordonez (Paris) and Samuel Zimmerman (New York) to partner, and Catherine Bratic (Houston), Nata Ghibradze (Munich), and Janice Cheng (Hong Kong) to counsel.

Ashurst LLP Current Trends in Australian Disputes

We recap the key commercial cases and regulatory developments of 2022 and identify some areas to watch in 2023.

Data breaches lead to regulatory focus and increased penalties

Cybersecurity developed as a key litigation risk in 2022.

In May, the Federal Court declared that RI Advice Group had breached its duties under the Corporations Act as a financial services licensee, following nine cybersecurity incidents between 2014 and 2020. The company had lacked adequate documentation and controls to manage cybersecurity risks.

ASIC warned that failure to address cybersecurity risk or comply with disclosure and reporting requirements may be a breach of director’s duties.

The second half of 2022 saw several high profile data breaches involving millions of customers, prompting investigations by regulators.

In response, the Australian Government passed new privacy legislation, increasing penalties for privacy breaches and giving new powers to the Office of the Information Commissioner. Penalties went from a maximum of A$2.2 million to the greater of A$50 million; three times the benefit of the contravention; or, if the benefit can’t be determined, 30 per cent of the company’s domestic turnover.

2. Climate change and greenwashing litigation escalate

Claims based on the spectre of climate change remained prominent in 2022.

In Sharma v Minister for the Environment the Full Federal Court held that the Minister did not owe a duty to avoid causing personal injury to Australian children when deciding whether to approve plans to extend an open-cut coal mine in New South Wales. In this case the climate change implications of the approval were ultimately a policy issue for government. Subsequently, Australia legislated an economy wide emissions reduction target of 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050.

Meanwhile, investor and regulatory pressure kept environmental, social responsibility and corporate governance performance under the spotlight.

Greenwashing has become an enforcement priority for regulators, with ASIC issuing several infringement notices and commencing enforcement proceedings. At the same time, continued progress towards global standards for significant ESG-related risks highlights likely continuing disclosure risks for companies and directors.

3. National Anti-Corruption Commission to have broad investigatory powers

In 2022, the Australian Parliament passed the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 and related legislation to establish a federal anti-corruption authority (the NACC) with broad powers to investigate corruption involving public officials, including conduct that occurred before the NACC’s establishment.  The government expects the Commission to begin operations in mid-2023.

The NACC will serve as an independent agency with power to investigate and report on “serious and systemic corruption” across the Commonwealth public sector.  The breadth of the NACC’s investigatory powers reinforces the importance of ensuring, when dealing with Commonwealth officials, that you avoid conduct that could be construed as adversely affecting the honest and impartial exercise of a public official’s power or performance of their duties.  Commonwealth officials should also be conscious that their conduct could be investigated and that there are mandatory reporting requirements under the NACC legislation that may interact with the existing Public Interest Disclosure Act requirements.

4. Supreme Court of Victoria paves the way for contingency fees in class actions

2020 legislation empowered the Supreme Court of Victoria to make “Group Costs Orders” (contingency fees) in class actions.  Under these orders, the plaintiffs’ legal costs can be calculated as a percentage of any award or settlement.  The Victorian Supreme Court approved a Group Costs Order for the first time in Allen v G8 Education Ltd, permitting the plaintiffs’ lawyers to charge a contingency fee capped at 27.5% of any gross settlement or award.  Similar contingency fee type orders have since been approved in a number of other cases, such as for 40% in the Arrium class action and 24.5% in Beach Energy.

These developments make the Supreme Court of Victoria an attractive jurisdiction for class action plaintiffs lawyers, as contingency fees are prohibited in other Australian jurisdictions.  We have now seen cases brought in Victoria where it would not otherwise have been the obvious place to bring the proceedings.

5. Inflationary environment puts a spotlight on the risk of cost escalation and construction disputes

Managing the risk of cost escalation in construction projects has become a focus in the last 12 months following unprecedent rises in construction costs.  Traditionally parties have managed cost escalation with strategies such as purchasing materials in advance, locking in a fixed price with suppliers or including a contingency allowance in the project budget to cover unforeseen events or risks.

Contractors are becoming less comfortable with traditional risk management strategies in the current climate and are seeking to include cost escalation clauses which provide a more certain mechanism to manage cost escalation. These clauses can protect a contractor’s interests by providing that the price of works will be adjusted to account for an increase in material or labour costs.  But they require careful drafting, including attention to the events that trigger the cost escalation mechanism and an appropriate cap on any increase to the contract price.  Parties should also consider including an appropriate alternative dispute resolution clause as the economic climate inevitably puts pressure on construction projects and elevates the risk of disputes.

6. High Court to consider the recognition and enforcement of investment arbitration awards in Australia

The High Court is considering whether the Kingdom of Spain can rely on state immunity to avoid the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention (the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States).  As the first contested enforcement of an investment arbitration award in Australia, the decision will provide important guidance on this emerging area of the law.

The dispute before the High Court arose after Spain reduced the level of subsidies paid to renewable energy generators, including the respondents in the High Court proceedings.  The respondents had obtained awards against Spain under the ICSID Convention, which they sought to enforce in the Federal Court of Australia.  Spain has asserted it is immune from suit under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth).  The High Court will decide whether Spain’s accession to the ICSID Convention constituted a submission to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, so as to extinguish foreign state immunity. The High Court heard the matter on 10 November.

7. Penalties legislated for unfair contract terms

In October Parliament passed legislation which drastically increases the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act and makes significant changes to the law on unfair contract terms.  The changes come into effect from October 2023.

The unfair contract terms amendments introduce new civil penalties relating to entering into a standard form consumer or small business contract which contains an unfair term, and applying or relying on an unfair contract term.  Before these amendments, unfair terms could be made void, but there was no penalty.

The amendments also expand the scope of “small business” contracts to which the regime will apply.

Regulators continue to take action in this area and will likely step up their efforts once the new civil penalties come into effect. Notably, the Federal Court made orders in August preventing Fujifilm from relying on unfair terms in its standard contracts with small businesses. Fujifilm had used templates to enter into 34,000 contracts for the supply of printers and related software on a lease basis, many with small businesses. The contracts contained unfair terms relating to automatic renewal, limitation of liability, termination rights and payments, payment terms and variation rights.

8. Financial services systems scrutinised for unconscionable and misleading conduct

For financial services entities, 2022 brought further clarity to the law of unconscionable conduct and misleading or deceptive conduct.

The High Court decision in Stubbings v Jams 2 demonstrates that systems, practices or procedures are likely to be unconscionable where they are found to have been orchestrated to avoid knowledge or an appreciation of a party’s financial or personal circumstances, vulnerabilities or disadvantages that would create unconscionable conduct risk. A certificate of independent legal or financial advice will not necessarily “immunise” an entity from a finding of unconscionable conduct where there is otherwise evidence of exploitation of a special disadvantage.

Separately, in two recent enforcement proceedings by ASIC against banks involving charging fees without contractual entitlement, the court held that statements of account recording transaction fees did not impliedly represent that the fees were payable. Further, a contractual term which provides for a fee waiver did not impliedly represent that the bank had adequate systems and processes in place to ensure the fee waivers would be applied in every case.  The “efficiently, honestly and fairly” obligation similarly did not require banks to achieve a standard of perfection in the delivery of services to customers.  We expect to see further litigation around the extent of these obligations in 2023.

9. A public authority’s duty of care in negligence turns on the statutory framework

In a decision arising from the 2014 Parkerville bushfire, the High Court held that a statutory authority owed a duty of care to avoid or minimise the risk of harm to persons and their properties in the vicinity of its electricity distribution system: Electricity Networks Corporation t/as Western Power v Herridge Parties.

The bushfire started when a pole supporting an electrical cable fell to the ground, igniting dry vegetation. The fire caused damage to 392 hectares and the loss of 57 homes.

The Court found that when determining the existence and content of such a duty, the starting point should be a consideration of the terms, scope and purpose of the statutory framework, and the statutory functions and powers which the authority in fact exercised. The Court rejected submissions that the authority lacked sufficient control, and that a duty was inconsistent with the statutory framework.

10. High Court says terms in informal contracts are inferred

The High Court considered the test for identifying terms in informal contracts in Pty Ltd v Hardingham.

A photographer sued the operators of real estate platforms for infringing his copyright. The photographer had orally agreed with real estate agents to create the images, without discussing copyright. The platform operators invariably required agents to give an irrevocable, perpetual licence for images. Was the licence limited to the particular marketing campaigns, or ongoing?

The Court held that there was a term entitling the agents to sub-license the use of the images indefinitely. According to the majority, it was not necessary to imply a term, as the term could be inferred (or would be the conclusion of the reasonable observer) from the silence of the parties in light of the background circumstances. The Court clarified that informal contract terms should be identified objectively, not by reference to the parties’ inferred actual intentions.

Editors: Jeremy Chenoweth, Practice Group Head, AsiaPac, Dispute Resolution; Andrew Westcott, Expertise Counsel; and Camilla Wayland, Head of Expertise, AsiaPac.

Contributors: Ian Bolster, Partner; Mark Bradley, Partner;  Luke Carbon, Senior Associate; James Clarke, Partner; Adam Firth, Partner; Thomas Gaffney, Senior Associate; Rani John, Partner;  Imogen Loxton, Senior Associate; John Pavlakis, Partner; Robert Todd, Partner.

Clifford Chance appoints Sharis Arnold Pozen as new Regional Managing Partner for the Americas

Washington, DC: Leading International law firm Clifford Chance has appointed Sharis Arnold Pozen as the new Regional Managing Partner for the Americas, a key strategic area of focus for the firm.

Pozen is co-chair of the firm’s Global Antitrust Group. She joined the firm in 2019 having held senior positions at General Electric, the US Department of Justice and the US Federal Trade Commission. Sharis holds numerous leadership positions in the firm and was recently inducted into the American Bar Association’s Women. Connected Hall of Fame-inism.The appointment will be effective May 1, 2023.Pozen says, “I am incredibly proud and humbled to be appointed to lead our Americas region into what is a very bright future.

We are an ambitious team of exceptionally talented lawyers and business professionals, and I am eager for us to work together to continue our strong momentum from Evan’s leadership.”Global Managing Partner Charles Adams comments, “I am proud to announce the appointment of Sharis onto our leadership team. The Americas is a key priority for the firm and the region is awash with opportunities for our clients and people. I have had the privilege of working closely with Sharis in her role as co-chair of the Antitrust practice and her rich leadership experience in government, private practice and in-house on the client side will deliver real value in driving our growth strategy.”I would also like to thank Evan for his exemplary contributions over the last 10 years. Evan has been a guiding light in championing the firm’s strategy in a time of tremendous growth that looks set to continue into the years ahead.”Cohen says, “It has been an honor to lead our Americas team over the past decade.

It is an exciting time for us in the region and Sharis’ energy and experience captures what makes us stand out in the market – I’m confident that Clifford Chance will continue to grow under her leadership.

Introduction to Delisting Framework Under HKEX Rules

The pandemic has significantly impacted the economy, making it increasingly difficult for businesses, particularly listed companies, to thrive under current circumstances. As of 31 July, a total of 26 company listings were cancelled in 2022, pursuant to delisting procedures under the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (listing rules).

This article provides an overview of the delisting framework, including the delisting process, and grounds for suspension of listing, concluding with some practical tips.


The current delisting framework under the listing rules came into effect on 1 August 2018. Under rule 6.01 (GEM rules 9.01 and 9.04), the Hong Kong Stock Exchange may at any time suspend or cancel the listing of any securities to protect investors or maintain an orderly market, where an issuer: (1) fails to maintain a sufficient public float; (2) fails to maintain sufficient operations or assets; or (3) is no longer suitable for listing.

Other cases include failure to publish financial results, or inside information due to material irregularities, and disclaimer and adverse audit opinions on financial statements.

The procedure for delisting is set out in rule 6.10 (GEM rule 9.15), which involves the exchange issuing a delisting notice specifying a remedial period. On expiry, the exchange may cancel the listing, or in exceptional circumstances delist the issuer immediately. The prescribed remedial period is 18 months for main board issuers and 12 months for Growth Enterprise Market (GEM) issuers from the date of trading suspension.


Failure to maintain a sufficient public float. Where trading is suspended due to insufficient public float, issuers are expected to address the issue within a reasonably short period of time, devising an action plan to restore the required minimum public float with a clear timeframe.

Failure to maintain sufficient operations or assets. A common ground for suspension or cancellation of listing is failure to maintain sufficient operations or assets pursuant to rule 13.24 (GEM rule 17.26), which may be particularly relevant in the current economic environment.

Issuers may fall foul of this requirement under various circumstances – as set out in an exchange guidance letter (GL106-19) – including business deterioration or discontinuation, corporate actions leading to minimal operations, or other circumstances where financial difficulties seriously impair the business.

The exchange may request an issuer to address its concerns on compliance with rule 13.24 (GEM rule 17.26) after assessing its periodic financial results and other disclosures. The issuer must demonstrate to the exchange’s satisfaction that its business has substance, and is viable and sustainable in the longer term.

If the issuer fails to address the concerns within a specified period of time, the exchange will make a decision regarding the non-compliance, subsequent to which the issuer should publish an announcement on the decision, including a statement that trading in its shares will be suspended.

Failure to publish financial results or inside information due to material irregularities. Accounting irregularities or significant weaknesses in internal controls resulting in failure to publish periodic financial results or inside information are also frequent reasons for suspension.

Examples include failure to keep proper books and records, discrepancies between accounting records on transactions and information obtained by the auditors, and lack of information or evidence to substantiate the existence or ownership of material assets.

Such potential irregularities could give rise to serious issues about the accuracy and credibility of the issuer’s disclosures, management integrity, and lack of adequate internal controls, which in turn cast doubt on the issuer’s suitability for continued listing.

Disclaimer and adverse audit opinion on financial statements. Under rule 13.50A (GEM rule 17.49B), trading will normally be suspended if an issuer publishes a preliminary results announcement for a financial year and the auditor has issued – or has indicated it will issue – a disclaimer of opinion or adverse opinion on the issuer’s financial statements.

Until the issuer has provided comfort that a disclaimer or adverse opinion would no longer be required, the suspension will remain in force.

The exchange’s guidance letter (GL95-18) provides examples of how such comfort may be provided, including providing a full financial year audit of the financial statements, or a special engagement of the auditor to perform audit on a single financial statement.


Through the new delisting framework, the exchange demonstrates stronger determination in providing certainty on the delisting process, and facilitating close monitoring of the market.

Issuers should take a holistic approach in assessing their operations and conduct regular reviews to identify any potential issues that may affect their suitability for continued listing. It is essential that issuers take timely remedial action to address exchange concerns and resume trading within the specified remedial period.


First published in November issue 2022 of China Business Law Journal.

Note: This material has been prepared for general information purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice for any cases. Should you need further information or legal advice, please contact us.

Latham Advises DailyPay in Financing Deals

DailyPay, a leading financial technology company, has announced it has secured US$560 million of capital to fuel growth domestically, expand internationally, and further invest in product innovation. The funding is divided between a revolving credit facility provided by Barclays and Angelo Gordon, and new term loans from SVB Capital and a fund managed by Neuberger Berman.

DailyPay first announced a US$300 million revolving credit facility from Barclays in March 2022. The additional revolving credit facility capacity (US$100 million provided by Barclays and US$60 million from Angelo Gordon) provides DailyPay with more capital to service its ever-growing roster of clients. The up to US$100 million in term loans will be invested to fuel DailyPay’s continued product innovation and to accelerate growth.

Latham & Watkins LLP advised DailyPay in the term loan financing with a deal team led by Bay Area partner Haim Zaltzman and Los Angeles/Bay Area partner Elizabeth Oh, with associates Dan Ovadia and Tyler Davis. Latham also advised DailyPay in the US$460 million securitization transaction with a deal team led by New York partner Loren Finegold and Bay Area Partner Haim Zaltzman, with associate Maeve Chandler. Advice was also provided on tax matters for both financings by New York partner Elena Romanova, with associate Ron Moore.

Kirkland Advises Apex Group on Acquisition of Bank of America Custodial Services (Ireland)

Apex Group Ltd. (“Apex” or “The Group”), a global financial services provider, announces today the planned acquisition of Bank of America Custodial Services (Ireland) Limited (“BACSIL”), the Irish depositary business of Bank of America. Apex Group will acquire BACSIL through its subsidiary European Depositary Bank (“EDB”).

BACSIL is a depositary solution for onshore and offshore funds servicing a multitude of blue-chip clients consisting of UCITS, Alternative Investment Funds and offshore depo-lite fund structures, across a wide range of strategies. The BACSIL business, based in Dublin, provides depositary services to client assets of $71.4bn (as at December 31, 2022).

Apex Group’s existing depositary services delivered by EDB, support a range of regulated fund types, underpinned by top-tier technology and workflow systems. The addition of BACSIL deepens the delivery of Apex Group’s independent depositary services in Ireland, with the Group also offering depositary solutions in Luxembourg, UK, Malta, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands through its subsidiary European Depositary Bank (“EDB”) and specialist local entities.

BACSIL’s experienced and high-quality team will join Apex Group in Dublin, ensuring consistency of exceptional service levels for existing and future clients. As part of Apex Group, BACSIL’s clients will benefit from the simplicity and efficiency of a single relationship with a global service partner across the full value chain of their business; including custody, digital banking, fund administration, super ManCo and ESG Rating & Advisory solutions.

This is the latest in a series of strategic global acquisitions for Apex Group to broaden the geographical scope of depositary services in the European market with the addition of Darwin Depositary Services in the Netherlands.

Peter Hughes, Founder and CEO of Apex Group comments: “The addition of BACSIL continues our strategic priority of strengthening the local delivery of our independent depositary services in Europe. BACSIL’s clients will continue to receive all the existing solutions they require and a continuity of service, while also benefitting from access to our full range of global solutions. We look forward to welcoming BACSIL’s clients to the Group, with our single-source model removing the necessity for multiple service provider relationships, delivering efficiency and flexible solutions to all operational requirements of regulated funds.”

Transaction close is subject to customary conditions, including regulatory approvals expected to be granted in 2023. Terms of the transaction are undisclosed.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Arthur Cox LLP served as legal counsel to Apex Group, Macquarie Capital acted as financial advisor.

About Apex Group

Apex Group Ltd., established in Bermuda in 2003, is a global financial services provider. With over 80 offices worldwide and 11,000 employees in 38 countries, Apex Group delivers an expansive range of services to asset managers, financial institutions, private clients and family offices. The Group has continually improved and evolved its capabilities to offer a single-source solution through establishing the broadest range of services in the industry; including fund services, digital onboarding and bank accounts, depositary, custody, super ManCo services, corporate services including HR and Payroll and a pioneering ESG Ratings and Advisory solution. Apex Group’s purpose is to be more than just a financial services provider and is committed to driving positive change to address three core areas; the Environment and Climate Change, Women’s Empowerment and Economic Independence, Education and Social Mobility.

About European Depositary Bank

European Depositary Bank (“EDB”) was founded in 1973 in Luxembourg. It was originally established as a subsidiary of Hamburg based private bank M.M.Warburg & CO (AG & CO) KGaA and was acquired by Apex Group Ltd (“Apex”) in 2019. EDB is supported by Apex’s strong global network of over 50 offices worldwide in addition to its extensive European presence with circa 2,000 employees across the region and is one of the largest providers of depositary services in Europe for regulated UCITS and alternative funds with over $160bn Assets under Depositary (as of September 30, 2022).

About Bank of America Custodial Services (Ireland) Limited

BACSIL is a limited liability company operating since 2007 and is incorporated under the laws of Ireland and authorised under Section 10 of the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995 (as amended) and is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland to undertake custodial operations involving the safekeeping of specified investment instruments. BACSIL provides custody and depositary related services to collective investment schemes established in a range  of jurisdictions. The Depositary is incorporated in Ireland with registration number 430806 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Pressing Charges After An Assault: An Essential Guide

If you’ve been the victim of an assault, you have the right to file a lawsuit against the offender. Pressing charges against them can ensure you get fair compensation and that they will be held accountable for their actions. Assault is a federal criminal offense in the United States.   

It might seem intimidating to begin a legal process, especially if you fear for your safety or that you may face retaliation. However, you can follow a standard procedure and learn more about it to understand better how to approach your case and what to expect.   

You can begin by reading this essential guide for pressing charges after an assault.  

What Is An Assault Charge?  

Pressing charges means filing an assault case against an offender who has assaulted you. This is the first step in the process of pursuing an assault charge. Thus, your role is to report the assault, and it’s ultimately up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to charge the offender. 

This may leave you wondering, “is it worth pressing charges for assault?.” The best way to seek justice through the law is to do so; therefore, the answer is yes. A criminal case can result in the offender doing jail time, paying a penalty fee, or undergoing court-ordered rehabilitation or probation.  

In a civil case, for instance, monetary compensation is sought from the offender to cover medical expenses for assault injuries, loss of wages, and emotional trauma.    

What Are The Types Of Assault?   

Assault is a criminal offense classified into various categories to determine the punishment that goes with it in each state. Whether the charges you file against an offender will be dropped depends on the distinctions between what constitutes assault and how the exceptions of self defense laws in NC will be applied. 

As a general definition, assault is any act or threat of physical violence committed against another person with the intention of harm. Here are some of its most common types:   

  • Simple assault: This is an attempted assault or threat. The offender intends to carry out threats of physical harm, and the victim has a reasonable case to fear for their safety.   
  • Aggravated assault: This is when an offender has inflicted physical violence on a victim by hand or with a weapon and has caused them serious injuries that need medical attention.   
  • Sexual assault: The offender has committed a physical and non-consensual sexual act against a victim. It also applies to individuals unable to consent to sexual contact.   
  • Domestic violence: An offender has caused harm to their spouse, intimate partner, or family member through physical force and attack.   
  • Assault with intent to kill: An assault charge where the offender has inflicted physical violence onto a victim with the intent to kill. This assault charge can be coupled with an attempted murder charge.   

The assault conviction can either be a misdemeanor or a felony charge, depending on the above case conditions. For instance, if weapons are used and if the victim is disabled or a minor, the penalties are at their most severe.   

How To File An Assault Case   

To begin pressing charges, you need to visit or call your local police station to inform them that you want to press assault charges against an offender. The police will then give you a form to fill out or interview you; this is a report where you provide information and the details of the assault.  

Questions include your name as the victim and the offender’s name, address if you know it and how and when the events of the assault occurred, and any witness statements. From here, the law enforcement officers and a prosecutor will review and investigate your case.  

While waiting for your review, you should consult a lawyer with experience in personal injury cases, as they can help you navigate and understand legal matters and possible court proceedings.   

The Assault Prosecution Process   

Once law enforcement has handed your case to a prosecutor, they will examine the evidence and strength of the case and decide whether to move forward and charge the offender with assault.  

Therefore, it’s essential to include as much evidence and witnesses as possible. You can submit pictures of your injuries and corroborating statements that support your version of events if you’re in the right emotional state to present them.   

Suppose the prosecutor believes there’s sufficient evidence to support a conviction. In that case, they will issue an arrest warrant to detain the offender until they post bail or appear in court to plea. The results of this trial will determine if the offender will be charged with criminal assault and given the due penalties.   


You can press charges against an offender by reporting it to your local police. The law enforcement officers will take your statement, witnesses, and details of what happened to a persecutor’s office for investigation.   

Then if your case is pursued, your offender could be charged with a specific type of assault. Since assault is a criminal offense, the offender could face jail time or pay you compensation if convicted, among other punishments as stated by the law.