Report on Improving Corporate Governance in Hong Kong

Оригинал на английском языке.
Гонконгский институт лицензированных публичных бухгалтеров
Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants
Авторы: Syren Johnstone и Say H Goo
Обзор текущего состояния (дата издания отчета 15.12.2017) корпоративного права Гонконга, основанного на Ординансе "О компаниях" 2014 года (Hong Kong Companies Ordinance) и Ординансе "О ценных бумагах и фьючерсах" 2003 года (Hong Kong Securities and Futures Ordinance). Исследование недостатков действующего режима и предложения о направлениях развития.

Скачать полную версию оригинала.

Пятница, 03 мая 2019 апдейт:

1. Introduction to the Study and its Purposes. 1.4 Scope and limitations of this Report

The evolution of Hong Kong's CG system has historically been largely driven by the UK, which seems appropriate given that Hong Kong's legal system is based on and has developed out the UK's. The regulatory architecture of the UK has since taken directions that have not been followed in Hong Kong. In 2000 it established a statutory listing authority, and in 2013 it moved to a twin peaks model of regulation. While Singapore has broadly followed suit as regards giving statutory effect to listing rules that incorporate many CG standards, the changes in the UK has left Hong Kong in something of a quandary, whether to keep looking to the UK or to look more to the United States, which in various regards shares important structural similarities to Hong Kong's listed market. The United States is also perceived as an important competitor to the Hong Kong market, which has recently driven much discussion as to the handling of key CG concerns, in particular the one-share-one-vote principle. Whether Hong Kong should respond to competitive challenge by adopting the approach of another jurisdiction can easily become the question of whether this is simply giving effect to regulatory arbitrage and, on some topics, the degradation of standards.

It is clear from the present study that Hong Kong has in the past been following developments in the United States and the UK more than anywhere else. As these two jurisdictions are also important market leaders in the field of CG, emphasis has been placed on the developments there in the analysis in Section 3. Of course, other jurisdictions also represent significant voices in the development of the CG debate, amongst which Australia and South Africa are notable, even though these are small and largely domestic markets.

Singapore as a rival and competitor in the East Asia region, has some comparative lessons for Hong Kong, although, not being a market leader, the lessons are somewhat more limited compared to the United States and the UK. It is not possible to undertake a study of CG in Hong Kong without considering Mainland China, despite fundamental differences between the two jurisdictions. As it does not have overseas companies listed in its stock markets, and while there is no shortage of laws and regulations pertaining to CG, the comparative lesson for Hong Kong has obvious limitations. This is complicated by the fact that it is a civil law jurisdiction with a different institutional framework, political system and market ideology. Nevertheless, it is useful if not essential to have a better understanding of the system in Mainland China, so that policy makers, regulators and market participants in Hong Kong can make relevant adjustments to better regulate Mainland enterprises listed in Hong Kong.

 

Содержание отчета

Executive summary
Executive Summary I Key Findings
Executive Summary II Summary of Recommendations
Executive Summary III Approach to the Study
Executive Summary IV Abridged Text of the Analysis

1 Introduction to the study and its purposes
Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this Report
1.2 The development of CG in Hong Kong
1.2.1 Domestic drivers
1.2.2 Global drivers
1.3 Structure of this Report
1.3 Structure of this Report
1.3.1 Methodology
1.3.2 Analysis
1.3.3 Recommendations
1.4 Scope and limitations of this Report
1.5 Next steps

2 Methodology
Introduction
2.1 Scope
2.1.1 CG concepts
2.1.2 CG Geographic reach
2.1.3 CG mechanisms
2.2 Work process
2.2.1 Data collection
2.2.2 Initial data organization
2.2.3 Oral evidence
2.2.4 Parity check
2.2.5 Analysis
2.2.6 recommendations

3 Discussion and analysis of jurisdictions studied
Introduction
3.1 Overarching considerations
3.1.1 Thematic topics
3.1.2 Trends in regulating CG standards
3.1.3 The role of culture
3.1.4 The methodology of assessment
3.1.5 Cost-benefit considerations
3.1.6 Maintaining competitiveness
3.1.7 Effectiveness
3.2 Non-locally incorporated companies
3.2.1 Application of local laws and regulations
3.2.2 Cross border enforcement and cooperation
3.3 Information
3.3.1 Legal status of CG disclosures
3.3.2 Disclosure of listing rule compliance
3.3.3 Board evaluation
3.3.4 Audit committee
3.4 Involvement
3.4.1 Shareholder stewardship
3.4.2 Shareholder votes
3.4.3 Remuneration
3.4.4 Changes of control
3.5 Equality
3.5.1 Voting rights generally
3.5.2 Weighted voting rights
3.6 Accountability
3.6.1 Information disclosures generally
3.6.2 Listing rules
3.6.3 Board refreshment
3.6.4 Appointment of independent directors
3.7 Effectiveness
Part A - CG system design
3.7.1 Impact of regulatory design
3.7.2 Policy development agencies
3.7.3 Enforcement agencies
3.7.4 Audits of public companies
3.7.5 Duties of directors
3.7.6 Role of fiduciary law
Part B - Specific actions
3.7.7 Differentiation of CG requirements
3.7.8 Listing regime standards upon entry
Part C - Independent directors
3.7.9 Determination of independence
3.7.10 Requirements relating to INED performance
3.7.12 Empowerment of INEDs - controlling shareholders
Part D - Other items
3.7.13 Whistle-blowing
3.8 Coda

4 Recommendations
Introduction and approach to the recommendations
Part A - The board
4.1 Processes
4.2 Independent directors
4.3 CG standards
Part B - Enforcement
4.4 Shareholders
4.5 CG disclosures
4.6 Regulators
4.7 Ex ante mechanisms
Part C - Architecture and policy
4.8 Architecture
4.9 Policy
4.10 Summary tables

5 Concluding remarks
5.1 The Recommendations
5.2 The Hong Kong market

Юридический перевод с английского и немецкого языка.

Москва.

Перевод с английского и немецкого языка: 400 руб./стр.

Стоимость перевода новых редакций ранее переведенных документов: 200 руб./стр.

Перевод законов: индивидуально (пишите).

Подробнее о стоимости и услугах переводчика.

Image

translate@en-cn.ru

Copyright © 2014-2020. Переводчик с английского и немецкого. Москва.