SFKS is pleased to announce a successful outcome for our client before the Court of Appeal in Choi Wan Sheung Nancy v Choi Si Ming Danny and Another [2026] HKCA 997. On 12 June 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance in favour of our client, the First Plaintiff therein.
The dispute arose from the administration of the estate of the parties’ late mother and concerned, among other matters, the Defendant’s sale of an estate property in Hung Hom (the “HH Property”) and the beneficial ownership of a property in Causeway Bay (the “CWB Property”). The Defendant, who was the executor of the estate, contended that he had acquired our client’s and other beneficiaries’ interests in the estate and that our client held her interest in the CWB Property on trust for him.
At first instance, the Court of First Instance rejected the Defendant’s claims. The Court found that the Defendant had breached his duties as executor by selling the HH Property at an undervalue and ordered him to compensate our client for her one-fifth share of the difference between the sale price and the market value. The Court also declared that the beneficial interests in the CWB Property should be apportioned by reference to the parties’ respective financial contributions, with our client entitled to a 72.2105% beneficial interest.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal accepted our client’s position and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal. The Court held that there was no proper basis to interfere with the trial judge’s findings of fact and credibility, and that the Court of First Instance was entitled to reject the Defendant’s case on the alleged acquisition of our client’s and other beneficiaries’ interests and his claim to sole beneficial ownership of the CWB Property. The Court of Appeal further awarded our client the costs of the appeal.
This result is a welcome affirmation of our client’s rights following a long-running family and estate dispute. It also demonstrates SFKS’s experience in handling contentious probate, trust, property and appellate disputes, including cases involving executor duties, beneficial ownership and complex factual challenges.
This case serves as a timely reminder to litigants aggrieved by a first-instance decision: an appeal is not a retrial, nor does it provide another open avenue to easily disturb a trial judge’s findings of fact. As cited by Mr Justice Anderson Chow, a first instance trial on the merits should be “the main event”, rather than a “tryout on the road”. An appellate court will accord substantial deference to a trial judge’s findings of fact and credibility assessments given their unique “heard and seen” advantage and holistic familiarity with the case, something which an appellate court lacks. Trying to do otherwise would be a waste of judicial resources.
This case was led by our Consultant Mr. Tommy Tam and our Partner Ms. Jenny Wong and assisted by our Associates Ms. Koey Wong and Mr. Tommy Lam. SFKS also take this opportunity to thank Counsel Stony Chan for his thorough and able assistance throughout.
Full judgment can be found at legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=181798&currpage=T.
SFKS collaborated with a law firm in US in the recent success in resolving an intellectual property claim concerning a multinational corporate.
The dispute involves the multinational corporate suing, amongst others, a former key person at its Hong Kong office for allegedly infringing copyrights and divulging trade secrets. As the underlying agreement is governed by Delaware law, we assisted our client in instructing Delaware lawyer within our International Lawyers Network (ILN), and provided legal support to the Delaware lawyer in acting in the US proceedings, providing advice and engaging in out-of-court negotiations, as well as close attendance throughout.
SFKS has a long history of strength and experience in contentious and non-contentious intellectual property practice. Back in 1997, SFKS filed Hong Kong’s first registered design, first short-term patent, and first standard patent applications. SFKS advises on initial strategising, branding, drafting, filing, prosecution, opposition and revocation of intellectual property rights. As an all-service law firm, and blending our intellectual property practice and dispute resolution expertise, SFKS is well-positioned to assist in IP disputes as well.
IP disputes are often cross-jurisdictional in nature. SFKS, being a member of the International Lawyers Network (ILN), a global association of 91 high-quality, independent law firms representing more than 5,000 lawyers worldwide, facilitates expedient and frictionless access to top-tier specialist counsel worldwide and ensures comprehensive and seamless legal support to cross-jurisdictional affairs.
SFKS is delighted to welcome a delegation of mainland lawyers, including Ms. Zhou Lixia, Mr. Liu Wei, Mr. Cen Zhibin, and Mr. Zeng Decai. The mainland team engaged in deep and meaningful exchanges with our firm’s legal team across various practice areas, including cross-border matters, trusts, corporate governance, and dispute resolution.
Background
The signing of the Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on 20 April 2026 marks a transformative milestone in the judicial history of cross-border disputes (“New Arrangement”).
The New Arrangement addresses the limitations in the previous 1999 regime by introducing multimodal service options, including electronic service, and by streamlining court-to-court entrustment through digitalization to accommodate the surge in cross-border cases, thereby aligning judicial mechanisms with the digital realities of modern commerce, and enhancing litigation efficiency.
Historical Foundation: The Old Arrangement in 1999 and the Need for Reform
The origins of mutual service between Hong Kong and the Mainland are rooted in Article 95 of the Basic Law, which empowers the Hong Kong to maintain judicial relations with the legal departments of other parts of the country. Shortly after the handover, the Arrangement for Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and Hong Kong Courts was established in 1999 to provide a formal channel for cooperation with court-to-court entrustment as the service channel (“Old Arrangement”).
Under the Old Arrangement, service was conducted through a centralized, high-level administrative process. Requests were channeled through the High Court of Hong Kong and the various Higher People’s Courts in the Mainland. While this provided a stable and fixed legal basis, it somehow lacked flexibility in the rapid expansion of cross-border commerce. Practitioners often experienced delays in attempting service, leading to additional costs and procedural uncertainty.
The limitations of the Old Arrangement became even more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted the gradual obsolescence of a system that solely depended on physical transmission and personal delivery. After 27 years of implementation, the Old Arrangement deserves a full review and upgrade. The New Arrangement enhances the service process through retaining the core entrustment mechanism and adding diverse means to ensure timely and effective service.
The New Arrangement: Scope and Multimodal Framework
The New Arrangement applies to judicial documents in civil and commercial proceedings where service must be effected across the border. Article 2 defines “civil and commercial proceedings” broadly, encompassing matters that are civil or commercial in nature under the laws of either jurisdiction (with only a few exclusions). The types of litigation-related documents covered are exhaustive, ensuring that practitioners can utilize the Arrangement at every stage of legal proceedings, from the originating process to the enforcement of judgments.
Article 3 introduces the revolutionary principle of multi-modal service, allowing for court-to-court entrustment, electronic service, postal service, service by authorized persons, and public announcement. The advantages of a multi-modal service regime are two-fold.
First, there was only one option under the Old Arrangement i.e. through the courts, yet there are various options for means of service under the New Arrangement.
Second, these modes can be used in parallel. If a plaintiff attempts service via multiple channels, the date of service is determined by whichever mode first achieves successful delivery. This eliminates the previous “wait-and-fail” cycle, allowing parties to pursue the most efficient path to commencing their action.
Option 1: Electronic-supported Court-to-court Entrustment
While the New Arrangement expands service options, court-to-court entrustment remains a vital pillar of mutual assistance. Article 4 decentralizes this process, allowing the Supreme People’s Court to authorize certain intermediate people’s courts and primary people’s courts to entrust service directly to the High Court of Hong Kong, following consultation with the Hong Kong Judiciary.
Articles 5 and 6 lay out the standards for electronic transmission and language. Judicial documents transmitted electronically between courts are now granted the same legal effect as physical originals. To prevent procedural errors, the entrusting court shall produce a letter of entrustment in Chinese when requesting for service of judicial documents. If the underlying judicial documents are in English or another language, they must be accompanied by a Chinese translation. Furthermore, when serving a Hong Kong registered company, the letter of entrustment must include a printed copy of the company’s latest registered address from the Hong Kong Companies Registry, ensuring that documents reach the correct legal entity.
Option 2: The Digital Leap – Electronic Service
The gist of the New Arrangement is the inclusion of electronic service. Article 14 permits service via facsimile, electronic mail, mobile communications, and other instant-receipt systems, provided that receipt by the intended party can be ascertained. This provision effectively brings electronic means into the formal legal framework of cross-border litigation, provided one of the specific conditions of (i) express consent, (ii) voluntary provision or (iii) acceptance by conduct are met. Please refer to the table of descriptions of each specific condition for electronic service.
Electronic service may be helpful as personal service via the Mainland courts under the Old Arrangement may sometimes be unsuccessful. Besides, electronic service would cater the modern reality that parties travel across the whole country and no longer base in a particular city or fix oneself to a particular address.
Options 3-5: Other Means of Service
Postal Service and By Leaving
Beyond digital channels, the New Arrangement formalizes postal service and service by authorized persons, providing a robust set of alternatives to court bailiffs. Under Article 8, the courts in Hong Kong and Mainland may effect service of judicial documents by direct service, postal service, electronic service, service by leaving at the addressee’s place and service by public announcement provided in Article 17 of the New Arrangement.
Law Firms or Notarization Institutions
Article 15 also introduces service by third party authorized institution. Mainland courts may authorize service in Hong Kong by Hong Kong law firms or registered foreign law firms. Conversely, Hong Kong parties may effect service in the Mainland through Mainland law firms or notarization institutions. Instead of waiting for court-to-court entrustment, parties can use a designated professional to attempt service directly, which can facilitate the legal proceedings and reduce delay in service.
Public Announcement
When all direct attempts to serve on the recipient fail, Article 17 provides for service by public announcement. Service by public announcement is deemed effective 60 days after the date of publication. This 60-day period is a standardized timeframe that provides legal certainty for the court to move forward with the proceedings, even if party remains absent. From our firm’s experience, service of documents under the Old Arrangement may take more than 60 days.
Transitioning the Legal Framework: From Old to New Arrangement
The New Arrangement is a treaty-like agreement that requires implementation through domestic law. In Hong Kong, it requires amendments to rule 5A of Order 11 in Rules of the High Court which currently prescribes the rigid court-to-court process for serving writs in the Mainland.
The New Arrangement would only take effect once the legislative procedures are completed and the Supreme People’s Court has issued its corresponding judicial interpretation. During the transitional period, the Old Arrangement remains in force.
Insights
Legal practitioners, corporate groups and cross-border business entities are advised to stay close with the development and implementation of the New Arrangement. Meanwhile, the following matters would deserve deeper consideration.
First, regarding the specific conditions for electronic service, voluntary provision by the defendant and acceptance by conduct of the defendant might be rare. Therefore, it is imperative that the plaintiff will have the defendant’s prior express consent. Practically speaking, contracting parties who anticipate the potential need of enforcing the contract (and their legal representatives) may consider the incorporation of relevant clauses in advance to record the parties’ express consents for electronic service of legal documents arising from contractual disputes.
Second, as much as the benefits lie on the plaintiffs (or the parties enforcing a contract), the New Arrangement may be less welcomed by defendants as it shorten the time between the plaintiff’s originating documents and the time of actual or deemed service). Defendants on receipt of originating documents, even by electronic service, should seek Hong Kong legal advice as soon as practicable.
Third, there has been legislative discussions on whether, or to what extent, the application and requirements of electronic services of local HK-to-HK service procedures are tallied or synchronized with cross-border service procedures under the New Arrangement. The underlying spirit is that local HK-to-HK service procedures should be no less practicable and effective than cross-border service procedures.
In any event, the ability to efficiently serve judicial documents across the border is essential for managing the complex disputes that inevitably arise in international trade and finance. By aligning the legal mechanisms of the two jurisdictions, the New Arrangement reduces the uncertainty and hurdles in procedures, making Hong Kong an even more attractive seat for arbitration and litigation.
This article is co-authored by our Partner Mathew Liu and our Trainee Solicitor Jaimie Ho.
Disclaimer :
This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance on the information in this material.
Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum is a Hong Kong law firm and does not practice or provide legal advice on the laws of other jurisdictions. References to the laws and practice of any other jurisdictions in this material are provided for general reference and comparative purposes only, and do not constitute any advice, opinion or representation on the law or practice in those jurisdictions.
Introduction
In some jurisdictions, a married person entering into a share transaction may be asked to do something relatively uncommon in Hong Kong: provide a signed consent from his/her spouse. In certain jurisdictions such as the Chinese Mainland and some community property states in the United States, certain assets acquired before and/or during marriage may be regarded as community properties jointly owned by the couple. If an individual acquires or sells shares and his/her spouse later asserts a claim to them, say upon divorce, ownership disputes will arise. To mitigate such risks, some jurisdictions have developed the practice of requesting the spouse of the vendor to provide written consent to the transaction and waive any interest in the shares.
Does this practice have any place in Hong Kong? This article examines that question in the context of sale and purchase of shares of a company incorporated in Hong Kong.
What is the Matrimonial Property Regime in Hong Kong?
Separation of property
Hong Kong essentially has a separate property regime. Under section 4(1) of the Married Persons Status Ordinance (Cap. 182) (MPSO), all property belonging to a married woman at the time of her marriage, or acquired by her afterwards, shall belong to her in all respects as if she were unmarried and may be disposed of accordingly. This abolished the common law doctrine of coverture, under which a married woman’s legal identity would merge with that of her husband and the husband would acquire all property belonging to her at the time of the marriage or acquired by her during the marriage. Accordingly, in Hong Kong, each spouse owns and is free to dispose of his/her property, whether acquired before or during the marriage.
Division of assets on divorce
It is when a marriage breaks down that the question of division of assets arises. In divorce proceedings, the court first determines the assets available in the matrimonial pot and then decides how to divide them between the spouses to achieve fairness. It is empowered to make, among others, property adjustment orders for the transfer of properties (such as shares) from one party to the other. The spouses may have signed a pre‑ or post-nuptial agreement regarding how they wish to divide their properties upon divorce. Such agreement will be given appropriate weight by the court with regard to all the circumstances of the case but is not legally binding.
Is Spousal Consent Legally Required for a Valid Share Transfer?
As mentioned above, a married person can hold properties, including cash and shares, as his/her own assets and deal with them independently. Therefore, neither the vendor nor the purchaser needs their spouse’s consent for the share transfer to be legally valid. If, however, the vendor’s spouse has a beneficial interest in the shares (for example, because the vendor holds the shares as a nominee/trustee for the spouse), the solution is not to obtain any spousal consent, but to make the beneficial owner one of the parties to the transaction and the relevant transaction documents.
Can a Party’s Divorce Unravel a Completed (or Pending) Transaction?
Despite the separate property regime, a divorce can technically cast a shadow over an M&A transaction already closed or about to close. This is because of section 17 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192) (MPPO), which empowers the court to avoid asset transfers by a spouse that are intended to frustrate potential matrimonial claims of the other spouse.
How section 17 of the MPPO works
If a party to the marriage has made, or is about to make, a disposition of property (such as a transfer of shares or payment of purchase price) with the intention of defeating the other party’s claim for financial provision, the court may make orders to set aside the disposition made or restrain the disposition from taking place. If the disposition (i) took place less than 3 years before the section 17 application or (ii) is about to take place, then so long as the court is satisfied that it has defeated or would defeat the other party’s claim for financial provision, an intention to defeat the claim is presumed.
Risk is remote in normal circumstances
While theoretically speaking every share sale and purchase can be subject to challenge under the MPPO upon the counterparty’s divorce, the risk of it being set aside should be rather remote for most arm’s-length transactions:
When Should Spousal Consent be Considered?
When the alarm bells ring
There are, however, circumstances which might put a party to the transaction on enquiry. For example:
In such situations, legal advice should be obtained on whether to request a spousal consent or waiver from the counterparty before entering into the transaction.
What spousal consent can and cannot do
A signed consent or waiver given by the counterparty’s spouse is unlikely to oust the jurisdiction of the family court or completely prevent the spouse from challenging the transaction under section 17 of the MPPO. Nonetheless, evidence that the transaction was entered into with the spouse’s consent may make it significantly more difficult for the spouse to argue later that the transaction was intended to defeat financial provision claims. In the case of a resulting trust claim, it may also help establish the purchaser’s status as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, strengthening the “equity’s darling” defence.
Standard protections in M&A deals
Situations warranting a request for spousal consent are expected to be relatively rare. It is not standard practice in Hong Kong to make such a request for every M&A transaction. In the absence of red flags such as those mentioned above, asking a counterparty to provide – and have their spouse sign – a document that contemplates marital breakdown and division of assets between them may be seen as unreasonable and even offensive.
For a purchaser, apart from conducting the necessary legal due diligence, the standard protection is to request customary warranties and indemnities in relation to the vendor’s good title to the shares, free from any third‑party interests. The purchaser can bring a claim for a breach of warranty and/or seek indemnities from the vendor.
For a vendor concerned about the purchaser’s ability to pay, the common solution is to request a guarantee from a person or entity of sufficient financial standing, or a security over other assets.
Does it Make any Difference if the Counterparty has a Matrimonial Domicile in Another Jurisdiction?
Hong Kong follows the lex situs rule for the creation and transfer of property: in general, the validity and effect of a transaction are governed by the law of the place in which the target property is sited. For shares in a Hong Kong company, their transfer should be governed by Hong Kong law and should follow the formalities under Hong Kong law, which does not require any spousal consent of the parties.
However, where a counterparty does not have any or sufficient connections with Hong Kong, that may give rise to other considerations. For example, if the counterparty later breaches the sale and purchase agreement but has no other assets in Hong Kong and has not provided any security, the innocent party may need or choose to enforce a Hong Kong judgment against the counterparty’s foreign assets. It is uncertain whether (and if so, the extent to which) this can be done if the counterparty’s spouse has an interest in those foreign assets under the foreign matrimonial property regime. In such cases, legal advice should be obtained in Hong Kong and the relevant jurisdiction. Therefore, in case there is any serious doubt as to the counterparty’s ability to fulfill its contractual obligations or satisfy a Hong Kong judgment in case of any breach, a party may consider the necessity of other solutions, such as obtaining a guarantee, security or perhaps the counterparty’s prior spousal consent to enforcement against foreign assets in the first place.
Conclusion
While it may be the practice in some jurisdictions to request the counterparty’s spousal consent for a commercial transaction, it is not normally required and adopted for a Hong Kong M&A deal. In certain circumstances, however, such as where a share transaction is to be made at a substantial undervalue or the counterparty’s spouse is known to have contributed to the acquisition of the target company with his/her funds or to the improvement of its value as outlined above, legal advice should be obtained to mitigate the legal risks.
Disclaimer :
This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance on the information in this material.
Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum is a Hong Kong law firm and does not practice or provide legal advice on the laws of other jurisdictions. References to the laws and practice of any other jurisdictions in this material are provided for general reference and comparative purposes only, and do not constitute any advice, opinion or representation on the law or practice in those jurisdictions.
Background
A decade ago, during my time as a biomedical engineering student at Imperial College London, Hong Kong’s strategic priorities were largely centered on finance and real estate development, with comparatively limited emphasis on innovation and technology-driven growth. In recent years, however, fostering innovation and technology has become one of Hong Kong’s key priorities. In my view, Hong Kong has strong potential to develop into one of the leading biotech hubs by leveraging its strategic position within the Greater Bay Area (“GBA”), its role as an international financial centre and its well-established, internationally respected legal system.
A key development strategy for Hong Kong is South-North dual engine (「南金融、北創科」), with the financial services continuing to develop at the Harbour Metropolis, whereas the new engine for innovation and technology will be positioned at the Northern Metropolis. The Hong Kong government is committed to accelerate the development of the Northern Metropolis which includes, among others, building new railway lines to improve connectivity to and from the area, developing the San Tin Technopole, and engaging major corporations—such as pharmaceutical companies—to establish a presence in the Northern Metropolis. The Northern Metropolis is built to attract global talents and enterprises while also cultivating local talent for the future.
What is Biotech?
“Biotech” is an abbreviation of biotechnology, meaning the manipulation of biological process, systems or living organisms to develop products that can improve human lives. However, the term “biotech” is often used to denote more than merely biotechnology but represents a much broader concept – biomedical engineering, a broad discipline that apply interdisciplinary engineering principles to improve health and function of patients through developing diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative products.
Highly cross-discipline in nature
Biomedical engineering is a highly interdisciplinary and heavily regulated industry with a long, complex development pipeline that extends well beyond laboratory research. Companies must navigate scientific challenges, clinical trials, patent protection, regulatory approvals, and sustained fundraising, often operating for years without revenue. Due to high risks and low success rates, professional investors remain cautious by conducting rigorous due diligence and limiting their investment to those areas where they possess technical expertise.
Legal professionals’ roles
Legal professionals are integral to biotech companies at many stages of their development, providing guidance on intellectual property protection, regulatory and approval matters, commercial transactions, corporate structuring, capital raising, IPOs, M&A, and dispute resolution. In light of the sector’s scientific complexity, stringent regulatory environment, lengthy development cycles, and significant investment risks, lawyers play a crucial role in mitigating legal exposure while facilitating strategic expansion and successful commercialisation.
Chapter 18A of the HKEX Main Board Listing Rules
Chapter 18A of the HKEX Main Board Listing Rules sets out alternative set of listing requirements for biotech companies, waiving the traditional minimum revenue requirement. Since the introduction of Chapter 18A in 2018, pre-revenue biotech companies have been able to list in Hong Kong, subject to the satisfaction of all the relevant rules or wavier of such requirements. According to the website of the HKEX, 80 companies have listed via Chapter 18A as of end-November 2025. The significance of Chapter 18A is to provide another method for the biotech companies to raise fund besides governmental grant, private equity sale and debt. Most importantly, the Chapter 18A listing route is friendly to pre-revenue biotech companies.
It is noted that “biotech” is defined broadly under Chapter 18A to allow a wide range of biomedical engineering enterprises to be listed in Hong Kong. It is set out in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of the Guidance Letter (HKEX-GL92-18) and Chapter 18A that the HKEX will consider the listing application of a biotech company which sufficiently demonstrate it has developed a biotech product beyond concept stage and such biotech product must fall within one of the four categories: (1) Pharmaceutical (small molecule drugs), (2) Biologics, (3) Medical devices (including diagnostics) and (4) “Other Biotech Products” at the discretion of the HKEX. For more information, please refer to Chapter 18A of the HKEX Main Board Listing Rules and Guidance Letter (HKEX-GL92-18) and seek professional advice.
Medical Data Sharing
Data plays a critical role in the development of biotech industry. The success of biotech products largely depends on clinical trial results, which are basically large-scale statistical analysis on safety and efficacy. Early access to extensive data helps researchers better predict outcomes, allocate resources more effectively, and avoid costly late-stage failures.
In Hong Kong, initiatives such as the Hospital Authority’s Data Sharing Portal provide clinical data from over 40 public hospitals for academic research, subject to approval and strict privacy safeguards.The Hong Kong government also launched the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (eHealth) in 2016, a consent-based platform enabling secure sharing of encrypted patient records between authorized public and private healthcare providers. On 24 December 2025, the Health Bureau expanded the “Cross-boundary Health Record” function of the eHealth app to all approximately 6.3 million users, allowing eligible records to be shared with designated medical institutions in mainland China and enabling cross-border deposit and access of medical records for follow-up care.
The above demonstrates that the Hong Kong government is actively promoting the digitalisation of medical records, which could play a crucial role in advancing the R&D of biotech products. In Hong Kong, the collection, handling and use of personal data is subject to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486).
The Hong Kong Centre for the Medical Products Regulation (“CMPR”)
On 26 June 2025, the Department of Health announced that the CMPR will be established by the end of 2026 and that the Department of Health will implement primary evaluation for new drug registration in phrases starting from 2026, with full implementation by 2030. The vision of the CMPR is to become a "leading, internationally renowned medical products regulatory authority” which promotes innovation, and R&D of drugs and devices by optimising medical products regulation.
Primary evaluation will be implemented in phrases in the period from between 2026 to 2030 with the scope expanding each year:
The importance of the CMPR is to establish a local regulatory authority in Hong Kong to complete a comprehensive life-cycle of medical products – R&D, funding, regulatory approval, commercialisation across Hong Kong and the GBA.
Conclusion:
Biotech is a high-risk, capital-intensive industry, but successful biotech products can deliver significant health benefits, strong patent-protected profits, and wide-ranging economic gains through job creation across the value chain. Hong Kong's robust financial and legal systems, combined with its strategic location in the GBA, position it perfectly to become a world-class biotech hub. Hong Kong legal professionals will play increasingly important roles in supporting biotech companies throughout their entire lifecycle, and backing Hong Kong to become a leading hub for capital market, regulation and dispute resolution for the biotech industry.
Disclaimer: This material is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice nor constitute any lawyer-client relationship between Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum and any user or browser. No liabilities are assumed arising from any reliance of information in this material.
