員工持股計劃股份的信託性質認定？申索得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 v 張才奎 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林雲浩法官 (Hon G Lam J) - 判決日期：2018年1月31日 ### 案情摘要 本案原告人為中國山水投資有限公司 (CSI) 的員工，他們透過員工持股計劃 (ESO Scheme) 投資於一家內地公司。由於企業重組，原告人的權益被轉換為 CSI 股份。第一被告人張才奎和第二被告人李延民是山東山水水泥集團有限公司 (Shandong Shanshui) 的前管理層，並作為 CSI 股份的受託人。原告人聲稱他們是 CSI 股份的絕對實益擁有人，而張才奎則主張這些股份是根據英屬維爾京群島 (BVI) 法律設立的酌情信託 (discretionary trusts) 持有。爭議核心在於這些 CSI 股份的信託性質。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於第一被告人張才奎和第二被告人李延民為員工持股計劃下的員工所持有的中國山水投資有限公司 (CSI) 股份，究竟是根據香港法律設立的固定信託 (fixed trusts) 還是根據英屬維爾京群島 (BVI) 法律設立的酌情信託。原告人主張他們是股份的實益擁有人，而被告人則聲稱股份受酌情信託規管。此外，法院亦需審視員工簽署的2008年確認書是否構成對BVI酌情信託的知情同意及追認。 ### 判決理由 法院裁定，根據內地法律，原告人是山東山水水泥集團有限公司 (Shandong Shanshui) 股份的實際出資人 (actual contributor) 和擁有人，而張才奎和李延民僅為名義股東 (nominal shareholders)。當 CSI 股份於2005年4月11日轉讓給張才奎和李延民時，他們以信託形式為原告人持有這些股份，其比例與員工持股計劃下的權益相同。法院認為，張才奎和李延民無權將已受香港法律固定信託規管的 CSI 股份，重新設立為英屬維爾京群島 (BVI) 酌情信託。法院亦裁定，2008年確認書並未構成原告人對 BVI 酌情信託的知情同意或追認，因為該文件未充分披露酌情信託的性質。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例，包括 Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527，以支持信託可從行為中推斷的原則。此外，亦引用了 Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts (6th ed) 關於合約條款解釋的原則。在處理內地法律專家證據時，法院參考了 Full Wisdom Holdings Ltd v Traffic Stream Infrastructure Co Ltd [2004] 2 HKLRD 1016 (CA) 和 MCC Proceeds Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust [1999] CLC 417。關於酌情信託的性質，則引用了 Kan Lai Kwan v Poon Lok To Otto (2014) 17 HKCFAR 414 和 Re Estate of Mui Yim Fong [2010] 4 HKLRD 69。在確定信託標的確定性時，引用了 Re CA Pacific Finance Ltd [1999] 2 HKLRD 1。此外，亦引用了《最高人民法院關於適用〈中華人民共和國公司法〉若干問題的規定(三)(2014 修正)》第24及25條。 ### 裁決與命令 法院裁定原告人勝訴。法院頒令聲明張才奎以信託形式為原告人持有中國山水投資有限公司 (CSI) 的456,325股股份，其比例按申索陳述書附表所列。法院命令接管人（及張才奎在必要時）立即採取步驟，將目前登記在接管人名下的456,325股 CSI 股份轉讓給原告人或其指定人士。此外，法院亦頒布臨時命令，原告人可獲得訴訟費用及剔除申請的費用，並准許委聘兩名大律師。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在跨境重組中，員工持股計劃下權益轉換的法律性質認定。法院明確指出，即使在內地法律不承認法律與實益所有權分離的情況下，仍可根據當事人意圖和行為，在香港法律下推斷出固定信託 (fixed trusts) 的存在。判決亦警示，若要將固定信託轉變為酌情信託 (discretionary trusts)，必須獲得受益人的知情同意，且相關文件需充分披露信託的性質，否則無效。這對涉及內地員工持股計劃的香港上市或重組項目具有重要啟示。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Relevant employees whose shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited were held by ZHANG CAIKUI on trust v ZHANG CAIKUI - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon G Lam J - Date of Judgment: 31 January 2018 ### Factual Background The plaintiffs in this case were employees of China Shanshui Investment Company Limited (CSI) who invested in a Mainland company through an Employees Stock Ownership Scheme (ESO Scheme). Due to corporate restructuring, the plaintiffs' interests were converted into CSI shares. The 1st Defendant, Zhang Caikui, and the 2nd Defendant, Li Yanmin, were former management heads of Shandong Shanshui Cement Group Company Limited (Shandong Shanshui) and trustees of the CSI shares. The plaintiffs claimed to be absolute beneficial owners of the CSI shares, while Zhang Caikui contended that these shares were held under discretionary trusts established under British Virgin Islands (BVI) law. The core dispute revolved around the nature of the trust over these CSI shares. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was whether the China Shanshui Investment Company Limited (CSI) shares held by the 1st Defendant, Zhang Caikui, and the 2nd Defendant, Li Yanmin, for employees under an Employees Stock Ownership Scheme, constituted fixed trusts under Hong Kong law or discretionary trusts under British Virgin Islands (BVI) law. The plaintiffs asserted beneficial ownership, while the defendants claimed the shares were governed by discretionary trusts. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the 2008 Confirmation signed by employees constituted informed consent and ratification of the BVI discretionary trusts. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court found that, under Mainland law, the plaintiffs were the actual contributors and owners of the relevant shareholding interests in Shandong Shanshui Cement Group Company Limited (Shandong Shanshui), and Zhang Caikui and Li Yanmin were merely nominal shareholders. When the CSI shares were transferred to Zhang Caikui and Li Yanmin on 11 April 2005, they held these shares on trust for the plaintiffs in the same proportion as their interests under the ESO Scheme. The Court held that Zhang Caikui and Li Yanmin lacked the power to resettle CSI shares, which were already held on fixed trusts under Hong Kong law, onto BVI discretionary trusts. The 2008 Confirmation was also found not to constitute informed consent or ratification of the BVI trusts by the plaintiffs, as it failed to adequately disclose the nature of the discretionary trusts. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents, including Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527, supporting the principle that a trust can be inferred from conduct. Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts (6th ed) was referenced for contract interpretation principles. For expert evidence on Mainland law, the Court referred to Full Wisdom Holdings Ltd v Traffic Stream Infrastructure Co Ltd [2004] 2 HKLRD 1016 (CA) and MCC Proceeds Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust [1999] CLC 417. Regarding the nature of discretionary trusts, Kan Lai Kwan v Poon Lok To Otto (2014) 17 HKCFAR 414 and Re Estate of Mui Yim Fong [2010] 4 HKLRD 69 were cited. Re CA Pacific Finance Ltd [1999] 2 HKLRD 1 was used for certainty of subject matter. Articles 24 and 25 of the SPC Provisions on Company Law (III) were also applied. ### Decision & Orders The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. An order was made declaring that Zhang Caikui held 456,325 shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited (CSI) on trust for the plaintiffs individually, in the proportions set out in the schedules to the statements of claim. The Receivers (and Zhang Caikui to the extent necessary) were ordered to forthwith transfer these 456,325 CSI shares, currently registered in the Receivers' name, to the plaintiffs or their nominees. An order nisi was also made for the plaintiffs to have the costs of the action and the strike-out application, limited to one set of costs, with a certificate for two counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the importance of determining the legal nature of interests converted under employee stock ownership schemes in cross-border restructurings. The Court clarified that even where Mainland law does not recognize the separation of legal and beneficial ownership, a fixed trust can be inferred under Hong Kong law based on the parties' intentions and conduct. The ruling also cautions that any conversion of a fixed trust to a discretionary trust requires the informed consent of beneficiaries, with full disclosure of the trust's nature, otherwise it will be invalid. This has significant implications for Hong Kong listings or restructuring projects involving Mainland employee shareholding schemes. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.